No Homosexuality in my Campaign?

[Teflon Billy]

edit

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

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?

I'll try to make this a quick answer, if people want more detail on my campaign world I'll make time to do more posts (I'm the sort of anal-retentive, micro-manager that NEEDS to fill out every little detail of my campaign world, thus why I brought this up here).

First, All the dragons were made by the gods. I chose this since Wyrms of every aligment & many different subtypes abound thus I had no shortage of dieties around.

Orginally, all creations of a god had that god's alignment. Thus the god of the Gold Dragon created LG Elf Servitors, Red Dragons had CE Elf Servitors. Elves existed of every alignment possible, and most of the sub-races were created to aid dragons of certain types. Drow for instance, were created to aid Black, Shadow, and Deep dragons. A unique type of elf called a Fire-Elf was made to serve the Volcanically inclined Gold & Red Wyrms. (There are still 2 nations of Fire Elves in my world, one LG & the other CE. Since the death/dissapearance of the First Gods (well, all but one; my divine structure is a topic all to itself), the elves have reatined the alignments they were orgianlly created with. Since elves were created of all different alignments, all alignments are pretty prevalent. Except, over time many elven nations have fallen or been combined with others so that the only significant PHB Elven Nation that remains, The Elves of the Last Forest are CG. A Sister Kingdom of LN Elves (similar to FR's Gold Elves) destroyed themselves trying to work a might True Ritual/Epic Spell several centuries ago.

Also, the most successful "designs" of the various gods were often "borrowed" by rival gods. This was most true of Humans & Halflings. Thus Humans & Halflings have the most varied alignments of any race.

Orginally all members of a race (assuming no other god chose to make THEIR version; see Dwarf vs Dwarf-Duegar) had a dieties alignment. But, as the Gods began to expend their energies in the war, they began to open upon the world to creatures from beyond (Elementals & Outsiders). After the war finally ended, many of these outsiders remained on the Material Plane and began to "apply" various templates to those around them (fiendish, celestial, etc.). Now, those being who have an alignment other than that dictated by the MM can trace their lineage back to some "other" creature if they go far enough back. I suppose this could be where Homosexuality orginated. Are their gay water elementals?

Then their are teh Minotaurs (not the MM kind more like Kyrnn's Minotaurs). Their god survived the Divine War & is the last remaining Greater Diety. The Minotaur God was orgianally a LE Tyrant lord bent on Empirialistic expansion. In the milennia since he has mellowed to a LN Protector of the Minotaur People. Thus Minotaurs MUST be Lawful in alignment, while the LE segment is on the decline, and the LG segment more of a recnet upstart, the vast majority of Minotaurs are LN.

I can get more detail if you'd like,

 

[Turanil]

Bothering about the place of homosexuality in a gaming world sounds to me a concern of political correctness ("See how I am politically correct! I have also included gays into my campaign setting!"). I find it exceedingly boring and without any useful purpose.

I have a friend who likes to use the game (as a DM) to lecture us on things that frankly we don't care for. He of course did it with a gay NPC (a military commander), so what? Another time it was about racism, and he threw us into a situation where our PCs were victims of racism. He wanted us to see what it is to be victim of racism. However, none of us is a racist, and we just saw the thing as just another adventure circumstance for our PCs. Lecturing players about some kind of actual societal problem (homophobia, racism, etc.) is kind of useless: I suggest to do it in real life instead!

Maybe it can be interesting to create some NPCs who happen to be homosexual. For example the PC will get a very important magical object (to succeed in his quest), only if he accepts to make love with the wizard who is of the same gender as him/herself. Could be fun. However, bothering about the place of homosexuality in a campaign setting won't do anything to enhance your stories, and make your game more entertaining.

 

[Darkness]

Oryan77, I understand where you're coming from.

Still, saying that someone expressing something you disagree with "spews" an opinion is bordering on a personal attack.

Further, your remark about bestiality is problematic as well. While correct, it's inflammatory and not exactly in good taste. What's more, you could have used a less problematic example, or no example, and still made your point.

Please mind your tone. If someone's comments make you angry, take a little break from this thread until you can reply politely - there are many interesting threads in EN World to browse in the meantime.
This goes for everyone, of course. Thanks.

Turanil, EN World is not a place to debate the merits (or lack thereof) of "political correctness". So please don't.

If anyome has comments or questions regarding the above, please PM or e-mail me - don't hijack the thread.

 

[Mark]

So, my question is: 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?”

To go out of your way to make something an issue is likely not the best way to feel better about not having included it thus far. I called my brother today to wish him a happy birthday. He's 41 and gay. I happen not to be. He's been gay as long as either of us has considered sexuality as a part of the human condition. Although we sometimes discuss gay issues, during the course of our conversation today it never came up.

So my answer to your question is: Only introduce it when it naturally occurs to you or you will be going out of your way to just throw it in.

 

[Trainz]

My previous sorceror (R.I.P.) was bisexual, and would hit on anything with a charisma of 14 or higher. The DM and players gave me a weird look when I introduced the character, but they had a blast with the roleplaying situations that were created, and I never pushed the envelope to actual sexual descriptions. I would describe the courting, and the DM determined if my "target" was hooked. And that was it.

Frankly, I would be disgusted if one of my players described an heterosexual encounter in detail. I would tell him "please don't bring your sexual needs to my gaming table".

But, hey, he died in a blaze of glory, and my new sorceror is heterosexual (well, he didn't actually express his sexuality, and I doubt he ever will, being an arcane paladin of Bahamut).

I think that if homosexuality in your campaigns irks you, that you should ask yourself why. Homosexuality shouldn't be an uncomfortable subject, no more than heterosexuality is.

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

As a big homo, I have to ask: do the peoples of the world KNOW that they were all created by long-dead gods as instruments of war? I'm assuming that most people would probably not know this as fact and, although it may be passed down to them as myth or legend, the homosexuals would most likely question those myths. And if they did know that, for a fact, that they were created as machines of war, I doubt that anybody, not just the gays, would be very happy with their lots in life. I mean, how much would that suck?

Do most people know? Yes & no.

The Dragons know, after all they were the gods greatest creations.

The Elves know, after all they were created to serve the Dragons.

The Minotaurs know (not the MM ones, a home-brewed PC Race). As their god survived the divine war and is the last orginal diety left.

Most learned scholars know. They've studied the ancient texts & know the truth.

Most other people have no clue. Many have their own creation myths or simply none at all. Probably 90% of all sentient creatures do not not the true orgin of the intelligent races.

later,

 

[Darkness]

Now, those being who have an alignment other than that dictated by the MM can trace their lineage back to some "other" creature if they go far enough back. ... Minotaurs MUST be Lawful in alignment, while the LE segment is on the decline, and the LG segment more of a recnet upstart, the vast majority of Minotaurs are LN.

1. Humanoid races generally are "usually" of a certain alignment. Which means more than 50% (but less than 100%) of the race in question are of this alignment. Is that true in your campaign, or did you change it to "always" (i.e., 100% of the race have this alignment)?
2. Taking the minotaur example... If a deity is N in one of the axes, the creatures can have any option on that axis? What if the deity is not N in an axis, though? Can a member of a race serving a G deity be N (on the good-evil axis)?

I can get more detail if you'd like,

No need to burn you out by writing so much, mate. A short answer is quite sufficient for me.

 

[Oryan77]

fusangite: When you point out your comments from that point of view, it makes sense. I still don't agree with a lot of it (and I have a hard time believing that was the original point you were trying to make). Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how you can base it on "efficiency" without making it a "moral" topic. The reason is because you say it as if it is "right". Your examples cover VERY few factors in the overall scheme of how straight/gay couples functions in society. If you limit capitalism to those few "advantages" a gay couple has, of course it might seem like it's more efficient.

I understand you're viewpoint on the matter though, and I won't push this into a debate.

When people discuss the merits of heterosexuality, homosexual people generally don't get offended.

You may be right about that. I live in the Bay Area, and thinking about the homosexual discussions I've witnessed, the straight people who defend gays get more offended when another straight person discusses the merits of heterosexuality :\

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

From my perspective, you danced around the fact to being offensive. But this is probably just a matter of comprehending comments different ways.

 

[Teflon Billy]

So my answer to your question is: Only introduce it when it naturally occurs to you or you will be going out of your way to just throw it in.

I couldn't agree more with the above statement.