"All halflings are heterosexual."

[The Spectrum Rider]

Well, I think if you say "I'm playing a gay halfling," that's about sex. If someone said "I'm playing a heterosexual halfling," it would be about sex too. Basically, whenever you slap *sexual on someone as a label, you're saying that it's about sex.
The easy way for the player to approach this would be to just play the character without having "Fildo Daggins, the Gay Halfling" written at the top of the character sheet.

I heard it reported that the DM said "No gay halflings." I didn't hear it reported that the player said "I'm playing a gay halfling" or had "the gay halfling" on her character sheet.

A lot of people seem very concerned about attributing motives or unknown actions to thee DM, but the player seems like fair game.

In any case I think your original statement is a bit unfair. Except with a fairly unusual playing group, nobody would ever say "I'm playing a heterosexual halfling," for the simple reason that in this society, statistically and culturally speaking, everyone (even a fictional character) is assumed to be straight unless otherwise indicated. I don't see "I'm playing a gay halfling" as a statement that the player wants to play out love (or sex) scenes within the game; it's just an indication that her character may not be what everyone implicitly assumes. I wouldn't find it any more alarming than, "I'm playing a halfling that was raised by orcs."

Although I have to admit, I would find it strange if a player said "I'm playing a gay halfling." I'd just expect the player to role-play it instead. But with some crowds it's probably better to state it up front - just in case the DM or other players are going to freak out, better you know in advance. (And then, of course, you can alter the character or leave if you want to.)

The Spectrum Rider

 

[reanjr]

I'm not all that surprised by the weird mix of responses to this topic. People continue to confuse concepts of sexual preference (attraction) and sexual activity as though they were one in the same. Just because you say you're attracted to a person does NOT mean you wanna 'do it' on the table just to prove a point.

And as far as "throwing the issue in someone's face," well, all it takes is a single, seemingly innocuous social scenario in the game to draw out a reference to sexual preference. i.e. "Is the barmaid cute?" Disallowing even a simple flirt scene puts binders on a player.

That example is not throwing it in someone's face, though. If a character is homosexual, then the other players should not know this unless it comes up in a scenario such as you described. If the player keeps on bringing it up, then it's just as bad as the player who walks into every tavern looking for barmaids to score with. I wouldn't want either player.

If the removal of homosexuality leaves the character an empty shell, then the entire focus of the character is lame. Not perverse, unnatural, or discomfoting. Just lame. And I don't like lame characters.

 

[The Spectrum Rider]

Unless they have added a new field to the character sheet, I can't imagine a scenario where anyone other than the player brought the issue up. If homosexuality were such a non-issue for her, why would this be raised? Every group I have GMed since 1985 has had at least on gay player in it and usually more than one. Never once in character creation in all these years has a player brought up his character's sexual orientation. I just assume that the character has the same orientation as the player unless I hear otherwise.

So, if someone felt it necessary to discuss their character's sexual orientation spontaneously during the character creation stage, red flags would immediately go up.

In my game, we focus on events that affect the world. In the medieval style settings that I and most DMs run, your game activities and sexual orientation don't have much to do with eachother. Marriages are about alliances not sex.

Really? None of the PCs or NPCs ever fall in love? Flirt with the staff at the inn? Fondly remember the girl/guy they left behind when they started adventuring? Try to win the girl/guy of their dreams through bravery and heroism? Get married for love?

I have never played in a game, nor read a single fantasy novel, in which these sort of interactions were omitted. It would seem oddly bland to me, like playing in a campaign world where no character ever enjoyed meal or loved his homeland. But to each his own.

And, by the way, if a player ever told me he wanted to play a black character (and didn't seem to be motivated by racism), I would find a way - even if the PC had to come from another continent or an alternate Material Plane. Because, why not? What harm would it do? But that's just me.

The Spectrum Rider

 

[mhacdebhandia]

This thread makes me want to play a male elf Don Juan type who's overcompensating, not because he's homosexual or bisexual but because he thinks everyone else believes all elven men are so inclined.

I once played a homosexual spy in a game out of spite, because one of the other players in the group kept going on and on about how all the men in the party and the setting would be all over her because she was so gorgeous. I don't know how that would have played out, since the game never had a second session.

I'd play or allow my players to play whatever kind of character, sexually speaking, that they wanted, as long as it didn't distract from the kind of game I wanted to play. In a heavily political campaign of intrigue, distance from the usual game of heterosexual seduction could be an interesting character twist.

If the heroes are out to save the world by beating the demonically-inspired conspiracy to the artifact hidden away in the jungle, any kind of overt sexuality would be as much of a distraction as an evil thief in a party full of noble paladins, clerics, and so forth. If I would ask the player not to play the latter, I see no reason to have compunctions about asking them not to play the former.

 

[Sir Elton]

I'd include you in my game if your overcompensating Don Juan didn't make his activities THE overriding feature.

 

[tarchon]

Remember the show Ellen? decent show, did pretty well in the ratings. When Ellen Degeneres (?) came "out of the closet" on the show, the entire shows focus became the fact that she was gay. "So this happens then that happens then we bring up the fact that Ellen is gay for the 75th time this episode and then this happens and then 76th time and then..." The show degenerated into ONLY being about the fact that Ellen was gay.

Wait - Ellen was GAY!???

 

[ptolemy18]

2. As a GM, I have never tried to make sexual orientation map 1:1 to a race. That seems rather silly to me. I have made it map 1:1 to a class in one game by ruling that in order to become a paladin, you must be gay.

Are you serious? That's awesome.

Jason

P.S. I mean this both in the semi-sarcastic sense, and also out of genuine respect for your audacity and for whatever campaign world this was...

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

You know, this thread has inspired me. I will try to figure out some way of mentioning that all halflings in Urbis are heterosexual.


Just because I can.

 

[ptolemy18]

The only thing I can relate to ya is the fact that my gaming group only allows same sex pc/player (pretty much, a male player cant play a female pc).

Interesting. I've never heard of a gaming group that actually had a rule on this.

(Although in my experience most people play characters of their own gender. For what it's worth, which isn't much, the two (then-closeted) gay players I've played RPGs with both played male characters.)

Jason

 

[billd91]

But that's another issue with our society that I have, although it's related to the first I mentioned; it seems the only social sin anyone recognizes as valid anymore is the inability to accept whatever anyone else wants to do, as long as its not illegal, and even then, our society is wearing away at many of those facets as well.

Ah, welcome to liberal society in which you are expected to respect the rights and beliefs of others as they are expected to respect yours. The US wouldn't be the same place without this philosophical underpinning.
There is generally supposed to be a compelling reason to override these expectations in society and, since as gamers we're also a fairly diverse lot with lots of different traditions, beliefs, and practices, around the gaming table. The question in this case is whether the DM really had a compelling reason to flat out declare all halflings are heterosexual. Preserving a particular setting like, say, pre-Giants era Greyhawk by banning Drow PCs might be considered compelling. Worrying about sexual orientation seems a bit pointless to me for most situations.
I have played in games with players playing homosexual characters. I ran Cyberpunk back in college and one PC was a gay police helicopter pilot. It was hardly an issue even though it was a central aspect of the character. Made for some interesting plot hooks. And I swear that Tippy the Gnome was totally gay. He at least was a good dresser. Of course, the DM running him was also gay and had a tendency to be disturbingly perky so I may be reading too much into it...

But what I wonder about is this: If there are no homosexual halflings, what happens to their sexual preference if they run into belts of femininity/masculinity? Do they retain their original sexual preferences in which case they act gay to outward appearances? Or does their sexual preferences change to fit the outwardly heterosexual expectations of their new sex?
Am I the only person who wonders about things like this?