Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 2878108" data-attributes="member: 7240">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.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?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.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.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.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?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?Again, I see all of these assumptions residing inside your head and not inside Malanath's posts.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.</blockquote>

Verification