Quote from: jhkim;1038456To clarify - Silas1066 is complaining about the appearance of gay characters in official D&D materials - and in reaction, I was referring to "gay-free" as D&D adventures/sourcebooks being free of gay characters. As far as I know, for a long time there were no gay characters in official published D&D adventures and sourcebooks.

Its more like NPCs wer usually lest totally open to whatever interpretation the DM wanted. Unless married or such most were totally neutral.

The only exception I can remember was a odd one. A Draconian in a Dragonlance module who was dressing and acting female. Forget why but pretty sure there was a reasoning for it.

And of course the portal of gender change on Tomb of Horrors. And not sure if this counts but wasnt there a module where Tensor or one of the other big Greyhawk mages was trapped in the body of a woman by a demon or somesuch and had had his/her memories altered? Been ages.

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.

Sure. Here is Monte Cook, talking about writing The Return to the Templ of Elementa Evil in 2005

Quote from: Monte At HomeIt was not the intention of the original creators of Rufus and Burne (who were PCs together and played through the adventure) that they were gay.

However, it was absolutely my intention to portray them as such in Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil (there's only the one bedchamber for them in the entire castle), without saying "and they're gay," which would be silly. (Silly because it's really not an issue, and because I didn't identify straight characters as such.)

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?157547-Gay-PCs-or-NPCs/page8&p=2746140&viewfull=1#post2746140

Which is odd, because the description he is referring to is this on page 18.

An inner wall identical to the curtain wall surrounds this
main structure. It has towers with a single gate (same as those
in the barbican), creating an inner bailey surrounding a keep,
called the donjon. The donjon has four levels with a grand
hall, a feast hall, a huge kitchen, many storerooms, an apart-
ment for Rufus and Burne, a vast library, and guest chambers.


Er.. that's it.

Bizzare, really.

Should have called them Bert and Ernie.

Quote from: jhkimI'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.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1038654Sure. Here is Monte Cook, talking about writing The Return to the Templ of Elementa Evil in 2005

Quote from: Monte At HomeIt was not the intention of the original creators of Rufus and Burne (who were PCs together and played through the adventure) that they were gay.

However, it was absolutely my intention to portray them as such in Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil (there's only the one bedchamber for them in the entire castle), without saying "and they're gay," which would be silly. (Silly because it's really not an issue, and because I didn't identify straight characters as such.)

So, the only thing he's talking about here is how he's portraying characters in the new module he's writing. Do you think that everything in a module is TELLING you that you HAVE to include it?  That is, do you resent that Gary Gygax was TELLING you that you HAD to include Smigmal as the lover of Falrinth?  For that matter, do you resent that Gary was telling you that you had to have 10 goblins as their guards?

A module is going to have a bunch of content - including a bunch of NPCs who have relationships to each other as well as a ton of other details.  Individual GMs are free to use the module as written, or change it.

It sounds to me like you're saying that no NPCs in any module should be written as gay - and if they are, you'll resent it as intrusive.  That wasn't clear to me from your original statement.

Quote from: jhkim;1038668It sounds to me like you're saying that no NPCs in any module should be written as gay - and if they are, you'll resent it as intrusive.  That wasn't clear to me from your original statement.

"It sounds to me like" is the perfect way to introduce a straw man. Well done.

When you are ready, we'll discuss each other ideas and what we really think, instead.

Quote from: jhkim;1038646This doesn't make sense.

You're right, it doesn't. You are getting far too agitated over this.

Quote from: jhkim;1038646I 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.

No, that is what you are trying to turn this conversation into. I am asking both "When did sexual orientation become important to playing the RPG?" and "Why is it important?" You are acting like these questions are personal attacks.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1038673"It sounds to me like" is the perfect way to introduce a straw man. Well done.

When you are ready, we'll discuss each other ideas and what we really think, instead.

I have to agree with Mike the Mage here.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1038654Sure. Here is Monte Cook, talking about writing The Return to the Templ of Elementa Evil in 2005



http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?157547-Gay-PCs-or-NPCs/page8&p=2746140&viewfull=1#post2746140

Which is odd, because the description he is referring to is this on page 18.

An inner wall identical to the curtain wall surrounds this
main structure. It has towers with a single gate (same as those
in the barbican), creating an inner bailey surrounding a keep,
called the donjon. The donjon has four levels with a grand
hall, a feast hall, a huge kitchen, many storerooms, an apart-
ment for Rufus and Burne, a vast library, and guest chambers.


Er.. that's it.

Bizzare, really.

Should have called them Bert and Ernie.

OK, and now that we have a place to start exploring, my question is why? Why was Monte Cook adamant about including this bit of character in the module?

Quote from: jeff37923;1038685OK, and now that we have a place to start exploring, my question is why? Why was Monte Cook adamant about including this bit of character in the module?

Because West Coast America will destroy him professionally if he didn't.

Quote from: jeff37923;1038683.... (spekaing to JHKim) "...You're right, it doesn't. You are getting far too agitated over this."

I am asking both "When did sexual orientation become important to playing the RPG?" and "Why is it important?" You are acting like these questions are personal attacks.

Have to agree with Jeff on this John. I'm not sure why a post by James Raggi over on G+ about his dissatisfaction with the moral outlook of one of our regulars triggered the SJW community over there which includes a healthy overlap with the LGBT community. It didn't just stop there with a counter-attack against just the individual who was in my opinion too clear in his condemnation of LotFP, and not very clear in his thinking, however there was spillover, and the torch and pitchfork crowd over on G+ decided to make a general attack against the RPGSite and the Pundit as well, which is when I stepped in over there and started hosing down losers, just to cool them off a bit.

I asked the same question and decided to ask around and go looking in the original material published by TSR. ...I'm still looking, and there are a few people I'd like to talk to about this some of whom I may not be able to get a response from until I see them in person, which may take up to a year.

One thing that I have observed though, is that sexual orientation in games does seem to be a push-button issue for a large group of the LotFP fans over on G+. Either that, or this is just a trash attack on the RPGSite for being an open and free forum where members can state their opinion and/or facts without being censored.

I would be rather concerned if it were the latter, but not surprised.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1038689One thing that I have observed though, is that sexual orientation in games does seem to be a push-button issue for a large group of the LotFP fans over on G+. Either that, or this is just a trash attack on the RPGSite for being an open and free forum where members can state their opinion and/or facts without being censored.

I would be rather concerned if it were the latter, but not surprised.

Embrace the power of "and".

Quote from: GameDaddy;1038689which is when I stepped in over there and started hosing down losers, just to cool them off a bit.

Yeah, that always works.

Quote from: S'mon;1038692Yeah, that always works.

Addressing Injustice always works better than silently confirming a bullies desire to prosecute victims without interference. When it costs the bullies too much to make the attack profitable or worthwhile, they'll stop. When you do nothing, you affirm that it is ok for bullies to target victims. That makes you a bully as well, ...just a silent one, also committed to seeing these injustices done.

In this case it worked well enough. Sometimes the only thing that bullies understands, especially the mindless sociopaths, is when they get stepped on themselves for bullying. In no case should bullying, or hate speech be ignored, or otherwise rewarded.

James Raggi wasn't bullying or committing himself to hate speech in his disagreement on G+ with Silas. It was the dogpile of losers that followed him, that attacked the RPGSite and the Pundit with considerable malice that got my attention. This had not ever happened before on G+, at least not in my gaming circles. The same cannot be said for Zak S. though, who delights in profiting socially and economically from creating chaos, and anarchy.

G+ is losing users though, it is a quietly dying social network because Alphabet/Google and all their AI's are clueless, and they are not properly committing themselves to upholding and promoting, freedom, equality, and justice within their social network. Their current idea of that involves allowing the userbase to mute or filter any disagreeable content without regard to whether that content is just, right or wrong. By not championing or upholding the rights of the innocent to speak freely Google is complicit in promoting bullying as well as engaging in censorship in a direct violation of their users rights to free speech.

This also happens to be the argument of James Damore, by the way. He is correct, he was run out of Google by an angry mob of overpaid hate-mongering SJW who have zero regard for any of his values. There is always going to be conflicts of values, however that only needs to be addressed if some real harm comes to an individual or group. In his case, real harm came to him, including loss of social standing as well as income.

I don't believe someone should be able to subject you to poverty and disgrace, just because they disagree with you. The SJW cucks do though, and they like to pretend they are fighting for justice for all, when in reality, they are 100% against it, and are only interested in having rights for themselves, which, ...thinking about it, makes them cruel young Oligarchs.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

~Martin Niemöller

Quote from: GameDaddy;1038689Either that, or this is just a trash attack on the RPGSite for being an open and free forum where members can state their opinion and/or facts without being censored.

I would be rather concerned if it were the latter, but not surprised.

Physical people that I'm friends with totally believe people shouldn't be allowed to say offensive things.

That was one of the big angle's of attack against Trump, so it's become politically normal to just not value the ideal of free speech.

Actual people feel like it is their moral obligation to "not give a platform to hate" or "punch a Nazi".

Quote from: Rhedyn;1038702Physical people that I'm friends with totally believe people shouldn't be allowed to say offensive things.

And, of course, homosexuality was once considered offensive. But by exercising their free speech, activists have made grounds on the public opinions on homosexuality.
And they want to throw that all away...

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1038673"It sounds to me like" is the perfect way to introduce a straw man. Well done.

When you are ready, we'll discuss each other ideas and what we really think, instead.

OK, I'm sorry that I implied a position on your part. Your previous reply was pretty short, so please elaborate. What is your opinion of including Rufus and Burne as a gay couple in the module? Is there a problem, and if so, what is it?

Personally, I'm pretty familiar with the original Elemental Evil module - and have no problems with it. I haven't read the Return module, but I don't see any inherent problem with Rufus and Burne being a gay couple.

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?

Quote from: jhkim;1038646I 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.

Quote from: jeff37923;1038683No, that is what you are trying to turn this conversation into. I am asking both "When did sexual orientation become important to playing the RPG?" and "Why is it important?" You are acting like these questions are personal attacks.

I don't see how this connects to your earlier question, but sure.

In my experience, sexual orientation has been a part of playing the RPG from the very beginning. Even when I was a pre-teen playing in the late 1970s and early 1980s, fantasy heroes might get a kiss from a grateful rescued princess, or be distracted by the shapeshifting succubus. Once I started playing Champions, it was pretty standard for PCs to have a steady girlfriend as a Dependent NPC. And once I was a teenager and got into James Bond 007, then active romance plots became a thing. The main focus was on beating the bad guy, but sexual orientation was a regular part of sessions.

I think we were just imitating the fantasy fiction and comics that we read. It was natural to include such things. Romance plots are often central to action movies, comics, and fantasy fiction - so we would tend to put them in our games.

From reading through modules and retrospectives, this doesn't seem uncommon, either. Plenty of modules for various games in the 1980s games mention couples and/or potential romance.