No Homosexuality in my Campaign?

[Zappo]

But I think your idea that homosexuality is less perfect that heterosexuality is not the best way to approach this idea. Homosexuality is functionally better for all sorts of things than heterosexuality -- gay male couples, for instance, are the most economically efficient possible relationship in modern capitalism. There are also strong indications that lesbian couples may be one of the most efficient units for raising children. If a society wishes to reduce its birthrate, homosexuality more efficient than almost any other form of contraception, etc.

I agree. It could be that the gods didn't want everyone to be heterosexual after all. Maybe they arranged things so that a certain percentile of people would be homosexual - to fulfill the roles fusangite explained. After a thousand years or so, the society as dictated by the gods went downhill, and homosexuality is now sorta random, as in our world.

 

[Darkness]

Somewhat tangential to the topic at hand, sure, but I gotta know...

Vraille, are humans (or other races) limited to having an alignment close to their creator deity's? If so, how close?

For example, if the creator of the elves was good, can an elf theoretically become evil?

(Humanoid races especially; things like dragons aren't very flexible in alignment according to the MM even if you leave divine plans out of the picture.)

 

[Barastrondo]

4. All other sentient races are created by the perfect gods to do 2 things

a. Be soldiers
b. Make more soldiers

Given that I’ve decided most races were created by perfect beings to be basically self-replicating engines of war, I don’t see homosexuality as an innate character of various races (except weird races that could reproduce asexually in the first place).

Historically, homosexuality (and in particular social acceptance of homosexuality) managed to exist just fine in warrior cultures without impeding their ability to be warriors, or to produce the next generation of warriors. In particular, I'm looking at ancient Greece, but it's hardly the only incidence. I'm not the most well-read historical scholar, but the example of Alexander the Great and his charioteer Hephaestion should emphasize that having a same-sex lover should in no way impede your ability to go out on the battlefield and win. A lot.

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

But I think your idea that homosexuality is less perfect that heterosexuality is not the best way to approach this idea. Homosexuality is functionally better for all sorts of things than heterosexuality -- gay male couples, for instance, are the most economically efficient possible relationship in modern capitalism. There are also strong indications that lesbian couples may be one of the most efficient units for raising children. If a society wishes to reduce its birthrate, homosexuality more efficient than almost any other form of contraception, etc.

I'm not saying homosexuality is less perfect overall. Just that it is a less efficient way to create more soldiers. Also, gods waring don't care much about capitalism.

But the point about lesbian couples raising children does bring up the possibilty of a group dynamic (particullary useful with male-dominate war-like races like orcs) where the men serve mainly to impregnate the women then go back to war & the women serve to raise the children in a communal environment where lesbian relationships are (at least somewhat) prevalent. This could also mean the males of that race activly seek out other males for any long term relationship.

An intersting Idea. I might use that as the social basis for either orcs or hobgoblins in my game. Extreme division of gender roles leads to isolation of the sexes & leads to male & female orcs only coming together to mate & all other aspects of a sexual & physcological front are found in members of their own sex.

Of course, that would make ye old "Here comes the Orc horde to rape & pillage" a whole different story.

This is why I posted,

P.S. From the High or Low Random Dice roll Generator upon being asked a silly question, Male Orcs in my world have baculum bones

 

[scholz]

I think you are over thinking this.
It is a fantasy game. So, there can be pretty much whatever you want. It sounds to me like you are trying to rationalize a desire not to have homosexuals in your world.That's fine, but don't try to justify it with some quasi-scientific/historical justification. There is no evidence that homosexuality has any impact on war-worthiness, or reproduction or anything.I think you might want to ask yourself why it is you are uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuals in your world, rather than try to justify the belief with dubious claims. Keep in mind, there have been accoutns of some kind of homosexuality in every culture on Earth, and we are not exactly unwarlike.

In my world, I decided homosexuals could live without fear of homophobia. They reproduce, usually due obligation, but sometimes because they want to raise kids. There is always some way to have children, adoption, 'surrogates' etc.. I want to get rid of that one negative thing. There is also little sexism in my world (except for those backwards dwarves). But I have other 'ism's to take the place (speciesism, anti-magicalism, etc..) when needed for plot purposed. My kobold emanicipationists are a thorn in the household servant business, but they are there.

 

[fusangite]

I'm not saying homosexuality is less perfect overall. Just that it is a less efficient way to create more soldiers.

Ah... well if the human race has been designed to maximize reproductive capacity, the first thing you have to get rid of is this 50/50 male:female ratio. What you want is a lot of bisexual women and a very small number of heterosexual men. As D&D game mechanics choose not to replicate men's greater capacity for physical violence, you don't really specifically need men for anything beyond insemination. So I'm thinking a 1:20 male:female ratio as efficient.

 

[RFisher]

There's certainly homosexuality in my campaign world.

Characters in my world don't generally consider themselves homosexual as an identity, however. NPCs with a lover of the same-sex generally don't feel a need to advertise the fact any more than those with lovers of the opposite sex.

(Although you could claim that marriages are blatant advertisements of heterosexual relationships, marriages in the world are seldom between lovers.)

Even the most "hetero" NPC might engage in homosexual acts, though as expression of hate rather than love.

Then there's my friend's campaign world with Francis the flaming efreet. Or is that the effete efreet?

 

[Oryan77]

Homosexuality is functionally better for all sorts of things than heterosexuality -- gay male couples, for instance, are the most economically efficient possible relationship in modern capitalism. There are also strong indications that lesbian couples may be one of the most efficient units for raising children.

It's reading things like this from people that annoy me when this type of subject comes up in a roleplaying game forum (not the place for these opinions). I don't wish to read about rights/wrongs of controversial topics when I'm reading posts in regards to a hobby. Discussing how to implement homosexuality in a persons own game is fine, but when I read comments like the above quote, it turns the topic into a debate. I am a proud heterosexual, and I am not a gay hater. I'm proud to be what I am just as much as a gay man is proud to be gay. And I find as much offense to the above quote as a gay man would be offended if I were to say that gays male couples have worse family units than a straight couple. What you said is your opinion, and holds no more truth than what I just said. I would challenge any gay couple to prove that they are a better father & husband than I could ever be. The family unit has nothing to do with sexuality, it has to do with individual personal qualities. Concider that when you're putting sexual preferences in your games.

If a society wishes to reduce its birthrate, homosexuality more efficient than almost any other form of contraception, etc.

Again, a roleplaying forum isn't the place to spew these type of opinions. I hear peoples opinions on controversial matters enough as it is. I don't want to deal with it in a "hobby" also. Homosexuality is as effective of a contraceptive as beastiality is. Using that as a pro in sexuality is rediculous. What we need is for people to be proper parents and teach their kids to respect their sexuality & bodies, and to NOT have sexual relations until the time is right. Messages like yours do nothing but encourage people to take chances and risk future problems in life.

I understand you probably meant nothing by your statements, but I am only mentioning this because heterosexuals can be just as insulted. Homosexuality can be a touchy subject, so give the same respect to heterosexuality please.

Given my statements above, how could I introduce homosexuality into my game world should the need arrive, without making it seem like I just “threw it in?”

If you need to implement homosexuality in your game, and you don't want to make it seem unnatural, then do it exactly the same way as you'd implement heterosexuality. Not doing so will automatically make it seem like you are just "throwing it in" your game. Honestly, the fact that you are making it an issue is going to cause it to look like you are throwing it in anyway. I think your players will see it that way no matter what. But if you keep it going, it will become more natural as the game goes on.

 

[Teflon Billy]

It’s not that I don’t WANT (or even mind) homosexual orientations in my game world, just that I don’t see how I can include it in a way I feel comfortable about.

Then i can't for the life of me think why you'd bother including it in your game world.

If the mood struck you however....

These are the facts of my campaign world that has driven me to this conclusion.

1. The gods were (they’re dead/disappeared now) all powerful, all knowing creatures of infinite power & perfections.

2. They created the land, sky, air etc. Then they created the dragons as their favoured children (or toys) and created the elves to serve the dragons.

3. All is fine until the dragons start fighting with each other, the gods get involved and all heaven breaks lose.

..ask youself "did the 'Perfect' and "all powerful" gods plan for the Dragons to start fighting? Were they capable of ending it?

Maybe they weren't--by your own descitpions--either perfect or all-powerful.

Free Will can explain a lot of imprefections.

 

[fusangite]

I don't wish to read about rights/wrongs of controversial topics when I'm reading posts in regards to a hobby.

Unless you think efficiency is a moral term, I don't see how you're deriving this from my post. I am making an argument that something is efficient not that it is right or wrong. If you have a moral hierarchy based on efficiency, that is surprising and curious. I have never met anyone who saw statements that something is efficient as identical to statements that something is morally correct.

And I find as much offense to the above quote as a gay man would be offended if I were to say that gays male couples have worse family units than a straight couple.

Again, I am perplexed that you are arguing that inefficient=bad. Gay male couples if you read my post are objectively more efficient in capitalist terms for the following reasons:
1. They are less likely to have dependents than other couples because they cannot get pregnant. In modern North American society, only 50% of pregnancies that go to term are intentional. Thus, having a couple immune to accidental pregnancy makes it intrinsically less likely to have dependents. In economics, families with no dependents are more efficient than families with dependents.
2. Employed men earn 50% more than employed women. Therefore 0% male couples have the lowest earning potential, statistically, of any couples; 50% male couples have a middle earning potential and 100% male couples have the highest earning potential, on average.
So, of course gay male couples are more economically efficient -- they earn more and spend less on dependents. Unless you believe that economics is a moral order and not a science, I'm not making a moral judgement here; I'm simply observing a factual truth.

What you said is your opinion, and holds no more truth than what I just said.

Actually it does. You are dealing in subject statements. I am dealing in objective statements.

I would challenge any gay couple to prove that they are a better father & husband than I could ever be.

Again, here comes the word "better" -- I'm not commenting on whether gay men make "better" or "worse" dads than straight men. I'm commenting that gay male couples operate more efficiently in capitalism -- what does capitalism have to do with being a good dad?

The family unit has nothing to do with sexuality, it has to do with individual personal qualities.

I think the family unit probably does but this has nothing to do with the observations I was making. I'm simply not making the judgements you are accusing me of. Efficiency and morality have nothing to do with eachother. The Bible is full of stories where Christ advises people to economically inefficient things because they are right -- and I try to take his advice.

Homosexuality is as effective of a contraceptive as beastiality is.

That's right. See how I'm talking about efficiency not morality here.

The world that was being described to us was about a bunch of dead, amoral gods who created human beings to fight their wars. These gods don't appear to have had any interest in morality.

Using that as a pro in sexuality is rediculous. What we need is for people to be proper parents and teach their kids to respect their sexuality & bodies, and to NOT have sexual relations until the time is right.

Now who is expressing moral religion-based opinions. While abstinence may indeed be morally superior to homosexuality, even its advocates concede that it is a less efficient form of birth control.

Messages like yours do nothing but encourage people to take chances and risk future problems in life.

I'm a firm believer that being truthful is not wrong. I have made a series of statements about provable scientific facts. In my view, a robust and morally upright religion should be able to coexist just fine with the free flow of scientific information.

I understand you probably meant nothing by your statements, but I am only mentioning this because heterosexuals can be just as insulted. Homosexuality can be a touchy subject, so give the same respect to heterosexuality please.

When people discuss the merits of heterosexuality, homosexual people generally don't get offended. When you believed I was discussing the merits of homosexuality, you got offended despite the fact that I didn't say a single bad word about being heterosexual.

God bless.