Sexuality in your games.

[fusangite]

I've never understood the point on bringing attention to homosexuality in a game other than to have an agenda and push your own opinions on people. If a DM told me, "it's common for there to be gay couples in this world" and he's pointing out to me every session that I see gay couples...I would take this as the DM trying to teach me that it's ok for people to be gay in real life.

That's kind of weird. If a DM hands you setting material that mentions there is more than one race in society, do you interpret that as him pushing an agenda for racial equality? If the setting material mentions that there is more than one language and culture within the society, does that mean he's arguing in favour of multiculturalism? I think the original poster was pretty clear on why he was including people who engage in same-sex relations: realism.

If being a gay NPC/PC has a role in the game, then by all means have his sexuality play a part in the session. I don't think that would be a distraction at all. Maybe it's to add character and personality to the individual. I can think of lots of great ideas for a gay NPC to add flavor to a game (not in an insulting or silly way). But just to push the point on the group that "there's gay people in this world" leads me to believe that I'm being preached to.

I'm inclined to agree here. But because our society handles sexual orientation so differently than pre-modern societies have, I think that there is value in mentioning how homosexuality is handled in a general way, when the subject comes up.

I'm recalling, for instance, how our GM in a recent campaign, did have to give us an extemporaneous lecture on how our characters' society handled war captives because our characters were acting way too modern in our treatment of defeated populations. I can see this kind of clarification having to be issued regarding gay NPCs, should the players make the wrong guess about the mores of their characters' society.

Yep. Apart from realistic contemporary and SF games that have had a light sprinkling of gay and lesbian charcters in them, and apart from teh fact taht one of my friends is gay and usually plays gay characters, my non-European non-Mediaeval fantasy setting Gehennum has a set of sexual mores modelled on those of Ancient Greece, including conventionalised loving relationships between young men and adolescent protegés and a number of military units based on the Sacred Band of Thebes. This causes a bit of embarrassment to young straight players when they first encounter the setting, and I probably wouldn't invite a homophobe or yong teenager to play. Otherwise there are no problems. Even socially conservative (by Australian standards) players in their young twenties seem to be okay with charcters in such relationships so long as their characters are the older partners and their NPC eromenoi are good-looking and have prestigious social connections.

Bravo! Ancient Greece and the Carolingian civilization seem to have taken this approach. And it is another great example of understanding homosexuality without creating sexual orientation as an identity category. Here, the act of penetration signifies rank within a patron-client structure. Rather than being represented in the matrix of gender, here it is represented with the matrix of clientage and rank.

Agback also raises an excellent point in that the closer your in-game society is to an agreed-upon historical or sociological reality, the more people's political views on debates about homosexuality in the real world are cast aside in favour of being immersed in a society other than their own.

What I think I am doing when I present a setting with different sexual mores than my own society's is the same as when I have significantly non-human members of society, different marriage structures, different inheritance laws, different political arrangements etc.: playing with ideas. Making worlds and societies that are as interesting as ours, but not like ours.

Eloquently put!

In campaigns I've been in, sex is for NPCs. It's used as part of NPC motivations (eg the mayor's lover is being held hostage by villains, or the head villain is ticked that you burned down his favorite whorehouse, etc).

Great rule. One I live by, myself.

My main problem would be having one of three types of players, the "eww gross" player, the offended player, or the player that stalks the lesbian to try and catch her "in the act". The first player wouldn't make it into my group in the first place, the latter player would be penalized (I'd consider such action as OOC), and the second type of player can hopefully be reasoned with.

I think you have answered the question yourself then. As I said, the best way to deal with the second type of player is to make your society believable based on historical precedent or clear anthropological or sociological reasoning.

Besides, the culture that I have created is suited to more mature / advanced role-players anyway. It is a culture that is decidedly different from the typical fantasy setting based in a westernized world.

If you describe the setting, we might be able to offer you some advice on how the society you have constructed would conceptualize and regulate same-sex relations.

Therefore it will require a bit more skill on the players part to pull off believable and interesting characters. (It shouldn't be TOO difficult, but will likely require some explaining and background information before playing and character creation.)

I'm seeing a bit of tension between this assertion and your opening assertion that you want human NPCs to have the same rate of homosexuality as they do in this society in order to be believable. If your in-game society's assumptions are really so different, why is the inclusion of homosexuality so important for developing a sense of realism?

The reason I question the OP's motives though is the fact that the DM claims that homosexuality is supposed to be common in the world...and "accepted" (I guess anyway). So if it's common & accepted, why is the DM creating a situation where the players are supposed to be surprised that an informant is gay...

I think the OP is worried that the players might find something surprising that their characters do not.

The PC's shouldn't be surprised, because it's "normal".

How are they supposed to know it's normal when the setting materials make no mention of it and the GM never brings it up in briefing the players (as you recommend)? It seems to me that you can't have it both ways.

It should be no more shocking than if the male informant had a wife, or the organization is all straight women.

But given that no cultures have conceptualized sexual orientation the way ours has, it may be that what is surprising is how homosexuality fits into cultural institutions rather than the mere fact that it does.

My point is, why bring attention to that subject matter in your world unless the PC's are meant to react towards it?

Because in present-day America, homosexuality is a controversial issue. I think the GM's concerns are about how the players' views as contemporary Americans may interact with their characters' views.

It's like adding slavery to a game to make the world more "alive". You add slavery to get a reaction from the players.

Maybe you do. Some of us do it because making game world societies that are different than the one we live in constitutes a big chunk of the fun of playing RPGs. If you don't like slavery in your games because you think it's wrong in the present-day world, I guess your games feature a lot of mutlicultural representative democracies and other anachronisms. While that is one way to play D&D, it's certainly not the only one.

 

[Oryan77]

If a DM hands you setting material that mentions there is more than one race in society, do you interpret that as him pushing an agenda for racial equality?

Nope, I don't. But telling me, "You encounter a gang of Half-elves in the street" is much different than telling me, "You encounter a well-known lesbian gang in the street". I just can't think of any way for a DM to point out the fact NPC's are gay during the game without it coming off as trying to get me to react as a player or character. Like I said, I've never needed a DM to tell me that the thugs we encountered are heterosexual. I've never needed to be told that I see hetersexual men drinking at a table. I've never needed to be told if an organization was full of straight women. Now if my PC starts flirting with a woman, and I get turned down because she's gay....that's a positive way to handle sexuality in the game and remind me that lesbians are common. But my assumption is that the DM is going to randomly tell players about all the gayness they see around them. Again...why and how does this make a world feel more alive than if I was to tell players that heterosexuality is common in my world and they see lots of straight people?

How are they supposed to know it's normal when the setting materials make no mention of it and the GM never brings it up in briefing the players (as you recommend)? It seems to me that you can't have it both ways.

Actually, I never said anything about not mentioning this background info in a briefing about the DM's setting. I'm not sure how players are supposed to know homesexuality is common in the world if they are never briefed on it. So I'm not sure why you thought that I was saying DM's shouldn't even brief players about the sexual practices in the campaign.

If being gay is common in the DM's world, I have absolutely no problem with them telling me that info when they are giving me a heads up about the culture in their campaign. My whole rant though is that after that briefing, I don't need to be reminded about that issue over & over (as if giving flavor to the session) for the sake of pushing it in my face. I would feel that the DM is trying to get a reaction out of me as a player. This would be a distraction if that's how it's handled, and that's what the OP was asking. And if the intention is to get a reaction out of my character....why? If it's common in the world, why would my PC be shocked that the enemy has a gay lover? When the OP first wrote about the scenario of the gay NPC idea, my first thought was that I was supposed to be surprised by the fact he's gay. But if being gay is supposed to be normal, what are the DM's motives for trying to surprise me? That's where I have a problem.

Of course I don't know this DM or their group. And I don't know exactly how the DM plans to integrate sexuality in their campaign. They may handle it great and make it interesting. The original post just comes across as the DM wanting to point out all of the homosexuality going on every chance they get as if to add flavor to the world. But that may not be the case

It's like adding slavery to a game to make the world more "alive". You add slavery to get a reaction from the players.

Maybe you do. Some of us do it because making game world societies that are different than the one we live in constitutes a big chunk of the fun of playing RPGs. If you don't like slavery in your games because you think it's wrong in the present-day world, I guess your games feature a lot of mutlicultural representative democracies and other anachronisms. While that is one way to play D&D, it's certainly not the only one.

See, you're trying to disagree with me for the sake of finding something to debate against me. You just agreed to my point, but you replied as if we have opposite outlooks. "Constitutes a big chunk of the fun of playing RPGs".....yep, that's why I said we use slavery to get a reaction from the players. Slavery is looked down upon by most players, so we throw slavery in the game & make it common because it's different from the society we live in today. DM's do it so the players can say, "That's terrible! We must free that man and put a stop to that slavers practices!" There's the "fun of playing RPGs". I'm not sure if you were referring to me not liking slavery in my games, or talking generally to the public...but if you were talking to me, again, I don't see how you came to that conclusion. I use slavery all the time in my games. I use it to get a reaction from the players and characters. But using homosexuality in the same way seems wrong to me.

 

[prosfilaes]

Nope, I don't. But telling me, "You encounter a gang of Half-elves in the street" is much different than telling me, "You encounter a well-known lesbian gang in the street".

How is it different than saying "You encounter a well-known anarchist gang" or "a well-known Athar gang"? Or in Transhuman Space fighting cyberdemocraticists or libertarians?

 

[Agent Oracle]

How is it different than saying "You encounter a well-known anarchist gang" or "a well-known Athar gang"? Or in Transhuman Space fighting cyberdemocraticists or libertarians?

well:

a) a well-known lesbian gang could be peaceful non-combatants who pass out GLASS fliers while making occasional condescending remarks towards Chimpy McFlightsuit. a female party member can expect to be treated well, and male party members had best watch their manners, or else they will be reinforcing the negative male steriotype.

b) Well-known ananrchists are almost guarenteeably violent, as the state of anarchy exists in direct conflict with civilized society... Please consider modern well-known anarchists: Al-Quaeda.

c) I don't know what an Athar is... nor do most players probably.

d) The Transhuman Space fighting cyberdemocraticists are probably buisy fighting the transuman space, so you can ignore them. And you can give the libertarians a sane candidate (please!)

 

[Oryan77]

How is it different than saying "You encounter a well-known anarchist gang" or "a well-known Athar gang"? Or in Transhuman Space fighting cyberdemocraticists or libertarians?

Ah cool, Planescape

For one, you won't know you're encountering an Anarchist gang because the faction keeps its identity hidden at all costs. They'll make you believe you are encountering a Doomguard gang

The Athar, along with most other factions, wear their identity on their sleeves. They may wear faction colors, wear faction symbols, or rant about their beliefs during combat. Even if it's just a street gang of all men, why would you need to know they are gay men? Have you ever needed to know if they were straight men?

I would assume a lesbian gang isn't going to be wearing rainbows unless they want to be identified as a lesbian gang. But if homosexuality is common in the world, why would they do that? I've never seen a real life gang promoting their heterosexuality on their sleeves and being straight is common in our culture.

Once again, why does the fact that the gang is gay need to be mentioned if it doesn't affect the PC's? Why not tell them the gang is full of only women? Informing them that it's gay women makes it seem like you want me to react to them being gay for some reason. If the PC's found out these women are gay somehow, I wouldn't find that as being a distraction.

Without actually playing in a game that is trying to implement gay characters, I can't really give a good answer to what I think. All I am doing right now is nit picking and making general assumptions, that's all I can do. I can admit that

 

[lukelightning]

The reason it's hard to notice gay or lesbian characters in D&D is that various races and classes have co-opted all the cliches. Fabulous effeminate men? That's elves. Women in sensible shoes? Paladins.

 

[prosfilaes]

For one, you won't know you're encountering an Anarchist gang because the faction keeps its identity hidden at all costs.

Anarchist was not meant in this context as a Planescape reference.

The point is, if you run into an Athar, does that mean that the DM is pushing atheism? Or that the DM is trying to push a religious belief one way or the other?

I would assume a lesbian gang isn't going to be wearing rainbows unless they want to be identified as a lesbian gang. But if homosexuality is common in the world, why would they do that? I've never seen a real life gang promoting their heterosexuality on their sleeves and being straight is common in our culture.

There's certainly lesbian biker groups in this world. It's not like the Crips were an insignia saying they're an African-American gang; once you see the gang symbols, you know that they're the Crips, and if you recognize the gang symbols, you know who they are. Certainly there could be lesbian gangs that don't have to wear rainbows to be recongized for who they are.

It's entirely possible that a gang would push being lesbian, because it means they don't need men, and it's forewarning that if a guy hits on one of them, that guy will get a sword through the chest.

 

[el-remmen]

But then, we were a bunch of very heterosexual guys. We didn't even like to include women in the game

Irony, thy name is. . .

 

[lukelightning]

I've never seen a real life gang promoting their heterosexuality on their sleeves and being straight is common in our culture.

There are real-life gangs that promote their heterosexuality; they are called Neo-Nazis, (some) skinheads, and the KKK.

And yeah, most people don't go around saying "by the way, I'm straight" but that is only because everyone is assumed to be straight.

 

[Malanath]

Thanks again everyone, especially you Fusangite as you seem to have articulated what I was trying to get across.

I think the OP is worried that the players might find something surprising that their characters do not.
....
Because in present-day America, homosexuality is a controversial issue. I think the GM's concerns are about how the players' views as contemporary Americans may interact with their characters' views.

That pretty much sums up my reluctant feelings.

I've been reworking some of the society and culture of my world to reflect that people with same-sex inclinations exist. I really feel that it has made a positive impact on the world as a whole, especially in making things more interesting. Let me give you an example.

My world is based around a single Empire in decline. This empire has existed for nearly 2,000 years and as such has developed a rather interesting culture. In this culture honor and family are paramount. Many people would rather die than to have their honor or integrity impugned. Shame plays a huge role in society.

Family also plays a central role in the culture of the Empire. In commoner families, for example, young children may be educated with very basic reading, writing, and math skills before learning a craft around the age of ten or eleven. For children born in rural areas this is typically the craft of their same-sex parent, for more urban areas children may apply for apprenticeship at a guild.

The roles of male and female in my society are very well defined. The roles of females typically evolve around the home, child raising, and the like but can also include such jobs as Midwife, Herbalist, or village wise woman.

At around the ages of 14-16 children will typically find themselves being prepared to enter an arranged marriage. All children are expected to get married, and polygamy is quite common among commoners and sometimes among the high nobility.

Now, here is where same-sex relationships come into play. It would not be uncommon for women who are married to the same man to also have a sexual relationship with other women in the marriage. When a woman is added to the marriage all of them are considered married to each other.

For men, even though they are expected to marry women, also typically form a relationship with another man called a silksokai - meaning "chosen brother" - in which sexual acts are typically involved, although this may not always be the case. Forming a silksokai is a very special relationship between two men, and is one that is held in high honor and esteem - it is literally a marriage of two families.

Members of a silksokai also typically arrange to have their children marry one another. Although it is not very common, women who are married to one husband in a silksokai may also have a sexual relationship with the women of the other. However, the two men never sleep with each others wives - it would be akin to sleeping with your sister-in-law. (Not to mention the problems of your child marrying back into your family, thus creating an incestuous relationship.)

If someone wishes to escape marriage then the only real way to do that would be to join one of the religious orders. There are three of them, two exclusively male and one exclusively female. There is sometimes same-sex relationships within the orders.

This is more or less the extent that same sex relations will affect my world. Sex between people of the opposite sex is generally either viewed as a procreative act or an act of high love and affection. Sex between people of the same sex is generally viewed as a very intimate and loving friendship. In general the society is much more open about sexuality than ours, sex is something done in private, but general displays of affection are quite common. A general greeting among acquaintances is a kiss on the cheek, where as a greeting among good friends is a kiss on the lips. Hugging and other such displays of affection are also common.

Interestingly, though, displays of playful sexual touching (such as slapping someone on the butt) is considered shameful and embarrassing. As would be more affectionate kisses or certain types of caresses. Although hand holding is something rather common among good friends.