Quote from: Chris24601 on September 13, 2021, 01:07:58 PM
In short, open homosexuality just doesn't make sense in a lot of historic/faux-historic settings because, for the most part, its open indulgence is a First World luxury.

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 01:27:29 PM
Deleting mention of actual historical attitudes regarding homosexuality doesn't create greater historical authenticity - it creates less.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on September 13, 2021, 01:31:39 PM
But in a game like D&D (aka-fantasy) historical accuracy is not really a consideration.

Rob - it sounds like this is a clash between Chris24601 and you. Chris24601 argued that homosexuality wasn't mentioned in order to be true to historical / faux-historical settings. You're arguing that historical accuracy isn't a consideration for D&D. If what you say is correct, then historical accuracy is not a reason for lack of mention of homosexuality in D&D.

For what it's worth, I tend to agree with you, Rob -- I think historical accuracy wasn't a significant consideration for D&D in the 1970s and 1980s.

Quote from: Pat on September 13, 2021, 01:14:10 PM
It wasn't exclusion, because sexuality simply wasn't a major part of D&D. The parts that slipped through were giggly titties for teenage boys, and one hur durr table with hookers, but that reflects the orientation of the writers and being edgy, rather than being an act of deliberate exclusion. That leaves only one consistent reference to sexuality: Marriage. In addition's to Chris24601's point about the concealed nature of homosexuality through most of history, it's also worth remembering at the time D&D was being written, marriage that involved anything except one man and one woman wasn't even on the mainstream's radar, and was restricted to things like Heinlein novels or Nero's fiddling.

I agree that homosexual marriage was both illegal and not on the mainstream's radar at the time -- but I'd say the *reason* was because of widespread prejudice against homosexual people. It's not that homosexuality was completely unknown. If someone behaved in a homosexual manner, then most people would recognize it and quite likely punish it. That was the understood rule. My 11th grade English teacher was gay, for example, but I never knew at the time because he would be fired if it came out.

I also agree that sexuality isn't a major part of D&D - but that isn't a reason not to mention it ever. My claim is that if there were no prejudice against gay people at the time, then I'd expect to see to see some casual mentions of gay characters and/or homosexuality. Not that the game would fundamentally change - but just that there would be an occasional pair of NPCs mentioned as being a couple, or similar passing reference.

Indeed, heterosexuality is mentioned all over the place. I posted about the harlot table and the succubus as two prominent cases, but you're speaking as if those were the only two. There are many hundreds of references to heterosexuality throughout the many D&D books of the 1970s and 1980s. Do you actually doubt this? I can pull some random books off my shelf and post a few dozen more examples for you if you like, but I think you already know this.

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 01:27:29 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 13, 2021, 01:07:58 PM
In short, open homosexuality just doesn't make sense in a lot of historic/faux-historic settings because, for the most part, its open indulgence is a First World luxury.

Homosexuality was often restricted and had specific attitudes regarding it in many historical societies. However, there were examples of open homosexuality in many historical societies - from the Greek to the Norse to many others. In general, taking some men out of the gene pool was historically the norm. In Christian Europe that was done mainly via celibate monks and priests. In other societies, though, practices differed.

But homosexuality was virtually never the primary relationship; it was always on the side of traditional marriage or isolated in groups where reproduction was already not a factor in its survival. Even in places that tolerated it, like periods of ancient Greece, it was considered disordered if it became the exclusive focus of a man's sex drive.

Another way to put it is that those cultures didn't even have the modern concept that we could call homosexuality; they had certain homosexual practices that were acceptable in certain contexts, but it in no way defined their identity as it does today (except as mockery).

Outside of extremely affluent within society for most of human history (and even then only in the "open secret" sort of way) you just aren't going to see an openly gay person anywhere, except perhaps in the most unseemly of professions like acting/prostitution.

The idea of two openly gay "kings" ruling a "nation" as was the case in one of the recent D&D modules is pure 21st Century First World myopia (and only until the Fascists/Communists are through seizing power, then they'll be among the first dragged in front a firing squad just like happened in Russa after they no longer needed them to destabilize the culture).

Another very basic reason why you see heterosexual relationships everywhere in products is because it is by far the most common relationship in the world. If you listened to what mass media considered "representation" you'd think half the population was homosexual, but just about every study, even here in America where it's celebrated by pop culture is that it's in the 2-4% range.

Put another way, when assigning homosexuality to a random NPC table, on a d20 the table would be 1-19 straight, 20 LGBT.

That would be actual proportional representation; but the Woke aren't interested in proportional, they're interested in subversion of the culture by undermining its norms and traditions which is why every other piece of art in new D&D releases is either a bi-racial LGBT couple, includes a combat wheelchair, or both.

ETA: Since I know you'll demand sources; "A 2017 Gallup poll concluded that 4.5% of adult Americans identified as LGBT with 5.1% of women identifying as LGBT, compared with 3.9% of men." - https://news.gallup.com/poll/234863/estimate-lgbt-population-rises.aspx

Again, it's this insistence on normalizing the outliers as being required mentioning and accepting rather than leaving it for the table to decide. We do not need or want that. If you want to make a game about those outliers - GO FOR IT.

Anecdotally I'm not "normal" by comparison to "normies", and it's okay. I'm certainly not requiring people to accept me based on these things that make me "not the norm". That's okay too. I don't assume people hate me if they don't, or are hesitant for whatever reason. I'm pretty confident I can win people with my effervescent charm, or my whisky/coffee bribery. (My father in-law didn't say my name for the first decade of my marriage to his very redheaded daughter who dared to marry... an Asian. But I won that motherfucker over and he was my biggest fan until the day he died. The point being - when it matters I'm in the fight to win hearts and minds and not be a sniveling victim.) This doesn't seem to be the case with SJW's.

I don't *need* to accept other's issues, no more than I *need* people to accept mine. But at my table? Nearly anything goes. I don't need LGBT, women, and others who identify with things that I don't telling me to accept them. They need to sell me on the package. Just because you're a woman, gay/bi/anything else, trans, twin-spirit goat make-up wearing buttplug tail having person, doesn't make you immune from being a fucking obnoxious asshole.

And when people want to peddle that shit as a feature OR else being a threat of excommunication at minimum, don't be surprised when people that live in reality who have been in this hobby (among other things) much longer, with real diverse ideas and thoughts with real diverse people reject this scripted naive nonsense for what it is.

I have no mandate to accept another person's issues. And I don't need those issues put into my established games. But by all means make a separate game about those issues for all those victims to do with as they please. But if you're going to insist - then I'm going to insist on not spending my money there. And I'll call the bullshit out for what it is - and clearly I won't be alone.

Quote from: jhkim on September 11, 2021, 02:41:16 AM
...But when all of the hundreds of D&D modules in the 1970s and 1980s have zero gay characters ...

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 12:30:02 PM
... there are lots of casual references to heterosexuality. ...

So what?

Bubble thinking. Are you unable to accept that heterosexuality is the overwhelming societal norm regardless of anyone's opinion on "gay issues".

From the Alt-Right news outlet NPR in 2011:
https://www.npr.org/2011/06/08/137057974/-institute-of-medicine-finds-lgbt-health-research-gaps-in-us
"I often hear LGBT advocates lament that it seems absurd that they don't have equal rights in this country given how large their community is. As a demographer I look at it a little differently. I'm amazed at how close we are to equality given how small the community is."

And its not like the SJWs are acting in any way in good faith.

Chris sums it up nicely:

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 13, 2021, 05:37:13 PM
... the Woke aren't interested in proportional, they're interested in subversion of the culture by undermining its norms and traditions which is why every other piece of art in new D&D releases is either a bi-racial LGBT couple, includes a combat wheelchair, or both.
...

As to Lee Golds delusional activism:

Quote from: jhkim on September 11, 2021, 02:41:16 AM
...
Specifically within RPG publishing, I know that Lee Gold said that all of the RPG publishers she worked with would have deleted any mention of homosexuality. Lee Gold was author of Land of the Rising Sun (1980, FGU), GURPS Japan (1988, SJG), and Vikings (1989, ICE). She noted in an essay -

QuoteEventually it occurred to me to wonder whether I'd been wrong to ignore cultural attitudes towards homosexuality. So when I next spoke to management people at my various publishers, I asked them. They said they were very glad I hadn't included the material, and -- yes, indeed -- if I had, it would have been deleted. RPG publishers don't boggle at gaming material featuring amoral bloodshed, torture, drug addiction, vampires, succubi (all strictly heterosexual, in every piece of artwork I've seen), and even demons -- but homosexuality seems to be beyond the pale.

Source: https://www.conchord.org/xeno/censorship.html

I think that just confirms what is perfectly obvious.
...

Yup, just as I remembered: No official anti-gay policies in the RPG hobby.

What is perfectly obvious is : "cultural attitudes towards homosexuality" was just as much of a hot-button political issue back then as it is now.

It seems that Gaming companies were wiser back then in wanting to be apolitical and avoided mentioning things in their games to keep from becoming a part of the political "gay rights" debate going on since at least the 70's.


In declaring their motives to be anti-gay, you are literally taking the softcore version of the "silence is violence" stance.

i.e. The only possible reason for not overtly mentioning *Insert hot-button issue here* is that you are some form of ist-a-phobe.


The solipsistic selfishness of this stance is staggering. A Classic catch-22 set up:

Activist: Why do you have no mentions of homosexuality in your RPGs?

RPG Co: Dude, 'homosexual rights' are a hot-button political issue, and we don't want to touch that stuff in our escapist RPGs.

Activist: Since when are basic human rights a political issue?

RPG Co: WTF? We're a gaming company making escapist RPGs. Why do we need to put out a press release about our stance on some "human rights" issue? 

Activist: Because everything is political, Bigot. By not mentioning homosexuality at all, you are explicitly taking an anti-homosexual political stance!

RPG Co: Wait, what!?

Quote from: Lee Gold on September 11, 2021, 02:41:16 AM
RPG publishers don't boggle at gaming material featuring amoral bloodshed, torture, drug addiction, vampires, succubi (all strictly heterosexual, in every piece of artwork I've seen), and even demons -- but homosexuality seems to be beyond the pale.

Beastiality, child molestation, incest, overt analogues of political figures, BDSM depictions; the list goes on. Many other 'beyond the pale', and myriad other hot-button political issues got nary a mention in most RPGs.

The whole reason we do things like play RPGs, read comics, and watch movies is to ESCAPE the political nonsense.

Not to turn around and see it shoved in our faces yet again.

Especially now since we know their "activism" has nothing to with actual equality anymore.

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 13, 2021, 05:37:13 PM
Put another way, when assigning homosexuality to a random NPC table, on a d20 the table would be 1-19 straight, 20 LGBT.

Right. I basically agree with this. I don't roll a die, but that's roughly the proportion of LGBT characters in most of my campaigns. Given many hundreds of NPCs in the 1970s and 1980s, then, I'd expect to see at least a few dozen who are LGBT if someone followed this. As far as I know, that number is instead zero.

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 13, 2021, 05:37:13 PM
That would be actual proportional representation; but the Woke aren't interested in proportional, they're interested in subversion of the culture by undermining its norms and traditions which is why every other piece of art in new D&D releases is either a bi-racial LGBT couple, includes a combat wheelchair, or both.

I am skeptical of this. I just bought Candlekeep Mysteries -- which Pundit told me had the original combat wheelchair in it as official rules. Instead I found no combat wheelchair rules, no wheelchair illustrations, and no wheelchair-using NPCs. I'll check it later to see if there are any LGBT couples - I suspect that if I find any, they will be no more than 5% and certainly not 50%.

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 06:54:22 PM
Right. I basically agree with this. I don't roll a die, but that's roughly the proportion of LGBT characters in most of my campaigns. Given many hundreds of NPCs in the 1970s and 1980s, then, I'd expect to see at least a few dozen who are LGBT if someone followed this. As far as I know, that number is instead zero.

But the point isn't just whether there are any or not - it's contextual to the game. And is it required at all? Am I supposed to claim WotC is racist since there are no Filipino/Japanese NPC's in Cormyr (or anywhere else)? Context.

Are we going to expect to split hairs on all content to be measured and weighed by the SJW Inquisitorial Board of Social Media? Because that's what is happening.

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 06:54:22 PM
I am skeptical of this. I just bought Candlekeep Mysteries -- which Pundit told me had the original combat wheelchair in it as official rules. Instead I found no combat wheelchair rules, no wheelchair illustrations, and no wheelchair-using NPCs. I'll check it later to see if there are any LGBT couples - I suspect that if I find any, they will be no more than 5% and certainly not 50%.

And what do you infer from this? That Pundit is lying? Or that WotC doesn't *really* give a flying shit about people in wheelchairs, LGBT people, POC, for anything other marketing?

Or do you think that's a false choice? Because contextually we agree Combat Wheelchair's are stupid in D&D for the assumptions of the core rules. They're even more stupid given specific settings. Contextually are we supposed to be having heterosexual couples overtaly proclaiming their sexuality for simply being in the same place? This gets back to what was posted upthread earlier - the presentation of LGBT characters is completely non-contextual for the purposes of undermining the assumptions of the cultural norms we've all played with in D&D from the start. Because we were more grounded in reality compared to the midwits of today.

And at no time did that ever stop anyone from playing a gay character in D&D. My first GM was a tomboy Vietnamese girl that later in life to the shock of no one turned out to be a lesbian. And that was in 1978. And I've had an overproportion of gay players in my LA gaming groups that rarely played gay characters because it was of no particular interest to them. Anecdotal? Sure. But it's a good snapshot of the time especially during my convention gaming years where I've had hundreds of players, some obviously gay, and I probably had less than a half a dozen of those players play gay characters (ironically all lesbians from gay men and women), and never did it come into play for obvious reasons (convention adventures don't really lend themselves to sexual encounters... but that was in the 80's and 90's. Who the fuck knows what goes on these days)

The only reason this shit is happening now is because the people calling the shots at WotC are grievance merchants preying on and cultivating victim-clout from its base. People keep playing D&D because of it's name and go along with this garbage because of brand loyalty.

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 06:54:22 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 13, 2021, 05:37:13 PM
Put another way, when assigning homosexuality to a random NPC table, on a d20 the table would be 1-19 straight, 20 LGBT.

Right. I basically agree with this. I don't roll a die, but that's roughly the proportion of LGBT characters in most of my campaigns. Given many hundreds of NPCs in the 1970s and 1980s, then, I'd expect to see at least a few dozen who are LGBT if someone followed this. As far as I know, that number is instead zero.

That's because you didn't roll on Subtable-B: Non-First World In/Out Ratio. 1-10 Deep in the closet; even their closest friends may not know. 11-19 In the closet, close friends may know, others suspect, but no solid proof, 20 Has the rare political rank or wealth to be out of the closet with minimal hardship.

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 06:54:22 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 13, 2021, 05:37:13 PM
Put another way, when assigning homosexuality to a random NPC table, on a d20 the table would be 1-19 straight, 20 LGBT.

Right. I basically agree with this. I don't roll a die, but that's roughly the proportion of LGBT characters in most of my campaigns. Given many hundreds of NPCs in the 1970s and 1980s, then, I'd expect to see at least a few dozen who are LGBT if someone followed this. As far as I know, that number is instead zero.

I'd expect zero.

Of the many hundreds of major NPCs in the 1970s and 1980s, how many were explicitly stated to be heterosexual? Almost none. It wasn't really until the 90s that Elminster Fucks Everyone Metaplot became a thing, and people also hooked up in novels. But in the RPG material? The sexuality of a character almost never came up. So even if we assume 2% of the population is gay, 2% of almost nothing rounds down to nothing.

More than that, the only thing that ever hinted at a character's sexuality was if the text stated they were married. And as you yourself stated, in both the 1970s and 1980s, and in the medieval European vagueness that D&D is based on, gay marriage simply wasn't a thing. Homosexuality tended to be secret. So the expected number of explicitly known homosexual characters in D&D during the 1970s isn't even 2% of almost nothing. It's 0% of almost nothing. i.e. zero.

If there was a lack of homosexual NPCs in your campaign, that was your bias, not the game's.

Here's the other thing about "gay" vs. well, any other minority. It's NOT something you can know about just by looking at someone. Do you know if the person checking you out at the grocery is gay, straight, asexual or secretly a robot?

Conservation of detail is a thing; the PCs don't care about the blacksmith's family unless it's plot relevant regardless of whether he's a bachelor, married or a widower and who's waiting at home for him once he closes up shop for the night. Why do we need to know his sexual preferences? It's akin to a random NPC on the street shouting out "I'm having great sex."

It's a totally out of place detail no one asked for that's being thrown out there in the adventure for nothing more than virtue points.

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 13, 2021, 07:43:08 PM
Conservation of detail is a thing; the PCs don't care about the blacksmith's family unless it's plot relevant regardless of whether he's a bachelor, married or a widower and who's waiting at home for him once he closes up shop for the night. Why do we need to know his sexual preferences? It's akin to a random NPC on the street shouting out "I'm having great sex."

This applies if the NPC is a bare stat block. However, NPCs often have description of various non-plot-relevant details, like "The blacksmith is a big, surly, bearded man who is suspicious of all strangers." Who cares if he has a beard or not? Does this mean that the module author has some bizarre beard fetish? Why else would the beard be mentioned?

And mentioning that someone is happily married to their husband isn't the equivalent of shouting about sex. Disney films are full of overt heterosexuality, as I mentioned, yet are considered suitable for children.

Quote from: Pat on September 13, 2021, 07:32:45 PM
More than that, the only thing that ever hinted at a character's sexuality was if the text stated they were married. And as you yourself stated, in both the 1970s and 1980s, and in the medieval European vagueness that D&D is based on, gay marriage simply wasn't a thing. Homosexuality tended to be secret. So the expected number of explicitly known homosexual characters in D&D during the 1970s isn't even 2% of almost nothing. It's 0% of almost nothing. i.e. zero.

I looked at a similar claim a few years ago. I find that there are many mentions of sexuality other than marriage. Below are some selected NPC descriptions from the original Temple of Elemental Evil. I've highlighted the relationship mention in the quotes below.

QuoteWench: Dala, a cutpurse (Level 3 Thief), AC 6 (no armor); hp 15; XP 95
S 11 111 W 10 D 18 Co 15 Ch 13
Thief abilities: PP 70; OL 48; F/RT 35; MS 37; HS 30; HN 15; CW 87. Carried: dagger (concealed), 1-4 pieces of cheap jewelry (total value 2-12 gp). She often picks pockets.
In a small room upstairs, Dala has a philtre of love and a pair of jeweled earrings (worth 700 gp) under a loose floor board, and 87 gp in her mattress. She is Dick Rentsch's lover.

QuoteWench: Pearl, a cutpurse (Level 3 Thief), AC 8 (no armor); hp 13; XP 89
S13 114 W9 D16 Co 12 Ch 11
Thief abilities: PP 60; OL 38; F/RT 30; MS 27; HS 20; HN 15; CW 87.
Carried: dagger (concealed), 1-4 pieces of cheap jewelry (total value 2-12 gp). She occasionally picks pockets, but usually limits such work to inebriated victims.
In a small room upstairs, Pearl has a silver case (worth 75 gp and adorned with a sapphire worth 1,000 gp) which contains 19 pp. However, the whole is covered with thick dripped wax, topped by a half-burnt candle and seems to be a perfectly normal and worthless candleholder. The coins are likewise imbedded in wax to prevent telltale rattling. Pearl is Wat's paramour.

QuoteBarmaid: Lodriss, Level 0, Ability scores average; hp 5, no armor, XP 53. Carried: normal dagger (tucked into her girdle), a poisoned dagger (under her skirt), purse with 2 cp, 7 ep, 4 gp, and 8 pp; also wears jeweled earrings (worth 400 gp), gold neck chains (the lot worth 120 gp), four bracelets (values 50, 200, 210, and 500 gp), and a pair of rings (200 and 800 gp).

Lodriss is actually the owner of the Boatmens' Tavern. She is a former camp follower, and is now mistress to Tolub (see below), one of the river pirate leaders who frequents Nulb to sell ill-gotten cargoes and to restock supplies.

QuoteThis cell holds four elves. If freed, they ask to be shown the route out so they can immediately return to their homeland, but express great gratitude and promise rewards for their rescuers. Two elves are normal, but two are Noble—Countess Trillahi of Celene and her consort, Sir Juffer.
Elves, normal (2): AC 9, MV 12", HD 1 + 1, hp 7, 6, no weapons; Dexterity 15 each; XP 21, 20
Countess Tillahi of Celene: AC 6, MV 12", Level 5/4 Fighter/Magic-User, hp 22, no current weapons or spells, Dexterity 18; XP651
Sir Juffer: AC 8, MV 12", Level 4/4 Cleric/Ranger, hp 28, no current weapons, no spells castable (due to curse upon him), Dexterity 16; XP 468

QuoteHerein dwells Smigmal Redhand, a half-orc Fighter/Assassin. She is the leman of Falrinth (in area 337) and leader of the band of brigands in the outer ruins (Tower).
...
Smigmal Redhand: AC 4 (leather +1) & shield +2), MV 12", Level 7/7 Fighter/Assassin, hp 41, XP 4924 S 17 115 W 7 D 16 Co 17 Ch 14 #AT 3/2, D 3-8, SA poison on sword (insinuative type B, + 3 bonus to saving throw, Dmg 25 in 2 rounds), SD ring of invisibility; Thief Abilities: PP 45, OL 52, F/RT 45, MS 40, HS 31, HN 25, CW 95, RL 15

Smigmal wears leather armor + 1, uses a shield + 2, and wields a shortsword + 1 in normal combat (or a non-glowing normal shortsword in assassination attempts). She is thoroughly evil, and loves her work. She hungers for power to make humans suffer, and hates her human ancestry. She sees Falrinth as her tool, the one who will best aid her in gaining her power. She will fight to protect Falrinth if such action appears worthwhile, but will certainly try to save herself from certain death.

None of these NPCs are married, yet their romantic relationships are still mentioned. These are all from a single (admittedly large) module. If you like, I can go through a few of the city modules as well and look for mentions there.

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 08:10:40 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 13, 2021, 07:43:08 PM
Conservation of detail is a thing; the PCs don't care about the blacksmith's family unless it's plot relevant regardless of whether he's a bachelor, married or a widower and who's waiting at home for him once he closes up shop for the night. Why do we need to know his sexual preferences? It's akin to a random NPC on the street shouting out "I'm having great sex."

This applies if the NPC is a bare stat block. However, NPCs often have description of various non-plot-relevant details, like "The blacksmith is a big, surly, bearded man who is suspicious of all strangers." Who cares if he has a beard or not? Does this mean that the module author has some bizarre beard fetish? Why else would the beard be mentioned?

Thats the first time I have seen someone seriously wanting to cut descriptive text so that they can fit in more sexual orientation.

Who cares if he has a beard?  Well I guess who ever has to describe him to the players.

Quote from: Shasarak on September 13, 2021, 08:31:37 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 08:10:40 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 13, 2021, 07:43:08 PM
Conservation of detail is a thing; the PCs don't care about the blacksmith's family unless it's plot relevant regardless of whether he's a bachelor, married or a widower and who's waiting at home for him once he closes up shop for the night. Why do we need to know his sexual preferences? It's akin to a random NPC on the street shouting out "I'm having great sex."

This applies if the NPC is a bare stat block. However, NPCs often have description of various non-plot-relevant details, like "The blacksmith is a big, surly, bearded man who is suspicious of all strangers." Who cares if he has a beard or not? Does this mean that the module author has some bizarre beard fetish? Why else would the beard be mentioned?

Thats the first time I have seen someone seriously wanting to cut descriptive text so that they can fit in more sexual orientation.

Who cares if he has a beard?  Well I guess who ever has to describe him to the players.

Sorry, Shasarak. Sarcasm can be hard to communicate online.

I don't actually have a problem with the beard description. I was being sarcastic of Chris24601's claim that non-plot-relevant details shouldn't be included in NPC description. I am fine with including mention of a beard, and I'm also fine with including mention of being gay. Neither of these necessarily takes up much word count.

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 09:04:20 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on September 13, 2021, 08:31:37 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 08:10:40 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 13, 2021, 07:43:08 PM
Conservation of detail is a thing; the PCs don't care about the blacksmith's family unless it's plot relevant regardless of whether he's a bachelor, married or a widower and who's waiting at home for him once he closes up shop for the night. Why do we need to know his sexual preferences? It's akin to a random NPC on the street shouting out "I'm having great sex."

This applies if the NPC is a bare stat block. However, NPCs often have description of various non-plot-relevant details, like "The blacksmith is a big, surly, bearded man who is suspicious of all strangers." Who cares if he has a beard or not? Does this mean that the module author has some bizarre beard fetish? Why else would the beard be mentioned?

Thats the first time I have seen someone seriously wanting to cut descriptive text so that they can fit in more sexual orientation.

Who cares if he has a beard?  Well I guess who ever has to describe him to the players.

Sorry, Shasarak. Sarcasm can be hard to communicate online.

I don't actually have a problem with the beard description. I was being sarcastic of Chris24601's claim that non-plot-relevant details shouldn't be included in NPC description. I am fine with including mention of a beard, and I'm also fine with including mention of being gay. Neither of these necessarily takes up much word count.

Because "bearded" is visually based and immediately apparent to anyone who sees him, and may also be necessary to give the NPC enough description to give the players a mental picture of him.  Unless you are saying that you and your players can immediately identify gay people by sight?

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 13, 2021, 10:50:39 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 09:04:20 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on September 13, 2021, 08:31:37 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 08:10:40 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 13, 2021, 07:43:08 PM
Conservation of detail is a thing; the PCs don't care about the blacksmith's family unless it's plot relevant regardless of whether he's a bachelor, married or a widower and who's waiting at home for him once he closes up shop for the night. Why do we need to know his sexual preferences? It's akin to a random NPC on the street shouting out "I'm having great sex."

This applies if the NPC is a bare stat block. However, NPCs often have description of various non-plot-relevant details, like "The blacksmith is a big, surly, bearded man who is suspicious of all strangers." Who cares if he has a beard or not? Does this mean that the module author has some bizarre beard fetish? Why else would the beard be mentioned?

Thats the first time I have seen someone seriously wanting to cut descriptive text so that they can fit in more sexual orientation.

Who cares if he has a beard?  Well I guess who ever has to describe him to the players.

Sorry, Shasarak. Sarcasm can be hard to communicate online.

I don't actually have a problem with the beard description. I was being sarcastic of Chris24601's claim that non-plot-relevant details shouldn't be included in NPC description. I am fine with including mention of a beard, and I'm also fine with including mention of being gay. Neither of these necessarily takes up much word count.

Because "bearded" is visually based and immediately apparent to anyone who sees him, and may also be necessary to give the NPC enough description to give the players a mental picture of him.  Unless you are saying that you and your players can immediately identify gay people by sight?

Exactly my point and which, jhkim completely ignored because it doesn't fit his agenda. You can tell whether someone has a beard or not by looking. You can tell someone has a high pitched nasal voice by listening. The quality and condition of one's clothes can visually inform on their level of affluence.

Being homosexual doesn't cause you to emit a rainbow halo or any other identifying trait. At best it might be notable by drawing on various stereotypes of flamboyant clothing and effeminate behavior, but then you'll be accused of mockery by the LGBT community you're trying to pander to.

So again, including it as a character detail is just virtue signaling and making the players aware of it is as subtle as a random NPC shouting out "I enjoy foot massages" at them... completely out of place and irrelevant to the PC's interaction with them.

But jhkim's obtuseness is to be expected; Leftism requires its adherents to pretend not to know certain things that disrupt the narrative.

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 01:27:29 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 13, 2021, 01:07:58 PM
In short, open homosexuality just doesn't make sense in a lot of historic/faux-historic settings because, for the most part, its open indulgence is a First World luxury.

Homosexuality was often restricted and had specific attitudes regarding it in many historical societies. However, there were examples of open homosexuality in many historical societies - from the Greek to the Norse to many others. In general, taking some men out of the gene pool was historically the norm. In Christian Europe that was done mainly via celibate monks and priests. In other societies, though, practices differed.

Never very successfully though. Throughout the middle ages priests and ESPECIALLY Monks had terrible (and apparently well-earned) reputations for sexual lasciviousness with any woman they could get their hands on (often Nuns). To the point that it became a big argument in the Reformation.

Comparatively, cases of "sodomy" were relatively few, though of course they may have been better hidden. But Catholic priests and monks didn't tend to get a reputation for homosexuality until the modern era. It didn't seem to be a common practice to send someone who showed gay tendencies into the priesthood or monastery in the middle ages, and from what data we have those incidents were far more common among men in cities, including of course many married men. As it was in ancient Rome or in many other cultures too; mainly because the definitions we have of what being 'gay' means didn't really exist back then, which as a historian convinces me that they're at least partly arbitrary social constructs.