Quote from: S'mon;1103331I agree that one 'tolerates' things one at least somewhat dislikes. Like Locke arguing for Tolerance for Catholics. But dislike =/= hate. People don't generally willingly tolerate things they really hate.

I think Tolerance is a fine Classical Liberal value. We shouldn't ban things just because we dislike them. Nor should we Tolerate the truly reprehensible. But there are grey areas too. That's why I Tolerate Islamic headscarves, but I think full burqas should be banned in public. But I will Tolerate them while they are legal. So I guess it's a gradient.

Whether or not it is hate is an argument about word definitions. I'm tying the two together because for some things they get you in equal trouble. Like imagine if you were advocating removing people with different skin tones from an RPG supplement as an option for younger groups. Don't say that at work.

Quote from: Razor 007;1103333Just because something is legal, or possible, or allowed; doesn't mean that it's normal.  You can crawl around in your front yard and eat dirt, if you like; but that doesn't mean that it's normal to do so.

If 95% of the population does x, and the other 5% does y; the 5% doing y are abnormal, by default.

5% is a pretty big number. I forget what perfectly normal is for biological conditions. The last health analytics seminar I set in speculated that we were on track for 2/3rds of Americans having type 2 diabetes by 2050. Perfectly normal does not mean it is good either.

Quote from: Razor 007;1103333Just because something is legal, or possible, or allowed; doesn't mean that it's normal.  You can crawl around in your front yard and eat dirt, if you like; but that doesn't mean that it's normal to do so.

If 95% of the population does x, and the other 5% does y; the 5% doing y are abnormal, by default.

What percentage of the population would you guess plays RPGs?

Quote from: Brendan;1103336His boyfriend is a famous fashion photographer, whose name I will not be mentioning here, but if you've seen a picture of the Rolling Stones, in any given year, there's a better than average chance that he shot the pictures.

Funny, a gay friend of mine did celebrity house furnishing for a living (he's retired now), and he says the Rolling Stones were his best customers! He once (only a few years ago) got drunk at a party one of them hosted, and received a £6000 bill for the damage he caused to the furnishings - the same stuff he'd installed... I was gobsmacked, but he said that was nothing compared to the money he made off them!

Quote from: Brendan;1103336So we're going to double down on this, are we?  Sigh. Okay, here we go.  Don't say I didn't warn you.

You'll please note that my comment about the maturity of the group was in relation to the idea of a pederastic Gnome "dynasty" of older to younger gay kings, not to the idea of "gay marriage" in general, which I felt didn't make sense in the setting for purely political reasons.  

This option wasn't even originally mine, but that of another poster.  I just thought it was an interesting idea and worth amplifying (weird thing for a homophobe to do, don't you think?).   Although - again - this particular angle would require some sensitivity to handle well and therefore might not be appropriate for all groups.  If this relatively mild suggestion is just BEYOND THE PALE homophobia to you, then YOU have problems and are projecting your own internal drama on me.  

While outside the scope of this forum, I have been slighted here, so I'll tell you a little about me:  

One of my oldest and very best (male) friends has been with the same, much older, man for more than a decade.  He is by no means my only gay friend, but he is one of my very best friends.  I know his whole family and he knows mine.  His boyfriend is a famous fashion photographer, whose name I will not be mentioning here, but if you've seen a picture of the Rolling Stones, in any given year, there's a better than average chance that he shot the pictures.  If you ever watch Drag Race with RuPaul he's a regular.  My friend, while a decent semi-professional photographer with published credit, is a rock star computer geek / hacker and helped me learn to code.  He was one of the groomsman at my wedding.  We've done drugs together, climbed mountains together, drank I don't know many whiskeys together.  Smoked A LOT of dope together.  Yes, we've also rolled dice together.  He's like a brother to me and I would take a bullet for him.  

I realize that you can't collaborate this, so here's something you can.  Years ago, right after I left film school, I took two weeks off of work to help a friend produce a gay romantic comedy.  I am officially credited for it on IMDB:  https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3834433/  Do a lot of homophobies volunteer, without pay, to work on gay films, for struggling gay writer/directors, with primarily gay casts?  

Lastly, but perhaps the most interesting.  I spent 13 years in Aleister Crowley's OTO in Southern California.  Not only was Crowley bisexual, at the very least, but the organization has a very strong gay and trans membership.  It also tends to be very "free" bordering on libertine.  I've been at parties where a gay orgy in the next room is "just another Sunday" and Kenneth Anger stops in for tea... with his boyfriend... in short shorts and tanker boots.  I've sat in a hot tub next to a  gay friend WHILE he was getting head.  Don't worry about me junior, I had a girl on my lap at the time.  I've had deep drunken philosophical conversations with a MtF trans person, while naked at a bonfire.  You think I'm not "accepting"?  Bitch, get on my level.

This is like that Navy Seal post but for being pro-gay.

Look dude, if you didn't mean that gay kings are inappropriate for young groups, then fine, but that is what I quoted.

"The gnomes could be co-ruling kings, as ancient Rome had for a period of time. Their relationship could be entirely non-sexual and the issue kept purely political, for gaming with younger players."

Who makes the relationship of straight couples explicitly non-sexual for younger players?

Quote from: Rhedyn;1103337Whether or not it is hate is an argument about word definitions.

Indeed. I am aware that some people* would say "I advocate for tolerance of homosexuals" is anti-homosexual hate speech; I was wondering what you thought.

*bad people.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1103340Look dude, if you didn't mean that gay kings are inappropriate for young groups, then fine, but that is what I quoted.

"The gnomes could be co-ruling kings, as ancient Rome had for a period of time. Their relationship could be entirely non-sexual and the issue kept purely political, for gaming with younger players."

Who makes the relationship of straight couples explicitly non-sexual for younger players?

Maybe I missed something, but I haven't heard anything inappropriate about the plotline for younger players. I pretty regularly run games for younger players at conventions, so I try to keep an eye on things. I try to avoid defined romantic interests for the PCs, leaving those ambiguous or optional. But it's fine for NPCs to be married or otherwise in a relationship. I remember many years ago the awkwardness of running a Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG where with the pregenerated characters, a pre-teen player was set up in a romantic plotline with a much older player. Since then, I've tried to be more careful. But avoiding romantic relationships even among NPCs seems hugely overboard.

As for the cultural attitudes, my reading has been that cultural practices marriage and succession are almost always absent from D&D modules. I've sometimes speculated about how the heck government works in the Village of Hommlet, for example, but it's left undefined.

Quote from: Razor 007;1103333Just because something is legal, or possible, or allowed; doesn't mean that it's normal.  You can crawl around in your front yard and eat dirt, if you like; but that doesn't mean that it's normal to do so.

If 95% of the population does x, and the other 5% does y; the 5% doing y are abnormal, by default.

I don't think this follows. Most hobbies (to take the theme of this message board and every single person posting here) involve under 5% of the population. That doesn't make it "abnormal" to enjoy a hobby.

I also don't think "crawl around in your front yard and eat dirt" is 1 in 20 people.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1103340This is like that Navy Seal post but for being pro-gay.

Look dude, if you didn't mean that gay kings are inappropriate for young groups, then fine, but that is what I quoted.

"The gnomes could be co-ruling kings, as ancient Rome had for a period of time. Their relationship could be entirely non-sexual and the issue kept purely political, for gaming with younger players."

Who makes the relationship of straight couples explicitly non-sexual for younger players?

So if I don't defend myself I'm a bigot, and if I do defend myself with actual facts about my life I'm a "former Navy SEAL"?  You know what, that's fine.  You believe whatever you want about me. Back to D&D.

The next thing I said was:

"Or, for a more mature group: the idea of a serial male-male "dynasty" of older/younger ruler-lovers is interesting and solves the problem."

So what is "the problem"?  The problem is how to understand the "two married gnay gnome kinings" (Sorry got gnarried away).  It's uninteresting for young kids, awkward or titillating for most teenagers, and politically unclear for adults.  It's not that I find it "inappropriate".   It's just jarring to those of us who imagine the D&D world as something other than 2019 urban America. It implies all these other social factors and then ignores them.  Marriage during the era of monarchy has very different connotations than marriage does today.  Rather than just throw it out there with no thought beyond "performative wokeness" the better thing to do seems to be to either A) ignore it completely and not get into the details of their relationship, or B) develop it further for world-building / plot making potential.  Which of these approaches is preferred, and the degree to which one wants to dig into it, depends on the group.  A big factor in that decision making process is going to be group maturity level, but it isn't just about age.  

Unlike straight royal marriage, gay royal marriage HAS to be made explicit in game.  A king-queen pairing is archetypal.  When presented with a king and a queen, no one has to say "Oh and they're married."  A king-king pairing isn't.  Saying "There are two kings," does not immediately imply a married unit.  Even a king with a husband doesn't necessarily mean the husband is ALSO an equal King.  It's uncertain territory in human history so we don't have a model.  Some groups are going to roll with this better than others.

For example, if I were running a D&D game for my girls and Dave Rubin's kids, having two married gnome kings is probably fine and might serve as an interesting "hook" since one of the group of kids has two dads.  (Disclaimer: I don't actually know Dave Rubin.. yet).  If on the other hand, I were running an open all-ages game at a convention or meetup, or for my kids with friends from their school whose parents I didn't know, I would probably omit any reference to their relationship status.  It's not my place to force that conversation.   For an adult group I would probably go with one of the more interesting story options.  It seems a wasted opportunity to not mine the situation for its full dramatic potential.

Quote from: jhkim;1103344I pretty regularly run games for younger players at conventions, so I try to keep an eye on things. I try to avoid defined romantic interests for the PCs, leaving those ambiguous or optional.

According to Rhedyn, this impulse makes you a closet homophobe and you need to examine your biases.

Quote from: S'mon;1103339Funny, a gay friend of mine did celebrity house furnishing for a living (he's retired now), and he says the Rolling Stones were his best customers! He once (only a few years ago) got drunk at a party one of them hosted, and received a £6000 bill for the damage he caused to the furnishings - the same stuff he'd installed... I was gobsmacked, but he said that was nothing compared to the money he made off them!

I've heard stories about their touring setup.  Levels of wealth undreamed of by the kings of yore, gay gnomes or straight

Quote from: Brendan;1103354I've heard stories about their touring setup.  Levels of wealth undreamed of by the kings of yore, gay gnomes or straight

Ooo I've always wondered what their riders look like from their glory days compared to today!

On Topic - Gay Gnome Kings. I don't care. The whole thing sounds pandery due to the fact that it's not "campaign material" and instead "adventure material".

It doesn't sound like it's trying to set up some campaign conceit for long-term play. Which means it's there as some kind of token-toss to the usual suspects.

Make it matter or leave it out, says I.

Quote from: Haffrung;1103338What percentage of the population would you guess plays RPGs?

I never said that RPG players are normal.  I am one myself, regardless.

Quote from: tenbones;1103357Ooo I've always wondered what their riders look like from their glory days compared to today!

On Topic - Gay Gnome Kings. I don't care. The whole thing sounds pandery due to the fact that it's not "campaign material" and instead "adventure material".

It doesn't sound like it's trying to set up some campaign conceit for long-term play. Which means it's there as some kind of token-toss to the usual suspects.

Make it matter or leave it out, says I.

I'm not sure about the riders, but from what I've heard backstage it's less hookers and blow, and more mountains of sushi and arcane health treatments.  Like, what, you DON'T travel with your own phlebotomist?  But then, who does your oxygen-rich blood transfusions?

Quote from: Brendan;1103352For example, if I were running a D&D game for my girls and Dave Rubin's kids, having two married gnome kings is probably fine and might serve as an interesting "hook" since one of the group of kids has two dads.  (Disclaimer: I don't actually know Dave Rubin.. yet).  If on the other hand, I were running an open all-ages game at a convention or meetup, or for my kids with friends from their school whose parents I didn't know, I would probably omit any reference to their relationship status.  It's not my place to force that conversation.   For an adult group I would probably go with one of the more interesting story options.  It seems a wasted opportunity to not mine the situation for its full dramatic potential.

That's very different than:

"The gnomes could be co-ruling kings, as ancient Rome had for a period of time. Their relationship could be entirely non-sexual and the issue kept purely political, for gaming with younger players."

That quote isn't about being worried about easily triggered conservative parents. Unless you thought you only run those kinds of games at cons. Then sure yeah.

Quote from: Brendan;1103353According to Rhedyn, this impulse makes you a closet homophobe and you need to examine your biases.

(This where you laugh your ass off) I didn't say that.

Personally, I've only had a problem with your logic and the contradiction in what you are saying. I am far too apathetic about homosexuality to care about your's or anyone's opinion unless you were harassing someone I know. You assumed I am a liberal. I am not, I am a philosopher, which is academic speak for asshole.

If you have Gay Gnome Kings does that mean they are Queens?


I'll show myself out.