"All halflings are heterosexual."

Status
Not open for further replies.
You know, in all this, it seems to me like the situation described was actually resolved quite civilly and in the manner best for everyone concerned.

Apparently the player wanted something that didn't fit into the DM's campaign. The DM was clear about his desires and the lines he wasn't willing to cross. The player wasn't willing to play in such a campaign.

Nobody threw things at each other. The players simply got up left, no longer to trouble the DM and the other players who were evidently comfortable with his rules and his game.

I can't think of how the situation could have resolved itself better. I still think it's kind of a funny thing to care about one way or the other (for both parties), but a simple parting of the ways is better than either party feeling resentful and forced to play a game that doesn't meet their needs.

Any DM is perfectly entitled to make any demands they like of the PCs in their campaigns. Any player is perfectly entitled to want to play any sort of character they want. If a given DM and a given player can't agree on the nature of a PC, then they shouldn't be playing in the same game -- and I suspect in most cases, they don't.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Driddle said:
IIf the issue is important to a player -- for whatever reason -- then a good DM will work around it.
My character is a ninja who shoots lasers out of his eyes -- and that's important to me! :p
 

Joshua Dyal said:
My character is a ninja who shoots lasers out of his eyes -- and that's important to me! :p
That's the spirit! :D

Now, a Rog/Sor with a lot of magic missiles is not a bad approximation. (Mnk/Sor in OA or FR.) Still, the real thing is much kewler.
 

A fine ruling by the DM.

The DM is fully within his rights to set the tone for his campaign. Halflings are heterosexuals would in some games adjust the tone, and I've even had the unfortunate event of playing in a campaign where such a rule would've been welcome (as a teenager in a RPG club, where adults all played sexual deviants and claimed it was mature playing, because "it takes more than a hetero to adventure" :confused::confused: ).

No different, IMO, than the DM declaring that evil or CN characters are allowed.
 
Last edited:

Numion said:
A fine ruling by the DM. ... No different, IMO, than the DM declaring that evil or CN characters are allowed.

You're equating sexual orientation with doing good or evil in the world?
 

Driddle said:
You're equating sexual orientation with doing good or evil in the world?

I had already added a sentence to contrary, but decided to erase that before posting. No, I'm not equating that. I'm saying that the DM has a right to ban possibly disrupting character concepts. In a game where sexuality is not at the forefront creating an openly gay character is going to be trouble - because why state the sexual orientation if you're not going to bring it up?

DM is free to ban gayness from the game, just like he is to ban disruptive alignments, or other sexual stuff. I would not, for example, allow a player to play a pedophile (not equating that with homosexuality), because I have no interest in games where that would happen. Just like some people do not want to RP out homosexuality.
 

Driddle said:
You're equating sexual orientation with doing good or evil in the world?

That's absolutely what he's doing.

Time to lynch a homophobe, Driddle!

...

Oh, wait, that's right, he's not, and you're just trying to stir up trouble. Please stop; it isn't funny.
 


geeeeeeeeeeeeeeez

Here's a good reason. The DM decided there'd be no gay halflings. Now, you're free to play a gay human, dwarf, elf, half-orc, half-elf, titan, grippli, goblin, orc, dragon, golem, pixie, troglodyte, drow, merfolk, dolphin, alguae, whatever.

If that is too restrictive, do like the lady, and get the heck out.

Am I an homophobe?
 


Status
Not open for further replies.

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top