Buttholes are Oriental, Asshole is Asian. Anus is Celestial.

They mean the same thing but in different languages. Ironically *people* ascribe different meanings to them. Some seem to choose negative connotations to them because they're dipshits. Deep down it comes from people feeling inferior.

Ironic that this reflects that people can't control their own reactions it allows others control over them. I don't hate Greeks or Italians - so if you wanna do Asian or Oriental, go for it. Same with butthole or asshole.

Or go full anus or Celestial. It's the intent that matters. Not the shape of the sound.

There is a lesson in here if you stare hard enough.

Quote from: tenbones;1039274So then you're be okay with advocating of having players have the Blessing of Golgothan - and be given the chance to choose what kind of asshole they are each dawn?

I have no idea what the Blessing of Golgothan is, and am too lazy to google it.  So, I'm going to say Ni Itchi Itchi P'tang!

Quote from: tenbones;1039208So let me get this straight...(err... you know what I mean).

In order to enjoy D&D in the privacy of your own home, to play as you wish, with others ostensibly as you see fit, the game itself has to have representation of every alternative lifestyle and every culture you've never heard of, doing things that may/may not be morally, ethically, philosophically, physically, emotionally, attractive/distractive/repugnant to others, represented to the satisfaction of strangers on the internet?

I don't see where you're getting this. We've had a number of opinions here - but none of them correspond to the above. Notable opinions that I see here include:

1) Gay characters shouldn't appear in D&D modules, because D&D modules should be family-friendly.

2) Gay characters should only appear in modules if there is a random-roll option for them to not be gay.

3) Module writers should feel free to put in whatever gay characters they want. It's OK for modules not to have gay characters, and it's also fine for modules to have gay characters.


#3 is my stance.  I don't see that anyone here has advocated the "gay police" option that module writers should be required to have a certain percentage of gay characters, but if I missed it, please let me know who.

Quote from: jhkim;1039281#3 is my stance.  I don't see that anyone here has advocated the "gay police" option that module writers should be required to have a certain percentage of gay characters, but if I missed it, please let me know who.

I'll say it - All modules should have one gay or bi character.  Here's my logic:

1) All DMs suck some of the time.
2) Ergo, all DMs are Gay or Bi.
3) Ergo, we should include a Gay or Bi NPC to represent the poor DM.

Simple logic!

Quote from: jhkim;1039281#3 is my stance.  I don't see that anyone here has advocated the "gay police" option that module writers should be required to have a certain percentage of gay characters, but if I missed it, please let me know who.

I'll assume you just "missed" this exchange.

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1039284I'll assume you just "missed" this exchange.

Remember kids, inclusiveness is exclusion, war is peace, and hate is love.

Quote from: jhkim;1039281I don't see where you're getting this. We've had a number of opinions here - but none of them correspond to the above. Notable opinions that I see here include:

1) Gay characters shouldn't appear in D&D modules, because D&D modules should be family-friendly.

2) Gay characters should only appear in modules if there is a random-roll option for them to not be gay.

3) Module writers should feel free to put in whatever gay characters they want. It's OK for modules not to have gay characters, and it's also fine for modules to have gay characters.


#3 is my stance.  I don't see that anyone here has advocated the "gay police" option that module writers should be required to have a certain percentage of gay characters, but if I missed it, please let me know who.

*ALL* of this is stupid. Because it ignores context. Being Gay is a state. It's not not-family friendly. Just ask any family with gay people in it where the family is not a bunch of assholes/buttholes/anii.

The only option is *make it good* and make it relevant or don't do it at all.

This goes back to my left-handed, Japanese, Filipino, Cajun representation. or lack thereof. i.e. it's stupid and not required.

I think we need to avoid projections of the modern real world into D&D settings.  Historically marriage has been for producing children. Either sheer quantities, in the case of lower classes (more hands to work a farm, run a business, take care of the elderly), or to make political alliances, uniting two power blocks by producing an heir to both.

Gay couples, by their very nature, cannot have children. They can adopt, lesbians can be inseminated by someone else, but biologically, they are other people's children and there might not be any means to acquire them. In an urban setting, there probably would be surplus children for adoption, but in the standard D&D village, most farm/rural families would want all the children they produce as workers.

So anyway, what you'd probably see is things like in Rome and Ancient Greece, where you'd have married couples, but one partner or other would have a gay or lesbian lover.

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1039284I'll assume you just "missed" this exchange.

First of all, Ras - that exchange comes *after* tenbones' post that I'm replying to.

Second, Gronan mouths off a lot. (As do we all, sometimes.) It can help to ask questions?

To Gronan - Are you advocating that all module writers should be expected to include gay characters in their modules?  Or are you just saying that you like modules where the writers put in gay characters, while you have no problem with modules without gay characters? Or do you have some other position?

Quote from: jcfiala;1039279I have no idea what the Blessing of Golgothan is, and am too lazy to google it.  So, I'm going to say Ni Itchi Itchi P'tang!

The Blessing of the Golgothan is my buttholian analogy (via the movie Dogma where the Golgothan is a Shit-Demon) to the Blessing of Corellon where Elves with the aforementioned Blessing can change sex everyday at Dawn. But in my analogy you Golgothan's Blessing allows you to choose what kind of asshole/butthole/anus you are everyday at Dawn.


The vast majority of joked become very unfunny when explained. Yet doing so here through no fault of your own, the Golgothan thing is  is actually kinda amusing looking at it.

Quote from: JeremyR;1039289I think we need to avoid projections of the modern real world into D&D settings.  Historically marriage has been for producing children. Either sheer quantities, in the case of lower classes (more hands to work a farm, run a business, take care of the elderly), or to make political alliances, uniting two power blocks by producing an heir to both.

Gay couples, by their very nature, cannot have children. They can adopt, lesbians can be inseminated by someone else, but biologically, they are other people's children and there might not be any means to acquire them. In an urban setting, there probably would be surplus children for adoption, but in the standard D&D village, most farm/rural families would want all the children they produce as workers.

So anyway, what you'd probably see is things like in Rome and Ancient Greece, where you'd have married couples, but one partner or other would have a gay or lesbian lover.

Thank you.

You must be a butthole. You totally get it.

Quote from: JeremyR;1039289So anyway, what you'd probably see is things like in Rome and Ancient Greece, where you'd have married couples, but one partner or other would have a gay or lesbian lover.

That's pretty much* how I do it in my vaguely Greco-Roman culture Wilderlands setting. It'd be weird not to have anyone with homosexual proclivity; it'd be even weirder to do a Paizo and have the culture follow Seattle 2018 social norms.

*I do wonder what the Amazons get up to when they're not mating with the occasional male... I suspect they have a bit of a Theban Sacred Band thing going on, but it's never come up in-game.

Quote from: JeremyR;1039289I think we need to avoid projections of the modern real world into D&D settings.  Historically marriage has been for producing children.

But, most D&D settings aren't historical at all.  Forgotten Realms?  Eberron?  Ravenloft?  Just by the name, DUNGEONS and DRAGONS, you're basically saying "This is not historical".  If you can have magic that can let a person fly from one country to another, if you can have creatures who can burn down a city on a bad day, then gay relationships is the thing that breaks your suspension of disbelief?

Really?

Quote from: Haffrung;1039210I know it's awfully CIS-normative, patriarchal, and colonialist of me, but I use historical medieval society as the baseline for my fantasy worlds. So yeah, farmers will be heterosexuals because they need to raise children to help on the farm. And kings will have queens because they live in hereditary aristocracies. Could some NPCs have illicit same-sex lovers? Sure. But I can't even get my head around an entire pre-modern society abandoning sex roles and hetero mating and child-rearing. How does succession work? How does the king get more farmers for the fields and soldiers for his armies? Does the mage's guild offer in-vitro fertilization services? Raise armies from clone banks? I like my fantasy weird, but not that weird.

Quote from: JeremyR;1039289I think we need to avoid projections of the modern real world into D&D settings.  Historically marriage has been for producing children. Either sheer quantities, in the case of lower classes (more hands to work a farm, run a business, take care of the elderly), or to make political alliances, uniting two power blocks by producing an heir to both.

Gay couples, by their very nature, cannot have children. They can adopt, lesbians can be inseminated by someone else, but biologically, they are other people's children and there might not be any means to acquire them. In an urban setting, there probably would be surplus children for adoption, but in the standard D&D village, most farm/rural families would want all the children they produce as workers.

So anyway, what you'd probably see is things like in Rome and Ancient Greece, where you'd have married couples, but one partner or other would have a gay or lesbian lover.

Historically, there were plenty of people who never married and had kids in medieval times.  It wasn't the norm, but it wasn't uncommon. Monasteries and convents were common adjuncts to communities. Plus there were plenty of people who weren't monks but still simply never married or had relations with women - like Leonardo de Vinci, Isaac Newton, etc. Being a lifelong spinster or a bachelor might be seen as odd, but it wasn't all that rare or rejected.

Quote from: jhkim;1039292To Gronan - Are you advocating that all module writers should be expected to include gay characters in their modules?  Or are you just saying that you like modules where the writers put in gay characters, while you have no problem with modules without gay characters? Or do you have some other position?

I doubt Gronan has looked at an RPG module published after 1978.