Sexuality in your games.

[el-remmen]

That description reminds me of elves in my setting: polyamorous, pansexual and with a less developed incest taboo (sex/marriage with cousins, siblings and your uncles/aunts is just fine)

 

[lukelightning]

That description reminds me of elves in my setting: polyamorous, pansexual and with a less developed incest taboo (sex/marriage with cousins, siblings and your uncles/aunts is just fine)

That explains why wood elves have such severe mental retardation.

 

[painandgreed]

I live in the gay/alternative neighborhood of my city as well as most my players. Anybody that had issues with such probably couldn't make it down my street to my apartment, let alone have issues with one of my games. Still, the issue hardly ever comes up although it is assumed to exist. Nobody is really interested in RPing sex in characer in the game. The most it ever came up was the last game I was in where we had a gay player, an incubus character, but it rarely went beyond "you and suitable partner go off to take care of business". It still came up a lot as we had lots of gay NPCs and one entire adventure was our party trying to sell a horde of "mindflayer yaoi" statues and artwork that we had aquired.

The most it really occurs is in Vampire where I make all players start off by RPing feeding. I tell them: "It's Saturday night, your herd is unavailable, and you're hungry. What do you do." Since most players rarely put thought into how their characters actually feed, they usually end up chasing down a bum and I play up the sexual overtones of a vampire feeding and them feeding of someone that would not be their normal choice in RL. Typically, they either get over it or change their character so they can feed more efficiently, as their character would quickly do when presented with similar choices. of coruse, many of the players who do get thier desired prey also change their characters to make feeding easier which is why I start the games that way and allow players to modify their characters afterward.

IMC for D&D, sexual themes exist but do not play a large role. Human culture typical mores against homosexuality prevail, at least in the lands ruled by the lawful side of the human church. The chaotic side of the human church really doesn't care so long as the person has a suitable mate for producing children in a world where death is common and survival of the species means reproduction. Elves, other demi-humans, and other humanoids may have their favorites, but culturally really don't care where they get it from. Orc exist (IMC) only as males who procreate through rape where childbirth usually kills the mother if she is not half-orc (orc and half-orc or two half-orcs result in a orc, an orc or half-orc and anything else results in a half-orc) and are not above creating holes where there are none if they feel like it to the point that even other evil humanoids find them vile (my orcs are what you would consider 'born evil' and just short of gaining evil subtype).

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.

Ow! This hurts my head. Most well known "anarchists" are not anarchists. Anarchists would be Proudhon, Goldman, Kropotkin, or Chomsky. Al-Quaeda is not, has not, and does not claim to be anarchists by any meaning of the word as they are striving for a theocracy. At best, you could claim that nihilist gangs are "guarenteeably violent".

 

[Oryan77]

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

Nice observation. I didn't think of them as a gang that promotes their sexual preference. Although when I see them, my first thought isn't "Hey, that's a heterosexual gang". But in the D&D example, I am supposed to think, "Hey, that's a homosexual gang". It's just strange to me I guess.

I've been reworking some of the society and culture of my world to reflect that people with same-sex inclinations exist.

You'v definately put a lot of thought into this subject matter for you game! Good luck with the campaign

 

[fusangite]

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

Thanks. Sometimes the longer stuff I write is too far out of context. I'm glad this worked for you.

Given that my last set of observations was so welcome, maybe I can give you some helpful advice on what you have written below.

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.

This sounds an awful lot like 3rd century imperial Rome. The idea that the basic unity of society is family rather than the individual is very Roman. Indeed, one of the biggest Roman criticisms of Christianity was that it undermined family values by placing the individual apart from the family.

For other societies similarly obsessed with honour, I recommend you also take a look at the Cherokees and Early Modern (15th-18th century) Hispanic societies. There may also be some valuable parallels with Imperial Chinese society but I don't know as much as I should in this area.

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.

Are you using the separate spheres model? If not, I recommend you make use of it. Here's a brief summary from of it that I recently posted to another board on another matter:

Western society (along with many non-Western ones) has traditionally dealt with issues of power between men and women through a "separate spheres" model. Women controlled the domestic sphere and men controlled the public sphere. The relative sizes of these spheres have fluctuated over time. At many times, the domestic sphere has included primary economic activity (medieval artistans, for instance engaged in production in the home) and family alliance/formation (many medieval queens were seen as having primary control over dynastic marriages). When the domestic sphere is large and the public sphere small, there is a roughly equal distribution of power.

However, at times when the domestic sphere is small and the public large, less power has been concentrated in women's hands. What happened in the 19th century is that the domestic sphere became so small and the public so all-encompassing that the system broke and women emerged into the public sphere.

What is interesting is that since this development is that many novel and recent aspects of the public sphere have quickly become female-dominated. Just look at what portion of celebrity news men comprise.

These are interesting and unprecedented times for the role of women in our civilization. However, women moving towards partity in power is not one of the unprecedented things about it.

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.[/QUOTE]I would like to stop you here. Your society is seeming a little too flat. In other words, your aristocrats and your commoners are perilously culturally similar. Generally, adolescent marriage and arranged marriage, like early literacy (above) have tended to be common aristocratic customs that have rarely filtered-down to lower levels of society.

Non-aristocrats, even if they have strong views on whom their children should marry lacked the resources, financial motivation and social support necessary to compel marriage. Similarly, because commoners have rarely gained any tangible benefit from early marriage, have also eschewed this practice.

On another matter, do you mean polygamy or polygyny? In other words, are there situations where women have multiple husbands?

Also, I think it is important for you to sort out whether family is patrilocal or matrilocal. In Mormon polygamy, for instance, family was matrilocal in the extreme. Each wife had her own separate household and which she administered on behalf of her husband. On the other hand, in Hindu polygamy, family was patrilocal but matrifocal -- the mother or first wife of the husband was in charge of the family unit and new wives were required to basically sever previous family attachments.

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.

Why would this be the case? Do they have a role in choosing wives? This seems really weird; in most polygynous systems, women are competing to be wife #1 and tend to direct most of their anger and competitive energy against their husband's other wives. I don't understand why these women would have such harmonious relationships. Sociologically, this just doesn't ring true for me.

The only example I can think of historically for such harmonious relations are medieval Lithuanian polygamy. But this domestic harmony was achieved by men marrying all the sisters in a particular family at the same time. Needless to say, the incest taboo pretty much took care of any questions of same-sex relations in these marriages.

When a woman is added to the marriage all of them are considered married to each other.

In what sense? I'm assuming it's the husband who does the courting and the choosing. Even if this is true on paper or in public rhetoric, I don't see how this would shake down as the actual case.

Also, I just don't buy a society with this many people into same-sex relations.

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.)

This seems a neat idea -- like taking Platonic love to its logical conclusions and implicating families in it. This rings much truer for me than the lesbian aspect of your story.

You could solve the exogamy problem by overlaying a clan system onto this. There is ample evidence that into the classical period, Athens had an exogamous clan system.

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.

The sexual part of this element rings true but I have to wonder what society's view of these orders is. Basically, they bust families -- if families are the most sacred institution in society, why are these orders not roundly despised? How are the orders sufficiently protected from people wanting their wives back for this to work?

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.

This sounds consistent with an honour-focused society. But again, I recommend that you think a little more about making the society a little more pyramidal and less flat. A lot of these expressions of affection in honour-driven societies also connote relationships of dominance, submission, patronage, clientage, equality, etc.

 

[fusangite]

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

I guess I'm thinking more along the lines of, "The recently kidnapped courtier was... er... specially favoured by the local duke." Or, as in Agback's world, "He may have been a novice in the order but the grand master had a special affection for him."

Or, if you read my other post, witnessing a noble fellating his vassal might provide the characters with a piece of information with which they could extort considerable concessions.

In games with a political or diplomatic component, who is sleeping with whom matters a fair bit.

as a player or character.

But these are completely separate questions.

Obviously, if Malanath had you as a player, he would either have to dump you or elements of his campaign world because, evidently, you consider every mention of homosexuality an act of personal provocation. But in a campaign without players like you, why would one expect that the mention of homosexuality would engender such strong reactions?

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.

Yeah. But when your DM tells you that the duke and his wife have a young daughter who has been taken hostage by a band of half-orcs, the duke's heterosexuality is inextricably linked to the very premise of the adventure.

But my assumption is that the DM is going to randomly tell players about all the gayness they see around them.

Can you point to something Malanath has said here that would make you think this? He has amply illustrated that his setting's social structure necessitates a brief explanation of how people in the society think about homosexuality because it is so clearly different from how people think about it in our society.

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?

Well, you do tell your players that all the time. Every time you show them a straight couple. Every time a PC or NPC hits on a person of the opposite sex, rather than the same sex you are re-stating how normative heterosexuality is in your game. Your depiction of heterosexuality makes your world come alive because your PCs can see that the world's NPCs are involved in romantic and sexual relationships. If you didn't mention those things, your world would be less real.

Actually, I never said anything about not mentioning this background info in a briefing about the DM's setting.

Sorry if that's how I interpreted your remarks. You seemed to object to the GM notifying his players that the culture handled homosexuality differently than our does. What is it that you are objecting to, if not that?

My whole rant though is that after that briefing, I don't need to be reminded about that issue over & over

Why do you think Malanath is planning to repeatedly tell his players the same piece of information again and again? Where is that assumption coming from?

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.

Again, I see all of these assumptions residing inside your head and not inside Malanath's posts.

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.

But that's not how I use slavery. That was my point. Slavery shows up in my games because it shows up periodically in pre-modern societies. It's there to give texture not to provoke a reaction. When I depict slavery, I am not holding up a big "these are the bad guys" sign -- I just put it there because it seems right for a particular society in a particular part of the setting. So you see, we do have opposite positions here.

It seems like a big part of your game is for the characters' social values to be indistinguishable from those of contemporary 21st century US citizens. I find this way of playing D&D, while common, as boring as whale excrement.

 

[Agent Oracle]

*snippity* But when your DM tells you that the duke and his wife have a young daughter who has been taken hostage by a band of half-orcs, the duke's heterosexuality is inextricably linked to the very premise of the adventure. *snippity*

I dare to differ! I would like to cite several european monarchs who, despite being a concessionary Seinfeld-isim, happened to be able to pretend long enough to concecrate their arranged marrages and produce offspring. King James of England (the very same King James who authorized the Biblical translation) was most likely a fan of musical theater, but that didn't stop him at all!

Many Great Greeks were gay (but that was a cultural thing, most men were bisexual in as much as they used screwing other men as a sign of dominance).

Really, in a historical setting, the existance of homosexuality depends almost as much on the will of the church as it does on the individuals that exist. Since D&D is inherently polytheitic, with each god ascribed to very generalized principals (and no refined dogma reguarding anything) then it's easy to claim that, say, homosexuality is an abomination unto wee jas, but St. Cuthbert is allright with it.

 

[fusangite]

I dare to differ! I would like to cite several european monarchs who, despite being a concessionary Seinfeld-isim, happened to be able to pretend long enough to concecrate their arranged marrages and produce offspring.

I happily concede this point. Indeed, I was making it earlier before the desire to win the argument swept me away.

 

[Oryan77]

So you see, we do have opposite positions here.
I find this way of playing D&D, while common, as boring as whale excrement.

You're right about that. I find it extremely boring dealing with subject matter in-game the way you seem to enjoy it. I deal with enough of that reading the news and living life. I'll stick with freeing slaves and running from Drow raiders instead of wondering why the 2 male Gnomes have their arms around each other. But then again, we weren't supposed to be discussing who's gaming preferences we found boring. :\

I was about to give a reply to your last post & answer the questions you asked me, but....

before the desire to win the argument swept me away.

this is why you'll get no further responses from me on this subject.....I guess you win!

I'm not out to prove who's the bigger brainiac and "win" anything by writing wearisome posts...arguing with people that already know they are right is a waste of my time. I was answering the OP's question from another point of view, and I hope I was helpful even though I know I wasn't influential. I wasn't trying to win anything to begin with

 

[SteelDraco]

I can think of once that I've used homosexuality in a game I was running, and that was just as a red herring in a historical game.

The PCs were investigating some deaths at a theater in a 1760s-era horror game. There were about eight to ten NPCs who were subject to investigation, since they were part of the theater troupe that was having trouble. They happened to notice some suspicious behavior from one of the actresses - some of her answers to where she had been at certain times hadn't held up to scrutiny very well. That night, she was sneaking around, and happened to be noticed by the PCs. They followed her, suspecting she might be the killer. In fact, she was just meeting another actress for a tryst. The real killer had planted evidence in her dressing room as well, since it knew she was sneaking about and such. I thought it made perfect sense, since she couldn't be open about her actions, or face public disfavor.

The PCs figured out what was really going on, and, after some IC embarrassment, left them alone. They also found and killed the lhiannan shee that was actually causing the problem.