Torm
Explorer
Good Grief!
You people would argue with a WALL! So far as I can tell, everyone here actually more or less agrees but they keep finding different PARTS of the whole thing to hinge arguments on. I agreed with Henry that it would be in poor taste to speculate, but since this is going on and on, and since it is hypothetical to all of us except the original poster anyway, I'm going to lay out a few statements, and then if anyone wants to argue with them, they can feel free, and I'm not going to argue back, but let's see if this takes care of all this:
1. IF a DM makes a rule because he's a homophobe, THEN that's wrong.
2. IF the DM made the rule because she wanted to make the sexuality of her character (gay or not) an overriding feature of the character, and that's not the style of play they have, THEN that's okay.
3. IF a DM makes a rule about race- or class-specific sexuality strictly out of wanting to provide a particular flavor to a campaign setting, THEN that's okay.
4. IF the majority of a gaming group wants to keep sex (beyond things prepubescent kids would deal with like "ooh, she's got a giiiirlfriend" or "oooh, he kissed a giiiirl") out of their game, and a player has a problem with it, THEN that's okay, and the DM has a responsibility to help enforce that.
5. IF the majority of a gaming group wants the game to devolve into an orgy every session, and a player has a problem with that, THEN that's okay, and the DM has a responsibility to enforce that gaming environment, too.
AND
6. Right or wrong, DMs and players CAN pack up and find another group to play with, or just not play, so there is no inherent right to override the group they're with, even if they think the group is wrong. And if there's that much conflict of basic values or views, they're probably better off doing that than trying to force things, anyway.
Any arguments left?
You people would argue with a WALL! So far as I can tell, everyone here actually more or less agrees but they keep finding different PARTS of the whole thing to hinge arguments on. I agreed with Henry that it would be in poor taste to speculate, but since this is going on and on, and since it is hypothetical to all of us except the original poster anyway, I'm going to lay out a few statements, and then if anyone wants to argue with them, they can feel free, and I'm not going to argue back, but let's see if this takes care of all this:
1. IF a DM makes a rule because he's a homophobe, THEN that's wrong.
2. IF the DM made the rule because she wanted to make the sexuality of her character (gay or not) an overriding feature of the character, and that's not the style of play they have, THEN that's okay.
3. IF a DM makes a rule about race- or class-specific sexuality strictly out of wanting to provide a particular flavor to a campaign setting, THEN that's okay.
4. IF the majority of a gaming group wants to keep sex (beyond things prepubescent kids would deal with like "ooh, she's got a giiiirlfriend" or "oooh, he kissed a giiiirl") out of their game, and a player has a problem with it, THEN that's okay, and the DM has a responsibility to help enforce that.
5. IF the majority of a gaming group wants the game to devolve into an orgy every session, and a player has a problem with that, THEN that's okay, and the DM has a responsibility to enforce that gaming environment, too.
AND
6. Right or wrong, DMs and players CAN pack up and find another group to play with, or just not play, so there is no inherent right to override the group they're with, even if they think the group is wrong. And if there's that much conflict of basic values or views, they're probably better off doing that than trying to force things, anyway.
Any arguments left?