Character Sexuality?

[Penelomeeg]

My real life group has been getting increasingly more comfortable and understanding with each other lately. I'm thinking of bringing it up to my GM that my character isn't fully straight. The character is pansexual but has a hedonistic streak (throws coins to the bards to request a song in the tavern, always asks for a bottle of the "good stuff") and I'm thinking I may habe her occasionally flirt and try to charm people she finds attractive (when appropriate, since she's rather business minded). For instance I definitely intend to have her half seriously flirt with our elf bard while also trying to "show him up" constantly. Which the player did to my last charactet so I know he'd have no issues with that.

However I want to show the other side of her obviously having a very fluid and open sexuality. Which also ties into her being raised in the Underdark where sexuality is probably "what matron wants, matron gets".

I don't intend to do anything gross or explicit or make this the MAIN POINT about the character. I just want advice on how to approach this idea and theme in a way that eases it in and doesn't cause any awkwardness.

[FreddyNoNose]

Are you doing it to make a point or a statement?

[Penelomeeg]

Uhm not really, I don't really know what point or statement having my character potentially be interested in an NPC that could be female makes

[Vitruviansquid]

Given what you say about the situation, it is my understanding that you are currently Pulling It Off (tm), but may later make it awkward if you un-subtley announce to the table that your character is (any kind of)sexual and it should be a big deal to everyone at the table.

[Scripten]

Are you doing it to make a point or a statement?

Even if she were, would it matter? It is her character after all. Maybe the character finds their sexuality to be important? Not really the place to be contesting that.

Anyway, on topic, I would advise the following, just because it's worked out well for me as both a player and DM:

1) Introduce the character's sexuality in appropriate circumstances. Few character traits are more immersion-breaking than hedonism when overused. If the situation calls for romancing an NPC, then by all means, go for it, but forcing it just derails the game and can be awkward.

2) Either read the room if you know your fellow players (and DM) well or just plain ask OOC if anyone is uncomfortable with roleplay that is romantic or sexual in nature, before proceeding. Stay well within the lines of what people say is comfortable for them rather than pushing boundaries.

[ExLibrisMortis]

It sounds to me like you're on the right track. If you (usually) only flirt when appropriate and beneficial, only with players who have shown to be okay with it, and not as main point of the character, it will come off as just a character trait that naturally expresses itself.

I don't think you need to inform your DM/the table about what you're going for, unless you want to 'conspire' with the DM to dramatically reveal some new facet of your character (such as the dark side of their sexuality, as you mention).

[Anymage]

Even if she were, would it matter? It is her character after all. Maybe the character finds their sexuality to be important? Not really the place to be contesting that.

I'm someone who likes to give my PCs a lot of downtime between adventures, and lets the player have a lot of control over what happens in their character's non-adventuring life. That said, too much focus on things like gender or sexuality issues will make me wary that they'll try imposing heavy drama (usually inspired by the player's personal bugaboos) into what I was hoping to be uncomplicated dragonslaying heroics. Ditto if the player seems to be making a thinly veiled political reference.

That said, being an incorrigible flirt is a pretty minor character trait. Even if you're making passes at both/any/all genders.

[Geddy2112]

Seconding others here.

Make sure you do it in a natural setting, and don't ham fist it. If you go up to every NPC you see and start taking your clothing off, that is a bit much. But flirting with people here and there is fine.

Also, know the group. Some players and DM's might be uneasy at the sight of flirting, where other groups might be okay with getting hot and heavy. It is generally best to handwave sexual activity.

[Psyren]

Sounds good. The only potentially problematic item I see is the "what matron wants, matron gets" line. How aggressive do you plan to be in your advances?

[Penelomeeg]

Sounds good. The only potentially problematic item I see is the "what matron wants, matron gets" line. How aggressive do you plan to be in your advances?

Oh this wasn't a reference to the characters behavior! But rather the enviornment she was raised in. More implying that no one is going to tell drow matrons and their houses who they can or can't hook up with so she hasn't been exposed to rigid sexuality expectations culturally.

I think I simply worded that badly.

[Mechalich]

Oh this wasn't a reference to the characters behavior! But rather the enviornment she was raised in. More implying that no one is going to tell drow matrons and their houses who they can or can't hook up with so she hasn't been exposed to rigid sexuality expectations culturally.

Along these lines, you should check with your GM to determine exactly what the cultural expectations regarding sexual orientation are in the current environment. Most D&D and other fantasy game settings handwave a fairly modern level of gender equality into being and it is probable that in such cases a GM would likely be willing to handwave similar levels of acceptance of modern treatment of orientation issues, but then again maybe not. Historically acceptance/rejection of orientations outside of strict heterosexuality has varied widely and the impact that such expectations has had on people with those traits have varied accordingly.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

It may or may not be a big deal depending on your group. If you play with people who are not open minded that way there could be conflict. Otherwise folks may shrug it off.

My female elf bard said something like "I don't fool with boys, get pregnant and I have a century of child raising to do." My group is pretty laid back. No one did more than chuckle.

[Nifft]

In my experience, this will make the other players very uncomfortable: "My character is interested in sex."

Past that, the specific type of sex is basically irrelevant. Sexuality at all is the biggest hurtle I've seen.

[lunaticfringe]

I agree with giving the DM a heads up if you want to start flirting or dating npcs. We are the NPCs sometimes I'm in no mood, It gets tedious, or squick.

[JusticeZero]

I'm going to be the contrarian here and say that you are probably overthinking this. One, female sexuality isn't anywhere near as policed as male sexuality, and two, I am not seeing a lot that indicates that this stuff is very meaningful in game. I mean, female character flirts a bit with an NPC without going into any depth, at the most "We're going back to my room" when asked where people are at that time, later you shrug it off saying "You thought she was cute too" and go back to discussing how to overthrow the Dark One of Darkity Darkness. That's practically G rated.

[Joe the Rat]

What adding sex and sexuality does is going to be a matter of the group, and a matter of the game. Handled right, this can add a bit of color, or humor (particularly the rivalry department) to the game. Handled badly, it makes things weird and uncomfortable. Since it sounds like you've got some standard tropes (c.f. bards), you're just adding another angle. Unless the players are particularly... particular, this should be non issue.

Sounds good. The only potentially problematic item I see is the "what matron wants, matron gets" line. How aggressive do you plan to be in your advances?

What, and pass up on a Damn Yankees reference? It should totally come up in conversation at some point...

[LibraryOgre]

Simplest method? Mention a previous girlfriend in a context where appropriate. Personally, I'd simply go with "I've never assumed nor implied my character was strictly hetero" and more or less handwave the question of gender in potential partners. As with most things related to romance in games, procede with an eye towards the comfort of everyone else... but, personally, I'd be uncomfortable gaming with a group that was fine with hetero relationships, but had problems with non-hetero relationships.

[Tinkerer]

When I've been in this situation I found it coming up about once per arc (or once every 3 months or so) was about the proper duration of time, circumstances depending. My first character of that type was... technically asexual I guess? They had undergone the training to be a courtesan and had succeeded with flying colours however they themselves did not have any sexual feelings whatsoever. They simply viewed it as a job the same as being a mechanic or a florist. So when the opportunity of a seduction attempt came up they were always the first in line metaphorically cracking their knuckles and saying "I got this".

It really isn't difficult to keep it from being creepy and inappropriate as long as you take no for an answer. Seriously it is rather rare for this character type to go over poorly as long as you keep that one piece of information in mind. Take a look at the many, many, many examples of this going poorly and you will find that virtually all of those did not follow that rule. Of the remainder that didn't work they generally brought it up too often, trying to work it into every conversation with a new NPC. The absolute max I would have to say is once per session but that is a rare type of campaign, more likely the aforementioned once per arc.

[Trampaige]

Show, don't tell.

If a opportunity comes up, roleplay it out. Just like your character would live it. No need to tell the table, "by the way, my character is pan." Show them. It's probably going to be a very minimal amount of your npc interactions in a D&D game. Just check with the DM to make sure he doesn't have some crazy homophobic death penalty in place. Get shot down by the same barmaid as every other PC.

[icefractal]

Historically acceptance/rejection of orientations outside of strict heterosexuality has varied widely and the impact that such expectations has had on people with those traits have varied accordingly.

Historically, there weren't multiple sapient tool-using species around either. 😝

(Sorry, pet peeve; it's fine if people want to go 'generic pastiche', but when you do start talking about historically accurate, you really need to take into account the /massive/ differences a D&D world has from ours)

[Segev]

Let's turn the question around: If the GM, the target PC's player, or any other player at the table or their PC expresses discomfort, disgust, disdain, or any other negative emotion or reaction towards your character's behavior, sexuality, sexual promiscuity, or sexual identity, or sexual preferences, how will you feel about it?

If you will be horribly offended and outraged that they would express a view - in or out of character - which did not align with yours or what you feel is acceptable, then you probably shouldn't broach these waters. If, on the other hand, you can accept it if people don't share your views on the subject, go ahead and try it out. It is up to you and your table how far you push it, though obviously deliberately making others uncomfortable is wrong on BOTH sides of a situation. The neutral action is to leave it (even heterosexual romance/sexcapades) out, as that's not the point of the game. (At least, that's the impression I got from your post.) If things become uncomfortable at the table, being willing to dial it back to leaving it out is probably best.

But just be wary of your own feelings on the matter. I recently experienced somebody injecting their preferences into a game and being horrifically offended that my character was naïve and not up on popular real-world identity politics and political correctness. Deliberately injecting something potentially controversial and then being irate that not everybody plays it the way you want them to is uncool.

[Coidzor]

Even if she were, would it matter?

It certainly could.

We're there to play, not sit through someone getting up on their soapbox about a real world political and social issue (the view and treatment and place of LGBTA+ individuals and groups in society) when we're all already accepting and don't need a lecture.

Or if even one of the people there has strong negative sentiments towards LGBTA+ people, then it starts an altercation in the middle of time that was supposed to be spent playing a game together and having fun.

Plus, getting preachy can be grating regardless.

So, yes, there are many ways and reasons for implementing it that would be bad. Passive aggressively needling a fellow player whom one has an out of character beef with isn't good, regardless of what kinds of beliefs they have.

Thankfully none of that seems like it is in play in the present circumstances.

1) Introduce the character's sexuality in appropriate circumstances. Few character traits are more immersion-breaking than hedonism when overused. If the situation calls for romancing an NPC, then by all means, go for it, but forcing it just derails the game and can be awkward.

2) Either read the room if you know your fellow players (and DM) well or just plain ask OOC if anyone is uncomfortable with roleplay that is romantic or sexual in nature, before proceeding. Stay well within the lines of what people say is comfortable for them rather than pushing boundaries.

Pretty solid.

[Mechalich]

Historically, there weren't multiple sapient tool-using species around either. ��

(Sorry, pet peeve; it's fine if people want to go 'generic pastiche', but when you do start talking about historically accurate, you really need to take into account the /massive/ differences a D&D world has from ours)

The point was, that it is very possible to draw up a historical parallel where a pansexual orientation would be considered acceptable - Ancient Greece for example - whereas it is comparatively much more difficult to find a pre-industrial historical period where there was anything resembling gender equality.

Yes, well-built D&D worlds have massive differences from our own. Guess what, the overwhelming majority of D&D worlds - including all of the official ones - are not well-built. Most settings are 'Not Medieval Europe' with a fantasy gloss, so historical comparisons remain relevant.

[Penelomeeg]

Let's turn the question around: If the GM, the target PC's player, or any other player at the table or their PC expresses discomfort, disgust, disdain, or any other negative emotion or reaction towards your character's behavior, sexuality, sexual promiscuity, or sexual identity, or sexual preferences, how will you feel about it?

If you will be horribly offended and outraged that they would express a view - in or out of character - which did not align with yours or what you feel is acceptable, then you probably shouldn't broach these waters. If, on the other hand, you can accept it if people don't share your views on the subject, go ahead and try it out. It is up to you and your table how far you push it, though obviously deliberately making others uncomfortable is wrong on BOTH sides of a situation. The neutral action is to leave it (even heterosexual romance/sexcapades) out, as that's not the point of the game. (At least, that's the impression I got from your post.) If things become uncomfortable at the table, being willing to dial it back to leaving it out is probably best.

But just be wary of your own feelings on the matter. I recently experienced somebody injecting their preferences into a game and being horrifically offended that my character was naïve and not up on popular real-world identity politics and political correctness. Deliberately injecting something potentially controversial and then being irate that not everybody plays it the way you want them to is uncool.

If I found out a member of the group shared homophobic views OOC tbh I would rather leave the group peacefully altogether without making any sort of scene and find a new group. IC as a character thing but I know the person is just playing a role, I wouldn't care so much OOC and probably role with it IC as a cool story angle.

Holding those views OOC doesn't bother me because I can't handle views different from my own so to speak, but because I'm actually gay and would no longer feel welcome in that group enviornment, which is a big part of the experience for me. Because I like to feel like we're friends at the end of the day at the table and look forward to the next session with the people as much as the characters. Which honestly I would rather learn the truth of that early on than find out from an off hand comment latter on when I'm invested in the group/story. Which I have had happened. Thankfully everyone at the table seems to have no issue as far as I can tell (including a father and 15 year old son who laughed when a friend I brought with me mentioned the time I kissed my gf at a pride parade in front of prostestors). Which is why I'm breaching the thought of playing a non straight character in the first place.

The campaign is very story and character driven with a lot of roleplay heavy interactions. In my experience things like character relationships whether they're familial, platonic, or romantic end up in the spotlight at one point or another, and if that last one happens with my character I want to feel secure and true to the character in doing so.

[rferries]

Sounds like your game is RP-heavy, in which case feel free to go wild (though maybe tone it down if none of the other PCs are particularly lusty, just to avoid being a stage-hog). Otherwise, the examples you cited (hitting on the occasional barmaid between quests) should be fine.

[Mordaedil]

I'm someone who likes to give my PCs a lot of downtime between adventures, and lets the player have a lot of control over what happens in their character's non-adventuring life. That said, too much focus on things like gender or sexuality issues will make me wary that they'll try imposing heavy drama (usually inspired by the player's personal bugaboos) into what I was hoping to be uncomplicated dragonslaying heroics. Ditto if the player seems to be making a thinly veiled political reference.

That said, being an incorrigible flirt is a pretty minor character trait. Even if you're making passes at both/any/all genders.

I don't disagree with your point here or anything. But even as a straight white man, I find it incredibly sad that love is made a political issue, when it is a human thing.

I think the best way to handle this is to treat it as normally as anything else about your character, like her favorite food or whatever her favorite color is. I think the most political you should get with it is essentially something like Romeo and Juliet, but if it was Rita and Juliet instead.

[Anymage]

Simplest method? Mention a previous girlfriend in a context where appropriate. Personally, I'd simply go with "I've never assumed nor implied my character was strictly hetero" and more or less handwave the question of gender in potential partners. As with most things related to romance in games, procede with an eye towards the comfort of everyone else... but, personally, I'd be uncomfortable gaming with a group that was fine with hetero relationships, but had problems with non-hetero relationships.

Tangential, but am I the only person who's bugged by how Haley does this? A bit because her bi experimenting is safely in her past, where she never so much acknowledges the attractiveness of anyone other than her hetero partner. A bit because Elan never tried saving princes to see how it went, Belkar never made a pretty boy swoon when there were no handy females around, and really I can't remember the last named LGBT+ male character in the strip. Bisexuality as a way to make a female seem more adventurous in a way that will never interfere with an existing hetero relationship is a rather annoying trope.

Yes, well-built D&D worlds have massive differences from our own. Guess what, the overwhelming majority of D&D worlds - including all of the official ones - are not well-built. Most settings are 'Not Medieval Europe' with a fantasy gloss, so historical comparisons remain relevant.

In real-life medieval europe, people were painfully conscious of their place in the social ladder. And the church was the major institution of the day. Yet strangely, I've experienced very few PCs who roleplayed such fervent devotion to god, king, and country.

Beneath the window dressing of kings and knights and whatnot, D&D settings are a pastiche of all eras up to and including modern. Focusing on the grittier parts just to be edgy is a pretty solid red flag.

[Knaight]

In real-life medieval europe, people were painfully conscious of their place in the social ladder. And the church was the major institution of the day. Yet strangely, I've experienced very few PCs who roleplayed such fervent devotion to god, king, and country.

The whole D&D pantheon is roughly the least medieval thing available, but much of the rest is a bit more flexible than it's being depicted here - particularly in terms of devotion to country. That's more of a very late medieval to early modern thing, and even then nationality was so dramatically dwarfed by class in importance.

[The Extinguisher]

The whole D&D pantheon is roughly the least medieval thing available, but much of the rest is a bit more flexible than it's being depicted here - particularly in terms of devotion to country. That's more of a very late medieval to early modern thing, and even then nationality was so dramatically dwarfed by class in importance.

The whole of D&D is the least medieval thing. I don't understand why people are so able to accept fantasy when it comes to magic, combat, economics, other species, lifespans, mortality, politics, class and so much more, but insist things must be "realistic" when it comes to gender equality and sexuality.

Oh wait, no I do understand.

OP: play your character how they are. If your character is the kind of person who tells everyone they are pan, then run with it and have fun. Don't let homophobes at your table keep you from having fun. Hopefully your group isn't awful though cause being forced to play straight characters sucks.

[Knaight]

The whole of D&D is the least medieval thing. I don't understand why people are so able to accept fantasy when it comes to magic, combat, economics, other species, lifespans, mortality, politics, class and so much more, but insist things must be "realistic" when it comes to gender equality and sexuality.

I'd agree that it's ridiculously unhistorical in a lot of fashions (not least because what history it pulls from involves compressing over a continent together across a good thousand years) - I'd just contest that some of what was put forward in that post regarding the actual medieval period was also off.