PDA

View Full Version : How to deal with a gay character?



Pages : [1] 2

2014-02-12, 08:18 AM
This kind of is the first group where I'm the DM and I'm with a big problem because my best friend decided to play as a Iomedae male paladin... But since she is a fanfic writer and a Yaoi enthusiast she is making him have feelings for the young blind oracle they were called to escort, he is kind of a male version of "Vasilisa the Wise".

All the other players feel very unconfortable with this behavior and they think it is inappropriate for a paladin but besides that she is as zealot as she can be...

So they kind of all asked me(in private) to make her fall from grace because of it... And I'm kind of in a thought situation since she is killing demons and fighting evil non stop... And I don't think it is forbidden for paladins to love or have sex.... It is just that I don't know how to explain that in a convincing way.

Any ideas?

Isamu Dyson
2014-02-12, 08:24 AM
How is it inappropriate for a Paladin to be gay?

Maybe I missed the memo, but i'm sure Paladins aren't supposed to be heterosexual only.

Terraoblivion
2014-02-12, 08:33 AM
Yeah, your other players are honestly just being homophobic. At least the way you're presenting it here.

However, I believe more details are in order to really judge. How is she portraying the attraction and what exactly are the other players' complaints? Because it's definitely possible that she's portraying her attraction in a manner offensive to gay people, inappropriately aggressive to the point of rapeyness or in a level of graphic detail that is beyond what would be comfortable regardless of the genders involved.

Lorsa
2014-02-12, 08:34 AM
The question I would like to ask is:

Are they uncomfortable with all romantic feelings or sexual implications in roleplaying (as in "I'll go to the bar and hit on some pretty girls") or is it just the homosexual nature of the romantic feelings they are uncomfortable with?

If it's the first it's just a matter of establishing with the group that things like romance and sex are completely off limits and that any characters should either be created as not being interested in that or at least not played as such.

If it's the second I would tell them to grow up. Maybe not what they'd like to hear but it's what I believe. If homosexual romance is troublesome for them, all the more reason to let the player play through it, so they get used to it. It's not directed at any of the other players so I don't see why it concerns them.

Besides, there is nothing in the Paladin code that says you can't be gay or in love or have sex or anything. You definitely can't fall from grace for that. It is important how you conduct yourself with the people you do have sex with though. I imagine tricking people into bed with false promises wouldn't go over very well with a Paladin's code.

Rhynn
2014-02-12, 08:35 AM
Maybe I missed the memo, but i'm sure Paladins aren't supposed to be heterosexual only.

Yeah, unless the paladin is from certain real-world religions with strictures regarding homosexuality, it seems like a non-issue.


All the other players feel very unconfortable with this behavior

Why? Would thy be uncomfortable with it if one of the characters in question were of a different gender? If not, they probably need to get over themselves.


And I don't think it is forbidden for paladins to love or have sex....

It may be, depending on the specific code, but by default, it certainly isn't.


How to deal with a gay character?

Let them be gay.


It is just that I don't know how to explain that in a convincing way.

It's really, really simple: "there's nothing in the paladin's code about being gay or sexuality in general, and the paladin's deity doesn't care."

Done. That's not hard!

Kish
2014-02-12, 08:36 AM
Yeah, what the hell? If they think it's inappropriate for a paladin to have any interest in sex, tell them they're just wrong. If they think being gay is evil, on the other hand, tell them some things I can't write here and cut them out of your life, is my advice.

Hunter Noventa
2014-02-12, 08:36 AM
It sounds like the real problem here isn't that her behavior is unpaladin-like, but that it's making the other players uncomfortable. Which is a whole different kettle of fish really.

It's a matter of DM Interpretation as to whether or not a Paladin must be chaste or heterosexual. How are you having the NPC respond to the Paladin's interest? is the NPC interested back? Or is the NPC not appreciative of the Paladin's advances?

If it's the former, you may just want to ask the player to tone it down a little bit, but it's a very tricky area because without more information, it just sounds like the behavior is making the other players uncomfortable OOCly. if the NPC is NOT interested...well you may have to warn the player that if her character keeps pushing it, he might be punished for exactly that, pushing things too far.

I've never been a fan of paladins purely because of the whole 'one misstep and you fall forever' kind of thing, but I think we need more information here before we can really say either way. Hopefully the player does understand that not everyone enjoys Yaoi and that it could be making people uncomfortable OOCly.

Vizzerdrix
2014-02-12, 08:36 AM
How is it inappropriate for a Paladin to be gay?

Maybe I missed the memo, but i'm sure Paladins aren't supposed to be heterosexual only.

This. I'll be honest. I'd have to think twice about gaming with a group that feels that way.

Isamu Dyson
2014-02-12, 08:37 AM
Yeah, unless the paladin is from certain real-world religions with strictures regarding homosexuality, it seems like a non-issue.

Fair point.

That came to mind, but I didn't feel like including it in my post.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-12, 08:41 AM
Am I the only one who noticed the target of affections is, "blind," and "young"? Maybe the paladin isn't being a sexual predator.. but if they are, I can see why everyone would be uncomfortable.

Saph
2014-02-12, 08:42 AM
Your D&D alignment is determined by your actions, not your feelings. As long as all the player's doing is "having feelings", then having the PC fall from grace is a major overreaction and very unfair to the player.

If the paladin's actively seducing the oracle, then it's a bit more morally dubious if the oracle's a male Vasilisa then I'd assume he's pretty young, which is getting into age-of-consent issues. Even then, though, paladins only fall for evil acts. It'd have to be fairly extreme.

2014-02-12, 08:45 AM
But in pathfinder this kind of behavior is not very well persived is it?

I mean in city of Kaer Maga they have only one male bordello(some say the only one in the world of Varisia) few male prostitutes, the Tallow Boys are the most popular. And I think I never saw a famous gay hero in the pathfinder world.

So I think they do have some reason to assume it is not something perceived as good. At best neutral.

But I guess you guys are rigth it is more a matter of option.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-12, 08:46 AM
Depends on if DnD religions put impure thoughts on the same level as action.

Either way though... if it's getting to the level of sexual predation on children and is making everyone feel uncomfortable, I recommend talking it over with her.

Edit: It sounds like it isn't a case of that? That's a relief. Still a bit concerning if the paladin, a warrior, is pressuring a willowy blind guy...

Concrete
2014-02-12, 08:47 AM
Perhaps it is the fact that you mentioned that she is a yaoi fan that actually makes me land on the side of the other players. It is the fanservice variant of man to man sexuality, designed to entice women, not to explore romance between men.
I know that I should check my privilege, but my gut tells me to be offended whenever I come into contact with it. It's overly simplified sexuality and love, and those are rarely simple.

But then again, I do not know your players, and I do not know how she plays it. But if your other players are unhappy, tell them to take it up with her in a polite manner, while you stand by to mediate if possible. Conflict needs to be dealt with, and if you just leave it, it'll quite possibly come out at the most inoppurtune moment.

Then again, they might just be homophobic. It's possible.

Snowbluff
2014-02-12, 08:48 AM
But since she is a fanfic writer and a Yaoi enthusiast
Considering this...

Yeah, your other players are honestly just being homophobic. At least the way you're presenting it here.

However, I believe more details are in order to really judge. How is she portraying the attraction and what exactly are the other players' complaints? Because it's definitely possible that she's portraying her attraction in a manner offensive to gay people, inappropriately aggressive to the point of rapeyness or in a level of graphic detail that is beyond what would be comfortable regardless of the genders involved.
Yeah. This probably isn't just homophobia, this is exploitation.

Worgwood
2014-02-12, 08:57 AM
Is it the gender of the characters involved that's making the other players uncomfortable? Would they react differently if one of the two characters involved in the paladin's romantic pursuits was female?

If yes, then it could be the other players are simply uncomfortable with the paladin's homosexuality.
If no, there's likely another issue at hand, possibly regarding how the paladin or his player is conducting themselves (graphic detail, etc.).

EDIT:

But in pathfinder this kind of behavior is not very well persived is it?

I mean in city of Kaer Maga they have only one male bordello(some say the only one in the world of Varisia) few male prostitutes, the Tallow Boys are the most popular. And I think I never saw a famous gay hero in the pathfinder world.

So I think they do have some reason to assume it is not something perceived as good. At best neutral.

But I guess you guys are rigth it is more a matter of option.
Regarding this:
Good and evil are cosmological forces in the Pathfinder and D&D universes: there are paragons of goodness (angels) and evilness (fiends). Paladins can smite one and not the other and I'm pretty sure we all know which. Your personal preferences don't affect that (unless you have a taste for baby flesh) but it might reflect on how you are perceived on a personal or cultural level by others.

For instance, half-orcs aren't fundamentally evil, brutish, or dumb, though that doesn't mean they can't be typecast as evil from an in-character perspective. There's an argument to be made that simply casting them all in that light without understanding who they are personally is neutral rather than good, even if it's an opinion held by the population of an entire region or even an entire world.

The same argument could be made for a character's sexuality.

Kish
2014-02-12, 08:58 AM
But in pathfinder this kind of behavior is not very well persived is it?

I mean in city of Kaer Maga they have only one male bordello(some say the only one in the world of Varisia) few male prostitutes, the Tallow Boys are the most popular. And I think I never saw a famous gay hero in the pathfinder world.

So I think they do have some reason to assume it is not something perceived as good. At best neutral.
Doesn't matter. Paladins don't fall for doing something unpopular. Your players aren't asking you about the alignment ramifications of playing their characters as homophobic--they're asking you, as the DM, to give what would amount to a "Homophobia is right" edict.

Ninjaxenomorph
2014-02-12, 09:01 AM
I'm pretty sure there was a piece of serial fiction on the Paizo site which had a lesbian paladin of Iomedae. Her partner was a gnome cleric.

There's canonical precedence for this. So the problem is with either your group or your girlfriend. Is being gay pretty much the only aspect of your girlfriend's personality, and she's playing a stereotypical seme? Or is the character a normal guy who is also gay, and your players don't like that?

2014-02-12, 09:07 AM
Ok so stuff I need to clarify:

-The oracle is not under age. And her character is also very young. We both like to get characters concepts and change the gender. so her character is kind of male Joan of Arc from Lastwall, 19 years old, great warrior and divine inspired.

-I think they whould not be uncomfortable with it if one of the characters in question were of a different gender, since the group Bard/ranger does this all the time but it is more for jokes is not a deep serious feeling. More like one night stands, and dunno maybe all this romantic stuff may sound boring for the rest of the group.

-She is a good role player, she take(as the entire group) acting classes so her behavior is very well thought out, she is making him feel guilty and confused since he is young and util now the only stuff he had in his head was, killing orcs and war. Now he is starting to get older he is afraid that all this feelings and thoughts can be distracting. Kind of a mix of the characters Neece from Lodoss war and that ugly fat guy from the movie "The Name of the Rose".

-The NPC is neutral to the group. He is too concerned about his pilgrimage, her paladin started to have this feelings for him when his face, normaly shroud by a white hood was reveled (everyone thought he was a old man util that moment), since that moment she has being: Super protective, performing strange actions and well... Being awkward around him (like a bad teen movie), trying to ease impure thoughts through self flagellation.

Amphetryon
2014-02-12, 09:12 AM
There is nothing about a Character's sexual orientation that should make said Character fall from grace or have issues with Alignment by canon; it may be an issue for a particular religion within your game's structure.

Let your Player portray the Character she wants, and ask the other Players to worry about portraying their own Characters rather than trying to police the way she's RPing.

Kish
2014-02-12, 09:13 AM
So, yeah. She's not doing anything inappropriate; the rest of the group is being homophobic and pushing you to validate their homophobia.

Worgwood
2014-02-12, 09:15 AM
-I think they whould not be uncomfortable with it if one of the characters in question were of a different gender, since the group Bard/ranger does this all the time but it is more for jokes is not a deep serious feeling. More like on nitgh stands, and dunno maybe all this romantic stuff may sound boring for the rest of the group.
This is a good indicator that it's the homosexuality aspect of the relationship which unsettles them, rather than the idea of a paladin gettin' his groove on.

As for them being bored by it - roleplaying is a shared experience. At some point most groups are going to have bits where someone is bored or not doing something, maybe because they didn't invest in social or stealth skills, because they went off to do their own thing, whatever. It's just part of the experience.


-She is a good role player, she take(as the entire group) acting classes so her behavior is very well thought out, she is making him feel guilty and confused since he is young and util now the only stuff he had in his head was, killing orcs and war. Now he is starting to get older he is afraid that all this feelings and thoughts can be distracting. Kind of a mix of the characters Neece from Lodoss war and that ugly fat guy from the movie "The Name of the Rose".
Well, if she's roleplaying it well, why should they be bothered by it?


-The NPC is neutral to the group. He is too concerned about his pilgrimage, her paladin started to have this feelings for him when his face, normaly corved by a white hood was reveled (everyone thought he was a old man util that moment), since that moment she has being: Super protective, performing strange actions and well... Being awkward around him (like a bad teen movie), trying to ease impure thoughts through self flagellation.
None of that sounds too creepy and the self flagellation... while weird... does make sort of sense for a religious character in a medieval period.

Sounds to me like your group just needs to be told to deal with this one. They probably won't, mind you, but all the same.

Benthesquid
2014-02-12, 09:15 AM
Am I the only one who noticed the target of affections is, "blind," and "young"? Maybe the paladin isn't being a sexual predator.. but if they are, I can see why everyone would be uncomfortable.

It may surprise you to know this, but blind people are actually capable of consensual sexual relationships. Young is more of a potential trouble zone, but the question the OP posed was "How to deal with a gay character," not "How to deal with a sexual predator character," so I'm guessing Young here means "Younger than the party, but past the relevant age of consent."


But in pathfinder this kind of behavior is not very well persived is it?


In the Golarion setting, homosexuality seems fairly commonly accepted. The developers have certainly made an effort to include non heterosexual characters, often openly and positions of power or respect.

Quoth James Jacob on the subject of whether it's necessary/appropriate to include characters of non heterosexuality


Without getting too riled up by your post...

Yes. It is necessary. Just as it's necessary to move beyond having every PC and NPC in the game be white. And why it's important to show women in positions of power (be they bad like Queen Ileosa or good like Mayor Kendra or whatever.) It's called diversity, and it's a Good Thing. If diversity isn't something that you're interested in, Paizo products might not be for you. (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2i8wy&page=1?Homosexuality-in-Golarion)

Last section removed as questions answered.

The Oni
2014-02-12, 09:18 AM
Assuming "Vasilisus" is in the Adult age category and neither character is walking around with a Vow of Chastity, then yes, let her have her fun. Pathfinder gods, even fertility gods, tend not to get hung up on minor details like gender so there's absolutely nothing wrong here.

If the "hope Senpai will notice me" stuff starts being really explicit or taking up whole play sessions it could be a problem, but until then I'd just shrug and roll with it because it sounds entertaining.

One other thing comes to mind - is it possible the other players are mad because they don't have interesting NPC love interests and she does? It doesn't seem like the sort of thing to get hung up on but maybe they are.

Jornophelanthas
2014-02-12, 09:19 AM
Is the paladin's player acting out sexual fantasies for her own entertainment/gratification during play (1)? Or is it simply a PC flirting with an NPC (2)? The way the player acts when engaging in these bits of roleplaying should tell you enough.

If (1), then the other players are justified in being annoyed, because it is generally in poor taste for one person to force a group of other people to be an audience for her own sexual fantasies. The paladin player should be asked to tone it down to the level of innocent romance, or stop the behaviour altoghether.
This is an Out-Of-Character problem, though, so the solution would be to talk to the player and address her behaviour. Having the paladin fall from grace is a bad idea. Out-Of-Character problems are never solved by In-Character solutions. If anything, having the paladin fall from grace will only cause hurt feelings.

If (2), then there is little wrong with the activity as such. If it makes the other players uncomfortable to deal with roleplayed romance or sexual innuendo, the paladin player should be made aware of these sensitivities, and asked to tone it down a little. However, if the same-sex nature of the romance is an issue for the other players, the other players should also be asked to get thicker skins. A compromise could be for everyone involved to draw a line for how far the paladin player can go, and you (as the DM) neutrally enforcing this (i.e. telling the paladin player when she is going too far, or telling the other players to stop complaining when she is not).

In short, I fully support the suggestion to get them to talk to each other. Your role (as a neutral party) should be mediating and facilitating. Avoid choosing sides, but also avoid the other players browbeating the paladin player because they happen to be in the majority.

Ninjaxenomorph
2014-02-12, 09:22 AM
Ok, the story is Inheritance (http://paizo.com/pathfinder/tales/serial/inheritance); my bad, the character is not a paladin, but a Knight of Ozem. However, Knights of Ozem still must follow Iomedae.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-12, 09:31 AM
@OP: Now that it's clarified: Your best bet is probably to tell the other players to deal with it. If you're playing with a group composed largely of Rabbis - that is pretty awesome - you'll need to find some common ground so that everyone can play. But, I doubt you're going to have that problem--unless the player is getting to pornographic levels, they shouldn't get that uncomfortable.


Ben: Thanks for treating me like an idiot. I always wondered what it felt like.

obryn
2014-02-12, 09:34 AM
I dunno, I personally try to keep all issues of love and sex out of my D&D games simply because I'd rather focus on the dungeon-delving and dragon-killing bits. Rather than, you know, sitting around with my buddies in my basement and clumsily pretending to get seduced by them. :smallsmile: That just sounds weird and awkward, and it's not why I'm in the game.

But insofar as the rest of it goes - sounds like your players are being homophobes unless there's something else going on, here. Don't condone their bad behavior. If the door is open for love & sex in your game, then they don't get to pick how someone else roleplays their character.

Red Fel
2014-02-12, 09:35 AM
I think everyone has it nailed down. I saw the same issues/non-issues.

1. If the feelings are innocent or unexpressed, there's no IC issue at all; having feelings is no reason for any kind of consequence.

2. If the oracle is young-but-of-age, there's no IC issue with regard to age concerns.

3. If neither is subject to a Vow of Chastity or part of a religion that discourages such behavior, there's no IC issue with regard to religious concerns.

4. If the player isn't trying to turn the relationship, assuming there is one, into a yaoi fanfic, there's no OOC table issue regarding conduct.

Assuming all of the above are true, the only issue remaining is the other players. You should not (I could not emphasize it enough) impose IC consequences, such as falling, for an OOC issue, such as the players' hostility to this player's in-character choices.

That said, if her conduct in terms of how she expresses her affections becomes disruptive - for example, if she follows the oracle around making goo-goo eyes and saying "Senpai wo aisuru"* instead of more traditional, chivalrous acts, like flowers or gifts or poetry - you may remind her that such conduct is unbecoming a holy knight. But that's grounds for a gentle reminder, not grounds for falling.

And again, if it's just a matter of "having feelings," there's no reason to impose any kind of consequence at all. Lots of people have feelings; in the absence of an overt act, a feeling isn't a crime. I certainly won't go to jail for the way I feel about those of your players who may be acting irrationally and unreasonably hostile.

* It's supposed to read "I love senpai," but I had to change the verb conjugation to satisfy the filter. Sorry, linguists.

prufock
2014-02-12, 09:36 AM
All the other players feel very unconfortable with this behavior and they think it is inappropriate for a paladin but besides that she is as zealot as she can be...

So they kind of all asked me(in private) to make her fall from grace because of it... And I'm kind of in a thought situation since she is killing demons and fighting evil non stop... And I don't think it is forbidden for paladins to love or have sex.... It is just that I don't know how to explain that in a convincing way.

You do not have to "deal with" the gay character, you have to "deal with" the other players, who are being jerks.

The paladin has done nothing to justify falling. Sex isn't forbidden, homosexuality isn't forbidden. Tell your players to build a bridge.

Ninjaxenomorph
2014-02-12, 09:36 AM
One other thing comes to mind - is it possible the other players are mad because they don't have interesting NPC love interests and she does? It doesn't seem like the sort of thing to get hung up on but maybe they are.

The solution is obvious. All the PCs must get laid.

Edit: Best page topper, or the best page topper?

Benthesquid
2014-02-12, 09:38 AM
Ben: Thanks for treating me like an idiot. I always wondered what it felt like.

I reacted with what I felt an appropriate level of respect to the implication that blindness was a barrier to the ability to make decisions about one's relationships.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-12, 09:42 AM
Ben: If I had implied that, sure.


Prufock: What does, "tell them to build a bridge," mean?

Benthesquid
2014-02-12, 09:44 AM
Ben: If I had implied that, sure.

What purpose, then, did bringing up the Oracle's blindness serve?

Mastikator
2014-02-12, 09:47 AM
On one hand I don't think it's OK to act out your sexual fantasies in a game where everyone isn't OK with it. Personally I'd be uncomfortable with it if it were heterosexual just as much as homosexual if it was someone in my group who did something like this.

However, these players are wrongly assuming that homosexuality is non-good or anti-paladin or maybe non-lawful by D&D standards, which it isn't. AFAIK none of the good deities in any cannon D&D setting is homophobic. Asking that the paladin should fall from grace due to homosexual feelings is just, wrong. Wrong on many many levels.

If I were you I'd be very cross with my players, all of them.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-12, 09:48 AM
Ben: ? In the context of what I assumed to be an adult warrior lusting after a blind child?

prufock
2014-02-12, 09:49 AM
Prufock: What does, "tell them to build a bridge," mean?
It's a euphemistic way to say "GET OVER IT!"

Mr. Mask
2014-02-12, 09:50 AM
Ah, makes sense. Thanks for explaining.

Grim Portent
2014-02-12, 09:52 AM
Personally I feel that while the player is definitely portraying her character in a fashion I'd be mildly offended by (self flagellation for homo-erotic feelings? Seriously?) there's nothing there that should be a problem IC or OOC in my opinion.

Benthesquid
2014-02-12, 09:53 AM
Ben: ? In the context of what I assumed to be an adult warrior lusting after a blind child?

See, you're doing it again. Why is the blindness of what you're presuming to be a child relevant?

2014-02-12, 09:54 AM
On one hand I don't think it's OK to act out your sexual fantasies in a game where everyone isn't OK with it. Personally I'd be uncomfortable with it if it were heterosexual just as much as homosexual if it was someone in my group who did something like this.

However, these players are wrongly assuming that homosexuality is non-good or anti-paladin or maybe non-lawful by D&D standards, which it isn't. AFAIK none of the good deities in any cannon D&D setting is homophobic. Asking that the paladin should fall from grace due to homosexual feelings is just, wrong. Wrong on many many levels.

If I were you I'd be very cross with my players, all of them.


I dunno, I personally try to keep all issues of love and sex out of my D&D games simply because I'd rather focus on the dungeon-delving and dragon-killing bits. Rather than, you know, sitting around with my buddies in my basement and clumsily pretending to get seduced by them. :smallsmile: That just sounds weird and awkward, and it's not why I'm in the game.

But insofar as the rest of it goes - sounds like your players are being homophobes unless there's something else going on, here. Don't condone their bad behavior. If the door is open for love & sex in your game, then they don't get to pick how someone else roleplays their character.

Yeah I know that now.... I wish I had not been so permissive about the first barmaid pick up lines since it also makes me uncomfortable.

But since I'm just starting in the DM field I allowed and now it is like a snowball rolling down a mountain.

And I put a lot of thought about making a good story but now the sessions are permeated by an air of discomfort. It sucks.

NEVER ALLOW THIS KIND OF STUFF IN YOUR GAME! Lesson learned.

GungHo
2014-02-12, 09:55 AM
Doesn't matter. Paladins don't fall for doing something unpopular. Your players aren't asking you about the alignment ramifications of playing their characters as homophobic--they're asking you, as the DM, to give what would amount to a "Homophobia is right" edict.

Nor do they keep their "grace" for doing something popular. Popularity isn't really something that factors into even the classical representations of Paladin as a Knight Exemplar. Following vows of chastity might factor in, but not in Pathfinder.

If the characters are a little bothered, I could see that being played out, though I would note, as others have, that no offiical representation of Pathfinder seems to show anyone being persecuted for their sexuality, not even in the Persecution Theme Parks of Galt and Cheliax.

But, the players? They can check that particular set of baggage at the door. As long as the Yaoi fanatic isn't running a Hollywood Squares-style Paul Lynde minstrel show, there's nothing to be upset about. If it is a minstrel show, though, I'd call the person out on running a caricature.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-12, 09:55 AM
Ben: It's easier to take advantage of children, and children who are blind are even easier to take advantage of.

Amphetryon
2014-02-12, 09:56 AM
See, you're doing it again. Why is the blindness of what you're presuming to be a child relevant?

Hair color's not usually relevant in describing a person to whom you're attracted, either, but it's often included for completeness.

Sith_Happens
2014-02-12, 09:56 AM
"hope Senpai will notice me"

Funny thing is, I'm pretty sure the Paladin is technically the senpai in this scenario.:smalltongue:

Worgwood
2014-02-12, 09:59 AM
Yeah I know that now.... I wish I had not been so permissive about the first barmaid pick up lines since it also makes me uncomfortable.

But since I'm just starting in the DM field I allowed and now it is like a snowball rolling down a mountain.

And I put a lot of thought about making a good story but now the sessions are permeated by an air of discomfort. it sucks.

NEVER ALLOW THIS KIND OF STUFF IN YOUR GAME! Lesson learned.
If romance is something a person wants to explore in a mature fashion and the people involved are cool with it then it's really not so bad. It can actually be a really powerful tool in storytelling.

"I doink the barmaid" is not one of those powerful tools, however.

Shendue
2014-02-12, 10:03 AM
Ok so stuff I need to clarify:

-The oracle is not under age. And her character is also very young. We both like to get characters concepts and change the gender. so her character is kind of male Joan of Arc from Lastwall, 19 years old, great warrior and divine inspired.

-I think they whould not be uncomfortable with it if one of the characters in question were of a different gender, since the group Bard/ranger does this all the time but it is more for jokes is not a deep serious feeling. More like one night stands, and dunno maybe all this romantic stuff may sound boring for the rest of the group.

-She is a good role player, she take(as the entire group) acting classes so her behavior is very well thought out, she is making him feel guilty and confused since he is young and util now the only stuff he had in his head was, killing orcs and war. Now he is starting to get older he is afraid that all this feelings and thoughts can be distracting. Kind of a mix of the characters Neece from Lodoss war and that ugly fat guy from the movie "The Name of the Rose".

-The NPC is neutral to the group. He is too concerned about his pilgrimage, her paladin started to have this feelings for him when his face, normaly shroud by a white hood was reveled (everyone thought he was a old man util that moment), since that moment she has being: Super protective, performing strange actions and well... Being awkward around him (like a bad teen movie), trying to ease impure thoughts through self flagellation.

I'm an eterosexual male and i find the concept to be very interesting from a roleplaying standpoint. I would ask myself the DM to make a paladin fall from grace if his action were inappropriate IN CHARACTER, but as you described it, they are just being homophobic. About a fictional character. Say them to grow up.
As a DM, i would give her extra experience points for good roleplaying, in fact.

Sith_Happens
2014-02-12, 10:03 AM
NEVER ALLOW THIS KIND OF STUFF IN YOUR GAME! Lesson learned.

You should sit in on my group some time. Somehow every other session manages to include an hour-long "the Cleric tries to get laid, possibly with another party member" tangent. So far it's all in good fun, though.

Avilan the Grey
2014-02-12, 10:04 AM
Yeah the only problem I can see with this, now when it is clarified, is if the Paladin player is clearly "eroticing it up" (aka living out sexual fantasies) in the group. If that is the case, she is definitely in the wrong. Otherwise...
(Well that, and the self-flagilation seems odd, given that as far as I understand it sex is not a sin under that deity?)

Anyway, the answer, as somebody put above, is to redirect the question: It's not "How to deal with gay characters" but "How to deal with players that cannot deal with gay characters". Of course that creates a new question, and a more serious one, possibly (having to find new players to a group can be a pain, if it goes that far).

Edit:
Or maybe the new question would be: "How do they deal with gay people IRL?"?

Benthesquid
2014-02-12, 10:04 AM
Ben: It's easier to take advantage of children, and children who are blind are even easier to take advantage of.

Ah, so your point isn't that blind people aren't capable of consent, but that they're less capable than sighted people in general. In real life, this would be a touchy and difficult subject. In terms of a fantasy 'blind oracle,' it's just plain silly.


Hair color's not usually relevant in describing a person to whom you're attracted, either, but it's often included for completeness.

Right, but if I were discussing my concern that a fictional character's attraction to another fictional character was creepy and inappropriate, I wouldn't say,

'Am I the only one who noticed the target of affections is, "ginger," and "young"?'

Because that would imply that being ginger was somehow relevant to the point of whether the attraction was creepy and inappropriate.

Avilan the Grey
2014-02-12, 10:08 AM
Ah, so your point isn't that blind people aren't capable of consent, but that they're less capable than sighted people in general. In real life, this would be a touchy and difficult subject. In terms of a fantasy 'blind oracle,' it's just plain silly.

I first though you had a good point, but to argue that a blind underage person ISN'T less capable than a seeing adult is just trying to make a point that cannot be made.

A blind person can be very capable indeed, but no, not as capabable as seeing one. Especially not compared to a seeing one that has every other advantage as well.

It is called a "Handicap" for a reason, after all.

Shendue
2014-02-12, 10:09 AM
(Well that, and the self-flagilation seems odd, given that as far as I understand it sex is not a sin under that deity?)


He's self flagellating because the sexual push distracts him from his holy mission, not because it's a sin, if i got it correctly.

Avilan the Grey
2014-02-12, 10:10 AM
He's self flagellating because the sexual push distracts him from his holy mission, not because it's a sin, if i got it correctly.

Ah. Makes a certain amount of sense, however I would consider the flagellation in itself even more distracting... :smalltongue:

Shendue
2014-02-12, 10:11 AM
I first though you had a good point, but to argue that a blind underage person ISN'T less capable than a seeing adult is just trying to make a point that cannot be made.

A blind person can be very capable indeed, but no, not as capabable as seeing one. Especially not compared to a seeing one that has every other advantage as well.

It is called a "Handicap" for a reason, after all.

Unless he's a blind weaponmaster (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlindWeaponmaster).

Mr. Mask
2014-02-12, 10:12 AM
Avilian: Thank you. But Ben was right about something... this conversation is silly, and I doubt I'll trouble him with it further.

MesiDoomstalker
2014-02-12, 10:13 AM
Ok, so I have some personal experience with a similar situation.

I am, personally, gay and my friends are all cool with that. However, like most people, they don't want to know the intimates. Theres an unspoken "fade-to-black" rule in my group. If a PC is getting into a sexual encounter, it immediately devolves into 3 questions:

Are you trying to get more than just sex? (Info, connections, etc)
Are you persistent or gentle?
Do you want to roll Diplomacy or Bluff?

After those three questions, dice are rolled and the scene "fades to black". Wake up the next day with a brief summary of your conquest and anything it might have netted you (See question 1). This isn't just for me. Its for everyone. I just as likewise don't want to know the intimates.

The point I'm trying to make, outside the situation, is the group may be more uncomfortable with how she's RPing out her attraction. Even for people who are ok with gay people can be squicked out by homosexual courting. Thats not homophobia, that's disliking TMI.

If thats not the problem, if its just the fact the Paladin is gay, then thats an entirely different problem that I'm not going to touch.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-12, 10:17 AM
Good breakdown.

killem2
2014-02-12, 10:18 AM
I'm reading only the title.

You don't. It's fine, move on.

If the real problem is public affection, that's something else.

Tragak
2014-02-12, 10:36 AM
I think the real question here is "How to deal with a homophobic group of players?"

"Dealing with" something means that there is a problem. Gay is not the problem.

I hope I'm misunderstanding this, I hope that the problem is "explicit sexual content in a game (gay or straight)" but if the alleged problem is "gay in a game (sexual or not)" then the real problem is with the people telling you that that's the problem.

Tiki Snakes
2014-02-12, 10:48 AM
Yeah, plus one that it's the other players that seem to be at fault. Or at least, the problem is theirs, so to speak, because if they are uncomfortable then they are uncomfortable.

There's no way the Paladin falls for this from what has been said. However, the NPC is a person too. It could be worth while for the Oracle to pick up on the attention and respond, which boils down to deciding whether the Oracle would be so inclined AND whether there's any chance that they would also be attracted to the Paladin.

I mean, chances are, (given that is two separate conditions that would need to be met, not just one) you're looking at a short scene clearing the air and the Oracle letting the Paladin down gently. This gives the Paladin player a little spotlight, clears the air and possibly allows you to put the tension out of the way by resolving that particular plot-thread.

EDIT - For bonus points, the Oracle should be gay but simply not interested in the Paladin. Perhaps he prefers big cuddly, bearded bear-types?

MesiDoomstalker
2014-02-12, 10:55 AM
EDIT - For bonus points, the Oracle should be gay but simply not interested in the Paladin. Perhaps he prefers big cuddly, bearded bear-types?

And this is why every gay character needs to be a Dwarf or an Elf. :smalltongue:

No, but seriously. More often than not, gay guys are attracted to other gay guys of similar body type as themselves. There are exceptions, I'm one of them.

Firest Kathon
2014-02-12, 11:03 AM
I'm pretty sure there was a piece of serial fiction on the Paizo site which had a lesbian paladin of Iomedae. Her partner was a gnome cleric.


But in pathfinder this kind of behavior is not very well persived is it?

If I'm not fully mistaken, then Kyra, the Cleric (of Sarenrae) from the Pathfinder Core Rulebook, is written up as being lesbian.

Ninjaxenomorph
2014-02-12, 11:06 AM
If I'm not fully mistaken, then Kyra, the Cleric (of Sarenrae) from the Pathfinder Core Rulebook, is written up as being lesbian.

Yep. She has a thing for elves, too.

tensai_oni
2014-02-12, 11:09 AM
I'm reading only the title.

You don't. It's fine, move on.

If the real problem is public affection, that's something else.

I'm going to assume poor choice of words here, but if you really meant what you've written then:

Nope. Disliking public homosexual affection is still being homophobic - if you're okay with heterosexual public affection that is. Because some people are prudes and don't like any public displays of affection at all, but that's alright if they don't discriminate.

It only becomes a problem when it's a case of TMI, with a player describing too much how they sex some other character up and it makes others uncomfortable - which has a strong chance of happening in any erotic/romantic scenario, homo- or heterosexual.

From what the OP said, this is NOT the case here. Also his group had no problem with casual hetereosexual romance of their characters.

So, they are immature children at best, homophobes at worst. They need to grow up.

Jay R
2014-02-12, 11:53 AM
...since that moment she has being: Super protective, performing strange actions and well... Being awkward around him (like a bad teen movie), trying to ease impure thoughts through self flagellation.

Totally apart from the gender of the characters, this kind of behavior at the table would bother me.

I have no problem with a character's choice of bed partner. I have no problem with a players' choice of bed partner. But in either case, don't make me sit and watch the activities.

Tengu_temp
2014-02-12, 12:01 PM
Things to avoid when playing a gay character:
1. Don't play the character as a walking offensive stereotype.
2. Don't hit on other PCs, unless the player in question is cool with it.
3. Don't engage in creepy, abusive and/or rapey relationships.
4. Don't go into so much detail about the relationship that the other players are bored and/or uncomfortable.

Oh hey, guess what? All of those apply to straight characters too.

Lorsa
2014-02-12, 12:13 PM
Things to avoid when playing a gay character:
1. Don't play the character as a walking offensive stereotype.
2. Don't hit on other PCs, unless the player in question is cool with it.
3. Don't engage in creepy, abusive and/or rapey relationships.
4. Don't go into so much detail about the relationship that the other players are bored and/or uncomfortable.

Oh hey, guess what? All of those apply to straight characters too.

They apply to characters. Of all types. :smallsmile:

Kitten Champion
2014-02-12, 12:38 PM
I would find it aggravating that the group's preferred "solution" is to use the game mechanics to punish the player despite doing nothing to warrant it rather than actually addressing their discomfort through dialogue. That's such annoying passive aggressiveness, it would turn me off completely.

What do you suppose they would do if she were playing a different class where such a pretense can't exist?

Ceiling_Squid
2014-02-12, 12:42 PM
Okay, I'm going to argue devil's advocate.

Maybe it's because the group knows she's a yaoi fangirl, and are afraid of where it's going? I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt instead of roundly smacking them for homophobia right off the bat. Not discounting it outright, but a little sensitivity here.

Seriously, there's a hint of a double standard in the way we're looking at this. Maybe I'm wrong, but my every brush with yaoi has given me the impression that a lot of it is exploitative. Maybe I'm wrong, but it makes me uncomfortable, in the same way I imagine that guys lusting over lesbian fantasies might make a girl uncomfortable.

But in all honesty, if the relationship is being handled well and maturely (as in, not being explicit or acting out fantasies), it's fine. But if it starts toeing the line of wish-fulfillment and unbecoming behavior, tell her to dial it right back. There's nothing wrong with homosexual characters.

I just think we'd all be a little uncertain on how to proceed if a guy started playing a lesbian character.

Tengu_temp
2014-02-12, 12:53 PM
It's true that a lot of yaoi is offensive, yes. It tends to portray gay characters in a stereotypical, very unrealistic manner, and a lot of the time, the relationships are downright abuse.

However, the OP already pointed out that the player in question is roleplaying her character's crush in a way that's very tasteful and non-offensive. So yeah, no problems there.



I just think we'd all be a little uncertain on how to proceed if a guy started playing a lesbian character.

Not really. I'd just go "sure, okay" and just watch for the four points I wrote in my previous post.

Lesbians are fairly common in my games (my usual group likes yuri a lot), and they're pretty much always played with the same depth and respect as any other character. And I myself, despite being a straight male, have played characters from all over the gender and sexuality spectrum, except bisexual male.

Ceiling_Squid
2014-02-12, 01:05 PM
That's all well and good, except:



Super protective, performing strange actions and well... Being awkward around him (like a bad teen movie), trying to ease impure thoughts through self flagellation.

The overall relationship strikes me as something perfectly appropriate for some groups, but I can understand how actually detailing all this at the table might make certain people uncomfortable. Especially if its to the point of describing self-flagellation. I also am happy that the DM (and a lot of the posters here) appropriately rule that there's no religious or moral compunction against the behavior in-setting. But that raises another question - if all this is not taboo in-setting, why the self-punishment and shame on the part of the character?

Your results may vary. People have different tolerance for romance at the table, or how it should be properly conducted. Maybe they aren't comfortable with devoting time to detailing it. Especially if (like myself) they find yaoi distasteful, and know that said player likes the genre.

I roundly support characters of various sexualities being represented. But maybe it's because the OP opened by acknowledging said player as a yaoi fangirl that's tripping my alarm bells, and may be worrying the group. Maybe they're worried it might step into the realm of exploitation.

Is it fair? Probably not, given the tameness of the actual roleplaying. It's very possible there's OOC homphobia involved. But I'm playing devil's advocate for a reason.

Talderas
2014-02-12, 01:18 PM
I think the real question here is "How to deal with a homophobic group of players?"

It's not the real question. You're layering on assumptions with no provable basis. Everyone who immediately is jumping to "HOMOPHOBIA KILL IT WITH FIRE" is doing the exact same thing.

MesiDoomstalker said it succinctly.


The point I'm trying to make, outside the situation, is the group may be more uncomfortable with how she's RPing out her attraction.

The DM has informed us that the paladin is acting in a manner which can be interpreted as either sexual gratification or self punishment. There is no indication of which of these is true nor is there any indication of the extent to which these acts are portrayed. I would argue that if it is the self-flagellation that is causing the discomfort this is 100% the paladin player's fault. Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. It doesn't matter whether it is for sexual gratification or self-punishment being overly descriptive of causing harm to a human body is something that can readily and easily jump into squick

I'm sensing other problems that are potentially worse going on with this group based on what I'm seeing. The scale and response to various acts described doesn't make sense. The DM was uncomfortable with the attempt to pickup a barmaid (and presumably flirting an innuendo) but isn't as uncomfortable about the more explicit paladin actions?

Tragak
2014-02-12, 01:24 PM
EDIT: previously a response to an earlier point, that point has since been edited out, and my response is no longer relevant without the point for it to be a response to

Talderas
2014-02-12, 01:34 PM
If you claim that there's a difference between gay courting and straight courting, then the couple courting is not the problem.

I went back and editted the post because I noticed I quoted one sentence too many, but since you apparently decided to ignore the rest of my post in your quick attempt to show outrage....

It has nothing to do with homosexual vs heterosexual courting. It has everything to do with how the courting is done.

--

And I'm not sure the calls for the paladin falling are entirely inappropriate. The paladin is willfully beating and causing harm to a non-hostile lifeform even if it's himself. Furthermore the BoVD in 3.X has described both sadism and masochism as evil acts which if the paladin is doing so out of sexual gratification would indicate that the paladin is indeed committing an evil act and should fall.

I'm also going to suggest that there is a heavy double standard going on and it's against the players being labeled homophobes by the posters here. The DM has stated outright that the paladin in question is her best friend. That she felt uncomfortable by what has only been described as flirting is very likely a perceived or real sexual attraction by the player in question towards the GM which was causing that uncomfortable feeling.

valadil
2014-02-12, 01:50 PM
The only problem I'd have in your game is that I don't like RP romance. I can relate to the players for not liking that aspect of it. The part about them projecting real world prejudices into your game world and asserting they're part of divine law is disgusting

If the player was into the idea, I'd consider putting homophobia in game as a thing for the character to overcome. The idea that springs to mind is that other members of the paladins church try to have the paladin removed. But since the paladin is still embraced by his own deity, what he's doing is fair game.

Sith_Happens
2014-02-12, 02:11 PM
I think these last few posts bring up an important point.


All the other players feel very unconfortable with this behavior and they think it is inappropriate for a paladin but besides that she is as zealot as she can be...

Before deciding for sure what to do, it would be productive to ask the other players in private precisely which aspect(s) of the behavior they find uncomfortable and/or unbecoming of a Paladin.

Ceiling_Squid
2014-02-12, 02:20 PM
The only problem I'd have in your game is that I don't like RP romance. I can relate to the players for not liking that aspect of it. The part about them projecting real world prejudices into your game world and asserting they're part of divine law is disgusting



This sentiment I can generally get behind.

My argument largely comes from the fact that I'm trying to understand WHY the players might be feeling what they're feeling. I'm generally against burning bridges and accusing people of homophobia right off the bat when there might be other mitigating circumstances (roleplaying comfort zones being a deeply personal thing for some people).

Their choice of solution (in-character consequences) is not even remotely the correct way to approach it. This is the sort of thing that requires a bit of OOC talk to resolve (best to do one-on-one with the players). In my honest estimation, I think the OP needs to pin down exactly why his players are feeling uncomfortable, before making assumptions.



Before deciding for sure what to do, it would be productive to ask the other players in private precisely which aspect(s) of the behavior they find uncomfortable and/or unbecoming of a Paladin.

This.

If it's discomfort with romantic situations or if the level of detail and spotlight is worrying them, try to have the player dial things back a bit. Don't punish their character or ask them to change, just state that the party would rather focus on other elements of the game. Intense detailing of romantic and sexual elements for the sake of titillating a particular player is not appropriate for the average table.

If their beef is explicitly because of the existence of homosexuality, rather than the way its being handled, they're in the wrong, full stop. I just think it's unfair to jump to that conclusion right out of the gate.

It's all a matter of knowing your audience. I just think it's a lot more constructive to work through these problems and try to get people to make a positive change, rather than browbeating them with accusations about intolerance.

The Oni
2014-02-12, 02:21 PM
Unless he's a blind weaponmaster (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlindWeaponmaster).

I'd assumed that, being that this is Pathfinder, he was a literal Oracle as in the class - which are generally accepted to be one of the, if not the, most powerful base classes in the game. Even if he's *not* optimized out the wazoo. You'd have a hard time trying to take advantage of an Oracle, I tell you whut.

Libertad
2014-02-12, 02:32 PM
But in pathfinder this kind of behavior is not very well persived is it?

I mean in city of Kaer Maga they have only one male bordello(some say the only one in the world of Varisia) few male prostitutes, the Tallow Boys are the most popular. And I think I never saw a famous gay hero in the pathfinder world.

So I think they do have some reason to assume it is not something perceived as good. At best neutral.

But I guess you guys are rigth it is more a matter of option.

I don't know where you're getting this information. The Paizo developers have been very upfront in their liberal views regarding same-sex relationships, and even said that all Pathfinder iconics should be assumed bisexual unless otherwise noted. James Jacobs on the forums even got angry at some of the "homosexuality is sinful" opinions expressed back around 2009; he said that the poster's views were disgusting and that he did not want him as a customer (or at least a more mild version of that).

I do recall a "conservative family" in Cheliax being anti-gay, but that country isn't known for being forward-thinking or a model of the writer's ideal society (devil worship, slavery, totalitarianism, etc).


Going back to advice, talk with your group over what they find offensive (the same-sex aspect, the "Paladins are supposed to be chaste" belief, or worries over yaoi stereotypes). Each reason requires different responses on the matter, as has been discussed earlier.

Also, I echo Tengu Temp's views on the matter:


Things to avoid when playing a gay character:
1. Don't play the character as a walking offensive stereotype.
2. Don't hit on other PCs, unless the player in question is cool with it.
3. Don't engage in creepy, abusive and/or rapey relationships.
4. Don't go into so much detail about the relationship that the other players are bored and/or uncomfortable.

Oh hey, guess what? All of those apply to straight characters too.

Coidzor
2014-02-12, 02:45 PM
This kind of is the first group where I'm the DM and I'm with a big problem because my best friend decided to play as a Iomedae male paladin... But since she is a fanfic writer and a Yaoi enthusiast she is making him have feelings for the young blind oracle they were called to escort, he is kind of a male version of "Vasilisa the Wise".

All the other players feel very unconfortable with this behavior and they think it is inappropriate for a paladin but besides that she is as zealot as she can be...

So they kind of all asked me(in private) to make her fall from grace because of it... And I'm kind of in a thought situation since she is killing demons and fighting evil non stop... And I don't think it is forbidden for paladins to love or have sex.... It is just that I don't know how to explain that in a convincing way.

Any ideas?

The only thing that would make a Paladin fall would be if they were deity-dependent and had a homophobic code/deity or if they did something non-consensual.

Which, as far as my admittedly limited and biased experience of yaoi and yaoi fangirls has indicated, is fairly, and unfortunately, frequent.

But as long as he's not sexually assaulting/harassing/raping the other character, there's nothing really fall-worthy or even problematic.

Really though, it's a matter of determining whether the table rules allow romantic exploration and how much into it you'll go at the table and not discriminating between various gender and sex combinations for the characters involved. So if no romance is allowed, that's it, no romance. If romance is allowed then everyone has the same options regardless of sexual preferences. With certain caveats though, about tastefulness, more than likely.

Unless you want to play a BoEF game, though it's usually best to go into those with that expectation from the very beginning. XD

A Tad Insane
2014-02-12, 03:02 PM
-I think they whould not be uncomfortable with it if one of the characters in question were of a different gender, since the group Bard/ranger does this all the time but it is more for jokes is not a deep serious feeling.

I think this should be brought up. The party doesn't have anything against rp flirting in certain cases, so I think you should ask them why THIS kind is weird.

Drogorn
2014-02-12, 03:15 PM
I'm a little concerned that nobody here seems to care that the group is uncomfortable. If they're uncomfortable, then they'll eventually quit, and there won't be a game at all.

Red Fel
2014-02-12, 03:19 PM
I'm a little concerned that nobody here seems to care that the group is uncomfortable. If they're uncomfortable, then they'll eventually quit, and there won't be a game at all.

Quit trying to change the parameters of our moral outrage scenario! How are we supposed to express our righteous ire if you introduce practical concerns?

erikun
2014-02-12, 03:35 PM
-I think they whould not be uncomfortable with it if one of the characters in question were of a different gender, since the group Bard/ranger does this all the time but it is more for jokes is not a deep serious feeling. More like one night stands, and dunno maybe all this romantic stuff may sound boring for the rest of the group.
Either tell everyone (as a group) to knock it off with the sex jokes and roleplay, or tell them to get over it. And yep, this means that if they don't want someone else having imaginary romps with their preferred fantasy couple, then they need to put a cap on it as well.

There's nothing wrong with the paladin being gay.

Coidzor
2014-02-12, 03:46 PM
-The oracle is not under age. And her character is also very young. We both like to get characters concepts and change the gender. so her character is kind of male Joan of Arc from Lastwall, 19 years old, great warrior and divine inspired.

What on earth is a male Joan of Arc? :smallconfused:


-I think they whould not be uncomfortable with it if one of the characters in question were of a different gender, since the group Bard/ranger does this all the time but it is more for jokes is not a deep serious feeling. More like one night stands, and dunno maybe all this romantic stuff may sound boring for the rest of the group.

Not knowing shows you have more digging to do.


-She is a good role player, she take(as the entire group) acting classes so her behavior is very well thought out, she is making him feel guilty and confused since he is young and util now the only stuff he had in his head was, killing orcs and war. Now he is starting to get older he is afraid that all this feelings and thoughts can be distracting. Kind of a mix of the characters Neece from Lodoss war and that ugly fat guy from the movie "The Name of the Rose".

Uhhh... Ahh... eeehhh... urrhhh... Hmm. :/


-The NPC is neutral to the group. He is too concerned about his pilgrimage, her paladin started to have this feelings for him when his face, normaly shroud by a white hood was reveled (everyone thought he was a old man util that moment), since that moment she has being: Super protective, performing strange actions and well... Being awkward around him (like a bad teen movie), trying to ease impure thoughts through self flagellation.

...How does he sound like an old man? :smallconfused:

I can definitely how acting like that would at least annoy the rest of the group if not skeeve them out. Especially the self-flagellation part. A lot of it does depend upon their mores and how they view a character acting like a besotted child and someone trying to repress their own homosexuality. I suppose there might be some combat effectiveness/tactical concerns as well from how you worded it.

I know I wouldn't be comfortable sitting at a table with a self-hating and in denial gay character and listening to them trying to violently repress themselves or get/give themselves "reparative therapy." Especially because it's a Catch-22, there's no way to win or act rightly, just different ways of failing the test. But that's a matter of degrees/handling/interpretation, I suppose.

Personally, I'd probably give them a nudge reminding them that Iomedae doesn't expect them to stop being people or shut themselves off from the possibility of finding love if I were to do anything involving paladinhood, the character's deity, or orthopraxy.


The solution is obvious. All the PCs must get laid.

Edit: Best page topper, or the best page topper?

Indeed. :smallamused:


However, the OP already pointed out that the player in question is roleplaying her character's crush in a way that's very tasteful and non-offensive. So yeah, no problems there.

So far. I seem to recall something about an occasional tendency(trope within yaoi?) for semes to try to repress their desire for the uke until they "go crazy" and proceed to sexually assault the uke, blaming the uke for their rape in the act and/or in the aftermath as part of "feminizing" them.

So it depends, at least partially, upon their experience with yaoi and their knowledge of her yaoi fangirl status. I might be completely misremembering. They might have picked up a similar misapprehension. I might be recollecting entirely correctly and they are too. Or some variation on the general theme.

Or at least an interpretation of it as a prelude to some kind of (probably [fairly] uncomfortable) outburst or breakdown.


And I'm not sure the calls for the paladin falling are entirely inappropriate. The paladin is willfully beating and causing harm to a non-hostile lifeform even if it's himself. Furthermore the BoVD in 3.X has described both sadism and masochism as evil acts which if the paladin is doing so out of sexual gratification would indicate that the paladin is indeed committing an evil act and should fall.

Well, that is one of those parts of the BoVD which is more generally agreed to be best ignored, for various reasons not the least of which is that it's problematic.

Asking the DM to go straight to Paladin Falls is kinda iffy in and of itself.


I'm also going to suggest that there is a heavy double standard going on and it's against the players being labeled homophobes by the posters here. The DM has stated outright that the paladin in question is her best friend. That she felt uncomfortable by what has only been described as flirting is very likely a perceived or real sexual attraction by the player in question towards the GM which was causing that uncomfortable feeling.

I hadn't considered that possibility, I must admit.

That would add another (potentially) problematic OOC layer, yes, if the player is using the game as a proxy for their feelings for the DM. :smalleek:


Before deciding for sure what to do, it would be productive to ask the other players in private precisely which aspect(s) of the behavior they find uncomfortable and/or unbecoming of a Paladin.

More details should help, yes. Otherwise it's just so much speculation. And I think I've demonstrated to some extent how dark the speculation might be able to get.


I'm a little concerned that nobody here seems to care that the group is uncomfortable. If they're uncomfortable, then they'll eventually quit, and there won't be a game at all.

Well, I definitely recommend investigating what they're actually uncomfortable with and doing one's best to address it, though that gets problematic if they're just out-and-out homophobes and there's some kind of fundamental disagreement which can't really be addressed.

And others have recommended getting further details from everyone, especially one-on-one so they don't muddle one another or give one another the impression that they need to be in agreement on what their issue is.

Scow2
2014-02-12, 03:48 PM
It might be the depth of the situation that puts them off - just because they're weirded out by the extended pining and constant emotional updates of unrequited feelings and possibly stalkerish behavior the paladin has for an oracle that may or may not be into him doesn't mean they'd be against said paladin, say, pursuing a lighter and less stalkerish romance (or seeking a one-night-stand) with, say, a random bartender or waiter or what-have-you.

Tengu_temp
2014-02-12, 04:07 PM
I'm a little concerned that nobody here seems to care that the group is uncomfortable. If they're uncomfortable, then they'll eventually quit, and there won't be a game at all.

Well... It depends. If they're uncomfortable because they don't want romance in their game about fighting monsters, or because they're concerned that it will turn into a badly-played stereotypical yaoi story, then their concerns are genuine and should be addressed. But if they're uncomfortable because it's gay, then they're ****ing bigots and should grow up and broaden their horizons. And if they don't, and the game falls apart? Good. It's better not to play at all than play with bigots.

The only way to see which scenario it is for certain is to talk to the players in private.





So far. I seem to recall something about an occasional tendency(trope within yaoi?) for semes to try to repress their desire for the uke until they "go crazy" and proceed to sexually assault the uke, blaming the uke for their rape in the act and/or in the aftermath as part of "feminizing" them.

So it depends, at least partially, upon their experience with yaoi and their knowledge of her yaoi fangirl status. I might be completely misremembering. They might have picked up a similar misapprehension. I might be recollecting entirely correctly and they are too. Or some variation on the general theme.

Or at least an interpretation of it as a prelude to some kind of (probably [fairly] uncomfortable) outburst or breakdown.


Yeah, this is one of the examples of what I meant by saying that yaoi tends to be uncomfortable and offensive a lot of the time. The whole genre is unfortunately full of such horrible scenarios, as well as character archetypes that are exceedingly rare in real life. Yaoi that depicts two guys in a healthy, loving relationship is extremely rare for some reason. Straight female-oriented romance stories in manga sometimes fall into this trap too, with the boyfriend being a horrible piece of **** that treats his girl like garbage and somehow that's a sign of true love. Strangely, yuri very rarely falls into this trap.

Anyway, let's go back to the point I wanted to make! Just because a player likes yaoi doesn't necessarily mean that she will put stereotypical yaoi tropes into the game, especially if she's a good roleplayer. Until something she says or does (or said or did in the past) shows otherwise, it's only fair to give her the benefit of the doubt.

NightbringerGGZ
2014-02-12, 04:18 PM
Sorry guys but I'm going to have to be the voice of dissent here. I don't think there's anywhere near enough information to start throwing out accusations of homophobia here. Frankly it's rather rude to do so.

I've been at a number of tables where various people are simply uncomfortable with anything that might approach sexual content in a social game like D&D. Considering the type of content that can come from the Yaoi and Fanfic community I can plenty reason for concern if you have some shy, immature or simply conservatively minded players.

You're playing a social game and all players should be comfortable. I would ask the player with the gay character to please keep in-game content PG rated. If you have any players with moral compunctions that run counter to homosexuality, then the group needs to have a mature conversation about how the game is going to run. So long as everybody acts like adults, a reasonable compromise can be reached here.

The Oni
2014-02-12, 04:23 PM
What on earth is a male Joan of Arc? :smallconfused:



Unsuccessful. A male Joan of Arc would violate the First Rule of French Warfare, and therefore lose.

In all seriousness, I'd guess they'd be an otherwise unassuming young man with divine visions, a stern resolve in the face of naysayers and enough Charisma to gather a band of the faithful. So a seme-looking Paladin in slightly ill-fitting armor with the Leadership feat.

Presumably.

Defiled Cross
2014-02-12, 04:27 PM
I have always been partial to what's good for the team (majority), not the individual (minority).

If the actions of her character are disrupting play, even if it's within the confines of the ignorant mind, the aforementioned actions should be stopped/toned down in some manner.

Just an opinion from a "bigot".

:smallbiggrin:

Lorsa
2014-02-12, 04:37 PM
I'm a little concerned that nobody here seems to care that the group is uncomfortable. If they're uncomfortable, then they'll eventually quit, and there won't be a game at all.

We do care, but we also care about why. If it's a problem with romance in general then that needs to get looked at. If it's a problem with gay romance in specific then they need to get over themselves. If that's a reason to quit for them then you'll probably be better off without them.


I have always been partial to what's good for the team (majority), not the individual (minority).

If the actions of her character are disrupting play, even if it's within the confines of the ignorant mind, the aforementioned actions should be stopped/toned down in some manner.

Just an opinion from a "bigot".

:smallbiggrin:

I am a very open and tolerant person. Except against those that are intolerant or ignorant themselves. I see no reason why anyone should tolerate that...

Tengu_temp
2014-02-12, 04:41 PM
Sorry guys but I'm going to have to be the voice of dissent here. I don't think there's anywhere near enough information to start throwing out accusations of homophobia here. Frankly it's rather rude to do so.

I've been at a number of tables where various people are simply uncomfortable with anything that might approach sexual content in a social game like D&D. Considering the type of content that can come from the Yaoi and Fanfic community I can plenty reason for concern if you have some shy, immature or simply conservatively minded players.

You're playing a social game and all players should be comfortable. I would ask the player with the gay character to please keep in-game content PG rated. If you have any players with moral compunctions that run counter to homosexuality, then the group needs to have a mature conversation about how the game is going to run. So long as everybody acts like adults, a reasonable compromise can be reached here.

This is why the important thing to do is find out why are they uncomfortable with the character, and then react appropriately depending on what their reasoning is.


I have always been partial to what's good for the team (majority), not the individual (minority).

If the actions of her character are disrupting play, even if it's within the confines of the ignorant mind, the aforementioned actions should be stopped/toned down in some manner.

Just an opinion from a "bigot".

:smallbiggrin:

"The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few" is not a rule that applies to RP. It's important that everyone on the table has fun; when trouble arises, some kind of agreement should be looked for and reached.

And sometimes, the majority is in the wrong. "I'm not comfortable with you playing a gay character because you're playing a stereotype" is a legit concern. "I'm not comfortable with you playing a gay character because I don't like gay people" means you're a bigot and it's you who should change your mind, not the other player.

Cikomyr
2014-02-12, 04:42 PM
There IS potential for a Fall here, in my humble opinion. But it has nothing to do with the sexuality of involved character.

Do any of the Paladin or the Oracle's orders have anything like a Vow of Chastity? That's not an uncommon thing for religious people to have, especially Holy Warriors. The Paladin would violate its own religious code if he would to have any form of sex, and thus would have to limit himself to Courteous Love.

If the Oracle's order has a Vow of Chastity, then the Paladin pursuing him is even more morally grey. It's akin to someone trying to seduce a Vestal Virgin; you are hammering at somebody else's professional/religious code in order to pursue your own desires.


Finally, even if there is no Vow of Chastity in either religious order, there is still the question of premarital sex.


To be honest, I'd rather have the Paladin and the Oracle have a courteous love affair and remain chaste. If only to one-up those believing homosexuality is some sort of moral failing; by showing them what real romantic purity is. Especially in the face of players treating love as a running gag.

Tengu_temp
2014-02-12, 04:52 PM
Your first point makes sense, but vows of chastity are extremely rare in DND; unless someone is explicitly mentioned to have made one, I assume they haven't.

Also, premarital sex is neither evil, nor chaotic, nor against the paladin's code. Some sexually repressed societies might look down on it, but it's not immoral; it's something that happens all the time and is perfectly normal. The only problem is when it results in a child, but since we're talking about a homosexual relationship here...

FabulousFizban
2014-02-12, 04:54 PM
I'm pretty sure there was a piece of serial fiction on the Paizo site which had a lesbian paladin of Iomedae. Her partner was a gnome cleric.

There's canonical precedence for this. So the problem is with either your group or your girlfriend. Is being gay pretty much the only aspect of your girlfriend's personality, and she's playing a stereotypical seme? Or is the character a normal guy who is also gay, and your players don't like that?

Paizo has explicitly stated that all the iconic characters are bisexual, so as to allow players to RP them any way they damn well please. If you want Ezren to throw a lemon party that's your business... your weird business.

While not much has been done to develop that aspect of the setting, word of god seems to be that in Golarion, homosexuality isn't a big deal. In a world where a gnome can sleep with an gnoll, gays probably seem pretty tame.

The real root of the question here is are the players uncomfortable with sexuality in their RPG, or are they uncomfortable with homosexuality in their RPG? That needs to be determined first before any progress can be made on the issue.

That said, there are appropriate ways to role play romance, and inappropriate ways to role play romance. If your player is being inappropriate (or graphic), that is a problem that needs to be addressed. Otherwise, the group needs to deal with their own insecurities.

As to paladins, unless they have a vow of chastity, the gods don't care.

Cikomyr
2014-02-12, 04:57 PM
Your first point makes sense, but vows of chastity are extremely rare in DND; unless someone is explicitly mentioned to have made one, I assume they haven't.

Also, premarital sex is neither evil, nor chaotic, nor against the paladin's code. Some sexually repressed societies might look down on it, but it's not immoral; it's something that happens all the time and is perfectly normal. The only problem is when it results in a child, but since we're talking about a homosexual relationship here...

The first point is all about worldbuilding. It's somewhat of an arbitrarily choice to make, off course, but I think it's a valid one.

And Premarital Sex-forbiddance might be part of a Religion's creed, which is somewhat common. Again, that's part of the worldbuilding choices made by the GM.

Regular people may or may not follow the creed, but if the creed exists, a Paladin should follow it.

1pwny
2014-02-12, 04:58 PM
You don't have to mention it all. Would a female and male (hetersexual) make advances on each other in a party situation? Not usually, when all the characters are PCs. The only thing you need to change is that all seduction/attraction based boosts are applied when used by a male, instead of a female.

FabulousFizban
2014-02-12, 05:00 PM
To be honest, I'd rather have the Paladin and the Oracle have a courteous love affair and remain chaste. If only to one-up those believing homosexuality is some sort of moral failing; by showing them what real romantic purity is. Especially in the face of players treating love as a running gag.

There is actually great potential here. Introduce the idea of courtly love to your players. The whole, "I love you more than life, but can never be with you do to circumstances" thing. If the paladin is gay, and the oracle is straight (or married) for instance.

The concept of courtly love presents some fantastic opportunities for role play. How will these characters deal with their feelings and their situation: will they go the lancelot/guinevere route, or remain more noble?

EDIT: I strongly recommend looking at Parzival by Wolfram Von Eschenbach to understand paladins.

Tengu_temp
2014-02-12, 05:01 PM
The first point is all about worldbuilding. It's somewhat of an arbitrarily choice to make, off course, but I think it's a valid one.

And Premarital Sex-forbiddance might be part of a Religion's creed, which is somewhat common. Again, that's part of the worldbuilding choices made by the GM.

Regular people may or may not follow the creed, but if the creed exists, a Paladin should follow it.

Okay, fair. Basically what I mean is: since it's so rare in DND, it should only be mentioned well in advance instead of getting suddenly sprung on the player.

Also do note that a paladin's code might be slightly different than the code of the religion the paladin follows. Especially if the religion, as an institution, strays away from its god's ideals for some reason.

Cikomyr
2014-02-12, 05:03 PM
Okay, fair. Basically what I mean is: since it's so rare in DND, it should only be mentioned well in advance instead of getting suddenly sprung on the player.

Also do note that a paladin's code might be slightly different than the code of the religion the paladin follows. Especially if the religion, as an institution, strays away from its god's ideals for some reason.

100% agree that it shouldn't be "sprung" on the player.

That's something the player and the GM have to discuss and establish. It's a big part of a Paladin's roleplaying conditions.

But like I said, I really prefer the idea of the Paladin going for Courtly Love, since it falls so well inside the "Knight in Shining Armor" archetype.

Faily
2014-02-12, 05:13 PM
If the other party-members can flirt and smex up the local tavern-wenches, I think it's unfair if one player cannot choose to be romantic with another NPC. Regardless of gender involved.

If the other players felt that the romancing was taking up play-time and obstructing the overall plot, then I can understand if that was their concerns. But to want the Paladin to fall because of homosexual love... that just sounds very wrong, and I hope it's not the case of homophobia.

My advice would be to talk to the players and ask them what exactly makes them uncomfortable.

Sith_Happens
2014-02-12, 05:36 PM
What on earth is a male Joan of Arc? :smallconfused:

http://images.wikia.com/rwby/images/b/b3/Episode2_00037.png

Cikomyr
2014-02-12, 05:37 PM
http://images.wikia.com/rwby/images/b/b3/Episode2_00037.png

What the hell is that?

Ceiling_Squid
2014-02-12, 05:39 PM
Huh.

I just have to take a moment to say that this is a remarkably constructive and level-headed thread so far. And here I was concerned about where it was going.

I think we're mostly in agreement that this is best tackled one-on-one to get more information. There's little reason to jump to conclusions just yet, and everyone should be given the benefit of the doubt until communication can clarify the matter.

More than a few group experiences will involve testing comfort zones, it seems. Let's hope you and your players can have a mature and even-handed discussion about it. :smallsmile:

This is probably a good opportunity to set boundaries at the table for everyone involved, and if it goes well, I hope the group grows from it. One way or the other.

NightbringerGGZ
2014-02-12, 05:50 PM
So as far as PF is concerned, the iconic cleric character (Kyra) is a lesbian and that aspect of the character really has next to no impact aside from her relationship with one of the other iconics. The comics don't even draw much attention to her sexuality as far as I can remember. The character in question is entirely appropriate to the setting and shouldn't face a possible "fall" simply from their orientation. If they act in the manner of some anime stereotypes portray gay people, that's another matter.

As for how the other players are concerned, I really don't think it's fair to just assume they're bigots. Even if they are uncomfortable with homosexuality, rather than just general sexual content or the specific character in question. There's a world of difference between discomfort and hatred, and I don't think a request to minimize subjects that make you uncomfortable (while playing a game) are unreasonable.

PersonMan
2014-02-12, 05:50 PM
What the hell is that?

A male Joan of Arc, I imagine. :smalltongue:

Terraoblivion
2014-02-12, 06:13 PM
Feeling uncomfortable with homosexuality is still a product of unaddressed homophobia. It isn't malicious and somebody certainly isn't a bad person for feeling that way, but it's a negative aspect of them and rather than just accepting it, trying to persuade them to feel more comfortable with it is important.

In any case, based on the information at hand after the op expanded upon it, there's room for interpretation. I do think that there is a possibility that it's the amount of effort dedicated to romance or the self-flagellation that's the issue and not the genders of the characters involved. I'm not saying it is necessarily it, but it's certainly a real possibility. So I agree, ask for more detail of what's uncomfortable for the other players, as well as for where the player in question is planning on taking it.

NightbringerGGZ
2014-02-12, 06:28 PM
I would say the self-flagellation aspect is definitely going to be bothersome for many players. I've had players specifically request that I not use the Lip Stitch spell because they found it too gruesome, so any kind of self mutilation would be a problem in my group.

I'll have to respectfully disagree that discomfort with homosexuality is "unaddressed homophobia". I'm sorry, but discomfort is often simply that and nothing more. Now a mature individual should ignore that discomfort when in the company of others. If you'll allow me to get personal, I'm not comfortable around anybody who expresses overt sexuality, but that doesn't mean I have a bias against flirty people. It just means that I tend to be easily embarrassed or nonplussed around such people.

Sorry if I'm harping on this a bit much, but I see too many unfounded accusations of bigotry in modern society and it's a bit of a soap box issue for me.

zionpopsickle
2014-02-12, 06:42 PM
I would like a bit more detail from the OP since operating on the information we have now is a bit hasty.

1) Is the affection the paladin is showing being reciprocated? Is the oracle in question someone who would pursue a relationship with the paladin?

2) If the affection is being reciprocated would the paladin's actions be appropriate were this a heterosexual attraction or are the paladin's actions attempting to exploit the real or perceived weaknesses/insecurities of the oracle.

3) If the affection is not being reciprocated would the paladin's actions be appropriate if this was a heterosexual attraction where one party did not reciprocate the others feelings?

4) Is the RPing that is being done in line with RPing that has previously been done in the campaign? Have the flings and attractions of the other characters invited the same amount of player and DM investment as this romantic pursuit has or has this relationship interfered with the telling of the story?

I think these are all important questions to ask because they allow us to more easily get at the heart of the problem. If the issue is number 4 then this is simply something to talk with the paladin player about because her RPing, while appropriate at some tables, is not inline with the RP direction of the rest of the group. Now, if the group were interested this line of RP might be appropriate to lead into a more mature themed game but this simply may not be a direction either you or the players wish to go.

If numbers 2 or 3 are problems then you may actually need to impose in-game penalties. Temptation or exploitation of the (perceived) vulnerable are definitely actions that would fall outside of any Good variant Paladins' code of conduct. This might not be immediate fall material and can probably be addressed by discussing this with the player in question and pointing out that making inappropriate romantic advances is behavior that could eventually lead to a fall.

If none of these things are problems then you may need to talk with the other players and find out what their issue is. If they are afraid that the relationship may go too far into wish-fulfillment then this is a thing for them to discuss with the paladin's player in person. If they are simply being homophobic then you will probably either need to tell them to grow up or get out.

To sum it up: I think the most important thing is to find out what the issues being had actually are and then attempt to correctly address them.

Threadnaught
2014-02-12, 06:44 PM
-The NPC is neutral to the group. He is too concerned about his pilgrimage, her paladin started to have this feelings for him when his face, normaly shroud by a white hood was reveled (everyone thought he was a old man util that moment), since that moment she has being: Super protective, performing strange actions and well... Being awkward around him (like a bad teen movie), trying to ease impure thoughts through self flagellation.

Print off a bunch of crappy teen romance flicks like Crappy Teen Movie, or Twilight. Everytime her character starts brooding about his feelings, burn a movie. Once you're through them all, the next time she broods, an avatar of the god of good character personalities, that you had kill the other players' last 37 characters, descends and crushes her Paladin. Problem solved.
She gets to play the character she wants, while the players get to see the Paladin die for being gay and recieving no character development. Though if the Paladin is gay, but does get character development, it suck to be the other players.

While you're doing this, take note of the Charlie Sheen part of the Two and a half men (Charlie Sheen Show) drinking game. Every time the Bard forces ten drinks, you cross off an episode, run out of episodes and his character is bi-winning, or to use the technical term, losing.
I'm not sure how you could threaten the other players for playing stagnant characters, but if you decide to take my extremely cruel and borderline meglomaniacal advice for two PCs, you might as well do it for the whole party.

Sith_Happens
2014-02-12, 06:54 PM
What the hell is that?

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/39XLbZ_L6NYGd0gYhZL8xKgFGsRufMkWjhu9TNM-43aNZ2xTaRzB8Zp2Rx2sPxV7WLSXqDve-TnYcqbJc-2GJvzivIgYCpzDcYm2av0ofYHT4q_2PjX7_Erl

2014-02-12, 07:02 PM
Wow, first of all I need to thank all you guys for the comments, feedback and attention.

We did get together today and a lot of stuff happened... But I will write it down tomorrow becuase I was writing it here and after clicking undo to erase a single world the whole post vanish. So I'm too tired and too angry to write it down again.

Once more thank you guys. It was really a good ideia to join this forum.

Hiro Protagonest
2014-02-12, 07:04 PM
http://images.wikia.com/rwby/images/b/b3/Episode2_00037.png

I was going to do something like that.

Except, y'know, use words.

Nerd-o-rama
2014-02-12, 07:06 PM
The actual subject of the thread has been addressed, but I assume a male Joan of Arc would be a young man who receives or believes he receives divine revelations that call them to become a warrior and a strategist, possibly assisting the ruler of their beleaguered nation in rallying their countrymen against a foreign occupier. Also is classy as hell when betrayed, accused of heresy, and burnt at the stake.

The first part describes most Paladins, of course.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-12, 07:11 PM
Lorsa: It's not tolerance if you only tolerate what you agree with. Tolerance means freedom of speech, thought, opinion for all--even those you really, really disagree with.

Icewraith
2014-02-12, 07:27 PM
Feeling uncomfortable with homosexuality is still a product of unaddressed homophobia.

There's a whole spectrum of other things that could be going on at the table. Furthermore, disliking exposure to sexual content that differs from whatever way you are personally wired isn't homophobia, it's a consequence and practically the definition of being wired that way. (It also depends on how much detail and attention is being spent on the issue at the table)

Edit: it appears the previous sexual content in the group has been of the "...and timeskip" variety. If other straight characters in the group had pursued deep relationship-style roleplaying of this sort the accusations of homophobia would be more reasonable. The above quote would be far more reasonable with a "can be" instead of an "is"-as written I stringently disagree with that statement..

Furthermore, not everyone at the table may be comfortable discussing sex and relationships etc at all, especially when it comes to roleplaying. That's not automatically a negative thing or something a person necessarily has control over.


It isn't malicious and somebody certainly isn't a bad person for feeling that way, but it's a negative aspect of them and rather than just accepting it, trying to persuade them to feel more comfortable with it is important.

In any case, based on the information at hand after the op expanded upon it, there's room for interpretation. I do think that there is a possibility that it's the amount of effort dedicated to romance or the self-flagellation that's the issue and not the genders of the characters involved. I'm not saying it is necessarily it, but it's certainly a real possibility. So I agree, ask for more detail of what's uncomfortable for the other players, as well as for where the player in question is planning on taking it.

Also remember that no matter what straight/gay issue may or may not be here, we still have a character heavily roleplaying what boils down to relationship angst, which may be something that other people at the table don't want to deal with. Humans are social and empathic creatures and so you've got this situation where someone is essentially radiating stress and you can't do anything about it. This is also a situation (semipublic, mixed company, lots of distractions, separate intended activity, proposed sexual content does not match personal orientation) in which most of the sex drive inhibitors in the human response system may be firmly set to "on", depending on the person.

There's also the in-character justification that becoming romantically involved with the person you're bodyguarding is both a distraction and may impair your judgement or vigilance in protecting that person's life. Fantasizing about someone or trying to make out with them is not a good idea when you're supposed to be scanning the rooftops looking for shadowy figures with poisoned crossbow bolts or worse.

Arkhosia
2014-02-12, 07:32 PM
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/39XLbZ_L6NYGd0gYhZL8xKgFGsRufMkWjhu9TNM-43aNZ2xTaRzB8Zp2Rx2sPxV7WLSXqDve-TnYcqbJc-2GJvzivIgYCpzDcYm2av0ofYHT4q_2PjX7_Erl

Except Joan arc didn't lie into a school. :smallwink:

Tengu_temp
2014-02-12, 07:35 PM
Lorsa: It's not tolerance if you only tolerate what you agree with. Tolerance means freedom of speech, thought, opinion for all--even those you really, really disagree with.

There's a difference between tolerating different opinions and tolerating stances that are hateful and/or ignorant. If you can't be fully tolerant without tolerating the latter, then I don't want to be fully tolerant.


https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/39XLbZ_L6NYGd0gYhZL8xKgFGsRufMkWjhu9TNM-43aNZ2xTaRzB8Zp2Rx2sPxV7WLSXqDve-TnYcqbJc-2GJvzivIgYCpzDcYm2av0ofYHT4q_2PjX7_Erl

Still nobody bothered to mention what is this show!

Arkhosia
2014-02-12, 07:41 PM
There's a difference between tolerating different opinions and tolerating stances that are hateful and/or ignorant. If you can't be fully tolerant without tolerating the latter, then I don't want to be fully tolerant.



Still nobody bothered to mention what is this show!

RWBY! :smallbiggrin:

Ceiling_Squid
2014-02-12, 07:48 PM
There's a whole spectrum of other things that could be going on at the table. Furthermore, disliking exposure to sexual content that differs from whatever way you are personally wired isn't homophobia, it's a consequence and practically the definition of being wired that way. (It also depends on how much detail and attention is being spent on the issue at the table)



I see it this way: You cannot expect people to change how they feel on a gut level. It is an entirely unrealistic standpoint right out the gate, and to demand that of someone is indicative of a deeper inability to communicate diplomatically, on your part.

People have hangups. I dare you to find someone who doesn't. Being wired a certain way can make you phobic instinctively. This does not make you an inherently bad person. I'd argue that its a remarkable sign of good character if you learn to admit your own phobia and, in spite of it, do your best to act in a different way.

It worries me more and more that people are willing to shame and demonize others for inherent prejudices, rather than setting a positive example and trying to help them overcome those notions.

Nobody wants to be accused of thoughtcrime, or made the villain. Once rhetoric like that starts getting trotted out (and its all-too-common a methodology for otherwise well-meaning progressives lately), you aren't having a meaningful dialogue anymore.

EDIT: I think I may be veering away from the subject at hand. Sorry about that.

The Oni
2014-02-12, 07:53 PM
The fact remains that, not only are the people at the table uncomfortable with the premise, but they haven't addressed the premise with the player in question, but have instead asked the DM to address it for them, absolving them of responsibility. This does not contribute to group cohesion in any way.

Assuming there is a problem here with the way she's playing her character (and I really don't believe that there is), I feel it needs to be discussed at the table.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-12, 07:54 PM
There's a difference between tolerating different opinions and tolerating stances that are hateful and/or ignorant. If you can't be fully tolerant without tolerating the latter, then I don't want to be fully tolerant. The thing is, you're not not being fully tolerant. You're not being tolerant. There's nothing tolerant about tolerating stuff you agree with. Tolerance isn't something that's necessary when everyone gets along. You need tolerance because people DO have opposed views. So you can't say, "I'm not fully tolerant," you'd have to say, "I'm not tolerant. I only tolerate that which I agree with." Which is what makes those hateful people so hateful--they can only tolerate what they believe in.

Pex
2014-02-12, 08:00 PM
Interesting coincidence. The paladin of Bahamut I'm playing in one of my group's games is, but he doesn't see it that way. He knows his job as a paladin is to die. He doesn't know when or how, but it will happen in the course of doing what he's supposed to be doing. There just aren't old retired paladins out there.

Because his job is to die he appreciates every moment he's alive. Also, since being a paladin requires his body take heavy punishment by being pummeled and bleeding a lot, any moment of respite is welcomed. Being able to relax and have fun reinvigorates his spirit and morale as well as heal up his body to take on the next punishment. He'll drink at the bar. He won't gamble, but he will play games. He'll tell jokes.

As for actual physical pleasure, he'll partake of that too. His body experiences great pain a lot. It deserves to feel good. The problem is, doing it with a female risks pregnancy. His Code, religion, and laws don't require being married first. However, he's in no position of being a father. He won't be there to help raise the child. Every child needs his dad. He'll most like be killed before the child is even grown up. He cannot burden the Mother to raise the child alone. If it's just for pleasure, he and the Mother may end up not liking each other if they stay together, making things worse for the child.

The solution is to be with a male. There's also a spiritual benefit to that. Why do men shake hands during a greeting or making a deal? Shaking hands is a sign of friendship because it shows the other you do not have a weapon in it. Similarly, the salute as a military greeting derived from warriors in armor lifting their helm visor to be recognized and thus on the same side. Therefore, my paladin feels spiritually uplifted to be naked and vulnerable with a male in closeness instead of being fully clad in armor killing each other.

One time my paladin was captured and degraded (not sexually) by necromancers. (I couldn't play that game day.) Helping the party to rescue him was a Green Dragon Knight NPC, a worshipper of Tiamat, because he respected paladins enough they shouldn't be treated so dishonorably. In between game sessions of online roleplay, my paladin was able to thank him personally, very personally. :smallwink:

Isamu Dyson
2014-02-12, 08:08 PM
Things to avoid when playing a gay character:
1. Don't play the character as a walking offensive stereotype.[/I]

Pray tell, what is an example of a stereotypically heterosexual person?


Interesting coincidence. The paladin of Bahamut I'm playing in one of my group's games is, but he doesn't see it that way. He knows his job as a paladin is to die. He doesn't know when or how, but it will happen in the course of doing what he's supposed to be doing. There just aren't old retired paladins out there.

Because his job is to die he appreciates every moment he's alive. Also, since being a paladin requires his body take heavy punishment by being pummeled and bleeding a lot, any moment of respite is welcomed. Being able to relax and have fun reinvigorates his spirit and morale as well as heal up his body to take on the next punishment. He'll drink at the bar. He won't gamble, but he will play games. He'll tell jokes.

As for actual physical pleasure, he'll partake of that too. His body experiences great pain a lot. It deserves to feel good. The problem is, doing it with a female risks pregnancy. His Code, religion, and laws don't require being married first. However, he's in no position of being a father. He won't be there to help raise the child. Every child needs his dad. He'll most like be killed before the child is even grown up. He cannot burden the Mother to raise the child alone. If it's just for pleasure, he and the Mother may end up not liking each other if they stay together, making things worse for the child.

The solution is to be with a male. There's also a spiritual benefit to that. Why do men shake hands during a greeting or making a deal? Shaking hands is a sign of friendship because it shows the other you do not have a weapon in it. Similarly, the salute as a military greeting derived from warriors in armor lifting their helm visor to be recognized and thus on the same side. Therefore, my paladin feels spiritually uplifted to be naked and vulnerable with a male in closeness instead of being fully clad in armor killing each other.

One time my paladin was captured and degraded (not sexually) by necromancers. (I couldn't play that game day.) Helping the party to rescue him was a Green Dragon Knight NPC, a worshipper of Tiamat, because he respected paladins enough they shouldn't be treated so dishonorably. In between game sessions of online roleplay, my paladin was able to thank him personally, very personally. :smallwink:

That is beautiful :smallsmile:.

Icewraith
2014-02-12, 08:11 PM
I see it this way: You cannot expect people to change how they feel on a gut level. It is an entirely unrealistic standpoint right out the gate, and to demand that of someone is indicative of a deeper inability to communicate diplomatically, on your part.

People have hangups. I dare you to find someone who doesn't. Being wired a certain way can make you phobic instinctively. This does not make you an inherently bad person. I'd argue that its a remarkable sign of good character if you learn to admit your own phobia and, in spite of it, do your best to act in a different way.

It worries me more and more that people are willing to shame and demonize others for inherent prejudices, rather than setting a positive example and trying to help them overcome those notions.

Nobody wants to be accused of thoughtcrime, or made the villain. Once rhetoric like that starts getting trotted out (and its all-too-common a methodology for otherwise well-meaning progressives lately), you aren't having a meaningful dialogue anymore.

EDIT: I think I may be veering away from the subject at hand. Sorry about that.

I'm fairly certain we're still relevant here.

A person's sexual response system throwing a "divide by zero" error when confronted with specific sexual content or a situation with a specific sexual context is not and should not be sufficient to qualify for "_____phobia".

Whatever else is going on here, this group is at least mature enough to talk to their DM first instead of bringing it up mid-session and dropping the bomb on the specific player in mid-angst. That's a hopeful sign.

Lord_Gareth
2014-02-12, 08:11 PM
Interesting coincidence. The paladin of Bahamut I'm playing in one of my group's games is, but he doesn't see it that way. He knows his job as a paladin is to die. He doesn't know when or how, but it will happen in the course of doing what he's supposed to be doing. There just aren't old retired paladins out there.

Because his job is to die he appreciates every moment he's alive. Also, since being a paladin requires his body take heavy punishment by being pummeled and bleeding a lot, any moment of respite is welcomed. Being able to relax and have fun reinvigorates his spirit and morale as well as heal up his body to take on the next punishment. He'll drink at the bar. He won't gamble, but he will play games. He'll tell jokes.

As for actual physical pleasure, he'll partake of that too. His body experiences great pain a lot. It deserves to feel good. The problem is, doing it with a female risks pregnancy. His Code, religion, and laws don't require being married first. However, he's in no position of being a father. He won't be there to help raise the child. Every child needs his dad. He'll most like be killed before the child is even grown up. He cannot burden the Mother to raise the child alone. If it's just for pleasure, he and the Mother may end up not liking each other if they stay together, making things worse for the child.

The solution is to be with a male. There's also a spiritual benefit to that. Why do men shake hands during a greeting or making a deal? Shaking hands is a sign of friendship because it shows the other you do not have a weapon in it. Similarly, the salute as a military greeting derived from warriors in armor lifting their helm visor to be recognized and thus on the same side. Therefore, my paladin feels spiritually uplifted to be naked and vulnerable with a male in closeness instead of being fully clad in armor killing each other.

One time my paladin was captured and degraded (not sexually) by necromancers. (I couldn't play that game day.) Helping the party to rescue him was a Green Dragon Knight NPC, a worshipper of Tiamat, because he respected paladins enough they shouldn't be treated so dishonorably. In between game sessions of online roleplay, my paladin was able to thank him personally, very personally. :smallwink:

This is the best story. And congrats on having a non-horrible DM whilst playing a paladin, as a RAW-held code woulda had you fall for that particular thank-you.

Ceiling_Squid
2014-02-12, 08:12 PM
The thing is, you're not not being fully tolerant. You're not being tolerant. There's nothing tolerant about tolerating stuff you agree with. Tolerance isn't something that's necessary when everyone gets along. You need tolerance because people DO have opposed views. So you can't say, "I'm not fully tolerant," you'd have to say, "I'm not tolerant. I only tolerate that which I agree with." Which is what makes those hateful people so hateful--they can only tolerate what they believe in.

I think we're using "tolerant" to mean some very different things here. We need a new word. Let me try to phrase it this way:

It isn't about being tolerant of bigots, it's about accepting that yes, even a bigot is a fellow human being with thoughts and emotions and some inherent value of Personhood. As a Person, a bigot has the right to speak their mind according to personal feeling, the same as anyone else. Nobody should deny them that. You are not, however, required to condone what they say, or provide them with a platform. You are strongly encouraged to disagree vehemently.

They can be terrible people and we feel a strong need to hate them, but you aren't going to change anyone's mind if you treat them like a monster. By making a bigot into "The Enemy", or seeking to deny their basic right to free thought and speech, they have no reason to change.

EDIT: Pex, I just read your post. Love your character concept. That's extremely deep and well-thought-out, and I have to congratulate you. :smallsmile:

Libertad
2014-02-12, 08:13 PM
Pray tell, what is an example of a stereotypically heterosexual person

Heterosexuality is considered the "default" in most Western civilizations, so there's no real stereotypes about heterosexual people beyond something like Carl from Aqua Teen Hunger Force (although he's more of the stereotypical "horny male" than "stereotypical heterosexual").

The Glyphstone
2014-02-12, 08:14 PM
Pray tell, what is an example of a stereotypically heterosexual person?


...a Leisure Suit Larry-esque Dude-Bro/lounge lizard who sleazes all over women in a blatantly transparent attempt to get them to sleep with him? Or to reverse genders, a 'slutty tramp' who dresses in excessively revealing clothing and flirts with/propositions any male within reach?

Those seem like pretty offensive stereotypes of heterosexual people, and ones that do already exist within the realm of public consciousness.

Sith_Happens
2014-02-12, 08:16 PM
This is the best story. And congrats on having a non-horrible DM whilst playing a paladin, as a RAW-held code woulda had you fall for that particular thank-you.

Since when is it Evil to sleep with someone Evil?:smallconfused:

Lord_Gareth
2014-02-12, 08:18 PM
Since when is it Evil to sleep with someone Evil?:smallconfused:

It's not. Paladins are forbidden from associating with Evil characters; it's a fall-worthy offense to shake such a man's hand, let alone express your sincere gratitude and/or arousal to him.

But, again, Pex has a non-horrible DM, so it's not an issue for him ^_^

Isamu Dyson
2014-02-12, 08:19 PM
...a Leisure Suit Larry-esque Dude-Bro/lounge lizard who sleazes all over women in a blatantly transparent attempt to get them to sleep with him? Or to reverse genders, a 'slutty tramp' who dresses in excessively revealing clothing and flirts with/propositions any male within reach?

Those seem like pretty offensive stereotypes of heterosexual people, and ones that do already exist within the realm of public consciousness.

Those portrayals seem to deal with promiscuity/lecherousness, not merely the state of being heterosexual.

For the most part, when I think of stereotypical homosexuality, I picture flamboyant clothing choices, a focus on grooming, and maybe a way of speaking, but nothing to do with actual licentiousness.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-12, 08:19 PM
Squid: That sums it up very well, Ceiling. Thank you for your post.

Lord_Gareth
2014-02-12, 08:21 PM
Those portrayals seem to deal with promiscuity/lecherousness, not merely the state of being heterosexual.

Actually, I have to say, this is a very real stereotype, especially for men. Ever heard someone say, "Men only think about one thing?" At least here in the US, the expectation is that straight men are womanizers, horn dogs and liars, and it then comes as a surprise when we're not. I've been mocked for not being that way.

The Glyphstone
2014-02-12, 08:22 PM
Those portrayals seem to deal with promiscuity/lecherousness, not merely the state of being heterosexual.

For the most part, when I think of stereotypical homosexuality, I picture flamboyant clothing choices, a focus on grooming, and maybe a way of speaking, but nothing to do with actual licentiousness.

They are, but when the request is 'stereotypical heterosexual person', the only possible known trait you have to hang a stereotype on is their heterosexuality.

Icewraith
2014-02-12, 08:23 PM
Since when is it Evil to sleep with someone Evil?:smallconfused:

Section 4355 subsection C, paragraph 43 of the generic Paladin's code.
Specifically, "Improper Methods of Smiting Evil".

molten_dragon
2014-02-12, 08:25 PM
This kind of is the first group where I'm the DM and I'm with a big problem because my best friend decided to play as a Iomedae male paladin... But since she is a fanfic writer and a Yaoi enthusiast she is making him have feelings for the young blind oracle they were called to escort, he is kind of a male version of "Vasilisa the Wise".

All the other players feel very unconfortable with this behavior and they think it is inappropriate for a paladin but besides that she is as zealot as she can be...

So they kind of all asked me(in private) to make her fall from grace because of it... And I'm kind of in a thought situation since she is killing demons and fighting evil non stop... And I don't think it is forbidden for paladins to love or have sex.... It is just that I don't know how to explain that in a convincing way.

Any ideas?

Nothing in the paladin's code requires celibacy. Likewise homosexual relationships are not banned either. That's as far as RAW goes on the subject.

Your players being uncomfortable with it is something that should be discussed with them out of character.

NightbringerGGZ
2014-02-12, 08:30 PM
I think we're using "tolerant" to mean some very different things here. We need a new word. Let me try to phrase it this way:

It isn't about being tolerant of bigots, it's about accepting that yes, even a bigot is a fellow human being with thoughts and emotions and some inherent value of Personhood. As a Person, a bigot has the right to speak their mind according to personal feeling, the same as anyone else. Nobody should deny them that. You are not, however, required to condone what they say, or provide them with a platform. You are strongly encouraged to disagree vehemently.

They can be terrible people and we feel a strong need to hate them, but you aren't going to change anyone's mind if you treat them like a monster. By making a bigot into "The Enemy", or seeking to deny their basic right to free thought and speech, they have no reason to change.

EDIT: Pex, I just read your post. Love your character concept. That's extremely deep and well-thought-out, and I have to congratulate you. :smallsmile:

It's the "need to hate" that I want to minimize. It's been my experience that words like "bigot" or "-phobe" or "-ist" tend to get used as weapons to prevent individuals or groups from expressing their own thoughts and beliefs. Such terms are used to dehumanize individuals specifically to make them easier to hate.

Thanks for your posts Ceiling Squid, I think you're expressing what I wanted to post better than I could.

As for a stereotypical heterosexual individual, how about These Guys (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-0R-UVBXLM).

zionpopsickle
2014-02-12, 08:32 PM
Section 4355 subsection C, paragraph 43 of the generic Paladin's code.
Specifically, "Improper Methods of Smiting Evil".

So is that why you get to add your charisma bonus?

The Oni
2014-02-12, 08:35 PM
So is that why you get to add your charisma bonus?

Only if you do it with the lights on.

NightbringerGGZ
2014-02-12, 08:36 PM
They are, but when the request is 'stereotypical heterosexual person', the only possible known trait you have to hang a stereotype on is their heterosexuality.

Well there's been a stereotype of the Lazy Husband that's been overused on TV (and that I personally find rather offensive). It's a heterosexual male show to be dim, lazy and often overweight. There's a strong implication that he doesn't deserve his wife. Often there's a lack of respect from his children. It's a common enough portrayal that it has spawned some actual debate about male-discrimination in media.


Only if you do it with the lights on.

But I thought Charisma had nothing to do with physical appearance and was more about demeanor and force of personality?

Tengu_temp
2014-02-12, 08:41 PM
The thing is, you're not not being fully tolerant. You're not being tolerant. There's nothing tolerant about tolerating stuff you agree with. Tolerance isn't something that's necessary when everyone gets along. You need tolerance because people DO have opposed views. So you can't say, "I'm not fully tolerant," you'd have to say, "I'm not tolerant. I only tolerate that which I agree with." Which is what makes those hateful people so hateful--they can only tolerate what they believe in.

You're just repeating yourself like a broken record instead of addressing anything I said. And you commit the false equivalence fallacy, by equating "I don't tolerate hate and ignorance" with "I don't tolerate stuff I disagree with".

We shouldn't demonize bigots, or yell at them in righteous outrage, or call them monsters who don't deserve basic human rights. That's dumb. But we shouldn't tolerate them. Tolerating means "I respect your opinion, even if it's different than mine, I will not look down on you or punish you for it, and you are free to spread it". Bigotry and ignorance shouldn't be respected or allowed to spread. There's a reason many places (including this very forum) have laws and rules against hate speech.


Pray tell, what is an example of a stereotypically heterosexual person?


Hmm... How about a ridiculously macho action hero who sleeps with every woman who throws herself in his arms after he rescues her, and expresses silent but visible contempt for everyone who refuses to live up to the same standards of masculinity as him, even if not personally then in the way he's written?

Or, boring answer: a straight person who's stereotypical in some other manner, unrelated to their sexuality.

The Oni
2014-02-12, 08:47 PM
But I thought Charisma had nothing to do with physical appearance and was more about demeanor and force of personality?

It isn't *solely* appearance, no, but it is a factor. Remember, if physical appearance didn't count towards Charisma, how in the world would Miko be a world-class Paladin? It'd be in the single digits.

But alas, the joke, now dissected, is quite dead.

Isamu Dyson
2014-02-12, 08:48 PM
Hmm... How about a ridiculously macho action hero who sleeps with every woman who throws herself in his arms after he rescues her, and expresses silent but visible contempt for everyone who refuses to live up to the same standards of masculinity as him, even if not personally then in the way he's written?

Again, that seems to deal with promiscuity. Also...it is male-specific (and, therefore, not universally applicable).


Or, boring answer: a straight person who's stereotypical in some other manner, unrelated to their sexuality.

Possibly. I just don't think there's such a thing as a stereotypically heterosexual person.

Icewraith
2014-02-12, 08:48 PM
Only if you do it with the lights on.

The real concern is the extra subdual damage- nobody cares about the attack roll bonus because it's touch AC.

Paladins actually rarely sleep with evil partners because the encounter can be so unsatisfying- it's over far too quickly and then the other person is in no condition for a round two unless they have a ton of class levels. The Paladin actually falls from the subsequent improper use of "Lay on Hands".

Weimann
2014-02-12, 08:49 PM
I've not read the whole thread, but from the first page and skimming the rest, I interpret the situation as such.

1) The situation looks complicated. On the one hand, it's easy to condemn intolerance of expressions of homosexuality due to its historically oppressed status. On the other hand, from what I gather, none of the players are homosexual, and the player of the Paladin is largely playing out what amounts to a kink. On the third hand, the OP has stated that some of the complaining players have previously also engaged in romantic episodes without that raising controversy.

There's no obvious choice here. I'd talk it out with them all together first, but good guide line is to put the enjoyment of the many above that of the few. If most people at your gaming table is uncomfortable, that's not good. If no compromise or new perspective comes to light from talking about it, I'd say the fair thing would be to suggest all sexual and romantic subject matter be left alone at the table. That is a solution that's both effective and as fair as it's likely to get.

2) Whatever else, the Paladin does not fall. No such rules are in evidence, and it wouldn't solve the problem these players have anyway. OOC issues should have OOC solutions.

Yogibear41
2014-02-12, 08:50 PM
Off topic: what is a Yaoi enthusiast? (suppose I could just google)

On topic: In game and in character: does the Paladins god/order/code of conduct require him to be celibate or heterosexual? (A standard code does not but I do not know your setting) If not, and as long as the feelings are reciprocated, I see nothing wrong with a gay paladin. (and I vote republican! ROFL :smallbiggrin:)

Reminds me of a time this guy was playing an elf, guy: married mid 30s ex-military, pretty much as heterosexual as you can get, has to go "under-cover" and spend the night with a frilly art dealer to get the scoop on some information.

No-one saw it coming, and the look on everyones faces around the table was priceless, but at the end of the day its just another story we joke about.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-12, 08:53 PM
Tengu: If my post is considered by you to not have addressed what you said, I will likely continue to be considered not addressing what you say, I'm afraid.

What do you mean by, "not allowing it to spread"? Do you mean not allowing them to speak their opinions? If you mean criticising and disagreeing with them and arguing against them, that's fine.


Yogi: Don't! Some of it you might be fine with, but you will get results which very few people of any sexuality are fine with.

Yaoi is to do with gay male romance, usually in manga or anime form. A lot of it is pornographic.

The Oni
2014-02-12, 08:54 PM
Again, that seems to deal with promiscuity. Also...it is male-specific (and, therefore, not universally applicable).



That's hardly fair, since homosexual stereotypes are also gender-specific. None of the same tropes forcibly stuck to lesbians stick for gay men, obviously.

Icewraith
2014-02-12, 08:54 PM
I've not read the whole thread, but from the first page and skimming the rest, I interpret the situation as such.

1) The situation looks complicated. On the one hand, it's easy to condemn intolerance of expressions of homosexuality due to its historically oppressed status. On the other hand, from what I gather, none of the players are homosexual, and the player of the Paladin is largely playing out what amounts to a kink. On the third hand, the OP has stated that some of the complaining players have previously also engaged in romantic episodes without that raising controversy.

There's no obvious choice here. I'd talk it out with them all together first, but good guide line is to put the enjoyment of the many above that of the few. If most people at your gaming table is uncomfortable, that's not good. If no compromise or new perspective comes to light from talking about it, I'd say the fair thing would be to suggest all sexual and romantic subject matter be left alone at the table. That is a solution that's both effective and as fair as it's likely to get.

2) Whatever else, the Paladin does not fall. No such rules are in evidence, and it wouldn't solve the problem these players have anyway. OOC issues should have OOC solutions.

1) The trick is, this could also be a chance for the group to become more comfortable with a deeper level of roleplaying. It's also a great hook for when the party inevitably screws up and the npc dies anyways. If the player in question can manage the depth she's apparently going for without taking up too much spotlight time and staying away from self mutilation the table might be more okay with it.

2) Yup.

Edit: If we're talking about gender stereotypes and how they end up in roleplay, keep in mind that by definition said stereotype will apply to no more than ~50% of the overall poulation, so that's as close as you're going to get with "universal."

The Oni
2014-02-12, 08:58 PM
The real concern is the extra subdual damage- nobody cares about the attack roll bonus because it's touch AC.

Paladins actually rarely sleep with evil partners because the encounter can be so unsatisfying- it's over far too quickly and then the other person is in no condition for a round two unless they have a ton of class levels. The Paladin actually falls from the subsequent improper use of "Lay on Hands".

Hah! Now that's what I call spell penetration!

Tragak
2014-02-12, 09:05 PM
The point of tolerance is that people shouldn't want to hurt each other. Physically, psycho-socially, whateverly.

If a sociopath is beating an innocent to the ground, and you fight him off to protect the innocent, are you then a hypocrite who's position is that "it's OK when I commit violence, but not when you do"? Of course not, attacking innocents is not the same protecting them from attackers.

Saying, "people who really believe in tolerance would be tolerant of intolerance," is no different from saying "people who really don't believe in aggression would not stop a sociopath from aggressing an innocent."

Correction:

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
"All that is required for Evil to triumph is for Good people to do nothing."
"First they came for the Socialists..."

Weimann
2014-02-12, 09:10 PM
1) The trick is, this could also be a chance for the group to become more comfortable with a deeper level of roleplaying. It's also a great hook for when the party inevitably screws up and the npc dies anyways. If the player in question can manage the depth she's apparently going for without taking up too much spotlight time and staying away from self mutilation the table might be more okay with it.Sure, the OP could check with them. Compromise is good.

Terraoblivion
2014-02-12, 09:14 PM
Icewraith, I'd like to point out that there is a difference between having an identity as a homophobe, as a noun, and performing an act that happens to be homophobic. Everybody performs homophobic actions at times. I do, my girlfriend does, my friends and family do, well-known gay rights activists do. It's part of being human. That doesn't mean that when a given action happens to be homophobic, you shouldn't point out why it is hurtful, especially since people generally don't want to hurt others by accident.

I do not believe that being uncomfortable with homosexuality gives people an identity as an homophobe, that's really only reserved for people actively and intentionally working to harm gay people, but it does mean that you're influenced by homophobic concepts you haven't addressed. And they should be addressed given that getting all awkward around gay people is quite hurtful to them, even if you have nothing but the best intentions.

It's also distinct from being awkward about any major expression of sexuality in general. I'm personally very awkward of any displays of affection greater than a hug, regardless of the genders of the people involved, but that isn't being uncomfortable with homosexuality, but with being uncomfortable with displays of affection around you.

I hope that helped clear up my intentions with my words.

And Mr. Mask, tolerance does not mean blindly accepting everything as equally valid, it means believing that people are not only individuals in their own right with motives you should understand even when they cause harm, not that you have to accept any harmful belief anybody might have. Like how some people believe that getting rid of a business rival justifies killing them, that's a pretty harmful view that just about every society that has had enough commercialization for people to have business rivals bans. Dealing in absolutes and pure binaries tend to lead to ludicrous positions, like how either you need to tolerate people who believe humanity will find salvation through ritualistic sacrifice of babies, or you cannot ever find value in trying to accommodate other views.

Mr. Mask
2014-02-12, 09:16 PM
I don't recall saying that other opinions need to be treated as equally valid. I said to tolerate other opinions, not to agree with them or condone them.

Weimann
2014-02-12, 09:18 PM
Well said, Terraoblivion!

Mr. Mask
2014-02-12, 09:19 PM
Yeah, it was well said I admit. I just don't want to be misinterpreted as saying you need to agree with hateful stuff in order to tolerate it.

Eldest
2014-02-12, 09:43 PM
Again, that seems to deal with promiscuity. Also...it is male-specific (and, therefore, not universally applicable).

If you can come up with a stereotype for a queer person of unspecified gender and orientation (just not straight), be my guest.

Ceiling_Squid
2014-02-12, 09:52 PM
Since when is it Evil to sleep with someone Evil?:smallconfused:


Section 4355 subsection C, paragraph 43 of the generic Paladin's code.
Specifically, "Improper Methods of Smiting Evil".

Namely, line 3 in particular:

The proper term is "smite evil", not "bump uglies". (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0212.html)

Though I can see where the confusion in methodology came about. Next time be more exact with your language! :smalltongue:

delenn
2014-02-12, 09:59 PM
Mr. Mask, going to back the post you responded to that started this conversation




I am a very open and tolerant person. Except against those that are intolerant or ignorant themselves. I see no reason why anyone should tolerate that...

I read that as Lorsa saying "I see no reason why anyone should tolerate [intolerant or ignorant people in a gaming group]", which is very different than what you seem to be responding to - that people with intolerant or ignorant views should or shouldn't be 'tolerated' at all (not given rights, including the right to free speech, not treated as full individual human beings, etc).


Lorsa: It's not tolerance if you only tolerate what you agree with. Tolerance means freedom of speech, thought, opinion for all--even those you really, really disagree with.

If I'm running a game, I have every right to kick someone out for being a bigot. If I'm playing in a game, and one of the other players or the GM is being a bigot, I have every right to bring up that issue with them and either come to a solution, or choose to leave. The game may dissolve, but no one's right's are being violated, and no one is under any obligation to continue playing a game that makes them uncomfortable. I can respect another person's humanity and rights while challenging their ignorance, and without giving them a platform at my gaming table, or keeping them as a friend/acquaintance.

Coidzor
2014-02-12, 09:59 PM
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/39XLbZ_L6NYGd0gYhZL8xKgFGsRufMkWjhu9TNM-43aNZ2xTaRzB8Zp2Rx2sPxV7WLSXqDve-TnYcqbJc-2GJvzivIgYCpzDcYm2av0ofYHT4q_2PjX7_Erl

Hmm. I think they turned the "making people want to stove its face in" up to 11 on this one. I'm not even English and I want to set fire to this thing.

Mostly though I was wondering how on earth you can get a male Joan of Arc, since you either get Ye Olde Paladin (in which case you've got a more or less shoddy knock-off of Orlando Furioso with magic) or a squire.

Adding a ****, male gender identity, and a perception of a male identity by others just seems like it loses a lot in the translation.

Then again, so does having the level of gender equality in baseline Pathfinder.


The actual subject of the thread has been addressed, but I assume a male Joan of Arc would be a young man who receives or believes he receives divine revelations that call them to become a warrior and a strategist, possibly assisting the ruler of their beleaguered nation in rallying their countrymen against a foreign occupier. Also is classy as hell when betrayed, accused of heresy, and burnt at the stake.

The first part describes most Paladins, of course.

Hence my issue.


While you're doing this, take note of the Charlie Sheen part of the Two and a half men (Charlie Sheen Show) drinking game. Every time the Bard forces ten drinks, you cross off an episode, run out of episodes and his character is bi-winning, or to use the technical term, losing.

Which one?


The fact remains that, not only are the people at the table uncomfortable with the premise, but they haven't addressed the premise with the player in question, but have instead asked the DM to address it for them, absolving them of responsibility. This does not contribute to group cohesion in any way.

Assuming there is a problem here with the way she's playing her character (and I really don't believe that there is), I feel it needs to be discussed at the table.

On the other hand, while their approach was pretty bad, they at least had the sense to not make a big scene at the table initially, and left an opportunity for a cooler head to make sense of what's what and to potentially mediate things.


Interesting coincidence. The paladin of Bahamut I'm playing in one of my group's games is, but he doesn't see it that way. He knows his job as a paladin is to die. He doesn't know when or how, but it will happen in the course of doing what he's supposed to be doing. There just aren't old retired paladins out there.

Because his job is to die he appreciates every moment he's alive. Also, since being a paladin requires his body take heavy punishment by being pummeled and bleeding a lot, any moment of respite is welcomed. Being able to relax and have fun reinvigorates his spirit and morale as well as heal up his body to take on the next punishment. He'll drink at the bar. He won't gamble, but he will play games. He'll tell jokes.

As for actual physical pleasure, he'll partake of that too. His body experiences great pain a lot. It deserves to feel good. The problem is, doing it with a female risks pregnancy. His Code, religion, and laws don't require being married first. However, he's in no position of being a father. He won't be there to help raise the child. Every child needs his dad. He'll most like be killed before the child is even grown up. He cannot burden the Mother to raise the child alone. If it's just for pleasure, he and the Mother may end up not liking each other if they stay together, making things worse for the child.

The solution is to be with a male.

...While we as players can choose our characters' sexualities, people and the characters themselves can't. So more properly you'd have a self-repressing pansexual or bisexual on your hands from how you've presented it, since if he were just gay he'd just be attracted to men, not worried about an irrelevant risk of pregnancy since he's not even interested in women. :smallconfused:

Granted, with the amount of magic and the obvious Dragonborn angle (suicidal variant Paladin, worshiper of Bahamut), unwanted pregnancies are kind of an odd deterrent to doing anything with women.


Pray tell, what is an example of a stereotypically heterosexual person?

Charlie Sheen? Barney Stinson? Henry VIII? BRIAN BLESSED? Hotblooded McHotblooded?

James Bond? (Well, in some regards, laying aside the superhuman qualities)

...Anyone remember if Christopher Lee is straight? (No, wait, nevermind, too awesome anyway)


Section 4355 subsection C, paragraph 43 of the generic Paladin's code.
Specifically, "Improper Methods of Smiting Evil".

HAH!


It isn't *solely* appearance, no, but it is a factor. Remember, if physical appearance didn't count towards Charisma, how in the world would Miko be a world-class Paladin? It'd be in the single digits.

But alas, the joke, now bisected, is quite dead.

Fixed it for ya. :smallamused:


Off topic: what is a Yaoi enthusiast? (suppose I could just google)

TVTropes has... one explanation (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YaoiFangirl).

I believe it's sufficiently sanitized for you to have no idea what it actually entails or implies in colloquial use. :smallamused:

Mr. Mask
2014-02-12, 10:06 PM
Delenn: Just, "Mask," is fine.

If it's about who you take at your gaming table, then that's a different matter. Who you take at your gaming table or as a friend/acquaintance is your business. Being tolerant doesn't mean forced association.

Hiro Protagonest
2014-02-12, 10:08 PM
Hmm. I think they turned the "making people want to stove its face in" up to 11 on this one. I'm not even English and I want to set fire to this thing.

Sith made the questionable decision to show Jaune when he's in jerkish womanizer mode, which is totally not him.

GrayGriffin
2014-02-12, 10:24 PM
I do think that the group trying to go through the DM to "handle" things is a bad idea, no matter how offensively the person playing the gay character may be handling him. And from what I've read of OP's posts, she's not doing anything terrible with the character, so I don't see why the paladin should fall. Anyways, I do think we should wait for updates from OP as well.

Pex
2014-02-13, 12:00 AM
Section 4355 subsection C, paragraph 43 of the generic Paladin's code.
Specifically, "Improper Methods of Smiting Evil".

Hey, I stabbed him with my "great sword" alright.




...While we as players can choose our characters' sexualities, people and the characters themselves can't. So more properly you'd have a self-repressing pansexual or bisexual on your hands from how you've presented it, since if he were just gay he'd just be attracted to men, not worried about an irrelevant risk of pregnancy since he's not even interested in women. :smallconfused:

Granted, with the amount of magic and the obvious Dragonborn angle (suicidal variant Paladin, worshiper of Bahamut), unwanted pregnancies are kind of an odd deterrent to doing anything with women.



He is. That's how he rationalizes it to explain why. It's not an excuse as if it needs defending. He's just trying to understand himself.

Stuebi
2014-02-13, 12:58 AM
-snip-

I just want to point out, from what i've read in this thread from you, I have to say that you're probably one of the most reasonable people i've ever seen adress the subject. I see it far too often that people jump directly to the "HOMOPHOBIA, PURGE THE HERETIC!"-part, regardless of actual intentions and feelings of said person. I think drawing a clear line between that, and actualy prosecution and hatespeech is important. It promotes dialogue and trying to tackle the issue with a healthy conversation instead of getting out Torches and Forks is the better solution, in my humble opinion.

@Topic

Im glad the discussion shifted from "The group is obviously homophobe!" to actual discussion. I'd ahve to get some extra information and would want to hear those people directly, before I assume too much. I will have to agree that it was kind of weak to just ask the DM to revoke her status as a Paladin. If there is an issue like that, there is no reason to not either adress it via Dialogue IC, or just talk to the person at the table. Immediately going the route of demanding DM-invoked punishment shines kind of a bad light on the group and misses some great opportunities for RP. I've had Roleplay revolving around PCs being uncomfortable with the relationship-habits of the other PCs, and it can lead to interesting conversations and adds some depth to group-relations. Every person is wired differently, and I seriously cant see why you'd ahve to pull the issue into OOC like that.

ShadowFighter15
2014-02-13, 03:51 AM
But in pathfinder this kind of behavior is not very well persived is it?

I mean in city of Kaer Maga they have only one male bordello(some say the only one in the world of Varisia) few male prostitutes, the Tallow Boys are the most popular. And I think I never saw a famous gay hero in the pathfinder world.

So I think they do have some reason to assume it is not something perceived as good. At best neutral.

But I guess you guys are rigth it is more a matter of option.

Golarion's stance on homosexuality varies from nation to nation (and even from region to region within those nations), but it's not unheard of - there's a lesbian paladin in part 1 of Wrath of the Righteous (the half-orc woman on the cover) and a gay cleric in part 2. Hell; their official stance on the Iconic characters' sexualities is "bi until we say otherwise for the sake of a story".

Scots Dragon
2014-02-13, 04:57 AM
Golarion's stance on homosexuality varies from nation to nation (and even from region to region within those nations), but it's not unheard of - there's a lesbian paladin in part 1 of Wrath of the Righteous (the half-orc woman on the cover) and a gay cleric in part 2. Hell; their official stance on the Iconic characters' sexualities is "bi until we say otherwise for the sake of a story".

Following the release of the Pathfinder comic, they've got a confirmed-as-lesbian character with Kyra the iconic cleric of Sarenrae. And I suppose by extension her girlfriend, the iconic rogue Merisiel, is confirmed bisexual.

Avilan the Grey
2014-02-13, 05:33 AM
I am not sure how our play group would handle things if I decided to play a female paladin, and because I think Girl On Girl Is Hot I will start having her having a "bad teenage movie" crush on the female elven ranger next to me. We have not dealt with any romance yet in our group, but all are very mature (yongest person is 25 but a very dedicated role-player, and most of us have been doing this for at least 20 years).

It does sound like the problem is three-fold (and I know this has been repeated over and over):

1. The players expect the Paladin to fall for something that isn't an Evil act in the game setting, in effect wanting the DM to punish the player for something instead of talking to her directly.
.
2. The way the player plays this out sounds creepy to me. Tasteful and Well played? Maybe, but it DOES sound creepy to me nevertheless. Besides, was the choice of words "bad teenage movie" the OP's or the Player's? Because to me "bad teenage movie romance" sounds like the opposite of "well played and tasteful". Not as bad as "bad porn plot romance", but close to it.

3. The other playes probably know about her enthusiasm for the subject and might fear, as someone said upstream, that this will eventually go the "bad route" with forced affection etc etc.

Hyena
2014-02-13, 05:36 AM
I don't really think that orientation of the character is the problem.
If role-playing of this yaoi fangirl is as I imagine it to be, I can empathize with the other guys - there is a number of people out there who don't like relationships being center of attention - for all sorts of reasons. However, number of those guy can grow hundred times if this relationship somehow involves graphic descriptions of flagellation. I mean, come on. I'm in all sorts of kinky stuff, but self-whipping is not something I would bring to the table, unless I'm sure everyone is comfortable with that.

Avilan the Grey
2014-02-13, 05:40 AM
I don't really think that orientation of the character is the problem.
If role-playing of this yaoi fangirl is as I imagine it to be, I can empathize with the other guys - there is a number of people out there who don't like relationships being center of attention - for all sorts of reasons. However, number of those guy can grow hundred times if this relationship somehow involves graphic descriptions of flagellation. I mean, come on. I'm in all sorts of kinky stuff, but self-whipping is not something I would bring to the table, unless I'm sure everyone is comfortable with that.

Indeed. Again.

Also, how much does she dedicate to this? Does it get in the way of her actual well "duties" (aka healing other characters, turn undeads, loot dungeons?). If the rest of the group tries to have a standard Dungeong Crawl and she keeps bringing romance into it at every turn, I wouldn't be squicked, but I would be annoyed and eventually pissed off.

Delta
2014-02-13, 05:58 AM
I don't really think that orientation of the character is the problem.

It's at least part of the problem, at least the way the OP makes it sound, the other players expect "being gay" is enough of a reason for a Paladin to fall.

Not saying it's the only problem, obviously. But the OP explicitly said that the players probably wouldn't have a problem with the situation if the characters involved were of different genders, so how can orientation not be part of the problem?

Hyena
2014-02-13, 06:12 AM
Oh. I misread that as "probably would have a problem". Well, they might be homophobes, which is sad. Trying to convert them is probably meaningless, because if OP could talk this situation out, he probably wouldn't take it to the forum. So if conflict will escalate, I can only suggest finding another group.
But my point still stands. Self-flagellation is icky for the larger part of humanity.

neonchameleon
2014-02-13, 06:13 AM
The point of tolerance is that people shouldn't want to hurt each other. Physically, psycho-socially, whateverly.

If a sociopath is beating an innocent to the ground, and you fight him off to protect the innocent, are you then a hypocrite who's position is that "it's OK when I commit violence, but not when you do"? Of course not, attacking innocents is not the same protecting them from attackers.

Saying, "people who really believe in tolerance would be tolerant of intolerance," is no different from saying "people who really don't believe in aggression would not stop a sociopath from aggressing an innocent."

This. Or to borrow from Making Light "Tolerance isn't a welcome mat. It's a 'No Kicking' sign - and you are permitted to defend that with hobnailed boots."

Iruka
2014-02-13, 07:00 AM
Off topic: what is a Yaoi enthusiast? (suppose I could just google)


Wikipedia is a good first address for stuff that could be squicky.

MonochromeTiger
2014-02-13, 07:07 AM
Oh. I misread that as "probably would have a problem". Well, they might be homophobes, which is sad. Trying to convert them is probably meaningless, because if OP could talk this situation out, he probably wouldn't take it to the forum. So if conflict will escalate, I can only suggest finding another group.
But my point still stands. Self-flagellation is icky for the larger part of humanity.

ah homophobic players, if only all problems came with the instant clarification that one side has an idiotic bias.

first: I don't believe I've seen anything in a paladin code saying "no you can't like the same gender", unless that shows up somewhere I'm not seeing how it's fall-worthy.

second: if your players are really that set on thinking of it as wrong I'd put more concern behind the feelings of the paladin's player, if the others get vocal they're essentially insulting the things the paladin player likes even if they aren't insulting her directly.

third: I feel as though it's expected of me to laugh maniacally at the idea of a paladin character being disliked for NOT being an emotionless moral spouting robocop.

neonchameleon
2014-02-13, 07:30 AM
I have always been partial to what's good for the team (majority), not the individual (minority).

If the actions of her character are disrupting play, even if it's within the confines of the ignorant mind, the aforementioned actions should be stopped/toned down in some manner.

Just an opinion from a "bigot".

:smallbiggrin:

I'm genuinely trying to see clear water, or indeed any water at all, between your position and "If those people want to use the lunch counter or the front of the bus and the majority of users don't want them to then they shouldn't be allowed to."

Now I'm pretty sure that that's not what you mean. But could you explain where the differences are?

Mr. Mask
2014-02-13, 07:37 AM
I don't think that's a good example. Buses are public transport, which is pretty different from a private gathering between friends. Everyone knows each other (or at least have intermediaries) in the private gathering, often no one on a bus will know each other.

Sith_Happens
2014-02-13, 07:47 AM
Sith made the questionable decision to show Jaune when he's in jerkish womanizer mode, which is totally not him.

That line strikes me more as "Kind of a dork but doesn't realize it" mode, which totally is him.

Jornophelanthas
2014-02-13, 07:54 AM
I don't think that's a good example. Buses are public transport, which is pretty different from a private gathering between friends. Everyone knows each other (or at least have intermediaries) in the private gathering, often no one on a bus will know each other.

Make it a school bus, then. Or a carpool ride. People there know each other.

NightbringerGGZ
2014-02-13, 08:08 AM
I'm genuinely trying to see clear water, or indeed any water at all, between your position and "If those people want to use the lunch counter or the front of the bus and the majority of users don't want them to then they shouldn't be allowed to."

Now I'm pretty sure that that's not what you mean. But could you explain where the differences are?

Not wanting sexual content inserted into a group game doesn't equate to racism.

Of course the OP posted earlier up in the thread that last night's session didn't go very well. Hopefully we'll get a report on what actually happened so we can all stop speculating :smalltongue:

Talderas
2014-02-13, 08:37 AM
Well, that is one of those parts of the BoVD which is more generally agreed to be best ignored, for various reasons not the least of which is that it's problematic.

Asking the DM to go straight to Paladin Falls is kinda iffy in and of itself.

3.X D&D uses an objective alignment system. It's the only way for the alignment system to exist and all the varying spells that have effects based on it to exist and work. To that end, a paladin which commits an evil act falls. Whether or not you agree with the BoVD doesn't impact that it has described masochistic and sadistic behaviors as evil acts.


I hadn't considered that possibility, I must admit.

People are prone to responding to the strongest emotion that afflicts them at any given time. Believe me, that was one of the toughest things to overcome on my road to stoicism. Righteous indignation is one of the stronger ones out there so jumping on that bandwagon is pretty easy.

--


I see it this way: You cannot expect people to change how they feel on a gut level. It is an entirely unrealistic standpoint right out the gate, and to demand that of someone is indicative of a deeper inability to communicate diplomatically, on your part.

Gut level sort of gets at it. If I may use myself as an example. I suffer from social anxiety. It was induced by adulthood trauma. Fortunately I have a mild form of it which lets me be out and about people in general. It only manifests whenever I'm persuing any personal relationship, be it romantic or new friends. What happens is that I notice after the fact that I was acting based on the anxiety to sabotage what I was attempting to achieve. Many of these actions seem like perfectly rational behaviors but my conscious and unconscious are not aligned in desired outcome. I am rarely conscious that I am suffering from the anxiety or that I'm behaving in ways to avoid it because those reactions are being controlled and influenced unconsciously but done so in a way that is not flagrantly opposed to my norms of behavior.

They're subtle shifts. It is only after events have unfolded and I look back at them and notice the behaviors of mine which are out of character that I can realize that anxiety was controlling my behaviors. My friends don't notice it. They can't because they've known me for practically the entire time I've had this problem. They know if I have it and they can't tell I'm being influenced by it unless I tell them. The people that know me best, after myself, are completely incapable of noticing it. They didn't notice it and it took years for me to notice something was wrong and seek diagnosis and treatment. That trigger? One highly irrational thought pattern that was out of character.

After being diagnosed I adopted a significantly more stoic attitude. I felt it was one of the best ways to deal with my problem. I try to keep better tabs on my own emotional state and try to discard the feelings whenever I'm about to make a decision or assess a situation. Yet, despite all of these positive steps I've taken to address my problem it still persists as a problem because it still manifests in ways at can appear entirely rational at the time they manifest.

--


That doesn't mean that when a given action happens to be homophobic, you shouldn't point out why it is hurtful, especially since people generally don't want to hurt others by accident.

That's a rather naive way to look at the problem. Pointing it out only serves a useful purpose if the acts and behaviors are consciously driven and doing so provides a way to deal with the problem if you don't have a way to deal with the problem then the best course of action is to ignore it. Stating why it's hurtful is only measuably useful when dealing with children that are still learning how to behave. The value of it significantly decreases with age once the individual has developed his unconscious mores and behaviors. If the behaviors are unconsciously driven then pointing it out has a much higher probability of creating feelings of resentment which is the exact opposite direction of the desired outcome because you're now attacking them for something you perceive to be a problem that they aren't aware of.

This is why the whole homophobia topic irritates me. It doesn't do any good for those that are consciously homophobic because they're indoctrinated and consciously agree with it. Doing so only reinforces that belief and incenses them even more. That it is good for those who are unconsciously homophobic is questionable at best and the outcome is so wildly unpredictable from good to bad that it's not worth pursuing.

Tragak
2014-02-13, 08:41 AM
Not wanting sexual content inserted into a group game doesn't equate to racism. Except that we have no reason to assume that they were talking about sexual content as being the problem.

Gay people existing is not "more sexual" than straight people having sex.

MonochromeTiger
2014-02-13, 08:45 AM
Except that we have no reason to assume that they were talking about sexual content as being the problem.

Gay people existing is not "more sexual" than straight people having sex.

GASP!!!!exclamation point! casual affection regardless of the genders involved is LESS sexual than actual intercourse? what witchcraft is this? next they'll tell me that water is wet or fire is hot or talking can be a form of communication!

Scow2
2014-02-13, 08:53 AM
Except that we have no reason to assume that they were talking about sexual content as being the problem.

Gay people existing is not "more sexual" than straight people having sex.

But a gay person going on for several minutes every session about how much they're torn about their desire to bone another character IS more sexual than an once-every-three-sessions-at-most "Yay! Hot barmaids!"

Also, people are inherently turned off and annoyed by sexual behaviors/preferences they don't share. Accepting that a gay person's preferences and orientation doesn't make him any less of a person will NOT make them not be just as repulsed/disgusted by the idea of guy-on-guy activity as human-on-furry or any of the large combinations of fantasies I'm familiar with but won't mention here. (And if a gay or chaste person is bothered/uncomfortable with straight relationships, they should also be toned down)

neonchameleon
2014-02-13, 08:55 AM
Not wanting sexual content inserted into a group game doesn't equate to racism.

If the straight bard is hitting on the barmaids then this is irrelevant. The group seems fine with some sexual content.


Of course the OP posted earlier up in the thread that last night's session didn't go very well. Hopefully we'll get a report on what actually happened so we can all stop speculating :smalltongue:

Yup.

Scow2
2014-02-13, 08:59 AM
If the straight bard is hitting on the barmaids then this is irrelevant. The group seems fine with some sexual content.Hitting on barmaids isn't the same as monologuing about one's unrequitted and unacted-upon lust (With precedent toward eventual stalking and possibly even rape - This is Yaoi we're talking about, after all) toward another character, NPC or PC.

Tragak
2014-02-13, 09:11 AM
But a gay person going on for several minutes every session about how much they're torn about their desire to bone another character IS more sexual than an once-every-three-sessions-at-most "Yay! Hot barmaids!" And if had been a straight person showing an interest in another, would you have described it as "desire to court" rather than "desire to bone"?


Hitting on barmaids isn't the same as monologuing about one's unrequitted and unacted-upon lust And had it been a straight couple, would you have described it as "love" instead of "lust"?

MonochromeTiger
2014-02-13, 09:20 AM
And if had been a straight person showing an interest in another, would you have described it as "desire to court" rather than "desire to bone"?

And had it been a straight couple, would you have described it as "love" instead of "lust"?

in the interest of looking at other possible ways this may be happening, I'd have to say that no if the pairing was different but still acting how scow described it wouldn't be "desire to court" or "love" it would still be thinking and acting with lust as the primary motivating factor. if the player in question is in fact going on monologues about their character's lust for another character in the game then I can see where the other players would be uncomfortable, I'd be in the "uncomfortable with openly discussing sexual thoughts and actions" crowd myself.

the thing is (and I may be wrong I admit I skimmed the discussion a bit) we haven't seen a clarification that the paladin's player IS acting like that. I'm fairly sure (again could be completely wrong, skimmed, I'm lazy like that) that if it were a situation like scow's comments suggest that it wouldn't even qualify bringing up the genders of the characters in the relationship as it would instead be an issue of "mature" (hehehe, mature..funny) content in a group that isn't comfortable with it.

Avilan the Grey
2014-02-13, 09:25 AM
And had it been a straight couple, would you have described it as "love" instead of "lust"?

The way I read the situation, I sure would have. It seems to be much more about lust than love.

Kesnit
2014-02-13, 10:12 AM
the thing is (and I may be wrong I admit I skimmed the discussion a bit) we haven't seen a clarification that the paladin's player IS acting like that. I'm fairly sure (again could be completely wrong, skimmed, I'm lazy like that) that if it were a situation like scow's comments suggest that it wouldn't even qualify bringing up the genders of the characters in the relationship as it would instead be an issue of "mature" (hehehe, mature..funny) content in a group that isn't comfortable with it.

I've done more than just skim the discussion, and the impression I got is that the Paladin is acting more like a "teenager in love" than a horny adult in lust.

The OP said the Paladin is
Super protective, performing strange actions and well... Being awkward around him (like a bad teen movie), trying to ease impure thoughts through self flagellation.

Other than the self-flagellation, that sounds like typical "teenager in love." We don't know what "strange actions" the Paladin is performing. (Defending the Oracle in arguments? Trying to talk to the Oracle a lot? Slipping the Oracle love notes?) As for "being awkward," I can tell you that when I first asked my now-wife out (in my mid-30s), I was extremely sheepish and nervous because I didn't know how she would react.

The self-flagellation could be a sticking point. Or it could be something the Paladin mentioned once and never discussed again. Or maybe the Paladin told the DM "when my PC gets these 'impure thoughts,' he will go off alone for a bit and attempt to literally beat them down." (In other words, the player stated that the PC will do it semi-frequently, but never actually says the PC is doing it at any given moment.)

Scots Dragon
2014-02-13, 10:26 AM
GASP!!!!exclamation point! casual affection regardless of the genders involved is LESS sexual than actual intercourse? what witchcraft is this? next they'll tell me that water is wet or fire is hot or talking can be a form of communication!

Don't be foolish. Everyone knows that talking doesn't exist as a valid form of communication.

On topic, I'd need more information to make a proper judgement, but a good way to measure it is as such;

If the character is an offensive stereotype of gay people, then that is a problem in itself. If the character is well-played and well-handled, and the problem with that character from the others is the nature of the sexuality itself, then the problem is their homophobia far more than anything else at play here. If the character is well played and well handled, but the problem is not with the homosexuality as much as the discomfort with sexual references getting brought up in-game, then you need to perhaps think about addressing that point.

What it sounds like, though, is that the issue is mostly homophobia and bigotry. I'll tell you the ultimate solution to this when society finally has one, but it seems like the best solution is education.

MonochromeTiger
2014-02-13, 10:30 AM
Other than the self-flagellation, that sounds like typical "teenager in love." We don't know what "strange actions" the Paladin is performing. (Defending the Oracle in arguments? Trying to talk to the Oracle a lot? Slipping the Oracle love notes?)

have to agree that "awkward" and "slowly getting closer to forcing themselves on the oracle out of self induced frustration" are pretty far apart.


As for "being awkward," I can tell you that when I first asked my now-wife out (in my mid-30s), I was extremely sheepish and nervous because I didn't know how she would react.

there are other ways to be when starting a relationship with a person you like? years after I'm STILL less forward than my wife.



The self-flagellation could be a sticking point. Or it could be something the Paladin mentioned once and never discussed again. Or maybe the Paladin told the DM "when my PC gets these 'impure thoughts,' he will go off alone for a bit and attempt to literally beat them down." (In other words, the player stated that the PC will do it semi-frequently, but never actually says the PC is doing it at any given moment.)

self-flagellation to "remove impure thoughts" isn't exactly something sexual though.. it's sort of like pavlovian training to make yourself avoid thinking of it or even associating the thoughts with discomfort..heck it's mocked in a monty python movie in one of the first scenes and associated with fanatical behavior like certain sigmarites in warhammer fantasy.

Kitten Champion
2014-02-13, 11:03 AM
Self-flagellation and mortification of the flesh was part and parcel to zealous religious practitioners for millennia, it's an interesting choice to include it as a display of the inner conflict of the character.

If I were her DM though, I'd probably raise it as a point of contention between her PC and the Iomedaen faith as it was between the flagellants and the Catholic Church. Perhaps use an intervention by another, more experienced devout as a means of character development.

GrayGriffin
2014-02-13, 11:20 AM
That's a rather naive way to look at the problem. Pointing it out only serves a useful purpose if the acts and behaviors are consciously driven and doing so provides a way to deal with the problem if you don't have a way to deal with the problem then the best course of action is to ignore it. Stating why it's hurtful is only measuably useful when dealing with children that are still learning how to behave. The value of it significantly decreases with age once the individual has developed his unconscious mores and behaviors. If the behaviors are unconsciously driven then pointing it out has a much higher probability of creating feelings of resentment which is the exact opposite direction of the desired outcome because you're now attacking them for something you perceive to be a problem that they aren't aware of.

This is why the whole homophobia topic irritates me. It doesn't do any good for those that are consciously homophobic because they're indoctrinated and consciously agree with it. Doing so only reinforces that belief and incenses them even more. That it is good for those who are unconsciously homophobic is questionable at best and the outcome is so wildly unpredictable from good to bad that it's not worth pursuing.

Naive? Really? When I am told "hey, what you said is hurtful because xxx," guess what I do? I say "Oh, I am sorry, and I won't do it again." Bam! Communication and discussion! It's MAGIC!

(I apologize if I sound snippy, but I have had a discussion similar to this about characters of varying sexuality, which went badly.)

JusticeZero
2014-02-13, 11:30 AM
The three points that might be bothering the players that are not homophobic are here :
Paladin is
*beating themselves up literally
*while trying to court an NPC who
*we haven't actually been told is interested.

Two ways to deal with it are easy. Both involve closing out the busy part of the plot.
If the Oracle is not interested, then they will not ever be interested. In that case, they need to just shut down the interest directly. "I don't feel like that for you, I never will, stop creeping me out when I'm trying to flirt with the sorceress." Stick to it and have the Oracle treat more flirting as the abusive harassment it now is.
If the Oracle IS interested, then have a Church leader acknowledge and accept the relationship. "Quit beating yourself up, I can schedule a wedding in two months and it isn't proper to be harming yourself like that and dishonoring your fiance." This means that the Paladin no longer needs to spend a lot of time courting the Oracle, thus de-focusing that behavior.

Talderas
2014-02-13, 11:37 AM
Naive? Really? When I am told "hey, what you said is hurtful because xxx," guess what I do? I say "Oh, I am sorry, and I won't do it again." Bam! Communication and discussion! It's MAGIC!

Yes. Naive. Your response shows just that because you blatently disregarded the context. You're making the assumption that the behaviors and statements are either consciously driven or done so out of ignorance rather than unconsciously driven and deeply rooted. In the case of the latter you're not addressing the problem at all. You're only forcing the individual to undergo stress and axiety as conscious and unconscious urges contradict each other in order to assuage your own stress and anxiety.

Believing that you can just "sit and talk" about something and it magically solves the problems is a naive viewpoint.

MonochromeTiger
2014-02-13, 11:53 AM
Yes. Naive. Your response shows just that because you blatently disregarded the context. You're making the assumption that the behaviors and statements are either consciously driven or done so out of ignorance rather than unconsciously driven and deeply rooted. In the case of the latter you're not addressing the problem at all. You're only forcing the individual to undergo stress and axiety as conscious and unconscious urges contradict each other in order to assuage your own stress and anxiety.

it could be argued that your scenario and response to graygriffin's comment are defeatist, the context does little to change the options you get from the result. if the players are as you say consciously driven to their bias or holding it out of ignorance then discussing it might solve the problem completely, there is the chance of failure though.

if they are as you say unconsciously driven toward the bias and it is in fact a deeply rooted view you now know that to be the case, it opens a number of other options for you which, while not actively solving their own bias, will at least make you deal with it less.

option 1: tell them to get over it. yes, I just invoked the oft reviled "deal with it" approach to someone else's issues, but in the context I don't feel as though it's as horrible and emotionally devastating as people might think at first. in the context it's the equivalent of telling someone that if they don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all, as stated it doesn't make the problem go away as they still hold the bias but it does count as a warning towards spouting bigoted views in front of people who may find them offensive.

option 2: kick them out. again, a generally disliked approach but it is within the rights of the DM and players to refuse to play with individuals who will insult, mock, or otherwise disparage their views or how they play.

option 3: appeasement, an option I consider more of an admission of defeat than a solution.. if the issue truly is just the players' bias then telling another player "no, stop playing a character with that orientation" will (hopefully) make them stop whining but is also punishing the other player for not being similarly biased. as I said, not what I consider a solution.

Coidzor
2014-02-13, 11:59 AM
He is. That's how he rationalizes it to explain why. It's not an excuse as if it needs defending. He's just trying to understand himself.

Why on earth does he *need* to rationalize it or explain why? :smallconfused: Is he the first gay person ever or something?

GrayGriffin
2014-02-13, 12:00 PM
Yes. Naive. Your response shows just that because you blatently disregarded the context. You're making the assumption that the behaviors and statements are either consciously driven or done so out of ignorance rather than unconsciously driven and deeply rooted. In the case of the latter you're not addressing the problem at all. You're only forcing the individual to undergo stress and axiety as conscious and unconscious urges contradict each other in order to assuage your own stress and anxiety.

Believing that you can just "sit and talk" about something and it magically solves the problems is a naive viewpoint.

And meanwhile, queer people who have constantly been mistreated and potentially abused by straight people are told off for having a natural distrust for all straight people. How is that not something that's "unconsciously driven and deeply rooted"?

And I'd rather be called naive than a pessimist/defeatist.

Tengu_temp
2014-02-13, 12:05 PM
Since it wasn't mentioned yet: I wonder did the player get the idea of her character self-flagellating for "impure" thoughts from The Name of the Rose? That book (and movie) has a monk doing the same thing for exactly the same reason.
Of course that monk is described as handsome in the book, but in the movie he's a creepy bald guy. Good job Hollywood.


Again, that seems to deal with promiscuity. Also...it is male-specific (and, therefore, not universally applicable).


It's not just promiscuity! But yeah, this is a male-only character archetype.


Off topic: what is a Yaoi enthusiast? (suppose I could just google)

Someone who likes yaoi, aka male on male romance in manga or anime form. And by romance, it often means porn. Yaoi, just like western gay porn, has its own set of tropes (including many unfortunate implications), and is usually very disattached from reality in its portrayal of gay characters.

Scow2
2014-02-13, 12:18 PM
On the point of comfort around homosexual relationships, speaking as a Bisexual {Scrubbed}... Just because someone is uncomfortable with homosexual relationships doesn't mean they're a Homophobic Bigot (Though they may be Homophobic in the medical definition, as in "irrationally afraid/uncomfortable with homosexual relationships" - but expecting a human to be rational on such a fundamental level is... pretty damn bad) any more than being uncomfortable with the idea of eating a Foreign Queasine makes someone a Racist Bigot. Out of respect for that person's comfort (And stomach), it's probably not a good idea to include the 'offensive' (As in "Fish that has been left out three days" offensive, not "And he believes that 'all queers should die in a fire' offensive) material in a game... Then again, as someone who's had to internalize having a socially-unacceptable orientation (Because someone upstairs decided all humans should be ugly pigskinned clotheswearing watermonkey anthropods instead of beautiful fluffy feline anthropods) to the point I consider it normal and socially responsible behavior, I don't know whether my opinion is valid or not...

Coidzor
2014-02-13, 12:36 PM
It's at least part of the problem, at least the way the OP makes it sound, the other players expect "being gay" is enough of a reason for a Paladin to fall.

Not saying it's the only problem, obviously. But the OP explicitly said that the players probably wouldn't have a problem with the situation if the characters involved were of different genders, so how can orientation not be part of the problem?

I believe from what was specifically stated, there's some room for a reasonable doubt, and that their issue could be more generally with how the player is making her character act, and being gay is just the most visible/obvious facet of the character. Especially on the "making them straight" part, because the only examples of anything else seem to all have been simple wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am glossed over stuff. Potentially annoying, but very brief and ephemeral rather than a constant refrain or fixation.


But a gay person going on for several minutes every session about how much they're torn about their desire to bone another character IS more sexual than an once-every-three-sessions-at-most "Yay! Hot barmaids!"

Exactly. And if a character is "that guy" and keeps bringing up trying to do other characters, well, yeah, that's damned annoying. Also, probably would have been relevant to mention when the whole trying to pick up barmaids thing came up.


And if had been a straight person showing an interest in another, would you have described it as "desire to court" rather than "desire to bone"?

And had it been a straight couple, would you have described it as "love" instead of "lust"?

We don't know if it's requited. The character is beating himself in order to repress his desires. So if the issue is with defining it in puerile terms, the fault for that more likely lies either in the player's presentation or the DM's interpretation. Or possibly a mix of both. Though, yeah, we could just be playing the Telephone Game, but unlike the Telephone Game we're at least able to ask for clarification and compare our interpretations with one another.

Sounds like lust from what's been stated about the character's behavior though, or at least in their interpretation. Granted, I'm one of those biased people who is tired of all of the backlash against unrequited feelings because of Nice Guys(TM) and the hatred for them and even mentioning "the friend zone," and so I won't use the word love for something that's not reciprocated if I can avoid it.


the thing is (and I may be wrong I admit I skimmed the discussion a bit) we haven't seen a clarification that the paladin's player IS acting like that.

Yeah, we're mostly waiting for the OP to be able to type up their post that got deleted accidentally and have been speculating in the meantime, occasionally asking for more feedback or suggesting avenues for the DM to investigate in their line of questioning.


People are prone to responding to the strongest emotion that afflicts them at any given time. Believe me, that was one of the toughest things to overcome on my road to stoicism. Righteous indignation is one of the stronger ones out there so jumping on that bandwagon is pretty easy.

Considering I didn't jump to righteous indignation or onto any other bandwagon(unless being in the thread and actually responding to others' posts is a bandwagon now), just what are you trying to get up by bringing up your professed stoicism?

I must admit, I am especially lost as to where you're going with this, since I was reacting to your apparent presentation of the possibility that the player is trying to get into the DM's pants.

MonochromeTiger
2014-02-13, 12:38 PM
On the point of comfort around homosexual relationships, speaking as a Bisexual {Scrub the original, scrub the quote}... Just because someone is uncomfortable with homosexual relationships doesn't mean they're a Homophobic Bigot (Though they may be Homophobic in the medical definition, as in "irrationally afraid/uncomfortable with homosexual relationships" - but expecting a human to be rational on such a fundamental level is... pretty damn bad) any more than being uncomfortable with the idea of eating a Foreign Queasine makes someone a Racist Bigot. Out of respect for that person's comfort (And stomach), it's probably not a good idea to include the 'offensive' (As in "Fish that has been left out three days" offensive, not "And he believes that 'all queers should die in a fire' offensive) material in a game... Then again, as someone who's had to internalize having a socially-unacceptable orientation (Because someone upstairs decided all humans should be ugly pigskinned clotheswearing watermonkey anthropods instead of beautiful fluffy feline anthropods) to the point I consider it normal and socially responsible behavior, I don't know whether my opinion is valid or not...

if nothing else you have my wife's sympathy on both counts of your own case.

and I do agree that discomfort with the idea isn't quite the same as bigotry, what I take to be bigotry is that the players seem to want the paladin player to fall for their orientation and way of going about the potential relationship. I myself am the kind of colossal jerk who upon seeing that reaction would use DM fiat to send each person involved to a location involving each thing that makes them uncomfortable until they leave on their own (schadenfreude is such a fun thing) but I suspect that the creator of this thread is less likely to resort to passive (is it really passive at that point? I can never tell) aggressive ways of saying they disagree.

if it's just a matter of discomfort it shouldn't be such a drastic situation that they try to use the DM's power over the game as a way of shutting it down, they shouldn't go to the DM and say "you should make them fall" for something as simple as feeling a little awkward.

Socksy
2014-02-13, 01:01 PM
Hit the Paladin with a Belt of Gender Change temporarily and see how everyone reacts. You'll soon find out whether it was because of the level of romance or because of the nature of the romance.

Mr Beer
2014-02-13, 01:57 PM
The Name of the Rose? That book (and movie) has a monk doing the same thing for exactly the same reason.
Of course that monk is described as handsome in the book, but in the movie he's a creepy bald guy. Good job Hollywood.

I liked the way that there were like 3 good looking people in the entire movie - Sean Connery, the hero, the love interest - and everyone else was practically deformed.

Talderas
2014-02-13, 02:17 PM
it could be argued that your scenario and response to graygriffin's comment are defeatist, the context does little to change the options you get from the result. if the players are as you say consciously driven to their bias or holding it out of ignorance then discussing it might solve the problem completely, there is the chance of failure though.

Defeatist? Hardly. I just prefer to solve problems rather than appease one party or another with a bandaid and lollipop.


if they are as you say unconsciously driven toward the bias and it is in fact a deeply rooted view you now know that to be the case, it opens a number of other options for you which, while not actively solving their own bias, will at least make you deal with it less.

option 1:

option 2:

option 3:

Every single one of those options is appeasement and shortsighted. They grant concessions to one party in favor of another in order to attempt to avoid conflict. They are neither diplomatic nor compromising between parties. The problem with appeasement, as history has shown, it only delays the problem and never solves it because you favor one party over the other.

--


And meanwhile, queer people who have constantly been mistreated and potentially abused by straight people are told off for having a natural distrust for all straight people. How is that not something that's "unconsciously driven and deeply rooted"?

And I'd rather be called naive than a pessimist/defeatist.

If you believe my statements are defeatist then it just shows that you don't understand them at all. A defeatist accepts defeat. I do not accept that as an outcome and structure my actions towards achieving success. My advice to ignore this situation is indicative of that because I am aware that without knowing and understand why, failure is a very real and likely outcome in whatever you're attempting. I'm just not short sighted and expecting that the solution will have immediate positive results. I want to have information and improve a situation rather than half-assing it, rolling dice, and gambling that the situation that arises is better.

Despite the mistreatment homosexuals have received the flagrant misunderstanding of the human psyche by the majority of individuals is even worse. The desire is always to be aggressive and shut down the symptoms of the problem without ever addressing the root of it. It is not something to step into lightly or flippantly and that's basically the very suggestion I see most people bandying about.

--


Considering I didn't jump to righteous indignation or onto any other bandwagon(unless being in the thread and actually responding to others' posts is a bandwagon now), just what are you trying to get up by bringing up your professed stoicism?

I must admit, I am especially lost as to where you're going with this, since I was reacting to your apparent presentation of the possibility that the player is trying to get into the DM's pants.

I didn't accuse you of doing that. I was, briefly, explaining why it hadn't come up. People just aren't aware how easily and often their own emotions negatively influence them. The strong the emotion evoked the more things are missed. As soon as the potential for homophobia was smelled a feeding frenzy erupted and everything focused on that. It's pure cognitive bias and it happens more frequently the more militant, righteous, and strong the emotional effect becomes. It causes them to never consider or even see anything that might suggest a situation that is contrary to their own belief.

Tengu_temp
2014-02-13, 02:30 PM
I liked the way that there were like 3 good looking people in the entire movie - Sean Connery, the hero, the love interest - and everyone else was practically deformed.

Yup. No better way to show the corruption within the monastery. Subtle storytelling!

Sean Connery and the general atmosphere were good in that movie, but many of the changes they did in comparison to the book were just horrible. I understand cutting or changing things because of a different format, but that movie is a prime example of how not to do it. The most egregious example:
At the end of the movie, the evil cardinal dies as the peasant crowd suddenly has a change of heart for no reason and turns over his carriage. He simply leaves the monastery in the book.

That cardinal was a real life historical figure, who hasn't died until many years later after the story takes place.

MonochromeTiger
2014-02-13, 02:33 PM
Defeatist? Hardly. I just prefer to solve problems rather than appease one party or another with a bandaid and lollipop.

you have an odd view of solving problems if the only form of success you see is magically curing society as a whole of bias when it's beyond any one individual's abilities.



If you believe my statements are defeatist then it just shows that you don't understand them at all. A defeatist accepts defeat. I do not accept that as an outcome and structure my actions towards achieving success. My advice to ignore this situation is indicative of that because I am aware that without knowing and understand why, failure is a very real and likely outcome in whatever you're attempting. I'm just not short sighted and expecting that the solution will have immediate positive results. I want to have information and improve a situation rather than half-assing it, rolling dice, and gambling that the situation that arises is better.

you refuse to act because you feel that acting can only result in defeat, if you are presented with a problem and your solution is to do nothing you are accepting defeat with your inaction. but by all means continue to let the problem wave around in your face while you ignore it, bandaid and lollipop in hand.



Despite the mistreatment homosexuals have received the flagrant misunderstanding of the human psyche by the majority of individuals is even worse. The desire is always to be aggressive and shut down the symptoms of the problem without ever addressing the root of it. It is not something to step into lightly or flippantly and that's basically the very suggestion I see most people bandying about.

you feel as though misunderstanding of the human psyche is the worst thing here so you come to a thread where a DM is dealing with a potentially stressful situation and repeatedly attempt to shut down or insult any attempts to help them reach a conclusion that doesn't end in even worse stress, throwing out long responses filled to the brim with what I have to assume are attempts at eloquent and sophisticated choices in wording that amount to little more than "do nothing, you will fail no matter what". was there a point to the continued posts aside from saying that any advice other than "sit back and let it happen" is "naive" or "shortsighted"?

Cerlis
2014-02-13, 02:44 PM
Relevant poster I just made from Book of Exalted Deeds (the book of Super-Good)


http://imageshack.com/a/img545/5483/s96f.jpg

Icewraith
2014-02-13, 02:46 PM
Icewraith, I'd like to point out that there is a difference between having an identity as a homophobe, as a noun, and performing an act that happens to be homophobic. Everybody performs homophobic actions at times. I do, my girlfriend does, my friends and family do, well-known gay rights activists do. It's part of being human. That doesn't mean that when a given action happens to be homophobic, you shouldn't point out why it is hurtful, especially since people generally don't want to hurt others by accident.

I do not believe that being uncomfortable with homosexuality gives people an identity as an homophobe, that's really only reserved for people actively and intentionally working to harm gay people, but it does mean that you're influenced by homophobic concepts you haven't addressed. And they should be addressed given that getting all awkward around gay people is quite hurtful to them, even if you have nothing but the best intentions.

It's also distinct from being awkward about any major expression of sexuality in general. I'm personally very awkward of any displays of affection greater than a hug, regardless of the genders of the people involved, but that isn't being uncomfortable with homosexuality, but with being uncomfortable with displays of affection around you.

I hope that helped clear up my intentions with my words.

And Mr. Mask, tolerance does not mean blindly accepting everything as equally valid, it means believing that people are not only individuals in their own right with motives you should understand even when they cause harm, not that you have to accept any harmful belief anybody might have. Like how some people believe that getting rid of a business rival justifies killing them, that's a pretty harmful view that just about every society that has had enough commercialization for people to have business rivals bans. Dealing in absolutes and pure binaries tend to lead to ludicrous positions, like how either you need to tolerate people who believe humanity will find salvation through ritualistic sacrifice of babies, or you cannot ever find value in trying to accommodate other views.

I sort of see where you're coming from, but "homophobic act" is not the right term for what you're talking about.

My sister-in-law is arachnophobic. If there's a spider in the house she experiences significant emotional distress and has to find someone else to go kill the spider. If nobody else is around she will usually barricade the room or avoid it until someone else can check it out. That's a phobia.

When I lived in that house, every few weeks I would patrol the backyard with a can of insecticide, closed-toes shoes, and a flashlight, and exterminate any widow spiders I came across. I don't hate or fear those things, but they can be dangerous, they make the patio furniture unusable, and we have a dog that has on at least two occasions decided that wasps look absolutely delicious and ended up at the vet. But just because I'm regularly killing spiders, those aren't "arachnophobic acts". I will probably experience a negative (and severe in this instance) biological reaction if the spider and I are in close proximity under certain common conditions (and so, at least from the spider's perspective, my response is pretty severe). Please do not extend the actions in this metaphor to homophobia, I'm just trying to establish the severity and type of response in a ______phobic act vs an act not motivated by ______phobia.

Someone feeling slight unease or mild dislike when exposed to content likely to trigger the human attraction response is getting "we're not into that" or "now is not the time" or both from their body. That is not a phobia. Desiring a removal or reduction in the source of the negative response is also not a phobia ("we usually just skip a couple hours and roll a d20 when the roleplay gets to this point, can we go back to fighting monsters? It's kind of awkward" is a good example) as long as it's proportional.

"Either they leave or I leave" when the prospect of a gay character is introduced to the table at all is probably a good example of a disproportionate response and something that qualifies as a "homophobic act".

The following metaphor applies to almost any situation where one person's favored style of roleplay is different in a significant way from everyone else's, but that person still wishes to participate in the group.

Say you've got a potluck, and you absolutely love mushrooms, and you know for a fact that everyone else at the potluck dislikes mushrooms. The whole point of the potluck is the shared food experience, so bringing something that only you are likely to eat and enjoy is counterproductive (unless you have a severe food allergy, which is a completely different case).

What you CAN do in this situation if you feel you must bring a dish with mushrooms, is limit the amount of mushroom to the point that other people are willing to try your dish without completely losing the mushrooms as an ingredient. You can chop the mushrooms up really fine and make it so the flavor is supporting and enhancing some other flavor you know the group enjoys, or you can throw in a couple big mushrooms that other people can easily find, pick out, and avoid if it's a texture thing. The group may never get to the point where they're willing to try your "death by mushroom" dish, but they will usually grow more accustomed to the presence of mushrooms and more accepting of heavier mushroom dishes.

In the present case, the other players are reacting a bit strongly to the presence of mushroom, but the mushroom player is overcooking her dish and possibly adding other, stronger ingredients that the group also doesn't like.

The Oni
2014-02-13, 02:53 PM
@ Cerlis: The obvious solution is to convert them both to Paladins of Shelyn. Twinned +10 Charisma mod Smite Evil? Yes please.

Terraoblivion
2014-02-13, 02:53 PM
That part about fading to black is about sex, romance and flirting in general and the genders of the characters involved are irrelevant. The rest is saying that being uncomfortable with the concept of gay characters in general is valid and harmless, which is in fact a homophobic position to take. It is to demand erasure and to say that being uncomfortable with a large percentage of the population is okay. Imagine if these people were uncomfortable about, say, people from New Jersey or construction workers and would prefer not to deal with that, do you really think that would be either a reasonable or non-offensive position to take?

MonochromeTiger
2014-02-13, 03:08 PM
@ Cerlis: The obvious solution is to convert them both to Paladins of Shelyn. Twinned +10 Charisma mod Smite Evil? Yes please.

do they get an inspiration bonus for sounding adorable shouting smite evil in unison?

Cerlis
2014-02-13, 03:17 PM
Since it wasn't mentioned yet: I wonder did the player get the idea of her character self-flagellating for "impure" thoughts from The Name of the Rose? That book (and movie) has a monk doing the same thing for exactly the same reason.
Of course that monk is described as handsome in the book, but in the movie he's a creepy bald guy. Good job Hollywood.



It's not just promiscuity! But yeah, this is a male-only character archetype.



Someone who likes yaoi, aka male on male romance in manga or anime form. And by romance, it often means porn. Yaoi, just like western gay porn, has its own set of tropes (including many unfortunate implications), and is usually very disattached from reality in its portrayal of gay characters.

"Often means porn" in the same sense that Humans are often Black Buddist furries.

With 7 billion people in the world something so rare can result in thousands of people if not more.

Most Yaoi i see in eastern animation is very very tame usually at "worst" getting someone to faint or freakout over an Almost-Kiss.

I'm sure there are tons or pornographic cases one has to seek out. Which is probably easy to do. Just like how western live action Porn is easy to seek out. And has nothing to do with Western Romance (necessarily speaking)

Incanur
2014-02-13, 03:20 PM
The character described in the original post would have fit in rather well with my old playgroup. (We still get together once a year.) Romance and sexual encounters (never graphic or extended, involving various genders) were rarely a main focus but came up periodically in the campaigns I've run. Geas/quest - gay ass slash quest - remains a recurring joke among us.

Felhammer
2014-02-13, 03:22 PM
This kind of is the first group where I'm the DM and I'm with a big problem because my best friend decided to play as a Iomedae male paladin... But since she is a fanfic writer and a Yaoi enthusiast she is making him have feelings for the young blind oracle they were called to escort, he is kind of a male version of "Vasilisa the Wise".

All the other players feel very unconfortable with this behavior and they think it is inappropriate for a paladin but besides that she is as zealot as she can be...

So they kind of all asked me(in private) to make her fall from grace because of it... And I'm kind of in a thought situation since she is killing demons and fighting evil non stop... And I don't think it is forbidden for paladins to love or have sex.... It is just that I don't know how to explain that in a convincing way.

Any ideas?

Here's the best solution: Have the players show you the fluff that says Iomedae dislikes/hates homosexuals.

They won't find it.

Then the issue becomes - do paladins forsake courtly love upon taking their oaths? Unless she is joining a well known order, the exact nature of a Paladin's oath is hashed out between the DM and the player. No one else has a say in it (just as you would assume the paladin's character would not have a say in the background fluff for the wizard character).

There's really no argument to be made against gay characters in a fantasy world (unless the world specifically calls out laws against homosexuality). It should be a non-issue, just like how gender equality is a non-issue.

Your paladin is worshiping a goddess who, when she was a mortal, led the Knights of Ozem, who are some of the most famous knights in the world.

If gender is a non-issue, so should sexual orientation.

Ceiling_Squid
2014-02-13, 03:22 PM
Awesome poster.

Yeah, but...but...they're still evil. :smallconfused:

Sparing their lives just because of their "progressive" love is discriminatory against normal incubi/succubi hetero relationships, who don't get such easy sympathy! Positive discrimination is still discrimination. I believe in equal opportunity smiting!

Tengu_temp
2014-02-13, 03:28 PM
Most Yaoi i see in eastern animation is very very tame usually at "worst" getting someone to faint or freakout over an Almost-Kiss.

You're talking about anime. Yaoi, like most Japanese female-oriented genres, is massively manga-focused. And there's much more pornographic manga than anime in general, especially if you count doujinshi.

At some point, the western anime and manga fandom created a distinction between yaoi/yuri and shounen-ai/shoujo-ai, to differentiate between pornographic works (male gay and lesbian, respectively) and ones that have only romance but no pornographic content, but this is purely an unofficial western distinction, and not a Japanese one. Also I forgot which one is which.

GPuzzle
2014-02-13, 03:29 PM
What part of "young and blind" do you guys not get?
I mean, if the gay Paladin was well played (and he might as well be), he still would squick out the other players dating the blind young Oracle.
Heck, even if the Oracle was female it would squick out the other players!

MonochromeTiger
2014-02-13, 03:30 PM
Yeah, but...but...they're still evil. :smallconfused:

Sparing their lives just because of their "progressive" love is discriminatory against normal incubi/succubi hetero relationships, who don't get such easy sympathy! Positive discrimination is still discrimination. I believe in equal opportunity smiting!

true, if you're going to spare someone horrible screaming death because they're in love suddenly everything you want to kill will start dating, in fact maybe that's why half dragons, tieflings, and aasimars are so common... you know what I can no longer complain about smiting loving couples being a jerk move for paladins.

Coidzor
2014-02-13, 03:32 PM
You're talking about anime. Yaoi, like most Japanese female-oriented genres, is massively manga-focused. And there's much more pornographic manga than anime in general, especially if you count doujinshi.

At some point, the western anime and manga fandom created a distinction between yaoi/yuri and shounen-ai/shoujo-ai, to differentiate between pornographic works (male gay and lesbian, respectively) and ones that have only romance but no pornographic content, but this is purely an unofficial western distinction, and not a Japanese one. Also I forgot which one is which.

Shounen = male Shoujo = female. Bishounen - beautiful male or something along those lines. Bishoujo - beautiful female or something along those lines.

Might imply something along the lines of boy & girl vs. men & women though, I can't recall well enough to say one way or the other, but I recall that shounen works are geared towards a younger male audience than... uhh... seinen(?) works. At least, I think seinen was an older male audience... It might be the older female audience....

Tengu_temp
2014-02-13, 03:32 PM
What part of "young and blind" do you guys not get?
I mean, if the gay Paladin was well played (and he might as well be), he still would squick out the other players dating the blind young Oracle.
Heck, even if the Oracle was female it would squick out the other players!

The paladin is also young. He's 19, the oracle is 18.

Terraoblivion
2014-02-13, 03:32 PM
Most Yaoi i see in eastern animation is very very tame usually at "worst" getting someone to faint or freakout over an Almost-Kiss.

That's probably because you're looking at anime to learn about a genre mostly found in manga. Really, both BL and yuri cannot be understood as genres by people who haven't looked at the manga where they are predominant. And most BL is sexual and much of it is explicit. It also tends to enforce exaggerated heteronormative expectations on gay male relationships. Both are pretty easy to learn about and have gathered some academic attention.

Also, just as a piece of advice to western nerds. Never use the terms shounen-ai and shoujo-ai, they refer to pedophilia in Japanese. The terms are BL and yuri regardless of how explicit a given work is.

Coidzor
2014-02-13, 03:33 PM
The paladin is also young. He's 19, the oracle is 18.

Young being relative. I mean, if they're both human they've been adults for near half a decade!

Tengu_temp
2014-02-13, 03:34 PM
Shounen = male Shoujo = female. Bishounen - beautiful male or something along those lines. Bishoujo - beautiful female or something along those lines.


No, I know this. I'm saying I forgot is yaoi pornographic and shounen-ai clean, or the opposite.

I tend to call all manga and anime that focuses on gay/lesbian romance yaoi/ yuri anyway, clean or not.

Terraoblivion
2014-02-13, 03:37 PM
Yaoi and yuri have been used for porn in a western context, shouen-ai an shoujo-ai for chaste works. And like I said above, those latter two terms are liable to cause offense and confusion if used around Japanese people.

Tengu_temp
2014-02-13, 03:41 PM
Also, just as a piece of advice to western nerds. Never use the terms shounen-ai and shoujo-ai, they refer to pedophilia in Japanese. The terms are BL and yuri regardless of how explicit a given work is.

Oh boy. Talk about unintentionally appropriating very unfortunate terminology from another language due to not fully understanding its nuances.

Language is a fascinating and terrifying thing sometimes.

Knaight
2014-02-13, 03:46 PM
What part of "young and blind" do you guys not get?
I mean, if the gay Paladin was well played (and he might as well be), he still would squick out the other players dating the blind young Oracle.
Heck, even if the Oracle was female it would squick out the other players!

18 and 19 is not some sort of titanic age gap. As for blindness, it's completely irrelevant.

Tengu_temp
2014-02-13, 03:50 PM
When in doubt (http://xkcd.com/314/) (second panel).

MonochromeTiger
2014-02-13, 03:53 PM
18 and 19 is not some sort of titanic age gap. As for blindness, it's completely irrelevant.

it is a little confusing how that keeps getting brought up as making a relationship seem creepy.. I mean maybe if they have the odd view that you need to be over 25 to express love or be the target of someone's affections.. or perhaps they have a standing belief that it doesn't count as consent if you can't visually tell if the other person looks attractive.. my friend will be crushed when I tell him that the internet says his marriage is a sham because he started dating his wife at 19 and is medically unable to see.

The Oni
2014-02-13, 03:58 PM
do they get an inspiration bonus for sounding adorable shouting smite evil in unison?

Yes. Yes they do.

Coidzor
2014-02-13, 04:05 PM
it is a little confusing how that keeps getting brought up as making a relationship seem creepy.. I mean maybe if they have the odd view that you need to be over 25 to express love or be the target of someone's affections.. or perhaps they have a standing belief that it doesn't count as consent if you can't visually tell if the other person looks attractive.. my friend will be crushed when I tell him that the internet says his marriage is a sham because he started dating his wife at 19 and is medically unable to see.

I think it's a misunderstanding of some of the tone and the use of the word young, so they think it's an adult and a might-as-well-be-a-child. Maybe the specific blind character(Valirius?) that was mentioned as being the basis/inspiration/closest fit to explain the character.

Mr Beer
2014-02-13, 04:12 PM
It's difficult to say for sure but it really sounds like they just have a problem with gays, at least to some extent. They sound like the type of people that claim to be "OK with gays but don't like the way that they shove their lifestyle down your throat these days".

I would probably tell them the god has no issues with gays, mention that their characters are cool with openly hitting on barmaids and tell them to suck it up.

Tengu_temp
2014-02-13, 04:15 PM
The OP said she has an update on the situation incoming. I'm waiting to see what it is and just faffing around with side topics in the meantime.

Icewraith
2014-02-13, 04:16 PM
That part about fading to black is about sex, romance and flirting in general and the genders of the characters involved are irrelevant. The rest is saying that being uncomfortable with the concept of gay characters in general is valid and harmless, which is in fact a homophobic position to take. It is to demand erasure and to say that being uncomfortable with a large percentage of the population is okay. Imagine if these people were uncomfortable about, say, people from New Jersey or construction workers and would prefer not to deal with that, do you really think that would be either a reasonable or non-offensive position to take?

I picked the words I did very carefully in an attempt to avoid this exact response. Here is what I said.



Someone feeling slight unease or mild dislike when exposed to content likely to trigger the human attraction response is getting "we're not into that" or "now is not the time" or both from their body.


The part about skipping the romance stuff is absolutely valid because up until now, according to clarifications by the OP, that's what this group has done. This isn't just a gay character, it's a self flagellating angsty yaoi romance paladin played by a female in mixed company where nobody else is into yaoi and nobody has roleplayed any sort of romance lasting longer than "two hours later you leave the brothel". I consider the possiblilty, given the circumstances, that the rest of the group's biological attraction responses (mostly) hard-coded into their neurology are throwing error messages valid and preferable compared to the assertion that the group is just being homophobic.

With exceptions related to public safety, people shouldn't be ashamed of passive biological attitudes they apparently have no control over. I'm talking about "gut feeling". If for some reason I'm inherently uncomfortable around construction workers from new jersey, or perhaps the subject of construction work in new jersey, that feeling is probably in part being generated by the same wiring that determines why I'm attracted to one, both, or niether genders, and what physical characteristics I find attractive or unattractive, if any. If I feel I shouldn't have an inherent dislike of new jersey construction workers I can try to change that or at least act like how I think a person who doesn't have the inherent dislike would act, but there's no guarantee I can change anything since I don't have direct access to the wiring causing the issue. Feelings are not required to be reasonable or rational. Nobody should be offended by how someone else feels- you can certainly be offended by how someone acts, but not how they feel.

Where people go wrong is "I strongly dislike or fear _____ people, they don't deserve to be treated like fellow human beings and I don't want them on the same planet, country, state, zip code, or failing that at least social circle as me." THAT is ______phobia.

Ceiling_Squid
2014-02-13, 04:21 PM
It's difficult to say for sure but it really sounds like they just have a problem with gays, at least to some extent. They sound like the type of people that claim to be "OK with gays but don't like the way that they shove their lifestyle down your throat these days".

I would probably tell them the god has no issues with gays, mention that their characters are cool with openly hitting on barmaids and tell them to suck it up.

To be entirely fair, though, there's a bit of a difference between devoting chunks of every session to agonize over a recurring NPC in a very teen-love-drama way, and the occasional quickly-over-and-moving-on-now flirt with a barmaid every few sessions.

One tends to hog the spotlight more than the other. And this isn't even factoring in the actual gender of the people involved.

Terraoblivion
2014-02-13, 04:21 PM
What does their attraction have to do with anything? I'm not the slightest bit into guys, but that doesn't mean I feel uncomfortable around straight romance. See, being uncomfortable because the specific romance is far more in-depth and explicit than before is perfectly reasonable, but you keep dragging gut-level discomfort with gay people into it as if the two are somehow related. Immediate discomfort with gay people is a learned behavior and not a natural product of heterosexuality, all my straight friends and family lack it and I have yet to hear about a gay person feeling the same way about straight people. All you're really saying is that people's right to be uncomfortable about gay people needs to be respected more than gay people's right to be treated like anybody else.

Edit: And if you're talking about a phobia in the clinical sense, the solution is not to remove gay people, but rather for the person in question to get treatment for the phobia and to explain the situation and personally avoiding gay people.

2014-02-13, 04:29 PM
Hey guys... Wow that is a lot of stuff to read.

Okay so yesterday we got together to play and at first I considered to address the elephant in the room but everyone was so eager to play I decided to do it after the game.

The game went well with a lot of action and development until after the fight the paladin player said she was going to use lay on hand to heal the oracle since he was hurt in the battle and they should protect him (but we have a cleric in the group).

After she said that the level of tasion increased, and I had to stop the game and tell her that the way she was RP her character was making the other players uncomfortable and I asked the reason for this so we could solve it and move on.

One said the reason was his religion, it preaches that being gay is wrong and he believes it is wrong.

The others however raised a more troubling issue, they said that a member of the group is having problems regarding this issue because his family discovered that his brother is gay and his father decided to divorce, and since we use the game to escape from the real world problems she was ruining everything!

But he said that he had no problems about that and that the comments about how a gay guy should fall from grace were much more offensive to his brother and therefore him than the way she was Roleplaying. He just think it is weird for a paladin to love something else other then his faith and deity.

She defends herself arguing that this was a out of the confort zone group created so we could do stuff we did not do with frequency(it is true stuff such as me as DM, she never played as a male character and all the others were using classes they don't use very often) all she was trying to do was following the group's goal.

So first we considered to ban all sexual RP... But sicne we all really like Freud, grey fantasy(not black and white) and A song of ice and fire, we decided that sex is a imporant thing and should no be ignored.

Then after a long talk about ancient greece and bonobos(Pan paniscus) we arrived at an agreement that the part that bothers us most in a same sex relationship
between men is the focus on sodomy.

So her paladin could continue with the desires if they did not involved sodomy.

But she decided that the paladin could never take the oracle purity and that while he had the purity of mind that allow him to ride on a unicorn (it's a metaphor) she would keep her distance and her thoughts under control.

So in the end after all the drama it was late and we did not had more time for the game ... but we had a very nice conversation about biology, history and homosexuality.

Thanks again for all the suport in this group drama. I will read all the comments now.

Scow2
2014-02-13, 04:33 PM
What does their attraction have to do with anything? I'm not the slightest bit into guys, but that doesn't mean I feel uncomfortable around straight romance. See, being uncomfortable because the specific romance is far more in-depth and explicit than before is perfectly reasonable, but you keep dragging gut-level discomfort with gay people into it as if the two are somehow related. Immediate discomfort with gay people is a learned behavior and not a natural product of heterosexuality, all my straight friends and family lack it and I have yet to hear about a gay person feeling the same way about straight people. All you're really saying is that people's right to be uncomfortable about gay people needs to be respected more than gay people's right to be treated like anybody else.You say it's learned... I disagree. Homosexuality, while natural, is still aberrant (Less than 30% of the population... though that's still a LOT of people), and it sends "This squicks me out" messages. You can wish that people treated them like any other relationship... but honestly, the best you can hope for is people to respect their rights as people despite them coming across as "Way out there" on preferences.

Tengu_temp
2014-02-13, 04:37 PM
One said the reason was his religion, it preaches that being gay is wrong and he believes it is wrong.


Hoo boy. Not even gonna touch that one.

MonochromeTiger
2014-02-13, 04:38 PM
Hoo boy. Not even gonna touch that one.

I'm not sure we even CAN without breaking forum rules.

GPuzzle
2014-02-13, 04:40 PM
Everytime someone pokes at religion in the Internet, something goes wrong.

Most of the time, REALLY wrong.

Tengu_temp
2014-02-13, 04:41 PM
Actually, I will. In a way that has nothing to do with religion.

That guy's wrong. It doesn't matter if someone's reasons are religious, political, personal or whatever; "being gay is wrong" is wrong.

2014-02-13, 04:45 PM
Actually, I will. In a way that has nothing to do with religion.

That guy's wrong. It doesn't matter if someone's reasons are religious, political, personal or whatever; "being gay is wrong" is wrong.

Well he is a history student and admitted that it's all a cultural thing.

But we kind of can't blame him he comes from a very small town and never saw a real gay person.

Haldir
2014-02-13, 04:47 PM
An easy, but unrealistic, way to solve this problem is to just make every NPC straight. Not the most inoffensive solution, but it'll work.

By no means make the Paladin fall.

Jerk DM Advice: Offer the other players roleplay EXP for contacting a sympathetic person that has the power to punish the Paladin, AND the Oracle. Give the Oracle plot-relevant information, so the party has to rescue him. Try to highlight the ethical ramifications of discrimination. Your players actions immediately lead to an innocent being kidnapped and punished (the plot critical info just ensures they have to take the bait).

Tengu_temp
2014-02-13, 04:47 PM
Well, hope he will learn to know better in time then.

It seems you managed to reach some kind of agreement eventully. Hopefully the group will manage to avoid any further drama in the future.

Eulalios
2014-02-13, 04:57 PM
Quoth James Jacob on the subject of whether it's necessary/appropriate to include characters of non heterosexuality

I went and read the thread in which he made that statement.

I agree entirely with Paizo's approach to this topic; I agree that OP's friend should be free to play her paladin as she wishes; I regret that forum rules don't permit me to state the basis for my opinion.

Tragak
2014-02-13, 04:59 PM
and it sends "This squicks me out" messages. You can wish that people treated them like any other relationship... but honestly, the best you can hope for is people to respect their rights as people despite them coming across as "Way out there" on preferences. I am asexual. If I said exactly the same thing about heterosexuals, I imagine that you would get mad at me for treating you as "squicky." Am I wrong?

Terraoblivion
2014-02-13, 05:11 PM
You say it's learned... I disagree. Homosexuality, while natural, is still aberrant (Less than 30% of the population... though that's still a LOT of people), and it sends "This squicks me out" messages. You can wish that people treated them like any other relationship... but honestly, the best you can hope for is people to respect their rights as people despite them coming across as "Way out there" on preferences.

Given how strongly reactions vary by variables such as race, gender, class, religion, age, nationality, local community, education, views on fiscal politics, taste in music and probably a whole host of others I can't really think about, ranging from essentially nothing at all to absolute revulsion to blank incomprehension I'd say that evidence is on the side of it being a learned, cultural behavior.