What to Watch Out for in Your Players [Archive] - Page 2

Mr Beer

2018-07-01, 11:27 PM

See I don't really have much sympathy for homophobes' precious feelings being hurt by interacting with openly gay people. I can't really think of anything specific I'd feel comfortable censoring from a gay player bar sex stuff which quite frankly I'd want to censor with my current players anyway because I really don't need to be picturing them getting nasty.

But I may be OK with a homophobe sitting at the table if they're not making homophobic remarks. It's happened before anyway, I played this game for like 30+ years and homophobia used to be pretty mainstream acceptable.

EDIT

I mean people can have a 'no gays' policy if they like, everyone is entitled to have wrong opinions. It sounds like a group I wouldn't want to join but then I wouldn't want to be in a group where everyone is 16 to 18 either.

Kalashak

2018-07-01, 11:36 PM

I can not imagine wanting to interact with, let alone game with, a person who pretends to be physically ill at the sight of openly gay people. That's such a ridiculous concept.

Elanasaurus

2018-07-01, 11:51 PM

I can not imagine wanting to interact with, let alone game with, a person who pretends to be physically ill at the sight of openly gay people. That's such a ridiculous concept.How would you know they're pretending? Maybe they really are that homophobic. I mean, I've literally fainted just by looking at blood, because I'm just that squeamish about it. Doesn't mean that reaction can't be unlearned, of course.
:elan:

Delta

2018-07-02, 01:29 AM

How would you know they're pretending? Maybe they really are that homophobic.

I don't think that would make me any more willing to suffer these people at my (or any) gaming table.

Floret

2018-07-02, 02:46 AM

See, they equate "sexual preference" to gender, race and other inherent traits that "cannot be controlled" and as such should be overlooked by everyone equally.

Some of those fears and beliefs may be unfounded, but they are held nontheless. Whether it is fully inherent in a person's genetic code or whether being gay is a learned or chosen behavior is hotly contested by both sides, so "right to exist" in this instance is "right for me to be gay and express it openly in any and all forums." In this case it is at the D&D table.

That is actually not the position of all advocates of the freedom of expression for gay people (also, sadly, even what gender being inherent means is being contested...)

Cause while I do believe that I'm choosing expressing my feelings freely, and not choosing what those are, whether I was born this way or I learned it ultimately is a red herring. What matters should be - am I hurting people with this choice?

And the answer is, quite evidently, no. So any question on forbidding it will be the question of forbidding an ultimately harmless form of expression, on the basis of some peoples religion, in a world where we supposedly value individuality or freedom of religion.

I cannot in good conscience consider any of that an even remotely acceptable infringement on my freedom of expression as a person.

And just because people hold a genuine fear doesn't give them any right to be catered to. Phobias are genuinely held fears, too, but if I went around trying to forbid beer (or drinking beer in public), I'd still be an idiot. Even though the stuff makes me physically sick and panick from smelling (No I don't know how I survive Germany). That reasoning is ridiculous. Or as Dara O'Brien once said "Fear of zombies could be incredibly high, doesn't mean we should make politics according to it".

Beyond that all of those fears are fully unfounded, and do not survive critical examination let alone testing.

Kalashak

2018-07-02, 02:48 AM

How would you know they're pretending? Maybe they really are that homophobic. I mean, I've literally fainted just by looking at blood, because I'm just that squeamish about it. Doesn't mean that reaction can't be unlearned, of course.
:elan:
Because the alternative is even more ridiculous for me to consider. I come from a religiously conservative background in the rural South and the idea of a person literally becoming physically ill over gay people is still ludicrous to me, it's like something out a bad comedy.
A player who actually was that squeamish would definitely be something to watch out for, because who knows what else would make them ill and I don't want players to throw on my things.

Delta

2018-07-02, 03:15 AM

War_lord

2018-07-02, 04:30 AM

If someone has a phobia of something, be it spiders, water, beer, dogs, children, men, women, social interaction, gay people, transgender people or anything else. The absolute worst thing to do, either as a sufferer yourself or as someone dealing with someone suffering from a phobia, is to indulge that irrational fear. Because if you do the your brain gets more and more used to reacting to the triggering situation irrationally. If someone has recognized that their phobia is irrational and is trying to get over it by exposure, I'd accommodate them. But I'm not going to tiptoe around a fear they refuse to face, I'm not their shrink. I don't have to listen to mad ranting about how being gay is a choice when that's clearly untrue. Incidentally, if you're a homophobe who thinks they could choose to be gay or that a straight person could be "converted" to homosexuality, that probably means you have some homosexual tendencies you're refusing to examine, which would explain where your fear comes from.

There's also the issue of how people incorrectly or dishonestly identifying themselves as gay would be a problem outside of the bigot's assumption that there's something inherently bad or wrong about homosexuality. Once you drop that assumption it really stops being a meaningful concern. And no "religious texts say" is irrelevant. People who put faith in religious texts can't even agree on which texts are real and what they really say, never mind the growing number of people who assert that all religious texts are equally bunk. The principle of secularism holds that governments have to represent all the citizens of their country, not just the beliefs of a given sect.

Calthropstu

2018-07-02, 05:20 AM

Okay, to play devil's advocate here: If someone really came to me and said "I can't help it! I don't have anything against gay people but even the thought of encountering someone I know is gay makes me physically ill, scream and trying to run away! I know it's highly irrational, I've been seeing a therapist about it and taking medication" or something like that, okay, I guess I could personally accept that and ask everyone around the table if they were okay to accomodate that person.

But that's not what we're talking about here, is it? We're talking about "I don't accept gay people so I don't want to encounter any in gaming", and no, I still from the bottom of my heart do not feel this is something any table should have to accomodate or make any compromises for. And yes, this goes for other things too, if someone told me "I don't want to encounter any characters who are in any way religious in the game!", yeah, sorry, that's not a reasonable request to make.

The religious people I run for actually wanted to change the religious system to "the one true god." And thought it would be perfectly fine.

When I explained the alignment system and the fact that the game had very little basis in reality, they aqcuiesed, but based on the conversation we had, it is definitely understandable how a group of people could have what some would consider unreasonable requests and feel it entirely reasonable.

Also, as far as it not harming anyone, that may not be true. True, gay men aren't really an issue at all as we could wipe out 90% of the male population and still have a similar sized next generation. But lesbians are a different matter.

Since two women cannot form a child together, the next generation is diminished for every lesbian. Yes, there is in vitro, but the process is expensive, wasteful and cannot be done in the numbers required. They could "take the hit" and allow themselves to be impregnated, but I doubt many do that.

Adoptions are a limited resource, and as gay populations rise, that option will quickly dissipate.

Attacking that thesis from multiple angles, we eventually reach areas we can't rightly predict however. What of over population for example? Also, there are much simpler solutions if there is ever a negative population growth crisis. Much lower hanging fruit can be plucked before gays become an issue... such as regulating birth control more or removing condoms from shelves or banning abortions... all of which are separate issues.

But my point is, the odds of a rising gay population causing harm to society are not zero. There's a maximum population percentage that gays can be... but there is no way to tell what that is, no way to tell what measures would be taken if that is ever breached or if it could ever even BE reached.

So there IS basis for "homophobia." But, with world overpopulation being an issue, it isn't a discussion we need to seriously consider for probably the next several hundred years unless there's some apocalyptic scenario in which reproduction becomes an absolute necessity.

So... eh? Like I said, I keep an open mind and view things from thousands of different angles. I enjoy it.

Delta

2018-07-02, 05:38 AM

So there IS basis for "homophobia."

No, there really isn't. You even point out yourself that the strawman you built up there is just that, a strawman with no basis in reality, so that's not worth discussing.

So to get back on the topic: What on earth does all this have to do with the question at hand? Even IF that was your "rationale" for being a homophobe, how would this in any way or form legitimize not wanting to encounter gays or lesbians in game? Especially since this "rational homophobia" wouldn't even apply to the game world, which is obviously fictional so me as the GM simply saying "There are not enough lesbians in this world to endanger the survival of the human race" would both qualify for one of the weirdest sentences I'd ever have to say about a campaign world and completely assuage your "rational homophobia" as far as the game is concerned, wouldn't it?

War_lord

2018-07-02, 05:56 AM

The religious people I run for actually wanted to change the religious system to "the one true god." And thought it would be perfectly fine.

When I explained the alignment system and the fact that the game had very little basis in reality, they aqcuiesed, but based on the conversation we had, it is definitely understandable how a group of people could have what some would consider unreasonable requests and feel it entirely reasonable.

Also, as far as it not harming anyone, that may not be true. True, gay men aren't really an issue at all as we could wipe out 90% of the male population and still have a similar sized next generation. But lesbians are a different matter.

Since two women cannot form a child together, the next generation is diminished for every lesbian. Yes, there is in vitro, but the process is expensive, wasteful and cannot be done in the numbers required. They could "take the hit" and allow themselves to be impregnated, but I doubt many do that.

Adoptions are a limited resource, and as gay populations rise, that option will quickly dissipate.

Attacking that thesis from multiple angles, we eventually reach areas we can't rightly predict however. What of over population for example? Also, there are much simpler solutions if there is ever a negative population growth crisis. Much lower hanging fruit can be plucked before gays become an issue... such as regulating birth control more or removing condoms from shelves or banning abortions... all of which are separate issues.

But my point is, the odds of a rising gay population causing harm to society are not zero. There's a maximum population percentage that gays can be... but there is no way to tell what that is, no way to tell what measures would be taken if that is ever breached or if it could ever even BE reached.

So there IS basis for "homophobia." But, with world overpopulation being an issue, it isn't a discussion we need to seriously consider for probably the next several hundred years unless there's some apocalyptic scenario in which reproduction becomes an absolute necessity.

So... eh? Like I said, I keep an open mind and view things from thousands of different angles. I enjoy it.

That's bs for several reasons. Negative population growth wouldn't constituent a crisis unless it happened globally at an extreme rate. That people choose not to, or are unable to have kids for a variety of reasons that don't have anything to do with their sexuality. That if we did want more children to be born we could achieve that more easily by tackling the infant mortality rate in certain countries and related factors, instead of forced birth and other human rights violations. Or that it's akin to worrying about the earth falling into the dying sun, or actually, it's even sillier, because we know the earth is going to do that eventually, but there's zero evidence to suggest the "gaypocalypse" is even possible because you can't be converted to being gay. And even in countries with relatively tolerant attitudes to Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual people, the number of people identifying by one of those labels is usually somewhere between three and four percent, including Bi people who might end up having biological children. Which, I haven't checked this, is probably far less then the number of people who'd say on a survey that they simply don't want children.

Satinavian

2018-07-02, 06:05 AM

But that's not what we're talking about here, is it? We're talking about "I don't accept gay people so I don't want to encounter any in gaming", and no, I still from the bottom of my heart do not feel this is something any table should have to accomodate or make any compromises for. And yes, this goes for other things too, if someone told me "I don't want to encounter any characters who are in any way religious in the game!", yeah, sorry, that's not a reasonable request to make.
I did not have any encounter with people not wanting to have gay people in their game.

But i do think it is reasonable to make requests about stuff not being in the game and to accomodate for that. I have done that often. "I don't want horror elements in my game", "I don't want to play in a comedy", "I don't want any gore in my game" and "I don't want any sex in my game".

Somethings might be actual phobias, but most are preferrences. And no, i don't see why "i don't want to encounter gay sex in my game" should be wrong if "i don't want to encounter any sex in my game" is ok.

However having something against gay players is a very different matter. That should not be tolerated.

And as religion goes, i have more often encountered religious people being fine with fantasy religions but becoming squeamish with real world religions portrayed in games, either because the GM or respective players lacks in-depth knowledge about the religion, thus hurting immersion or (even worse) having those religions portrayed like some offensive carricature. Fantasy religions avoid those problems.

Otherwise religion has so far only been a problem in larp when some players stated that some rituals felt too real and thus too close to idolatry and excused themself from them. That and religious eating restrictions that are also not lifted for larp.

And yes, i would also try to accomodate religious people with those kind of problems.

War_lord

2018-07-02, 06:13 AM

I did not have any encounter with people not wanting to have gay people in their game.

But i do think it is reasonable to make requests about stuff not being in the game and to accomodate for that. I have done that often. "I don't want horror elements in my game", "I don't want to play in a comedy", "I don't want any gore in my game" and "I don't want any sex in my game".

Somethings might be actual phobias, but most are preferrences. And no, i don't see why "i don't want to encounter gay sex in my game"

There's a world of difference between not wanting "gay sex" in your game and not wanting "gay people" in your game.

Like, do you see what the problems with "I don't want any black characters in this game" are? Not being comfortable with sex or gore or comedy is fine, because that's plot element stuff. Not being fine with minority groups in ones game only really makes any sense as being a problem or discomfort with with that minority group. And it's super problematic if it's someone who literally can't think of a gay dude without immediately thinking of them engaging in explicit acts. That's a problem with that person, not gay people. And it's an indicator that the problem extends to interacting with gay players, even if the person is hiding it.

Satinavian

2018-07-02, 06:25 AM

There's a world of difference between not wanting "gay sex" in your game and not wanting "gay people" in your game.How would you ever know if people in your game are gay ?
If it is not a setting that has some kind of established and recognized homosexual partnership and you can introduce some character as such a partner of someone else, sexual orientation will only ever come up with acts of sexual affection. People hitting on other people, kissing each other or making out. Maybe you could add a bit of gossip but for the most part not wanting "gay sex" is pretty much the same as not wanting "gay people".
In most games the orientation of most NPCs and even PCs is completely unknown.

Quertus

2018-07-02, 06:31 AM

Okay, to play devil's advocate here: If someone really came to me and said "I can't help it! I don't have anything against gay people but even the thought of encountering someone I know is gay makes me physically ill, scream and trying to run away! I know it's highly irrational, I've been seeing a therapist about it and taking medication" or something like that, okay, I guess I could personally accept that and ask everyone around the table if they were okay to accomodate that person.

But that's not what we're talking about here, is it? We're talking about "I don't accept gay people so I don't want to encounter any in gaming", and no, I still from the bottom of my heart do not feel this is something any table should have to accomodate or make any compromises for. And yes, this goes for other things too, if someone told me "I don't want to encounter any characters who are in any way religious in the game!", yeah, sorry, that's not a reasonable request to make.

Do you rally believe that everyone who doesn't want graphic depictions of sex at their table has a phobia of and inherent hatred of sex? Because that seems highly unlikely to me.

Thus, assuming that everyone who has issues with (insert LGBT issue if choice) at a table is (insert homophobic equivalent word) seems to not follow.

If someone has a phobia of something, be it spiders, water, beer, dogs, children, men, women, social interaction, gay people, transgender people or anything else. The absolute worst thing to do, either as a sufferer yourself or as someone dealing with someone suffering from a phobia, is to indulge that irrational fear. Because if you do the your brain gets more and more used to reacting to the triggering situation irrationally. If someone has recognized that their phobia is irrational and is trying to get over it by exposure, I'd accommodate them. But I'm not going to tiptoe around a fear they refuse to face, I'm not their shrink.

Would that I had heard those words decades ago! :smallfrown:

Different people are different. As someone who has made great strides at overcoming a (completely unrelated) phobia, allow me to say that I did so through controlled exposure, and that overexposure would have been quite detrimental to my process of overcoming said phobia.

Now, don't get me wrong - if someone at the table has a fear of spiders, I'm a ****, and will say, "so ****ing what? I'm not a dirty metagamer. If you don't want me to summon spiders, Retcon a reason why I wouldn't summon spiders here". I just assume that no-one else actually wants to go on record as being as big a **** as me.

Mordaedil

2018-07-02, 06:35 AM

Floret

2018-07-02, 06:45 AM

But my point is, the odds of a rising gay population causing harm to society are not zero. There's a maximum population percentage that gays can be... but there is no way to tell what that is, no way to tell what measures would be taken if that is ever breached or if it could ever even BE reached.

There is, in fact, not. Because yes, there's a maximum number of gay people. Not "percentage that society can accommodate", just "people that just, are gay, actually". The rising number of LGBT people is quite easily proven to be in actuality a rising number of people daring to admit it, and will naturally cap out with rising societal acceptance. Current guesses may go as high as 10-15%, but those are the really high ones, and include bisexuals. (Nevermind that humanity

What you are doing is not, in fact, "looking at things from different viewpoints". It is repeating the views without fact-checking them.

After listening to multiple perspectives, fact-checking which ones are clearly bogus should be first order of priority, and then sorting the ones that aren't by likelyhood.

Or to put it another way, some people's perspective on the world is that it is flat. They have quite impressive astronomical models for how day/night cycles and the seasons still work, and hold up to at least surface-level inspection.

They're still demonstrably wrong, if you disseminate their arguments further, you quickly run into points where their ability to explain the facts and observations made by science stops.

Somethings might be actual phobias, but most are preferrences. And no, i don't see why "i don't want to encounter gay sex in my game" should be wrong if "i don't want to encounter any sex in my game" is ok.

However having something against gay players is a very different matter. That should not be tolerated.

Gay sex =/= gay relationships, characters, etc.

Furthermore, anyone objecting to gay sex on the basis that it is gay and not on the basis that it is sex and playing that out wouldn't be appreciated (I mean, furthest I am really comfortable with is flirting and a statement of "it happens" with a fade to black, I can sympathise) will, at least subconsciously, have sth against gay players. Anyone upholding a double standard or asking for one will do that because of personal biases - there is no other reason to do it, simply.

I do second your stuff on religion, though. Real world religions in games always kinda a) take me out a bit and b) run risk of offending religious people really quickly if done by nonbelievers.

Edit:

How would you ever know if people in your game are gay ?
If it is not a setting that has some kind of established and recognized homosexual partnership and you can introduce some character as such a partner of someone else, sexual orientation will only ever come up with acts of sexual affection. People hitting on other people, kissing each other or making out. Maybe you could add a bit of gossip but for the most part not wanting "gay sex" is pretty much the same as not wanting "gay people".
In most games the orientation of most NPCs and even PCs is completely unknown.

Hitting on people, kissing =/= sex.
Gay kissing =/= Gay sex
Gay flirting =/= Gay sex.

So no. Not wanting gay sex is miles away from not wanting gay people.

Mordaedil

2018-07-02, 07:06 AM

I do want to quickly point out that if you want to run a game with only one God, that is actually printed in Deities and Demigods supplement for 3.5, albeit they make it a god of light and a god of dark. It's easy to convert that to a Christian template.

Delta

2018-07-02, 07:06 AM

Do you rally believe that everyone who doesn't want graphic depictions of sex at their table has a phobia of and inherent hatred of sex? Because that seems highly unlikely to me.

Thus, assuming that everyone who has issues with (insert LGBT issue if choice) at a table is (insert homophobic equivalent word) seems to not follow.

I do not believe that, nor did I argue, imply or state any of that, so please don't imply that I did. I have very clearly stated multiple times that I consider "I don't want to have graphic depictions of sex in the game" a very reasonable request, so don't put words in my mouth.

Maybe to explain what I mean with an example:

William the Warrior and Charles the Cleric are sitting in a tavern. Charles says to William "Hey, that barmaid over there is flirting with you, anything going on there?"
William responds:
a) "Yeah, not interested, I got a girlfriend back home"
b) "Yeah, not interested, I got a boyfriend back home"

And that's that, no further discussion, no preaching, nothing. If someone tells me he has absolutely no problem with a) happening in his game, but b) is a complete no-go, I do not feel any need or responsibility why I would possibly compromise on that. If that's a problem for someone, I'll show him the door.

And yes, that's the same for other topics. If in a World of Darkness game, Harry the Hunter and Megan the Mage are sitting next to each other in a bar and Megan asks "Hey, Harry, wanna go watch the game on Sunday?" and Harry responds
a) "Sorry, I can't, I got a family barbecue on Sunday"
b) "Sorry, I can't, I got church on Sunday"

Yeah, someone telling me b) is something he wouldn't feel comfortable with would most likely not find me willing to accomodate that.

2D8HP

2018-07-02, 07:18 AM

...unless there's some apocalyptic scenario in which reproduction becomes an absolute necessity....

:confused: :annoyed: :amused:

"Mein Führer! I can walk!"

..."gaypocalypse"...

Anyone who thinks up the term "gaypocalypse" is welcome at my table...

....unless of course they seriously think it's a potential problem, in which case general rule #1: Avoid prolonged time with the crazy applies.

War_lord

2018-07-02, 07:20 AM

How would you ever know if people in your game are gay ?
If it is not a setting that has some kind of established and recognized homosexual partnership and you can introduce some character as such a partner of someone else, sexual orientation will only ever come up with acts of sexual affection. People hitting on other people, kissing each other or making out. Maybe you could add a bit of gossip but for the most part not wanting "gay sex" is pretty much the same as not wanting "gay people".
In most games the orientation of most NPCs and even PCs is completely unknown.

That's not "gay sex". Kissing is not "sex", being in a relationship is not sex.

Do you have an objection to an NPC in the game being married or being in a heterosexual relationship? Because if you don't, you're engaging in a clear double standard, nobody hears that there's a King and Queen in the kingdom of Generica and goes "EWW, STOP FORCING STRAIGHT SEX INTO THE GAME". There's a lot of ways a character's sexuality could come up in the course of play without explicit sexual references. Including yes, this character happens to have a boyfriend. I mean, if that's too much implied sex for you, the very existence of humans in game must be traumatizing for you, because every human NPC is proof two other NPCs had sex.

Quertus

2018-07-02, 07:22 AM

There is, in fact, not. Because yes, there's a maximum number of gay people. Not "percentage that society can accommodate", just "people that just, are gay, actually". The rising number of LGBT people is quite easily proven to be in actuality a rising number of people daring to admit it, and will naturally cap out with rising societal acceptance. Current guesses may go as high as 10-15%, but those are the really high ones, and include bisexuals. (Nevermind that humanity

What you are doing is not, in fact, "looking at things from different viewpoints". It is repeating the views without fact-checking them.

After listening to multiple perspectives, fact-checking which ones are clearly bogus should be first order of priority, and then sorting the ones that aren't by likelyhood.

Or to put it another way, some people's perspective on the world is that it is flat. They have quite impressive astronomical models for how day/night cycles and the seasons still work, and hold up to at least surface-level inspection.

They're still demonstrably wrong, if you disseminate their arguments further, you quickly run into points where their ability to explain the facts and observations made by science stops.

Sexual preference isn't just straight vs gay. That's also bi. And necrophilia. And zoophilia. And love of various inanimate objects. And... Um, anti? non? Asexual! And I suppose I need to include love of humans outside the reproductive age, on both ends of the spectrum. Etc etc.

Suppose in a sufficiently well-informed populous, where everyone had the opportunity to understand - and is free to express - their actual sexuality openly, it is discovered that 95% of people are actually attracted to targets with which they cannot reproduce. In such a scenario, do you not agree that society / the species may well be endangered and have an impetus to make changes encourage reproduction?

Further, let us suppose that sexual preference is not a choice (pretty easy for most people to suppose, I know, but as I've not seen proof, I have to explicitly state it). Then what is it? If it's entirely or even partially generic, then allowing people to express their sexuality will not cause the species to die out, as depopulation will be self-correcting due to non-reproductive couples genetics not being present in the next generation.

Do your cross-referenced sources disagree with any piece of this analysis? If so, please enlighten me.

Gay sex =/= gay relationships, characters, etc.

Furthermore, anyone objecting to gay sex on the basis that it is gay and not on the basis that it is sex and playing that out wouldn't be appreciated (I mean, furthest I am really comfortable with is flirting and a statement of "it happens" with a fade to black, I can sympathise) will, at least subconsciously, have sth against gay players. Anyone upholding a double standard or asking for one will do that because of personal biases - there is no other reason to do it, simply.

I do second your stuff on religion, though. Real world religions in games always kinda a) take me out a bit and b) run risk of offending religious people really quickly if done by nonbelievers.

Edit:

Hitting on people, kissing =/= sex.
Gay kissing =/= Gay sex
Gay flirting =/= Gay sex.

So no. Not wanting gay sex is miles away from not wanting gay people.

I've been in groups where (a guy) hitting on the pc of a female player was squick, but hitting on the pc of a make player was fine. And I've been in groups where the opposite was true.

I can see someone wanting a "safe space" to want to explore being transgender without worrying about people of one (or both) sexes hitting on them.

Knaight

2018-07-02, 07:23 AM

First things first there are 7.6 billion people right now, more than enough to cause all sorts of problem. That underpopulation is being talked about like a serious threat is one of the most ludicrous things I have ever seen. That, given this it's gay[i] people who are getting attacked for potentially causing a population crisis is completely ridiculous. This is roughly comparable to worrying about someone currently on fire getting rained on, because they might drown.

If it is not a setting that has some kind of established and recognized homosexual partnership and you can introduce some character as such a partner of someone else, sexual orientation will only ever come up with acts of sexual affection. People hitting on other people, kissing each other or making out. Maybe you could add a bit of gossip but for the most part not wanting "gay sex" is pretty much the same as not wanting "gay people".
In most games the orientation of most NPCs and even PCs is completely unknown.
Where "established and recognized" in this case means "visibly existing at all". Pair bonded NPCs aren't exactly rare in most settings, from emphasized and detailed family relationships among the royalty and nobility in a political intrigue campaign (probably including more than a few illicit side relationships and the aforementioned gossip) to simple acknowledgement that the inn keeper giving boarding the night before you go hit a dungeon is married. Similarly "people hitting on each other" can be downgraded to "people noticing that other people are particularly good looking and making one comment to a third party at some point".

Do you have an objection to an NPC in the game being married or being in a heterosexual relationship? Because if you don't, you're engaging in a clear double standard, nobody hears that there's a King and Queen in the kingdom of Generica and goes "EWW, STOP FORCING STRAIGHT SEX INTO THE GAME". There's a lot of ways a character's sexuality could come up in the course of play without explicit sexual references. Including yes, this character happens to have a boyfriend. I mean, if that's too much implied sex for you, the very existence of humans in game must be traumatizing for you, because every human NPC is proof two other NPCs had sex.
Though with enough conversations like the one the thread I'm tempted to start with the "EWW, STOP SHOVING YOUR RELATIONSHIPS DOWN OUR THROATS" for straight people [I]just to make a point. I wouldn't do it (for tRPGs at least) because of it being disruptive, but the temptation is running at an all time high level right now.

War_lord

2018-07-02, 07:24 AM

Sexual preference isn't just straight vs gay. That's also bi. And necrophilia. And zoophilia. And love of various inanimate objects. And... Um, anti? non? Asexual! And I suppose I need to include love of humans outside the reproductive age, on both ends of the spectrum.

We have officially hit homophobe rock bottom, go jump in a lake.

First things first there are 7.6 billion people right now, more than enough to cause all sorts of problem. That underpopulation is being talked about like a serious threat is one of the most ludicrous things I have ever seen. That, given this it's [i]gay[i] people who are getting attacked for potentially causing a population crisis is completely ridiculous.

Where "established and recognized" in this case means "visibly existing at all". Pair bonded NPCs aren't exactly rare in most settings, from emphasized and detailed family relationships among the royalty and nobility in a political intrigue campaign (probably including more than a few illicit side relationships and the aforementioned gossip) to simple acknowledgement that the inn keeper giving boarding the night before you go hit a dungeon is married. Similarly "people hitting on each other" can be downgraded to "people noticing that other people are particularly good looking and making one comment to a third party at some point".

I mean, with all this really poorly thought out objections, anyone would think that "population crisis" is just a really thin attempt to give what is actually an irrational fear/hatred of anyone different a thin veneer of intellect and logic.

Quertus

2018-07-02, 07:28 AM

We have officially hit homophobe rock bottom, go jump in a lake.

I've been trying to keep my personal opinion out of it, and discuss the issue academically. Suffice it to say, labeling me as a homophobe would be quite off base.

War_lord

2018-07-02, 07:30 AM

I've been trying to keep my personal opinion out of it, and discuss the issue academically. Suffice it to say, labeling me as a homophobe would be quite off base.

Yes, you're right, I can't see how I could possibly make that judgement based on the fact that you just said that LGB people are exactly the same as people who molest children and animals.

Oh wait, I can.

You know, I'm not even going to go into the reasons why "academically" sex crimes and homosexuality aren't in the same category. Anyone even making the claim they are is already drawing from rhetoric that shows the person isn't even faking good faith.

Delta

2018-07-02, 07:38 AM

How would you ever know if people in your game are gay ?
If it is not a setting that has some kind of established and recognized homosexual partnership and you can introduce some character as such a partner of someone else, sexual orientation will only ever come up with acts of sexual affection. People hitting on other people, kissing each other or making out. Maybe you could add a bit of gossip but for the most part not wanting "gay sex" is pretty much the same as not wanting "gay people".

I find that statement to be completely wrong, I can think of dozens of scenarios of the top of my head where this could be relevant.

Charles the Cleric: "If we ever defeat Larry the Lich, if we get out of all of this alive, what do you want to do with your life?"
William the Warrior: "I go back home, rebuild my families castle, find a nice guy to settle down with and take care of my dead sisters kids"

Voila, clearly established sexual identity for William without any ingame sexual or romantic activity.

Floret

2018-07-02, 07:42 AM

Suppose in a sufficiently well-informed populous, where everyone had the opportunity to understand - and is free to express - their actual sexuality openly, it is discovered that 95% of people are actually attracted to targets with which they cannot reproduce. In such a scenario, do you not agree that society / the species may well be endangered and have an impetus to make changes encourage reproduction?

Further, let us suppose that sexual preference is not a choice (pretty easy for most people to suppose, I know, but as I've not seen proof, I have to explicitly state it). Then what is it? If it's entirely or even partially generic, then allowing people to express their sexuality will not cause the species to die out, as depopulation will be self-correcting due to non-reproductive couples genetics not being present in the next generation.

Do your cross-referenced sources disagree with any piece of this analysis? If so, please enlighten me.

1) Sure, tell the bi girl bisexuality is a thing.

2) I will look past the attempt to equalise nonheterosexuality with Zoophilia etc. This time. (I do hope you're aware the argument has been made by some real life groups in earnest?)

3) Suppose 95% of people turned out to be infertile. Or turn into X-Men style mutants. Won't happen either. I will not discuss theoretical situations based on blatantly surreal premises. The answer to your utterly leading question should be obvious, and also highly irrelevant to any honest discussion.

4) A cocktail of genetics, womb environmental factors (esp. Hormonal levels), and probably a good bit of nurture thrown in. Possibly personal hormonal levels to some degree. Research is your friend.

5) As I said already, the question if it is a choice remains a red herring.

I can see someone wanting a "safe space" to want to explore being transgender without worrying about people of one (or both) sexes hitting on them.

Exploring your gender is not particularly hampered by being hit on, in my experience, and I find the connection rather strange to draw. It reeks eerily of people trying to pity different minority groups against each other, by implying doing stuff that one wants would hurt the other.

Suffice it to say, labeling me as a homophobe would be quite off base.

Homophobes are identified by their actions, not their words. If you do not want us to assume you to be one, do not ape misleading rhetoric from homophobes.

Quertus

2018-07-02, 07:45 AM

Yes, you're right, I can't see how I could possibly make that judgement based on the fact that you just said that LGB people are exactly the same as people who molest children and animals.

Oh wait, I can.

You know, I'm not even going to go into the reasons why "academically" sex crimes and homosexuality aren't in the same category. Anyone even making the claim they are is already drawing from rhetoric that shows the person isn't even faking good faith.

... Slavery wasn't generally consisted a heinous crime hundreds of years ago the way it is today, was it? Thus, I am discussing a theoretical society where people do not consider these acts to be criminal. Yeah, squick, sure, fine. But the question is, can such a society exist for an extended period of time? Or, rather, under what conditions could such a society not be self-sustaining?

Delta

2018-07-02, 07:50 AM

War_lord

2018-07-02, 07:55 AM

... Slavery wasn't generally consisted a heinous crime hundreds of years ago the way it is today, was it? Thus, I am discussing a theoretical society where people do not consider these acts to be criminal. Yeah, squick, sure, fine. But the question is, can such a society exist for an extended period of time? Or, rather, under what conditions could such a society not be self-sustaining?

You realize paedophiles have kids right? In fact a lot of the more notorious ones hid behind a facade of normality with the 2.5 kids and the dog and the picket fence, exactly because that's the kind of appearance that made other people trust them around kids. "Paedophile" isn't a sexuality.

But, lets take the homophobic retoric out. And lets say the proposal is "what if 95% of people were gay"? Well, we don't have to worry about that, because the surveys tend to show around 3-4% of people are not heterosexual, and even the most optimistic guess at a true number is 10%, and that includes bisexual males who prefer women and thus will still have biological children (and vice versa). So it's an inherently absurd "theory" that's a dolled up slippery slope fallacy. It's not a realistic concern, because that's not how sexuality works. It's a thin thin gloss constructed to give "I don't like gay people" a veneer of rationality through pseudo science. Much like how slavery was once given pseudo scientific justification by claims that African peoples were somehow inherently inferior and thus treating them equally was a threat to civilization.

Nifft

2018-07-02, 07:57 AM

You realize pedophiles have kids right?

Must... resist... punchline...

Quertus

2018-07-02, 08:07 AM

1) Sure, tell the bi girl bisexuality is a thing.

2) I will look past the attempt to equalise nonheterosexuality with Zoophilia etc. This time. (I do hope you're aware the argument has been made by some real life groups in earnest?)

3) Suppose 95% of people turned out to be infertile. Or turn into X-Men style mutants. Won't happen either. I will not discuss theoretical situations based on blatantly surreal premises. The answer to your utterly leading question should be obvious, and also highly irrelevant to any honest discussion.

4) A cocktail of genetics, womb environmental factors (esp. Hormonal levels), and probably a good bit of nurture thrown in. Possibly personal hormonal levels to some degree. Research is your friend.

5) As I said already, the question if it is a choice remains a red herring.

Exploring your gender is not particularly hampered by being hit on, in my experience, and I find the connection rather strange to draw. It reeks eerily of people trying to pity different minority groups against each other, by implying doing stuff that one wants would hurt the other.

Homophobes are identified by their actions, not their words. If you do not want us to assume you to be one, do not ape misleading rhetoric from homophobes.

1) awesome

2) thanks. my point was simply about reproductive viability based on actual sexual preference. And there are a lot of those. But, sure, we can simply group humans as, what, reproductive viable or not? As a bi girl, please educate me regarding, hmmm, whether the range of reproductive viability that exists within the bi population differs significantly from that of the heterosexual population, or whether a polar "reproductively viable / not" dichotomy is only equally oversimplified.

3) the point of the question was related to the next paragraph. That is, it's a question of determining under what conditions the species would actually be endangered. I contend that for the argument of the species being endangered to hold water, it must be the case that both a) a large percentage of the population is reproductively non-viable, and b) sexuality reproductive viability is a choice, or, at least, nearly completely independent of genetics. Assuming current human reproductive capacity.

4) true. Unfortunately, my research budget was cut after I proposed repeatedly throwing thousands of puppies off increasing heights to create an accurate falling damage model.

5) not at all! It helps one evaluate the extent to which such a society would be self-sustaining.

6) just drawing on my limited experience with gamers. But, as I'm not inside their heads, their actual reasons may differ from their stated reasons.

7) the words are my own - I'm not sufficiently familiar with homophobic rhetoric to be able to ape it. However, I did grow up with a lot of crosses and swastika, so... my underlying verbiage may, at times, be tainted by my upbringing.

Knaight

2018-07-02, 08:13 AM

I've been trying to keep my personal opinion out of it, and discuss the issue academically. Suffice it to say, labeling me as a homophobe would be quite off base.

Idly pontificating about ridiculous far future scenarios with no data, while data exists suggesting that it's ridiculous, which just happen to coincide well with positions now that people desperately want to be true but have found trouble finding legitimacy for isn't discussing an issue academically. That's less the action of a serious academic and more the strategy of the most inept and disingenuous think tanks.

Also academics have established entire elaborate procedures to keep personal opinion out. That's recognized as a serious problem in academia, which is why we have elaborate blinding methods. If you were actually qualified to discuss the issue academically you'd know that blithely saying it's what you were trying to do doesn't magically make you unbiased.

Quertus

2018-07-02, 08:16 AM

Idly pontificating about ridiculous far future scenarios with no data, while data exists suggesting that it's ridiculous, which just happen to coincide well with positions now that people desperately want to be true but have found trouble finding legitimacy for isn't discussing an issue academically. That's less the action of a serious academic and more the strategy of the most inept and disingenuous think tanks.

Also academics have established entire elaborate procedures to keep personal opinion out. That's recognized as a serious problem in academia, which is why we have elaborate blinding methods. If you were actually qualified to discuss the issue academically you'd know that blithely saying it's what you were trying to do doesn't magically make you unbiased.

You've stated yet somehow missed the point. The extent to which the figures must be far-fetched in order to match that PoV precisely is the point. Do keep up.

Floret

2018-07-02, 08:39 AM

1) awesome

2) thanks. my point was simply about reproductive viability based on actual sexual preference. And there are a lot of those. But, sure, we can simply group humans as, what, reproductive viable or not? As a bi girl, please educate me regarding, hmmm, whether the range of reproductive viability that exists within the bi population differs significantly from that of the heterosexual population, or whether a polar "reproductively viable / not" dichotomy is only equally oversimplified.

3) the point of the question was related to the next paragraph. That is, it's a question of determining under what conditions the species would actually be endangered. I contend that for the argument of the species being endangered to hold water, it must be the case that both a) a large percentage of the population is reproductively non-viable, and b) sexuality reproductive viability is a choice, or, at least, nearly completely independent of genetics. Assuming current human reproductive capacity.

4) true. Unfortunately, my research budget was cut after I proposed repeatedly throwing thousands of puppies off increasing heights to create an accurate falling damage model.

5) not at all! It helps one evaluate the extent to which such a society would be self-sustaining.

6) just drawing on my limited experience with gamers. But, as I'm not inside their heads, their actual reasons may differ from their stated reasons.

7) the words are my own - I'm not sufficiently familiar with homophobic rhetoric to be able to ape it. However, I did grow up with a lot of crosses and swastika, so... my underlying verbiage may, at times, be tainted by my upbringing.

2) It's way oversimplified. For starters, you are conflating three major points:
- Capability to reproduce (This is where infertile people drop off - many of whom may not know it)
- Willingness to reproduce (This is where the voluntary human extinction movement drops off; alongside a bunch of other people)
- Opportunity to reproduce (This is where most Homosexuals drop off, some bisexuals, alongside a bunch of other people.)

A gay cis man who reproduces with his trans male partner would not, though. A polyamorous bisexual woman married to a woman, but getting pregnant through her boyfriend would also not. A straight monogamous couple where one is infertile would, however.

Any human alive of any sexuality may be any combination of the above. Human life is too complicated to make this into a simple variable dependend solely on the person.

3) But that question is irrelevant to the discussion on how to treat LGBT people in the real world. Behavioural advice for fictional settings has no place in an actual, honest discussion about real people. Fictional works, despite how often some English teacher may claim it, don't say jack **** about the human condition, except insofar that a human was capable coming up with them.

4) I recommend the cheap alternative of "google".

5) It is. Because the discussion is about how to treat real people, and fiction isn't relevant to that. (Except insofar as to judge the person writing it).

6) I would hazard the guess I've interacted and talked (and gamed) with more trans (and questioning) people than you are. I have not come across any indication that the connection has much basis in fact; and even if it did, that may be justification for a "Don't flirt with my character" rule (resonable), nothing more.

7) It definitely is. Not only the verbiage, but the rhetoric even moreso. I will continue assuming you are arguing in good faith and just don't know any better.
Though with this and your repeated statements that you have trouble understanding and relating to humans I must wonder if you have looked into the possibility of being a sociopath (Medical definition)?

Satinavian

2018-07-02, 09:09 AM

First things first there are 7.6 billion people right now, more than enough to cause all sorts of problem. That underpopulation is being talked about like a serious threat is one of the most ludicrous things I have ever seen. Underpopulation is discussed as a serious problem in every country with shrinking population which also means aging population which fits an increasing part of the whole world.
But that has nothing to do with homosexuality as population dymanics fluctuate all the time independently while preference doesn't seem to change in a measurable amount. It is a stupid argument, but not because world population is so high but because homosexuality has little influence on it.

Where "established and recognized" in this case means "visibly existing at all". Pair bonded NPCs aren't exactly rare in most settings, from emphasized and detailed family relationships among the royalty and nobility in a political intrigue campaign (probably including more than a few illicit side relationships and the aforementioned gossip) to simple acknowledgement that the inn keeper giving boarding the night before you go hit a dungeon is married.Most settings where noble bloodlines, rules of inheritance etc. are important, don't have recognized homosexual bonds in royalty or nobility because those don't produce legitimate heirs. It is those settings where it is most likely that gays are forced to marry the other gender for political reasons and maybe have a lover in secret.

Similarly "people hitting on each other" can be downgraded to "people noticing that other people are particularly good looking and making one comment to a third party at some point".As i said i have never actually encountered anyone who objects to homosexual portrayals in particular. But i indeed have encountered players who don't want any kind of flirting portrayed in the game and are annoyed by thse comments even in a heterosexual context.

"EWW, STOP SHOVING YOUR RELATIONSHIPS DOWN OUR THROATS"I know players like that. It is rare but according to my experience still more common than this demanding homophobic player i have yet to see.

But i have never played in a "no gays" game. It is indeed possible that i underestimate the impact it would have.

Knaight

2018-07-02, 09:13 AM

Underpopulation is discussed as a serious problem in every country with shrinking population which also means aging population which fits an increasing part of the whole world.

Populaton decrease is discussed as a serious problem in the sense of handling economic repercussions due to shifting age distributions and economic models that require continuous growth failing in the face of tiny population reduction. That's not remotely the same as underpopulation as an extinction level species threat.

Calthropstu

2018-07-02, 09:39 AM

First things first there are 7.6 billion people right now, more than enough to cause all sorts of problem. That underpopulation is being talked about like a serious threat is one of the most ludicrous things I have ever seen. That, given this it's gay[i] people who are getting attacked for potentially causing a population crisis is completely ridiculous. This is roughly comparable to worrying about someone currently on fire getting rained on, because they might drown.

Where "established and recognized" in this case means "visibly existing at all". Pair bonded NPCs aren't exactly rare in most settings, from emphasized and detailed family relationships among the royalty and nobility in a political intrigue campaign (probably including more than a few illicit side relationships and the aforementioned gossip) to simple acknowledgement that the inn keeper giving boarding the night before you go hit a dungeon is married. Similarly "people hitting on each other" can be downgraded to "people noticing that other people are particularly good looking and making one comment to a third party at some point".

Though with enough conversations like the one the thread I'm tempted to start with the "EWW, STOP SHOVING YOUR RELATIONSHIPS DOWN OUR THROATS" for straight people [I]just to make a point. I wouldn't do it (for tRPGs at least) because of it being disruptive, but the temptation is running at an all time high level right now.

Nuclear war IS a thing. It is easily concievable that 95%+ of the human population could be wiped out in a week. At that point, ALL potential decreases to the next generation become on the choppung block... including being gay. I can't see "But I am gay" being an acceptable excuse for refusing to help in repopulation efforts, once resource scarcity had been addressed. A game in such a setting would make sense for "no gay characters allowed."

I can also see rationale for refusing gays into early colonization ships for that same reason. So a game where you are piloting a new colony also makes sense for "no gay characters allowed."

Delta

2018-07-02, 09:51 AM

Nuclear war IS a thing. It is easily concievable that 95%+ of the human population could be wiped out in a week. At that point, ALL potential decreases to the next generation become on the choppung block... including being gay. I can't see "But I am gay" being an acceptable excuse for refusing to help in repopulation efforts, once resource scarcity had been addressed. A game in such a setting would make sense for "no gay characters allowed."

It really wouldn't, no. How would a gay character in such a setting be a problem? Yes, he would feel social pressure to reproduce, but so would every other character. Fun fact: Gay people of both genders have reproduced quite often and regularly over the course of human civilization. Since I wouldn't expect the actual act of reproduction to be the center of game activity (because that would indeed be a weird game), I really don't see the problem. There would be enough straight characters in such a setting forced to reproduce with people they don't feel particularly attracted to, so when "mandatory reproduction time" comes around, they'll shrug and say "Well, time to do my duty, even if he/she is not my type", exactly the same as any gay character could.

Now on the other hand I would completely understand how such a setting would make many players very uncomfortable regardless of their sexual orientation, so I'd be very careful who to run that for.

But honestly, unless you're running a campaign in a setting specificially designed not to allow gay characters or where the whole concept isn't applicable ("In this setting, you're playing ageless, sexless blobs of mystical energy who have gained consciousness"), I'm kind of hard pressed for a scenario in which it's necessary to completely ban gay characters from the game.

Satinavian

2018-07-02, 09:52 AM

Nuclear war IS a thing. It is easily concievable that 95%+ of the human population could be wiped out in a week. At that point, ALL potential decreases to the next generation become on the choppung block... including being gay. I can't see "But I am gay" being an acceptable excuse for refusing to help in repopulation efforts, once resource scarcity had been addressed. A game in such a setting would make sense for "no gay characters allowed."

I can also see rationale for refusing gays into early colonization ships for that same reason. So a game where you are piloting a new colony also makes sense for "no gay characters allowed."
That is starting to get a really strange turn of topic, but you are still wrong.

In the case of a catastrophy or in the case of some colonization it is not optimal to produce as many children as biologically possible.
Children have need but can't really contribute to society for many many years. You would want most of your adult workforce for other things than childcare/education/producing additianal food for children. Instead of oversized families you would aim for a slower rate of growth with allows you to (re)build necessary infrastructure and industry while maintaining a certain level of living standard and the current level of education/knowledge. Conveniently both would also allow you to keep child mortality at some managable rate.

That is alwas one of those things about those dystopian stories with enforced pregnancies all the time. They don't make any sense at all and fall flat when trying to achieve a cruel but necessary aesthetic.

Quertus

2018-07-02, 10:02 AM

6) I would hazard the guess I've interacted and talked (and gamed) with more trans (and questioning) people than you are. I have not come across any indication that the connection has much basis in fact; and even if it did, that may be justification for a "Don't flirt with my character" rule (resonable), nothing more.

7) It definitely is. Not only the verbiage, but the rhetoric even moreso. I will continue assuming you are arguing in good faith and just don't know any better.
Though with this and your repeated statements that you have trouble understanding and relating to humans I must wonder if you have looked into the possibility of being a sociopath (Medical definition)?

Most of this is way too heavy for me right this second, but...

6) although it's possible, I have to question whether you've gamed with more... well, anything than me. I've played with over 100 different groups over my thirty-some-odd years gaming. My record was 6 groups a week. (EDIT: mind you, I prefer open tables with double-digit players and a rotating player base, so that skews those numbers further) Had more productive conversational experience with? That I'll grant you without reservation. Although I will say that two of my best friends, that I spend the most time talking to, are strong LGBT advocates. One has just come out as gender fluid. So I'm not without conversational experience, even outside the gaming environment.

And, yes, I suspect much the same as you've indicated is often the case.

7) thank you. What I am actually trying to do is to get people to remove their biases, and create a nice mathematical model of exactly what conditions it would take for there to be a problem, and discuss from that detached PoV, rather than fear-mongering or blindly dismissing. I suspect* that reproductive / sterility rates will be more concerning than sexuality, honestly, but, as a proper scientist, one must test one's hypothesis.

Sociopath? Hmmm... *googles*... "A mental health disorder characterized by disregard for other people."

"Those with antisocial personality disorder tend to lie, break laws, act impulsively, and lack regard for their own safety or the safety of others. "

"Behavioral: antisocial behavior, deceitfulness, hostility, irresponsibility, manipulativeness, risk taking behaviors, aggression, impulsivity, irritability, or lack of restraint
Mood: anger, boredom, or general discontent
Also common: physical substance dependence or substance abuse"

I'd have to say no. Njnhn. Most of that is quite antithetical to who I am. I may, say, manipulate by playing devil's advocate, or using weasel words, and my mood / grouchy demeanor may** match, but the rest of that? Were I a betting man, I'd take even odds on that being a better match for any Playgrounder than myself, as I live near the opposite extreme for most of those.

* one of my best friends is a lesbian who wants to have children, and I've known several pregnant "lesbians", thus my bias on this issue
** now, how much of that grouchy demeanor is the real me, vs how much is simply my online persona, is left to the reader's imagination. I will only say that, on this account, I have probably always been role-playing.

Calthropstu

2018-07-02, 10:05 AM

That is starting to get a really strange turn of topic, but you are still wrong.

In the case of a catastrophy or in the case of some colonization it is not optimal to produce as many children as biologically possible.
Children have need but can't really contribute to society for many many years. You would want most of your adult workforce for other things than childcare/education/producing additianal food for children. Instead of oversized families you would aim for a slower rate of growth with allows you to (re)build necessary infrastructure and industry while maintaining a certain level of living standard and the current level of education/knowledge. Conveniently both would also allow you to keep child mortality at some managable rate.

That is alwas one of those things about those dystopian stories with enforced pregnancies all the time. They don't make any sense at all and fall flat when trying to achieve a cruel but necessary aesthetic.

Nasa disagrees with you. When they did the "pick 30 people to survive the apocalypse" gay was determined to be an undesirable trait as reproduction was determined to be a necessity.

People determined to be essential were people who could perform triple duties. A 27 year old female doctor with good physical strength and good reproductive health would be an ideal candidate. Also, more women than men was determined a good move. I forget what the exact criteria were, but religion was one of the things on the low priority list.

Satinavian

2018-07-02, 10:14 AM

Nasa disagrees with you. When they did the "pick 30 people to survive the apocalypse" gay was determined to be an undesirable trait as reproduction was determined to be a necessity.

People determined to be essential were people who could perform triple duties. A 27 year old female doctor with good physical strength and good reproductive health would be an ideal candidate. Also, more women than men was determined a good move. I forget what the exact criteria were, but religion was one of the things on the low priority list.
30 is really low. With this number you have to be careful to keep genetic diversity which suddenly increases the need for everyone to reproduce just to avoid problems of future inbreeding. (For the same reason you would limit free choice of partners in this case.)

Not sure about the desire for having more women than men. That is probably down to the exact scenario parameters.

Delta

2018-07-02, 10:20 AM

Nasa disagrees with you. When they did the "pick 30 people to survive the apocalypse" gay was determined to be an undesirable trait as reproduction was determined to be a necessity.

Okay I gotta admit you're kind of moving the goal posts here. From what you've written before (95%+), I considered an apocalyptic scenario where humanity is somehow reduced to a population where survival is no longer guaranteed, but I expected we were still talking at least in the thousands or so here.

So yes, in a scenario of a few hand-picked survivors like that, yeah it would probably make sense not to include exclusively gay people in that (still no reason to exclude bisexuals in such a scenario though). But honestly, this has gotten so far from the original point that I'm not really sure what you're even trying to show with this example?

Scripten

2018-07-02, 10:25 AM

2D8HP

2018-07-02, 10:29 AM

...if that's too much implied sex for you, the very existence of humans in game must be traumatizing for you, because every human NPC is proof two other NPCs had sex.

Theoretically I can imagine a DM or player speaking of graphic sexual content that I'd rather not listen to, just like I objected to someone who started to describe their "enhanced interrogation techniques" of an NPC, but I've never actually experienced graphic sex depications at any gaming table but, for me, saying their PC's kissed so-and-so, or has a boyfriend/girlfriend doesn't rise to the level of "graphic", and someone who says they do would be a "red flag", but I really don't have a problem if someone says they don't want any romantic/sexually content.

I do however regard someone saying that they don't want any "gay stuff" as a red flag, mostly because the last three (thankfully former) co-workers of mine who've said that (or similar) were massive jerks in many ways, and also thieves (what inner demons prompted them to proclaim such at work?).

...do you not agree that society / the species may well be endangered and have an impetus to make changes encourage reproduction?....

Many responses come to mind, and I hope Forum Rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1) allows me to say one:

When folks feel optimism for the future they tend to have more children.

Also

*cough*

economics.

*ahem*

,..more women than men was determined a good move...

:sigh:

Just take it to either the

World-Building (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?57-World-Building)

or the

Mad Science and Grumpy Technology (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?62-Mad-Science-and-Grumpy-Technology)

Sub-Forums.

Well this thread has alerted me to a "red flag" that I previously didn't have in mind:

Serious discussion of ideas that were satire in the 20th century.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=A9ihKq34Ozc

War_lord

2018-07-02, 10:56 AM

I don't understand what Calthropstu is even trying to argue at this point. That it's okay to hate gays in case they're some of the 30 people left after an extinction event? If all of the 30 people left after such a thing are gay and aren't interested in reproduction simply to keep the human race going (which gay people are capable of doing, they can still have children if they feel it absolutely necessary), there's not going to be anyone around to coerce them anyway. We really have reached peak stupid in this thread. And I thought we reached it when this claim was first made.

Segev

2018-07-02, 11:04 AM

Rerem115

2018-07-02, 11:05 AM

Calthropstu

2018-07-02, 11:05 AM

This is all really far away from a discussion on "Do TTRPG tables have anny justifiable reasons to ban gay characters?" Are we really putting forth the idea that there exists appreciable demand for a game about the struggles of a colonization populace with extremely small reproductive variance? Even if someone created this kind of game, there are so many variables that go into creating this situation that it would have to be tailor-made so that it would "naturally" exclude the presence of gay characters. And that's assuming that the focus of the game would be on the reproduction rather than whatever other adventures the group would get up to.

We're not even talking Devil's Advocate anymore; this is more along the lines of Bizarro Lovecraftian Horror's Advocate, it's so far out there. If a group is going through this much trouble to exclude LGBT+ characters, then they are actively making an effort at this point.

Fair enough, though the pioneer ship has merit. Still, even that is pushing limitations. But, regardless, I can see people wanting to bar gay characters from a table for a myriad of reasons. Whether you can personally accept that or not is entirely up to you... Tying all of this to the original conversation then becomes a simple matter of pointing out that such people would consider people adamant that gay characters should be legitimate to be a huge red flag, while others consider them to be a red flag. In most cases, the parting of ways would be expected and likely favorable to both parties.

As an aside, that nasa thing was likely an exercise in developing criteria to set up thousands of such bunkers across the country. Each would have to assume only it survived. I am trying to locate it, I did the exercise back in college 15 years ago.

Quertus

2018-07-02, 11:28 AM

@Segev: I failed my Knowledge:Mormon roll. So, Mormons have prohibitions related to tea and coffee, too? :smalleek:

I'm honestly surprised at the directions this thread has gone. And impressed, by and large, GitP is good people.

When I started this, I just wanted to swap some war stories and maybe have a giggle over the crazy things people have done at their table. What I got was still enlightening.

I mean, personally, I'm a ****, but I choose to post in the Playground because of how amazing a place it is. Playgrounders are an amazing group.

Delta

2018-07-02, 11:45 AM

If you were told that you were a bad person for refusing to go to Mutual activities with Mormons, because that means you hate Mormons and discriminate against them, you'd probably be offended, right?

Again, I fail to see the relevance. If a gay person asked you to go to a gay bar with them, I surely wouldn't call you a homophobe for saying "No, thanks" for whatever reason.

But this isn't what we're talking about here. We're simply talking about a gay person existing and you being aware of their sexual orientation, that is not asking you for anything.

To put it in equivalent terms, imagine the following discussion

Me: "Hey, wanna do something on Sunday?"
(Male) Person A: "Sorry, I have a date with my boyfriend on Sunday"
Person B: "Sorry, I got church on Sunday"

This is the equivalent. No one's asking anyone to take part in any religious or "gay" activities or whatever, and in both cases, of course the correct response to both people is to nod and say "Cool, no worries, maybe another time." and if someone can't do that but has to go "Please don't force your homosexuality/religion on me!!!" in answer to that, then I don't feel like either Person A or B should have to be willing to compromise with said someone, the fault lies completely with that someone for being intolerant.

Scripten

2018-07-02, 11:46 AM

Someone's likely codified a rule somewhere that any thread on GitP, if left alive long enough, will eventually mutate into something incredibly far removed from its original purpose. That's the nature of conversation, after all.

@Segev: While I don't feel comfortable replying to your newest post, as it comes waaaaay too close to discussing actual politics, I do suggest you do a bit more research into that case and its resolution. It was not ruled that the baker acted in accordance with the law, but that the original ruling contained verbiage that invalidated it. (This is a big deal when talking legal matters.)

There are other issues I have with your post's stated (and unstated) biases, but honestly, I don't have the energy to debate them right now. I hope you are able to come to terms with things in the future.

Calthropstu

2018-07-02, 12:11 PM

@Segev: I failed my Knowledge:Mormon roll. So, Mormons have prohibitions related to tea and coffee, too? :smalleek:

I mean, personally, I'm a ****, but I choose to post in the Playground because of how amazing a place it is. Playgrounders are an amazing group.

I went to a mormon church for a month when I was 17 because of reasons. Some of their practices and beliefs were odd.

Religion and I have never mixed well because I like poking holes in their beliefs. Still, I get along with them regardless.

BBQ Pork

2018-07-02, 12:27 PM

The original list:

Thinks that "lol, i so random" is both funny and sufficient characterization
Steals from party members in game
Steals from party members irl
Tries to solve a problem by seducing it
Plays a character that does not match their gender
Has ever forced the DM to roll for pregnancy
Drow
Gives you a handwritten 15 page backstory, or links you to their Tumblr and tells you it's in there somewhere
Uses the word "sexy" to describe their character on a regular basis
Insists on using a class they found on dandwiki
Wants to be actual royalty in their backstory
Insists on using anything they found on dandwiki
Asks to play a class focused on crafting
Focuses on self-preservation over actually doing anything; e.g. running and hiding from every encounter, social or otherwise
Dual Wielding
Katanas
Dual Wielding Katanas

What about you guys? What are your major signs that something isn't right in you party?

My list:

1 Thinks that "lol, i so random" is both funny and sufficient characterization
2 Steals from party members in game
3 Steals from party members irl (Not an issue twice. You try that ONCE and you're never coming back.)
4 Want their character's sexuality to be a frequent plot point.
5 Gives you a handwritten 15 page backstory, or links you to their Tumblr and tells you it's in there somewhere. (That's cool, but I'm gonna TLDR that at the end of a page. At most. And I'm not going to go looking for it online. Have it printed on a sheet, with your character sheet.)

6 Wants to use a race/class/equipment from 3rd party or obscure sources. (Not a hard 'No', but will require the DM take a very cautious eye towards it)
7 Wants to be drunk or stoned during a game session
8 Acts in a creepy or inappropriate way towards another player, or in front of other people in the house.

9 (I'm crossing out the "self-preservation guy" for this) : Doesn't participate.
10 Want to play stuff that is far from the intended genre and needs to be shoe-horned in with a BIG stretch of disbelief.
11 Wants to add ridiculous extra little abilities and notes onto an existing race or class that they are playing. (Elves are a good jumping off point for this one)
12 Cheats at die rolls. (We had this. The player has since straightened out.)

#4 brings us between the OP's post and this end of the conversation. I don't want sex stuff to be a major part of my party's adventure. If your character or the player are gay, fine. If they are straight, fine. But I am not going to RP seductions, sexual assaults, pregnancies, etc. I am running a PG-13 table. Violence (without major gore), some innuendo.

Your table may vary, so long as everyone at the table is comfortable.

War_lord

2018-07-02, 12:34 PM

Scripten

2018-07-02, 12:40 PM

#4 brings us between the OP's post and this end of the conversation. I don't want sex stuff to be a major part of my party's adventure. If your character or the player are gay, fine. If they are straight, fine. But I am not going to RP seductions, sexual assaults, pregnancies, etc. I am running a PG-13 table. Violence (without major gore), some innuendo.

Your table may vary, so long as everyone at the table is comfortable.

This is a totally fair and (in my experience) good mentality. Although I would add that one could certainly make their character's sexuality a major plot point in a number of ways that are non-sexual.

For example:
1) If playing in a royal/noble political game where the character is expected to produce heirs, it could be a major plot point that they are not attracted to reproductively viable partners. Technically related to sex, but not even Disney would shy away from depicting this kind of story (at least not with regard to how much sex is depicted in it).

2) In any world where sexuality is considered important, either for good or ill, a character that doesn't follow the setting's sexuality norms could be interesting to play, even if they aren't alluding to or doing anything in-game. IMO, a GM being inclusive of characters (which I consider to be a necessity) does not require the setting to default to an egalitarian society. In my games, I tend to do so, but that's mostly due to my players being largely LGBT+ and seeking escapism from real-world oppression in their elf games.

kyoryu

2018-07-02, 12:47 PM

Segev

2018-07-02, 02:44 PM

Delta

2018-07-02, 05:20 PM

You'd be surprised how often that is not the case. Replace, for instance, "gay bar" with "gay wedding," and watch the fireworks fly.

I'm rather sure I wouldn't be surprised, but that's neither here nor there.

But in the end we're not talking about "gay wedding", we're talking about RPG groups and whether "I don't want gay characters" is a valid request that should be accomodated. It is not, because it is equivalent to the situation I just posted. The simple fact that a character is gay is not asking you to take part in any form of "gay activity" or anything, I feel the need to point this out again and again because you keep trying to draw these false equivalencies with every single post you make.

You say that, but I have pointed out evidence to the contrary.

Evidence to what exactly? Since you're moving the goalposts so rapidly, I have kind of lost track of the point you're trying to make. I'm still just talking about RPG and why I feel asking people not to play gay characters isn't a request I find reasonable, all the other stuff is just a comparison I was trying to make because in the end, all this is asking for is the same level of respect that you're asking for that when you say "I'm going to church on Sunday", you don't want everyone to get in your face about that.

And as I have said time and time again, if someone at my table told me he wouldn't feel comfortable playing with religious characters of any sort, I wouldn't consider that a valid request either. On the other hand, if someone didn't want anyone preaching in his face during RPG, now that's just as valid a request to make as not wanting said gay character to hit on you. But if the mere existence of a gay character is a thing that makes you uncomfortable, I still hold that the fault lies with you, and no one should have to compromise for that.

Solaris

2018-07-02, 05:25 PM

Are you guys actually reading the multi-paragraph responses to one another to try and understand their points, or are you skimming them to prove them wrong?

JoeJ

2018-07-02, 05:34 PM

issuing a correction on a previous post of mine, regarding the terror group ISIL. you do not, under any circumstances, "gotta hand it to them" @dril on Twitter.

Unless what you're handing them is a grenade. With the pin removed.

2D8HP

2018-07-02, 05:58 PM

Are you guys actually reading the multi-paragraph responses to one another to try and understand their points....?

Yes, but I tend to forget about a lot of the points when I get to the end of the post, then I re-read, the same thing happens again and I give up

Lord Raziere

2018-07-02, 06:06 PM

I'm honestly surprised at the directions this thread has gone. And impressed, by and large, GitP is good people.

When I started this, I just wanted to swap some war stories and maybe have a giggle over the crazy things people have done at their table. What I got was still enlightening.

Agreed.

I am very thankful that I know which people definitely deserve my ignore list.

the points Kyoru made make sense, but I also agree with War lord and Delta. its complicated to say, but I agree issues about gay people isn't a "cats and dogs" issue, even if its up to individual people to determine what their group is open to. the people around them are also free to choose whether to stay in that group or to join it, and while I guess groups are free to exclude gay things if they want....I'm not gonna lie: I hope everyone else shuns them for it and goes and plays other groups without them, they can have their fun but I sincerely hope that they have it alone and that the wider community rejects them in favor of being more accepting than that. regardless of the individual group thats not the wider community I want.

Calthropstu

2018-07-02, 06:34 PM

Are you guys actually reading the multi-paragraph responses to one another to try and understand their points, or are you skimming them to prove them wrong?

Some of these wall-o-texts should definitely have som tl;dr. But I actually like how far this discussion has gone without getting insulting.

Most forums, this would have devolved into "Die gay boy;" "Go to hell nazi creep" etc 100 posts back. I credit the mods and the fairly decent community.

Hooligan

2018-07-02, 08:29 PM

Well it's great that we now know who is virtuous and who is villainous.

The only real shame (aside from people crapping on each other) is that the original purpose of this thread was derailed and riddled with replies replete with "conflate" and "...in good faith" and the like within a page or so.

Leave it to the playground to become immediately defensive about something fun (the list, not the subsequent ham-fisted discussion of identity politics).

Satinavian

2018-07-03, 04:21 AM

My take on this whole thing:

A person saying "I don't want to play in a game with the following features" is their call. I may not agree with it. In some cases, it might be a good warning that I shouldn't play with them.

People making object statements that certain features must be allowed in all games, or prohibited in all games, worry me. I mean, yeah, there's some restrictions people might make that make me go "yeah, that seems like a jerk move, and totally at odds with my values. I ain't playin' with that person". But I think that's okay, really. I think trying to make the argument that they should be forced to do something they don't want to is silly and likely to be counterproductive in the long term.

Note: This is especially true in situations where we're talking about private games and voluntary association during leisure time.I agree with that

the points Kyoru made make sense, but I also agree with War lord and Delta. its complicated to say, but I agree issues about gay people isn't a "cats and dogs" issue, even if its up to individual people to determine what their group is open to. the people around them are also free to choose whether to stay in that group or to join it, and while I guess groups are free to exclude gay things if they want....I'm not gonna lie: I hope everyone else shuns them for it and goes and plays other groups without them, they can have their fun but I sincerely hope that they have it alone and that the wider community rejects them in favor of being more accepting than that. regardless of the individual group thats not the wider community I want.And i disagree with that.

The gaming community should not exclude people for things that have nothing to do with gaming. I know i have played several times with people i very much disagree with, from active Antifa members to extreme rights (but not yet open Neonazis). I have also been in several groups where players were extremely opposed about certain topics (yes, usually religion or politics related) and where it got really tense everytime any discussion moved in that direction.
But all those people share the same hobby, a hobby that is a group activity. And I really believe we should not divide our community along unrelated opinions.

That means unless one player behaves badly to some other player i will ignore any disagreeable out of game opinions or leanings and always try to accomodate all players that are part of the group. I don't have to like them all or share any other activity.

Mordaedil

2018-07-03, 04:32 AM

I don't mind sharing a hobby with people that disagree with me politically, but I kinda draw the line at people who think I ought to die or not exist.

Delta

2018-07-03, 04:38 AM

To make my point clear yet again because I feel a lot of perspective has been lost over the course of the discussion: I have played with lots of people I disagreed with on many things over the years. I'm not trying to imply anyone should be shunned on principle unless his actual actions (not opinions) warrant it.

All I'm saying is that I feel not all requests a player can ask of a group are to be seen as reasonable requests where you should always try to find a compromise. To put it like this: If you don't want to encounter gay characters in your RPG, find a group where neither players nor GM want to include gay characters or NPCs, simple as that. But if you are playing in a group where gay characters are a thing that exists, I just don't feel that group should have to accomodate that request, that is all, and yes, to get back in the original topic, a player asking for this is a "red flag" for me in the sense that I would keep a closer look on that player because from experience I'd expect more conflicts to arise from that.

Satinavian

2018-07-03, 05:11 AM

I would consider to accomodate that request. While i don't think it is particularly reasonable there is a significant chance that the other players, while certainly finding that wish a bit odd and suspicious, don't care too much anyway.

But yes, such a wish certainly is a red flag that the player might be troublesome.

Knaight

2018-07-03, 09:00 AM

And i disagree with that.

The gaming community should not exclude people for things that have nothing to do with gaming. I know i have played several times with people i very much disagree with, from active Antifa members to extreme rights (but not yet open Neonazis). I have also been in several groups where players were extremely opposed about certain topics (yes, usually religion or politics related) and where it got really tense everytime any discussion moved in that direction.
But all those people share the same hobby, a hobby that is a group activity. And I really believe we should not divide our community along unrelated opinions.

I'm just going to take the time to strongly disagree with this before bowing out (at least until I get back from a work trip, but hopefully this thread will have died down by then). Gaming is a hobby, and as a hobby it's really not that important in the grand scheme of things. It shouldn't take precedent over things that actually matter, and there are all sorts of things that are religion and politics related that fit into that category, starting with core values. There's two very different classes of disagreement, one of which is about the strategies to use to advance values and one about the values themselves - and while some variation in the latter is acceptable there's a point where the question becomes "Do I spend time with terrible people because we both like RPGs?".

As far as I'm concerned the correct answer there is "No".

Koo Rehtorb

2018-07-03, 11:00 AM

Well it's great that we now know who is virtuous and who is villainous.

Unironically agreed.

Calthropstu

2018-07-03, 12:54 PM

Liquor Box

2018-07-03, 07:03 PM

My take on this whole thing:

A person saying "I don't want to play in a game with the following features" is their call. I may not agree with it. In some cases, it might be a good warning that I shouldn't play with them.

People making object statements that certain features must be allowed in all games, or prohibited in all games, worry me. I mean, yeah, there's some restrictions people might make that make me go "yeah, that seems like a jerk move, and totally at odds with my values. I ain't playin' with that person". But I think that's okay, really. I think trying to make the argument that they should be forced to do something they don't want to is silly and likely to be counterproductive in the long term.

Note: This is especially true in situations where we're talking about private games and voluntary association during leisure time.

I agree with this.

To make my point clear yet again because I feel a lot of perspective has been lost over the course of the discussion: I have played with lots of people I disagreed with on many things over the years. I'm not trying to imply anyone should be shunned on principle unless his actual actions (not opinions) warrant it.

All I'm saying is that I feel not all requests a player can ask of a group are to be seen as reasonable requests where you should always try to find a compromise. To put it like this: If you don't want to encounter gay characters in your RPG, find a group where neither players nor GM want to include gay characters or NPCs, simple as that. But if you are playing in a group where gay characters are a thing that exists, I just don't feel that group should have to accomodate that request, that is all, and yes, to get back in the original topic, a player asking for this is a "red flag" for me in the sense that I would keep a closer look on that player because from experience I'd expect more conflicts to arise from that.

How would you feel if a person said, "I prefer a game where we don't explore sexual preferences at all, because I prefer to avoid arguments that sometimes surround those issues, therefore lets keep the question of whether our characters are gay or straight in our own heads, and not introduce any story elements that require us to explore sexuality"?

I mean, I understand that might not be the type of game you prefer, but do you think the request would be reasonable?

Koo Rehtorb

2018-07-03, 07:10 PM

I mean, I understand that might not be the type of game you prefer, but do you think the request would be reasonable?

It would certainly be more reasonable than just banning gay characters. I don't think banning sexual subject matter strictly so bigots won't ruin the game for everyone is the best call, though. The best call is don't play with bigots at all.

Delta

2018-07-04, 01:54 AM

How would you feel if a person said, "I prefer a game where we don't explore sexual preferences at all, because I prefer to avoid arguments that sometimes surround those issues, therefore lets keep the question of whether our characters are gay or straight in our own heads, and not introduce any story elements that require us to explore sexuality"?

I mean, I understand that might not be the type of game you prefer, but do you think the request would be reasonable?

Honestly, no. Because how would a game world like that look with no reference to that at all? "The King and his Q... oh, sorry, almost would've mentioned a romantic pairing there" just doesn't work. Now, sexuality is not a part that needs to be explored in any kind of depth and that's fine, but to remove the sheer mention of it from the game at all would simply castrate the types of stories to be told in the vast majority of settings to such a degree I'd find it ridiculous.

If someone came to me asking me for that, I'd recommend him to find a group playing a purely action-focused dungeon crawler campaign or something like that, because I feel as soon as social interaction within a plausible greater game world is concerned, the simple mentioning of sexuality and romance is kind of a given.

Calthropstu

2018-07-04, 02:33 AM

It would certainly be more reasonable than just banning gay characters. I don't think banning sexual subject matter strictly so bigots won't ruin the game for everyone is the best call, though. The best call is don't play with bigots at all.

Ever hear of conventions? Or pick up games? How about if it isn't even a player or gm making the rule but the parents or other family of the host? Or maybe the game has kids in it. Sex talk in that situation could theoretically get you arrested in that point or even sued.

Yeah, no sex talk at all has many applications other than what you consider bigotry.

Koo Rehtorb

2018-07-04, 02:37 AM

Delta

2018-07-04, 02:45 AM

Ever hear of conventions? Or pick up games? How about if it isn't even a player or gm making the rule but the parents or other family of the host? Or maybe the game has kids in it. Sex talk in that situation could theoretically get you arrested in that point or even sued.

Yeah, no sex talk at all has many applications other than what you consider bigotry.

If "sex talk" were in any shape or form the subject matter, you would be correct. But "The inn is led by the owner, his loving wife and his three kids help around the house" isn't sex talk, yet the sexuality/romantic inclinations of two NPCs has already been clearly established, so "Think of the kids!" isn't really applicable here either, any kid old enough to take part in pen & paper rpg is old enough to handle the mentioning of romance.

But maybe this is also a cultural thing, I've been playing at conventions with people I've hardly if ever met for decades and never once met anyone who mentioned they had a problem with a certain level of sexual content in their games, that's just not a big issue.

Liquor Box

2018-07-04, 04:50 AM

Honestly, no. Because how would a game world like that look with no reference to that at all? "The King and his Q... oh, sorry, almost would've mentioned a romantic pairing there" just doesn't work. Now, sexuality is not a part that needs to be explored in any kind of depth and that's fine, but to remove the sheer mention of it from the game at all would simply castrate the types of stories to be told in the vast majority of settings to such a degree I'd find it ridiculous.

If someone came to me asking me for that, I'd recommend him to find a group playing a purely action-focused dungeon crawler campaign or something like that, because I feel as soon as social interaction within a plausible greater game world is concerned, the simple mentioning of sexuality and romance is kind of a given.

Ah, apologies, I may not have been very clear, but I thought we were talking about player characters.

I completely accept that it would be odd if there were no reference to any romantic/sexual connections of any kind in the game world - a person could not have a mother and a father.

Would you mind considering the question again - a player or the GM says "I prefer a game where we don't explore sexual preferences at all, because I prefer to avoid arguments that sometimes surround those issues, therefore lets keep the question of whether our characters are gay or straight in our own heads, and not introduce any story elements that require us to explore sexuality"? This time though on the understanding that the reference is only to the player character you are creating.

let's assume that as a player you wouldn't know much about the game world, although you might expect to see NPC couples in it (so some evidence of romantic relationships), you wouldn't know whether there happens to be gay NPC couples or not, but you wouldn't expect an NPC's sexuality to played up in any way (whether gay or not) because presumably the a similar request has been made of the GM as was made to you.

How would you approach that scenario?

Delta

2018-07-04, 07:25 AM

I'm not sure how I would handle that scenario. Honestly, I probably would have a hard time accepting that because "to avoid arguments" when there clearly are none is not a motivation I can really get behind, and the only arguments I could imagine arising from just mentioning a characters sexuality are the ones we have been talking about here, and since those are ones where I'd feel comfortable to make a stand and say "No, I don't want to compromise on that" I'd feel hard pressed to think of a reason.

To be honest, this whole issue is mostly academic to me anyway, since I've never had a group even remotely as opposed to the issue of sexuality in pen & paper as seem to be rather standard for a lot of people here, I guess this is kind of a cultural issue too.

Mordaedil

2018-07-04, 07:25 AM

Ever hear of conventions? Or pick up games? How about if it isn't even a player or gm making the rule but the parents or other family of the host? Or maybe the game has kids in it. Sex talk in that situation could theoretically get you arrested in that point or even sued.

Yeah, no sex talk at all has many applications other than what you consider bigotry.

Conventions and pick-up games also have people that behave in undesirable ways, you have to contend with people being *******s in any situation if you attend a table like that. If you have kids at the table and two players are being extremely crass, you pull them aside and ask them what the **** is wrong with them and tell them to tone **** down.

Though I will say, lawsuit and arrest are unlikely outcomes in both of those situations too. You might at worst get a stern warning and talking to. I've certainly never heard of anyone issuing a lawsuit over a game, that's ridiculous.

Satinavian

2018-07-04, 07:37 AM

I'm not sure how I would handle that scenario. Honestly, I probably would have a hard time accepting that because "to avoid arguments" when there clearly are none is not a motivation I can really get behind, and the only arguments I could imagine arising from just mentioning a characters sexuality are the ones we have been talking about here, and since those are ones where I'd feel comfortable to make a stand and say "No, I don't want to compromise on that" I'd feel hard pressed to think of a reason.IME the main reason for rules of never doing anything related to character sexuality are idiots who mingle it with player sexuality and try to hit on other gamers via character. It is not that uncommon a request to forbid anything that might be unwelcome sexual attention or harassment done under the pretense of it being "only in game".

It is not an issue i encountered in any long standing group (there were only instances of players flirting with each other willingly and the rest of the table being annoyed for the waste of time), but there have been problems at conventions.

Quertus

2018-07-04, 08:08 AM

IME the main reason for rules of never doing anything related to character sexuality are idiots who mingle it with player sexuality and try to hit on other gamers via character. It is not that uncommon a request to forbid anything that might be unwelcome sexual attention or harassment done under the pretense of it being "only in game".

It is not an issue i encountered in any long standing group (there were only instances of players flirting with each other willingly and the rest of the table being annoyed for the waste of time), but there have been problems at conventions.

On an almost completely unrelated note, I gamed with a guy who, um, played a cultist of Slanesh terrifyingly well. But he kept his creep limited to NPCs (and the table was all adults), so it wasn't an issue.

My point being, I agree that harassment of the other players is a bigger issue.

Perhaps we can describe it as a hierarchy? PC on PC (on PC...) at the top, then PC on NPC, then NPC on NPC?

Hmmm... That isn't quite right. Because GM initiated unwanted actions are at least as potentially troublesome as PC on PC.

And direct player on player interactions are a thing, too - from players who have issues with pda, to flirtation / creeping.

Maybe it's not simple enough to describe as a simple hierarchy, to list your group's acceptance level on various topics.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-07-04, 08:13 AM

On the "sexual interactions" topic:

My rule as DM is that there will be no explicit sexual activity described. Saying "I flirt with X" is fine, as long as X is an NPC or a PC whose player is OK with that. Anything further or more detailed will get a fade-to-black.

Same goes for explicit violence and gore. You can torture that cultist to death. But we'll not describe it, simply say "you brutally torture the fellow until he dies" and move on.

Most of this is because I play with teenagers in a school setting, and so have to keep it clean. Plenty of innuendo--one particularly icky villain was trying to breed/create (using foul magics) a harem of dragon-human hybrids and thought that the PCs would make good subjects. The group (of two girls) found that it added to the incentive to obliterate him without mercy.

Delta

2018-07-04, 08:39 AM

IME the main reason for rules of never doing anything related to character sexuality are idiots who mingle it with player sexuality and try to hit on other gamers via character. It is not that uncommon a request to forbid anything that might be unwelcome sexual attention or harassment done under the pretense of it being "only in game".

Yeah, but I feel like there's a big difference between that and not mentioning a PCs sexuality at all to the level being discussed here (as in, more sanitized than your average childrens fairy tale story).

I'm honestly trying to think of a scenario where I find it reasonable to ban that to such a degree. On the danger of repeating myself, but the example I posted a couple pages earlier sums it up quite well I think

Charles the Cleric: "If we ever defeat Larry the Lich, if we get out of all of this alive, what do you want to do with your life?"
William the Warrior: "I go back home, rebuild my families castle, find a nice guy to settle down with and take care of my dead sisters kids"

I'm hard pressed to think of a scenario I'd accept where a dialogue like this would be considered inappropriate. If I encountered a group where everyone would be "No, that's too much sexual content!" I'd be really weirded out and pass on the group, and I don't think I'd want to accomodate a player in one of my groups asking for it because that would set a very weird precedent.

Satinavian

2018-07-04, 10:22 AM

I'm honestly trying to think of a scenario where I find it reasonable to ban that to such a degree. On the danger of repeating myself, but the example I posted a couple pages earlier sums it up quite well I think

I'm hard pressed to think of a scenario I'd accept where a dialogue like this would be considered inappropriate. If I encountered a group where everyone would be "No, that's too much sexual content!" I'd be really weirded out and pass on the group, and I don't think I'd want to accomodate a player in one of my groups asking for it because that would set a very weird precedent.
Mostly such a blanket ban could happen when a more nuanced version didn't work and you got several arguments about what kind of thing already went to far and what didn't. I could see myself agreeing to that to put the topic to rest but players where such a measure is necessary would not really be something i would really like in the group.

Quertus

2018-07-04, 10:57 AM

Mostly such a blanket ban could happen when a more nuanced version didn't work and you got several arguments about what kind of thing already went to far and what didn't. I could see myself agreeing to that to put the topic to rest but players where such a measure is necessary would not really be something i would really like in the group.

I once again purpose a world without gender.

And ask whether that would be offensive to those for whom gender is a huge portion of their identity.

2D8HP

2018-07-04, 11:57 AM

....a player or the GM says "I prefer a game where we don't explore sexual preferences at all, because I prefer to avoid arguments that sometimes surround those issues, therefore lets keep the question of whether our characters are gay or straight in our own heads, and not introduce any story elements that require us to explore sexuality"? This time though on the understanding that the reference is only to the player character you are creating.

let's assume that as a player you wouldn't know much about the game world, although you might expect to see NPC couples in it (so some evidence of romantic relationships), you wouldn't know whether there happens to be gay NPC couples or not, but you wouldn't expect an NPC's sexuality to played up in any way (whether gay or not) because presumably the a similar request has been made of the GM as was made to you.

How would you approach that scenario?

What a long question!

I can think of precisely one time where "sexual content" may have made me walk out of a game:

Late '80's co DM's, he was speaking when she went behind me and placed a "bedroom toy" on my shoulder and then laughed.
These were also the DM's who had asked if I wanted "to meet our new ferret", and since a friend I previously knew had of a couple of ferrets as pets (hers just seemed mostly like cats) I said yes. Almost immediately the beast bit hard on my fortunately thick leather boot (with my foot in it!) and I had to kick it off!

I don't remember which of those incidents was first, but one of them was the dealbreaker and I didn't play D&D again for decades afterwards.

Anyway Liquor Box, if someone asked "please keep sex talk down" that seems fine to me (I don't actually remember much in any game that I've played, and most of the D&D I've run have been traditional dungeon crawls), I make a similar "no torture talk" request.

If however someone says "I don't want any gay stuff" that is a red flag because the last guy I heard say that was a City and County of San Francisco co-worker who seemed like a psychopath to me and, while I'm not gay so I'm not their target, most people who I've heared voice anti-gay sentiments have been jerks in other ways as well so I'm prejudiced against them.

When I think about it the folks that I've known to be "out" have actually seemed to have slightly less of a percentage of jerks then everyone else, so I suppose that based on that I should be prejudiced in their favor, which didn't occur to me until I thought about it just now.

Wow making broad generalizations about people is fun! (Okay maybe that has more to do with what a person acts like effecting how likely I'm going to know them well enough to learn such a detail about their private life, but where's the sport?)

Alight so how many games have I played that have had "out" characters?

Let me count...

.....that would be none.

How many tables have I played at where someone has said anti-gay comments?

I calculated that as...

....none.

Have I played with anti-gay bigots?

Maybe.

I really don't know.

Have I played any RPG's with someone who I know was gay?

I calculated that at...

...one person, and now I can make a broad generalization, hooray for me!

When I was eleven years old a classmate invited me to play D&D at his house where the DM was his older brother and the other players (besides me and my classmate) were three teenagers, and except for the DM the teenagers were jerks.

As we grew up we became friends and they stopped seeming like jerks.

One of them eventually "came out", and he was the only one to apologize for being a jerk years earlier.

So based on that...

...yeah even I can't extrapolate anything.

Any ideas?

Oh wait!

Based on my experience, don't play D&D with heterosexual couples that own ferrets.

-Your welcome.

Segev

2018-07-04, 12:09 PM

I once again purpose a world without gender.

And ask whether that would be offensive to those for whom gender is a huge portion of their identity.

I think the big problem you'd run into here is that people would accuse your world of having only men.

Delta

2018-07-04, 12:19 PM

Mostly such a blanket ban could happen when a more nuanced version didn't work and you got several arguments about what kind of thing already went to far and what didn't. I could see myself agreeing to that to put the topic to rest but players where such a measure is necessary would not really be something i would really like in the group.

That's exactly what I mean, in a vacuum, it doesn't sound like a completely unreasonable request, I just can't think of a plausible scenario where it would ever come up where I would agree to it. Honestly, a group that needs such strict rules to function does not sound like a group I'd want to play with at all.

Lord Raziere

2018-07-04, 12:30 PM

I think the big problem you'd run into here is that people would accuse your world of having only men.

Which is also biologically wrong.

a parthenogenetic species would be female like whiptail lizards. Every child would be a clone of their parents. Disease would be civilizations greatest threat due to lack of genetic diversity, so everyone would be neat freaks if the civilization survives long enough to figure out hygiene, there would erroneous beliefs that because someone is a clone of their parent that they want to do the same things as them. not only would they be obsessed with cleanliness more than us, they'd have a rigid caste system believing that everyone is born into their jobs.

yet at the same time, to make up for lack of genetic diversity, they'd produce MORE children than us as insurance so that if one child dies another can still live and keep going. which leads to overpopulation more quickly which leads to the older members of society, the rulers currently in charge to instituting various measures to choose people who is more worthy of staying where they currently are and then finding a way to either convince the excess population to go forth and pioneer and found new towns to either expand the nation or die trying. it would lead to a very warlike race as excess population would be constantly drafted to go fight their enemies.

the nobility would of course see the commoners as expendable, because their biology literally builds them to be. to minimize risk of early death, their period of time before they become an adult is shorter and they have to learn faster, but their life span would probably also be shorter because of it.

such a society would be hell. basically a vast military. there'd be no freedom, no valuing life for its own sake, everyone within a certain caste would be interchangeable, and it'd be in constant war mode forever to either expand or keep down its numbers. with the ever looming risk of disease coming to wipe them all out someday.

2D8HP

2018-07-04, 12:55 PM

Which is also biologically....

Hobgoblins?

Lord Raziere

2018-07-04, 01:17 PM

Hobgoblins?

If all hobgoblins are female, have a fear of disease surpassing any human because their race's achilles heel is the plague and breed faster than us and producing only clones of themselves, yes.

JoeJ

2018-07-04, 01:28 PM

Which is also biologically wrong.

a parthenogenetic species would be female like whiptail lizards. Every child would be a clone of their parents. Disease would be civilizations greatest threat due to lack of genetic diversity, so everyone would be neat freaks if the civilization survives long enough to figure out hygiene, there would erroneous beliefs that because someone is a clone of their parent that they want to do the same things as them. not only would they be obsessed with cleanliness more than us, they'd have a rigid caste system believing that everyone is born into their jobs.

yet at the same time, to make up for lack of genetic diversity, they'd produce MORE children than us as insurance so that if one child dies another can still live and keep going. which leads to overpopulation more quickly which leads to the older members of society, the rulers currently in charge to instituting various measures to choose people who is more worthy of staying where they currently are and then finding a way to either convince the excess population to go forth and pioneer and found new towns to either expand the nation or die trying. it would lead to a very warlike race as excess population would be constantly drafted to go fight their enemies.

the nobility would of course see the commoners as expendable, because their biology literally builds them to be. to minimize risk of early death, their period of time before they become an adult is shorter and they have to learn faster, but their life span would probably also be shorter because of it.

such a society would be hell. basically a vast military. there'd be no freedom, no valuing life for its own sake, everyone within a certain caste would be interchangeable, and it'd be in constant war mode forever to either expand or keep down its numbers. with the ever looming risk of disease coming to wipe them all out someday.

In technical, anthropological, terminology, sex refers to biological differences and gender to the cultural assignment of roles and personality traits based (in part) on sex. A society without gender, therefore, would not necessarily have to be without sex. All the members could be hermaphroditic, so that any two healthy adults could reproduce together. Or they could have biological sexes but assign no particular cultural importance to them. The latter might be especially easy if they lay eggs that are incubated equally by both parents. Obviously, neither of these occurs among human cultures, but in a fantasy or SF setting they are quite feasible.

Lord Raziere

2018-07-04, 02:29 PM

In technical, anthropological, terminology, sex refers to biological differences and gender to the cultural assignment of roles and personality traits based (in part) on sex. A society without gender, therefore, would not necessarily have to be without sex. All the members could be hermaphroditic, so that any two healthy adults could reproduce together. Or they could have biological sexes but assign no particular cultural importance to them. The latter might be especially easy if they lay eggs that are incubated equally by both parents. Obviously, neither of these occurs among human cultures, but in a fantasy or SF setting they are quite feasible.

Ah yes, hermaphrodites.

yet, it seem almost too ideal.

yet lets actually examine the effects:
any two adults can reproduce with one another opens it to a free for all for romance and seduction. Yet nature abhors a free for all. eventually it has to settle into some kind of order, kids have to be taken care of, that sort of thing. unfortunately nature's order is one enforced by strength. the members of society would look for someone who is strong to reproduce with, and thus more likely to make and raise kids who will survive.

thus traditions of testing and proving strength would become commonplace. attraction would not be about gender, but about strength and who people feel would give them strong offspring. Thus society would become a constant competition, and from this competition would arise people who they consider alphas. These alphas would of course only seek to mate with their runner up, thus producing an alpha couple. the children of this alpha couple would be expected to succeed like their parents and given high expectations because of it. society becomes about constant competition that sorts the weak from the strong, and all the "weak" ones would have to obey the alpha couple. of course at any time one can prove that they're stronger through a duel and topple one of them to get one of the alpha couple for themselves, thus making a new alpha couple. the partner of the loser's feelings would depend: if they're just doing this for the competition and strong offspring they won't actually care. if actual love is involved, they will of course be angry and kill the one who killed their partner, but this would be frowned upon, as that means society would have to compete to make a new alpha couple again until things are stable.

thus everyone would be ranked in a hierarchy that would change based on who beats who in duels, with the weak obeying the "stronger" ones. in times of war, the weaker ones will be sent out to die against the enemy while the strong would be expected to repopulate society through polyamory. Thus eventually would arise a harem system where the strongest would be nobles, who court by beating up the ones they are attracted to in duels to prove they are stronger thus meaning the loser has to obey them in all things to add to their harem would basically be slaves, and would be selective about who they beat up and add to their harem to produce strong offspring, and in turn must be careful about being beaten by someone else who might add to their harem.

the commoners of course would still compete to make alpha couples who can join the nobility while the rest who lose to the alpha couple labor to serve them. while any noble produced from a harem would be kicked down to being a commoner if they lose to the alpha couple made by the commoners competition.

and so on. really such a hermaphroditic set up would only result in a different kind of horribleness: constant competition over who gets who, forever.

Mr Beer

2018-07-04, 06:15 PM

<snip>
Based on my experience, don't play D&D with heterosexual couples that own ferrets.

-Your welcome.

I think it's fair to say that people who like to liven things up by occasionally attacking you with angry ferrets and dildos are probably not the best gaming hosts.

Unless of course you're into that, in which case, well I'm no kink-shamer sir, have at it.

ross

2018-07-04, 07:18 PM

Constantly compares the world to "tippyverse" and genuinely thinks this is insightful

Using tv tropes terms instead of just describing things

"This is just like that xkcd comic"

"Looks to" instead of "looks at"

Incorrect usage of the verb "sees"

Monty python jokes

Likes critical role

"This is a literate roleplay. That means we will never use line breaks, we will definitely use semi colons without understanding their purpose, and we will spend fifteen paragraphs every post saying nothing at all."

Gravitron5000

2018-07-05, 08:26 AM

and so on. really such a hermaphroditic set up would only result in a different kind of horribleness: constant competition over who gets who, forever.

That's one way it could go, but it is by no means a foregone conclusion. Strength is not the biggest indicator of reproductive fitness, and even so, there will be sufficient variation in preferences that the strongest will not always be chosen. Kind of like how we are right now.

If a successful mate is one that is determined as the physically fittest, then sport will probably be a driving factor for mate selection rather than raw strength.

Or perhaps the ability to provide for offspring might be seen as an indicator of reproductive suitability, then there might be elaborate courtship rituals or a series of tasks to prove worthiness.

In summary, your example seems like one that strips personal preference out of consideration, or at least limits it to a single criteria, which is probably not realistic.

ross

2018-07-05, 08:40 AM

any two adults can reproduce with one another opens it to a free for all for romance and seduction. Yet nature abhors a free for all.
Nature doesn't abhor anything.

eventually it has to settle into some kind of order, kids have to be taken care of, that sort of thing.
Unless you're a member of a species that doesn't care for its offspring.

unfortunately nature's order is one enforced by strength.
Nature is neither ordered nor disordered.

the members of society would look for someone who is strong to reproduce with, and thus more likely to make and raise kids who will survive.
Or, they will look for someone with the best mating song, or the most colorful feathers.

and so on. really such a hermaphroditic set up would only result in a different kind of horribleness: constant competition over who gets who, forever.
Every living thing that wants to reproduce competes for reproduction, directly or indirectly.

kyoryu

2018-07-05, 10:19 AM

the points Kyoru made make sense, but...

Honestly, that's not really disagreeing with me at all.

I wouldn't quite go to the point of spreading that the group should be avoided, but might tell people that were considering joining it...

(Note that I generally consider cross-gender play to be a different situation. I mean, if you're trans, it's not cross-gender play anyway.)

Segev

2018-07-05, 11:37 AM

Lord Raziere

2018-07-05, 01:17 PM

That's one way it could go, but it is by no means a foregone conclusion. Strength is not the biggest indicator of reproductive fitness, and even so, there will be sufficient variation in preferences that the strongest will not always be chosen. Kind of like how we are right now.

If a successful mate is one that is determined as the physically fittest, then sport will probably be a driving factor for mate selection rather than raw strength.

Or perhaps the ability to provide for offspring might be seen as an indicator of reproductive suitability, then there might be elaborate courtship rituals or a series of tasks to prove worthiness.

In summary, your example seems like one that strips personal preference out of consideration, or at least limits it to a single criteria, which is probably not realistic.

Nature doesn't abhor anything.

Unless you're a member of a species that doesn't care for its offspring.

Nature is neither ordered nor disordered.

Or, they will look for someone with the best mating song, or the most colorful feathers.

Every living thing that wants to reproduce competes for reproduction, directly or indirectly.

You both completely missed the point.

The point is that no matter what biological changes you make, atrocities resulting from people treating biology as more important than reason will always happen. the only thing that prevents these things is recognizing them and not doing them. it doesn't matter if you throw out these specific details, they will still happen just in different ways for different reasons. nature is cruel and monstrous like that. the whole "lets make a setting where there are no sexes/genders" stops nothing bad from happening. the details you throw out, stop nothing bad from happening. you only exchange one set of atrocities for another. that people will somehow magically become better if they were all hermaphroditic is naive.

ross

2018-07-05, 01:25 PM

You both completely missed the point.

The point is that no matter what biological changes you make, atrocities resulting from people treating biology as more important than reason will always happen. the only thing that prevents these things is recognizing them and not doing them. it doesn't matter if you throw out these specific details, they will still happen just in different ways for different reasons. nature is cruel and monstrous like that. the whole "lets make a setting where there are no sexes/genders" stops nothing bad from happening. the details you throw out, stop nothing bad from happening. you only exchange one set of atrocities for another. that people will somehow magically become better if they were all hermaphroditic is naive.

People will commit atrocities, yes. You do not have enough information to make this determination for all conceivable intelligent species. No one does. It is, therefore, entirely up to the setting author to decide if atrocities will take place, and all objections are irrelevant.

Lord Raziere

2018-07-05, 01:54 PM

People will commit atrocities, yes. You do not have enough information to make this determination for all conceivable intelligent species. No one does. It is, therefore, entirely up to the setting author to decide if atrocities will take place, and all objections are irrelevant.

Irrelevant. Any author that decides no such thing takes place is not worth talking about. There is no accurate depiction of the world without pain.

Gravitron5000

2018-07-05, 02:17 PM

You both completely missed the point.

The point is that no matter what biological changes you make, atrocities resulting from people treating biology as more important than reason will always happen. the only thing that prevents these things is recognizing them and not doing them. it doesn't matter if you throw out these specific details, they will still happen just in different ways for different reasons. nature is cruel and monstrous like that. the whole "lets make a setting where there are no sexes/genders" stops nothing bad from happening. the details you throw out, stop nothing bad from happening. you only exchange one set of atrocities for another. that people will somehow magically become better if they were all hermaphroditic is naive.

It's not that I don't get the point, it's that you seem to be engaging in reductio ad absurdum. You are stating things as if they would unfold inevitably towards a specific extreme, and although that extreme might be worthwhile topic to explore, it does not necessarily follow from the starting premise. Making a setting with no sexes may not stop bad things from happening in that setting, but nor does it cause bad things to happen.

martixy

2018-07-05, 03:01 PM

Problem players. Everybody knows about them. We've all seen them. Heck, maybe we've even BEEN them. In the relatively short time that I've been both a player and a DM, these are some of the red flags I've seen in problem players.

Plays a character that does not match their gender
Wants to be actual royalty in their backstory
Insists on using a class they found on dandwiki
Asks to play a class focused on crafting
Insists on using anything they found on dandwiki

I'm sorry, what?

Especially the first one. 11 pages of thread have probably picked you apart to little itty bitty pieces on this one, but I'll add my own small anecdote: None of my party have characters that match their gender. And everybody's fine.

The rest are equal bullcrap. There's nothing wrong with being the king. There's nothing wrong with crafting. There's some small bits wrong with dandwiki, and it's the DMs job to decide which.

Can I flip the table here? Half this list signals to me "bad, immature DM" in big red flags.

Rerem115

2018-07-05, 03:51 PM

I never said that this was a definitive list; these are the traits that problem players, in my personal experience have possessed. I've played a lot with new players and strangers, so rather than being hard limits, these are instead signs to me that I may need to steer the game in a more productive direction in order for everyone to be happy.

Nifft

2018-07-05, 03:53 PM

The rest are equal bullcrap. There's nothing wrong with being the king. There's nothing wrong with crafting. There's some small bits wrong with dandwiki, and it's the DMs job to decide which.

Can I flip the table here? Half this list signals to me "bad, immature DM" in big red flags.

dandwiki is a smoking garbage pit.

As a DM that's what I've decided.

Segev

2018-07-05, 04:08 PM

Can I flip the table here?

I'm afraid not; you're not hosting, so Tabletop Simulator won't let you flip it.

JoeJ

2018-07-05, 05:06 PM

On the gender issue I think everything has already been said. But on this:

Wants to be actual royalty in their backstory

I fail to see how that's a problem.

Segev

2018-07-05, 05:20 PM

On the gender issue I think everything has already been said. But on this:

I fail to see how that's a problem.

If I had to guess, the player(s) he's thinking about wanted to use it as an excuse to break the equivalent of WBL curves and to order NPCs and/or the PCs around.

JoeJ

2018-07-05, 05:36 PM

If I had to guess, the player(s) he's thinking about wanted to use it as an excuse to break the equivalent of WBL curves and to order NPCs and/or the PCs around.

Bad behavior by a player is a problem, obviously, but it would be just as obnoxious if the PC had a criminal background and tried to use their ties to organized crime to do those things, or a cleric who did them because they were the favorite of their deity.

Mr Beer

2018-07-05, 05:59 PM

JoeJ

2018-07-05, 06:23 PM

There's a big gap between 'does not commit atrocities' and 'pain exists in the world'. Big enough to fit plenty of conceivable species into.

Especially since different species would not necessarily agree on what constitutes an atrocity. Abandoning young children in the wilderness to survive or die on their own would probably not be an atrocity for a species with a high "r" reproductive strategy (that is, have a very large number of offspring, of which only a small percentage will survive).

Rerem115

2018-07-05, 07:46 PM

I'm sorry, what?

Especially the first one.[...]The rest are equal bullcrap. There's nothing wrong with being the king. There's nothing wrong with crafting. There's some small bits wrong with dandwiki, and it's the DMs job to decide which.

I guess it's fair that I explain why I listed what I did.

As I said, I play a lot with new and/or younger players and with strangers. I've found that limiting the amount of overtly sexual content is generally good for group dynamics, thus the "sexy" and "pregnancy" bullets. At least in my experience, enough of the people who cross play are also too overtly sexual for my table, so it makes me prick up my ears a bit more when they describe their character.

For lolrandom and Japanese/edgelordy stuff, see inexperienced players. This also ties into the royalty bit. You can play royalty if you want, just give me a good reason why you're a wandering adventurer, anddon't expect to start with a Holy Avenger and minions (plural) because of your backstory.

For crafting, it slows down play, messes with the average quality of party gear, and as such, is a frequent target of players looking to break the system. Not helping matters is the fact that for 5e, basically all crafting is homebrew. I won't disallow it, per say, but you will have to get me to okay it first.

...Which segways into dandwiki. Is there some good content there? Sure. But, there's just so much garbage that it's probably not worth your time or mine to sift through it/fix whatever you find there. I will work with you on homebrew, but dandwiki is just too untrustworthy.

JoeJ

2018-07-05, 07:54 PM

For lolrandom and Japanese/edgelordy stuff, see inexperienced players. This also ties into the royalty bit. You can play royalty if you want, just give me a good reason why you're a wandering adventurer, anddon't expect to start with a Holy Avenger and minions (plural) because of your backstory.

Considering how many fairy tales involve king's sons out seeking their fortunes, it shouldn't be any harder to justify a royal adventurer than any other background. As for minions, the noble background in 5e has an option to start with 3 retainers. You might choose not to allow that at your table, but it's hardly a warning sign if a player sees that in the PHB and wants to have it.

Also, per the PHB, any character can have as many minions as they want for 2gp per day each.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-07-05, 08:01 PM

Considering how many fairy tales involve king's sons out seeking their fortunes, it shouldn't be any harder to justify a royal adventurer than any other background. As for minions, the noble background in 5e has an option to start with 3 retainers. You might choose not to allow that at your table, but it's hardly a warning sign if a player sees that in the PHB and wants to have it.

I'd disallow a royal adventurer, but that's only because of the four major nations, exactly one is a conventional monarchy, and the royal clan there is small and all their kids are less than 10 years old.

There is another noble family in a different land that has plenty of viable candidates, as long as they're not too busy stabbing each other in the back with poisoned daggers. Not having a clear heir when there's something like 16 primary candidates and ~120 other children (it's complicated, involving lots of wives/concubines and a set of blood-brothers who promised to adopt each others kids when one died). They're only vying for control of one area of the nation, and the absolute monarch (well, sort of) may decide to throw them all out on their ear if they don't cut it out soon.

The other two are a guild-based semi-oligarchy with merito-democratic pretensions and a democratic kritarchy (rule by elected judges). No nobles to be found in either one :smallsmile:

For people from those lands, I take the "noble" background to mean "child of a wealthy/established leading family". But then I do narrative custom backgrounds instead of using the book ones directly.

Rerem115

2018-07-05, 08:31 PM

Considering how many fairy tales involve king's sons out seeking their fortunes, it shouldn't be any harder to justify a royal adventurer than any other background. As for minions, the noble background in 5e has an option to start with 3 retainers. You might choose not to allow that at your table, but it's hardly a warning sign if a player sees that in the PHB and wants to have it.

Also, per the PHB, any character can have as many minions as they want for 2gp per day each.

You're saying exactly what I mean on the royal adventurer bit. I've legitimately had a couple players say "I'm the king/princess of a country, and leave it at that. No reason why, they were just royalty galivanting about.

With regards to minions, yes you can have retainers. No, those can't be Knights out of the MM. As for hiring minions, I tend to discourage it, since they slow the game down by quite a bit.

I guess my biggest problem with royal PCs is that their very existence tends to warp the plot around them. In games where I've had royal PCs with an actual backstory, the story eventually became a quest to save their kingdom, giving that player a lot of time in the limelight and drawing the others into orbit around them. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but that sheer power as a plot point can definitely skew the game.

Lord Raziere

2018-07-06, 12:33 AM

Nifft

2018-07-06, 12:46 AM

With such disagreement and variance comes an inability to be at peace with another, and thus war.

and thus do more atrocities occur.

I think you're claiming that disagreement & variance always leads to war and atrocities.

I'd prefer to believe that war & atrocities can be outgrown, as humanity progresses.

Lord Raziere

2018-07-06, 01:13 AM

I think you're claiming that disagreement & variance always leads to war and atrocities.

I'd prefer to believe that war & atrocities can be outgrown, as humanity progresses.

Yes. through reason. agreed.

But biology and nature are not reason or civilization.

JoeJ

2018-07-06, 01:39 AM

With such disagreement and variance comes an inability to be at peace with another, and thus war.

and thus do more atrocities occur.

You must be a lot of fun at parties.

Mr Beer

2018-07-06, 01:44 AM

With such disagreement and variance comes an inability to be at peace with another, and thus war.

and thus do more atrocities occur.

I mean if you can demonstrate that this is a truism applying to all plausible lifeforms, you should publish your thesis and then go collect a Nobel prize for cracking the secrets of xeno-psychology.

Lord Raziere

2018-07-06, 02:42 AM

You must be a lot of fun at parties.

I don't like parties, I'm the worst at parties. :smallbiggrin: prefer to stay at home, read books or write stuff or play videogames. they're either stuffy formal affairs with suits, things with a lot of awkward conversation and just sitting talking for no reason other than to talk which to be fair is the vast majority of them, or wild drunken things that I'll never go to. full of strange stupid etiquette that I don't care about. I have no idea what people see in them. I mostly go for the food and so people don't nag me. rather be doing something actually fun myself. socializing is a necessity to me, not a joy.

JoeJ

2018-07-06, 03:18 AM

I don't like parties, I'm the worst at parties. :smallbiggrin: prefer to stay at home, read books or write stuff or play videogames. they're either stuffy formal affairs with suits, things with a lot of awkward conversation and just sitting talking for no reason other than to talk which to be fair is the vast majority of them, or wild drunken things that I'll never go to. full of strange stupid etiquette that I don't care about. I have no idea what people see in them. I mostly go for the food and so people don't nag me. rather be doing something actually fun myself. socializing is a necessity to me, not a joy.

And yet here you are, posting on a forum devoted to tabletop roleplaying games, with a join date of 2010. That strongly suggests that there are at least some social activities you enjoy.

Quertus

2018-07-06, 06:14 AM

I don't like parties,

Solo adventurer, then?

That should probably be added to the list of things to watch out for. :smalltongue:

martixy

2018-07-06, 09:33 AM

dandwiki is a smoking garbage pit.

As a DM that's what I've decided.

I am not sure why that site gets such universal bad rap. There is some hot garbage in there, but it's the DMs job to curate his own game, not the site's. It's no more egregious than say, allowing Serpent Kingdoms in a 3.5e game.

I guess it's fair that I explain why I listed what I did.

As I said, I play a lot with new and/or younger players and with strangers. I've found that limiting the amount of overtly sexual content is generally good for group dynamics, thus the "sexy" and "pregnancy" bullets. At least in my experience, enough of the people who cross play are also too overtly sexual for my table, so it makes me prick up my ears a bit more when they describe their character.

For lolrandom and Japanese/edgelordy stuff, see inexperienced players. This also ties into the royalty bit. You can play royalty if you want, just give me a good reason why you're a wandering adventurer, anddon't expect to start with a Holy Avenger and minions (plural) because of your backstory.

For crafting, it slows down play, messes with the average quality of party gear, and as such, is a frequent target of players looking to break the system. Not helping matters is the fact that for 5e, basically all crafting is homebrew. I won't disallow it, per say, but you will have to get me to okay it first.

...Which segways into dandwiki. Is there some good content there? Sure. But, there's just so much garbage that it's probably not worth your time or mine to sift through it/fix whatever you find there. I will work with you on homebrew, but dandwiki is just too untrustworthy.

I didn't elaborate much, which I will now remedy.
It's true that younger players tend to be immature. Confronting them, right then and there tends to a good way to deal with that. Including all these concerns voiced here and even left unsaid. Dealing with the truth is a good way to resolve things in general.

Okaying things first is, well, okay. But labelling that as an automatic red flag seems a bit too harsh. Which does segway into dandwiki. See above.

People, even kids, don't usually do things merely out of spite. There's usually a better reason, and sussing out that reason and talking it over usually has a greater benefit than handling the symptoms.

Keltest

2018-07-06, 09:38 AM

I am not sure why that site gets such universal bad rap. There is some hot garbage in there, but it's the DMs job to curate his own game, not the site's. It's no more egregious than say, allowing Serpent Kingdoms in a 3.5e game.

Its because they do a terrible job of separating their ill-thought-out homebrew content from actual game content and rules. They present themselves as a legitimate resource, and you may be able to use them as one if youre willing to put in the work, but if youre just browsing through classes looking for something to fit a concept, most likely youre going to end up with something that looks awesome at first glance but isn't remotely in a fit state for gameplay.

martixy

2018-07-06, 10:18 AM

Its because they do a terrible job of separating their ill-thought-out homebrew content from actual game content and rules. They present themselves as a legitimate resource, and you may be able to use them as one if youre willing to put in the work, but if youre just browsing through classes looking for something to fit a concept, most likely youre going to end up with something that looks awesome at first glance but isn't remotely in a fit state for gameplay.

But....

they have big stonking banners on top that say "This is homebrew" or "This is SRD".

I don't get it...?

Rerem115

2018-07-06, 10:19 AM

Maybe I used the wrong term when I said "red flag". I meant it as something that immediately draws the attention, a sign that I should start listening and make sure all is well.

Most of what I listed isn't enough to do much more than ping on my radar. But, that ping exists for a reason, which is why I listed it as a flag.

Rerem115

2018-07-06, 10:23 AM

But....

they have big stonking banners on top that say "This is homebrew" or "This is SRD".

I don't get it...?

Well, the people looking for a "unique" character concept are going to find one. And when they hear I'm okay with homebrew, they are going to ask me if it's okay to play as a slightly depowered Solar who's class lets him ride a dragon and make 15 attacks a round. So, i just say no dandwiki to simplify things.

Lord Raziere

2018-07-06, 01:35 PM

And yet here you are, posting on a forum devoted to tabletop roleplaying games, with a join date of 2010. That strongly suggests that there are at least some social activities you enjoy.

close friends who I've carefully built friendships with. I admit, I'm not the fastest at making friends, nor do I actively do so. roleplaying itself I enjoy for the art of it. talking about the videogames I like which are currently things like Fallout New Vegas, Hearthstone or Tales of Bersaria. talking about some shows I like. I just don't see the point in socializing for its own sake. my interests and preferences determine it. and those preferences include whom I like or dislike given what I've seen of a person. you may think it non-social to avoid people I do not like because of their views, but I just see it as a form of social skill in recognizing the people you'll never get along with and avoiding them instead of causing trouble because I decided to uselessly try to talk to them anyways, because I am honest like that and therefore honestly have to be observant of other people and thus extrapolate from what I've seen of them to determine such things.

I admit I could probably be a lot more socially adept if I apply myself, but I am lazy, and I don't like spouting bull.