Quote from: jeff37923;1038598So this all started with Blue Rose? I remember the derision for the setting, but I don't recall complaints that it was pushing a "homosexual agenda". Do you have any links?

I distinctly recall such discussion here - but the search feature and blocking Google prevent me finding it. This would be in late 2006, I think. I posted a rebuttal about this to my own site back then. Below are some samples that I can find with Google.

From https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11354.phtml

QuoteHomosexuality: I am almost afraid to mention this topic, given the decidedly PC/un-PC nature of the debate. However, given just how important it seems to be in Aldis, I feel I would be remiss in ignoring it. Hmm... okay the first God of Light is also the god of Homosexual relations. All the twilight Gods have male and female aspects, one of the major points of conflict with Jarzon is the 'immoral' sexual relations in Aldis, Men wear dresses in the Central valley, the Sea People have a 50% homosexual population, and on and on. In fact, listed in the designers 'identifying factors' of the Genre, Homosexual relationships are listed first. To be honest, none of this, taken separately would bother me in the least. It is the weight, the constant repetition of this that irritates. To be blunt, 40% of the potential readership of this book is likely to not be gay, to not care about or want to read about being Gay. Another 40% are more ambivalent but also not particularly gay. My estimation is that the actual readership, the numbers are far more skewed towards the first group. (Ed. Note: My numbers are based off the following assumptions. 10% of the population is gay, say another 10% is bi. Half of the population is male, who as non-gays are generally uncomfortable with the topic, the other half are female, and apparently enjoy reading about male gay relationships. As a reader, my experiences are that far more female authors write male homosexual relationships than male authors write, say, lesbian relationships. I would guess that this fact is one reason more females read female authors than males do, not chauvinism or any other ism.)

The biggest problem I actually have with this is the repetition of it, over and over and over and over... you get the picture. I realize that many female authors, the only kind listed by the game designers, write gay relationships. I've read my share, ranging from central characters to offhand mention. I can't think of a single instance where it was a prominent feature of the culture. The idea of a sovereign or noble 'marrying' this way is problematic from a feudal inheritance sort of view. Oh, wait, nobility isn't hereditary... apparently people don't die and have to pass on their property to heirs. Given how nice everything else is, I'd guess that no one owns anything, they just borrow it from the land, and no one argues.

From https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3098558&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=361

Quote(quoting RPGPundit)

Blue Rose's presentation of homosexuality seems so forcedly "important" to the setting that it appears heavy-handed; and the politically-charged way it presents homosexuality in Aldis (what one gay commenter in the review called the "gay equivalent to the 'mystic negro' myth of black men as all being wise spiritually deep non-villanous stereotypes") ends up feeling childish, saccharine and infantilized. While I myself am not gay, I have no reason to think that any rational intelligent gay person would find the treatment of homosexuals in this saccharine way to be just as stupid and unrealistic as the treatment that straight romance receives in the setting and genre, with absurd ideas about "soulmates" and love conquering all etc. etc.

The fact is, the debate regarding Blue Rose and the Romantic Fantasy genre as a whole isn't between gay and straight, or tolerant and intolerant, its between rational and irrational, mature and immature. The Romantic Fantasy genre plays to the twisted world-views typically held by teenage girls, using literary and political concepts that only teenage girls or the mentally defective could possibly find satisfying.

YES, I did just say that anyone who actually finds the ideas in Romantic Fantasy readably pleasant or appealing or realistic is mentally defective; in the sense that if you are anything other than a 15 year old girl, you have clearly failed to develop reasoning, intellect, or life experience beyond the adolescent level of maturity. Even the very idea of accusing people who fail to see how wonderful the aldis setting is of being homophobes smacks of a sophomoric teenage temper tantrum, a knee-jerk response by those who are incapable or unwilling to actually debate.

Quote from: Silas1066;1038602Blue Rose was intended for a gay audience, and that's fine.

Could you support this assertion? I'm having trouble finding the correlation between "supports romantic fantasy gaming" and "intended for a gay audience".

Quote from: Silas1066;1038602That is different from taking a game that didn't feature sex and romance as one of its core concepts, aka D&D, and introducing homosexuality and transgenderism into it, out of some effort to be "inclusive". No one ever said gays couldn't create their own adventures, PCs, whatever. D&D had been around for decades before this became an "issue".

D&D never supported steampunk fantasy mecha, but Iron Kingdoms did and it rocked.

Quote from: Silas1066;1038602So why is this important? Because gay issues are controversial, polarizing, and don't belong in a mainstream RPG game that has been traditionally directed towards teens and even younger kids. You can say I am being to rigid or conservative here, but that is what I think on this matter. It belongs outside the game.

So are politics and religion in general. Case in point, Christianity.

When Deities & Demigods came out, one of the most recurring questions was, "Where are the stats for Jesus?" Now since stats were usually used to help determine the outcome of combat encounters, and nobody wanted to be part of the group that "fought Jesus and killed him for XP", the vast majority of us decided to just say that Jesus and Christianity didn't exit in the game. The average age range for us back then was about 11-13.

I don't think that LGBT presence was a subject that was excluded so much as it was one that nobody cared about in game. I'd like to know when it became something to care about and why. If it is because of Blue Rose, is this the result of Green Ronin trying to appeal to a target demographic and thus having unintended consequences?

Quote from: Silas1066;1038602A lot of people likewise believe that transgenderism is a mental health issue, not an identity issue. I'm not going to debate that here, but I will point out that LBG doesn't belong with "T" --those are different issues entirely

T is different because it's not* a sexual orientation, you are right on that. But anything can be a source of identity - people can create an "LBGT community" even though Ls and Gs have very little in common, and Ts have even less in common with either.  I knew a girl so eager to be part of that community that she identified as B and was active in her LGBT student society even though IRL she had a monogamous relationship with her boyfriend and they were planning to get married and stay together for life; her B didn't seem to go much beyond finding other girls mildly attractive.   In an earlier age her sexual orientation would have been considered completely normal - but she valued the sense of identity she got from the LGBT community.

*officially, at least, identifying as T is not supposed to be about sexual orientation.

Quote from: jhkim;1038609I distinctly recall such discussion here - but the search feature and blocking Google prevent me finding it. This would be in late 2006, I think. I posted a rebuttal about this to my own site back then. Below are some samples that I can find with Google.

From https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11354.phtml


From https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3098558&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=361

Reading both of these seems to be more critical of the writing of Blue Rose than it is to saying that it is pushing a "homosexual agenda". Are you sure that you are not reading something into these posts that isn't there?

Quote from: jeff37923;1038610Could you support this assertion? I'm having trouble finding the correlation between "supports romantic fantasy gaming" and "intended for a gay audience".

Yeah, Romantic Fantasy genre may apparently be as full of Magical Gays as Hollywood movies are of Magical Negros, but I get the impression the RF genre is aimed mostly at straight women, the nerdy kind who write s/Lash fanfic.

Why not leave "core" D&D as devoid of sex and then open up the space through community/third party work?  How about a LGBTQ category on DM's Guild where you can see all the products that creators have flagged as LGBTQ in a quick to find category?  Let's see how big that market is.

LGBTQ doesn't want to pay "extra" to get their special butterfly content then make up some shit that they think is cool just like the fucking rest of us.

Quote from: Silas1066;1038602Blue Rose was intended for a gay audience, and that's fine.

That is different from taking a game that didn't feature sex and romance as one of its core concepts, aka D&D, and introducing homosexuality and transgenderism into it, out of some effort to be "inclusive". No one ever said gays couldn't create their own adventures, PCs, whatever. D&D had been around for decades before this became an "issue".

I think we have to remember that not everyone is down with homosexuality. Many people have an objection to it on either religious grounds (mainstream Christians and Muslims alike reject it), or ideological/philosophical. That doesn't mean they are out to persecute gays, or even deny them the ability to marry, but they aren't going to tacitly accept the gay lifestyle, and they don't feel any need to "include" something they object to in their activities.

A lot of people likewise believe that transgenderism is a mental health issue, not an identity issue. I'm not going to debate that here, but I will point out that LBG doesn't belong with "T" --those are different issues entirely, and have spoken with gay men that don't like the "T" to be included. Not all gays are leftist Democrats that embrace postmodernism, etc. Some are a lot more centrist or practical in their thinking.

So why is this important? Because gay issues are controversial, polarizing, and don't belong in a mainstream RPG game that has been traditionally directed towards teens and even younger kids. You can say I am being to rigid or conservative here, but that is what I think on this matter. It belongs outside the game.

Not everyone is down with witchcraft and thinks it is evil. That doesn't mean Harry Potter is inappropriate for children or that it shouldn't be a mainstream children's book series.

Quote from: jeff37923;1038612Reading both of these seems to be more critical of the writing of Blue Rose than it is to saying that it is pushing a "homosexual agenda". Are you sure that you are not reading something into these posts that isn't there?

I don't really care about dissecting people's reasons for the old discussion.  The point is that there is controversy around gay characters appearing in game books.  The center of this doesn't seem to be liberal gamers trying to block or shut down non-gay content - but rather over books where gay characters appear. It's not like we have to dig into posts from a dozen years ago to find that.

Case in point:

Quote from: KingCheops;1038617Why not leave "core" D&D as devoid of sex and then open up the space through community/third party work?  How about a LGBTQ category on DM's Guild where you can see all the products that creators have flagged as LGBTQ in a quick to find category?  Let's see how big that market is.

LGBTQ doesn't want to pay "extra" to get their special butterfly content then make up some shit that they think is cool just like the fucking rest of us.

D&D has always had sexuality, as I showed earlier with quotes from Temple of Elemental Evil.  It's not a game about romance, but adventures and modules include lots of characters - and those characters are sometimes husbands, wives, paramours, consorts, etc.  It would be pretty strange, IMO, for adventures to be full worlds with lots of characters but for them never to be in relationships with each other.

If you want official D&D adventures to have hetero couples but never gay couples, then you can call on WotC to try to cater to you and others with your preference. On the other hand, I and others will be communicating to them that we're fine with both.

Quote from: jeff37923;1038610Could you support this assertion?

No, because it's entirely a product of his screaming homophobia.

Quote from: jhkim;1038621I don't really care about dissecting people's reasons for the old discussion.  

I really think you should or else none of the material you are bringing up as "proof" has any relevance.

Quote from: jhkim;1038621The point is that there is controversy around gay characters appearing in game books.

From what credible sources? One or two people being offended by it does not represent the entire hobby.

I disagree with you because what I am seeing most of from people is a feeling that gay characters are being used as tokens, which is just as bad but the opposite of homophobia. Most people, myself being one of them, never had a problem with any of the demographics or inclusiveness of our games for decades and resent being told that we are bigots and evil for not joining in the torch wielding mob demanding their presence now.

Quote from: jhkim;1038621If you want official D&D adventures to have hetero couples but never gay couples, then you can call on WotC to try to cater to you and others with your preference. On the other hand, I and others will be communicating to them that we're fine with both.

How about instead we let individual game groups decide for themselves how to run their own games? Or can we not trust the common gamer with that much freedom?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1038628No, because it's entirely a product of his screaming homophobia.

Maybe.

However, everyone has the right to be wrong. That is part of what freedom means.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1038620Not everyone is down with witchcraft and thinks it is evil. That doesn't mean Harry Potter is inappropriate for children or that it shouldn't be a mainstream children's book series.

The difference is, I don't think anyone has actually burned copies of Blue Rose. As for D&D, well we certainly weren't allowed to play it in Catholic School, even though for some reason the DM from the local Boy's and Girls club was allowed to come in and tell us about it. I'm guessing a certain teacher knew there wasn't a rule against that. It was all good, we played Marvel Superheroes during lunch.

I don't see why it matters that a gay game exists, even though I never got that impression from Blue Rose. I saw it on the shelf, saw that I could play a cat that sneaks up on things and eats them while they are still struggling, and bought it right there. I never even knew about there supposedly being some sort of gay agenda until like 2010 or something. Sure there was language for people of different orientations, but I thought nothing of it because there are people with different orientations in this world. During the 90s there was at least one person in the group at any given time. But it didn't matter. We didn't run games with sexual content. Sometimes there was romance, but the furthest it got was a fade to black.

Just run the game how you want it. If I swapped out Jarzon for Hawkmoon's Granbretan or Melnibone, and made some reference to a decadent pansexual orgy amongst the nobles, no one would even bat an eye. The people who complain about Blue Rose seem to be able to play D&D just fine despite the fact pagan gods actually exist while their Abrahamic Deity has no representation. But if I had a group of Christian players that wanted a monotheistic D&D game were they were Crusaders spreading Christ's message, then that's what we're going to do. Boot all the other Gods off Toril. No problem. Blue Rose is just a setting. Settings can be modified to suit the campaign that you want to run.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1038364THIS is what must be remembered. The average gamer (of either gender or sexuality) just wants to have fun with friends.

THIS is a political crusade by a tiny, loud, almost entirely online group of assholes (who are mostly non-gamers).

This is getting more and more offline unfortunately. Its being seen alot more at conventions in the last few years. Which is possibly part of why its infesting game design and companies more and more.

Sooner or later theres going to be a blowup at a major con and I hope it sends a wakeup call for these morons buying into this screed.

Quote from: jhkimIf you want official D&D adventures to have hetero couples but never gay couples, then you can call on WotC to try to cater to you and others with your preference. On the other hand, I and others will be communicating to them that we're fine with both.

Quote from: jeff37923;1038633How about instead we let individual game groups decide for themselves how to run their own games? Or can we not trust the common gamer with that much freedom?

This doesn't make sense. I was clearly talking about the printed content of official published adventures. Obviously, individual GMs can and do change things to be different in their game than what is in the published module - and that's a good thing.

If someone doesn't want gay characters in their adventures, then if they get a module with a gay character, they can not have that character appear in their game - or make them not gay. Conversely, if someone wants gay characters in their adventures, then if they get a module with no gay characters, they can add in a gay character.

So it's not game-breaking either way, I think. But the printed module will have something one way or the other, and that's what is being debated.

Quote from: jhkim;1038560As for the origin - I don't recall any significant liberal campaigns complaining about lack of gay characters in gaming material.

Quote from: jhkim;1038572I'm not sure what you're talking about here.  Who is TELLING you that you HAVE to include it?  Seriously, can you cite some examples, for comparison to old-school like my Temple of Elemental Evil examples.

Oh, well in that case, my bad. Must've been fake news or something. Anyway, thanks for putting me in the picture. It's a relief to nothing like this ever happens.

Phew.

Should anybody mention that I should be more inclusive, I will just tell them that jhkim told me that they were a figment of a deranged immagination and that they are to be ignored.

:cool: