Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The sexual orientation of the character wasn't mentioned as affecting how the model played. The fluff for the character being non-heterosexual affecting your decision to field or not field him or her is what was asked.

Sure way not? As long as the character was beatstick.

 Dentry wrote:
The sexual orientation of the character wasn't mentioned as affecting how the model played. The fluff for the character being non-heterosexual affecting your decision to field or not field him or her is what was asked.

Exactly. So therefore totally irrelevant to the tabletop. Which was my point.

I care as much about the sexual preference of fictional characters as I do for that of real people: I don't. I couldn't care less, and don't flaunt it in my face either way.

I can't stand gay people who MUST let you know by whatever means possible that they are gay(often with stereotypical behavior or appearance) and I just as much can't stand people who MUST let you know that they are in no way gay and that they love the opposite sex like their life depends on it.

I just generally can't stand people.

 BryllCream wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
It DOES matter to a lot of people. Up until a couple decades ago, it wasn't even common for gay/lesbian characters to SURVIVE their stories, never mind actually be positive characters.

Was old literature full of homosexual people dying?

Yes.

I haven't read any of those books and I'm fairly well-read. I suspect they may be mainly sensationalist popular novels.

Captain Corelli's Mandolin, off the top of my head


But to answer the OP, no im not bothered, fluff is fluff (wahay!)

 BryllCream wrote:
I haven't read any of those books

You've never read Les Miserables and you consider yourself well-read? Ignoring the [in]famous Brokeback Mountain (and the film adaptation) and the Goldfinger 007 novel, or the Christian church's long use of "they died because they're gay" influencing writers to do the same, I could point out the Motion Pictures Film Code, which actually made it illegal to depict homosexuals without killing them.

 Melissia wrote:
I could point out the Motion Pictures Film Code, which actually made it illegal to depict homosexuals without killing them.

It was a simpler time. A time of good old fashioned family values.

 Fafnir wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
I could point out the Motion Pictures Film Code, which actually made it illegal to depict homosexuals without killing them.

It was a simpler time. A time of good old fashioned family values.

Peppridge Farm remembers.

I honestly cannot even think of a video game or tabletop/board/wargaming game which even had the subject of sexual orientation event coming up or being relevant.

At best, maybe some 'shipping' undertones of romance between some characters, but nothing being expanded upon.

As for fiction, If it is relevant to the story and the fiction is good, I do not care what orientation... but I usually don't enjoy fiction which revolve around explicit romance so it really never comes up.

My Orks reproduce by spores, Everyone they kill, I don't ask their orientation, my Super Dungeon explore dudes don't really talk about who they think is cute and the last video game I played has subtle romance between Cecil and Rosa in FF4 and Swampy and his bow-wearing Girlfriend in Where's my Water...

I guess if Swampy had a little boyfriend, I don't think it would matter to me, as far as I know that already is a boy alligator with a pink bow.

I would not play a gay character... why? Even though we are adults, why should our little army men have to be made sexual -one way or the other.

Being gay is just a sexual identitiy, not a personal identity and I think this is not necessary for the hobby. I play Dark Angels, Deamonhunters, Deamons, Chaos, Battletech, Sedition Wars, Zombicide, Dust T/W, MK, and have quite a few Kingdom Death minis but have never attempted to imagine any of them sexually or about their home/private lives. Yea, some of the KD minis are half naked, but I still don't think of them sexually or about their possible sex lives in the lore.

I enjoy the books, stories, bvackround, lore about the fights, etc, but again could care less about the character's private lives. I also think that adult themes should stay in adult games (Kingdom Death, etc), not in 40k where we have kids playing. Most space marines have never had a chance for preference anyway and keep themselves pure if you read into it, that is why they are likened onto non-human angels....

But hey, to each his own. Just don't force a preference onto my characters, they are happy as they are.

JMTC

Sure, as long as it was a good story/character.

Just one word of advice; I think a reoccurring problem is with characters written to be "the gay". (I.e. they act flaming or won't shut up about the but seks.) It's an unrealistic caricature and rather offensive.

Remember, a character's sexuality is just one part of their personality, integral but not defining. Imagine if Luke Skywalker were gay for example. Would a single action or line of dialog in SW change? Dumbledore was gay; it formed his past and personality greatly, but it wasn't central to understanding him or the story. Just remember to make your character well rounded . I'd rather read about a transsexual Han Solo who goes on amazing adventures than an impotent beige Space Marine any day.

Having any aspect of a character continually crammed down my throat is annoying. So if their only role is to be different then it's boring and usually very one dimensional. In that I agree with some of the points made so far. But am, as Aerethan and Buzzsaw also stated, not overly concerned with the sexual appetites of fictional characters.

I do wonder though, Buzzsaw, if those characters you mention as being well written in Young Avengers weren't conceived and developed expressly as homosexuals for marketing purposes.

 azreal13 wrote:
Exactly. So therefore totally irrelevant to the tabletop. Which was my point.

If you play divorced from the lore of the game, then yeah, I'd agree. But I know it's important to a lot of players, though I believe most are interested in general background and don't focus too much on singular characters with the exception of 'hero' or HQ units.

What if one or two lines simply described the character defending his/her [same sex] loved one against some awesome threat as part of their rise to glory? You people keep talking about how "it always is just done for marketing", but it doesn't HAVE to be.

For example, a guardswoman who fought off a Tyranid warrior single-handedly to save her wounded lesbian lover and eventually rose up to the rank of captain / general / etc because of her ferocity and tactical prowess, or an Eldar farseer/autarch who held a choke point by himself in order to prevent the enemy army from reaching the shelter where his male lover was-- and did it successfully to such an extent that even generations afterwards there are still stories of the death that he wrought upon them in that valley/tunnel/etc.

i am indifferent, except to say that I would love to live in a world where it simply wouldn't occur to anyone to ask this question.

There should be nothing "special" about an individual's sexual orientation, and ideally that would be reflected in popular culture.

[quote=Melissia 502544 5206187 544f939d29fb90dc6fbacf5a6b037001.png
For example, a guardswoman who fought off a Tyranid warrior single-handedly to save her wounded lesbian lover and eventually rose up to the rank of captain / general / etc because of her ferocity and tactical prowess, or an Eldar farseer/autarch who held a choke point by himself in order to prevent the enemy from reaching the shelter where his male lover was.

 Melissia wrote:
What if one or two lines simply described the character defending his/her [same sex] loved one against some awesome threat as part of their rise to glory? You people keep talking about how "it always is just done for marketing", but it doesn't HAVE to be.

For example, a guardswoman who fought off a Tyranid warrior single-handedly to save her wounded lesbian lover and eventually rose up to the rank of captain / general / etc because of her ferocity and tactical prowess, or an Eldar farseer/autarch who held a choke point by himself in order to prevent the enemy from reaching the shelter where his male lover was.

Most don't seem to have a problem with it as long as it's done tastefully and isn't a gimmick. Like portraying the sexual prowess and desirability of a 1980's action movie protagonist.

I'd be perfectly fine with the example you stated. Though I'd also be fine if it were more involved than that as well.

weeble1000 wrote:
i am indifferent, except to say that I would love to live in a world where it simply wouldn't occur to anyone to ask this question.

There should be nothing "special" about an individual's sexual orientation, and ideally that would be reflected in popular culture.

I kind of feel the same way... but at the same time, this attitude is often used as an excuse to exclude people based on the same attributes that shouldn't matter.

Comic books, for example, are mostly written and drawn by men-- and for many of them, if they never thought about equality issues, they'd never include women in their comics unless they needed them for what they percieved was "womanly things", which for a long time was associated with little more than being a victim in series that had any action. If they never thought "well gak, I have no female characters, I should include some", we'd not even have TOKEN female characters, never mind ones actually doing anything, thus having the equality in writing set back even further than with our current status.

Same with homosexuality. Many people just don't think about it. And that's fine really, it's not a big impact to many peoples' lives... but it still makes for a culture of exclusion when there is nothing written about the group you belong to. It gives the impression of "you're irrelevant because you're homosexual and not heterosexual" or "you're not allowed to be a badass because you're a woman" or "only white people can be action heroes". And that really isn't the impression we want to give.

So it's much healthier for a person to say "I just realized that I haven't written any [minority] characters in to my story... so I think this character who doesn't die horribly and ends up doing awesome things will be [minority], without changing any other part of them." than to just not think about them and unintentionally exclude them.

tl;dr: Writers should think about what they write MORE, not less.

anyone use sigvald? Lol

I would and do read stories about lesbian characters. I rarely read stories about gay men, but that's primarily because I prefer stories with female protagonists anyway.

 Aerethan wrote:
I generally see male characters in these games as androgynous.

You're thinking of asexuality, not androgyny.

Sexual preference has no place in wargaming.

What about the Von Carsteins?

 Buzzsaw wrote:
As an example, I would compare what I consider an excellent use of homosexual characters in Young Avengers, to the hamfisted, carnival barker manner that Alan Scott was reformulated as being gay in Earth 2. The difference being that in YA, Wiccan and Hulkling are characters first, sales gimmicks later (much later...); Alan Scott's "coming out", so to speak, was a transparent attempt at courting controversy at a time that DC had already pulled the stunt of rebooting their entire universe (which means, not incidentally, that Alan Scott is not only not a member of the mainstream Green Lantern Corp, but he's not even in the main universe!). Well played DC, well played...

They also did it by

in the first issue. Somehow, I don't see expanding the Green Lantern "Women in Refrigerators" trope to include gays as a step forwards. That, and they had to remove his family, including his gay son, from existence to do it.

nkelsch wrote:
I honestly cannot even think of a video game or tabletop/board/wargaming game which even had the subject of sexual orientation event coming up or being relevant.

Fallout?

As long as the author doesn't beat me over the head with it. That is a sign of either poor writing ability or having an agenda; two things that don't particularly interest me.

It if is nothing more than a part of a well rounded character, providing motivation and character development, I have no particular opinion, either way.

Heterosexual characters is asking a lot given the settings. The writers can barely write those convincingly, so writing a homosexual one could wind up just being a stereotype. That's not to say that I wouldn't mind reading about someone who has such a persuasion, it'd at least subvert what people think of the genre a little perhaps. Seeing as a lot of gamers are kids, or immature adults, I'm guessing that such a character would be panned however, despite how minor a point this is. Sexuality shouldn't be a major thing, but people would just see it as a reason for drama nonetheless.

John Scalzi's novels typically feature non-heterosexual characters and their some of the best selling in the genre. Peace and War also had it as a plot point in that the lead, having grown up in the somewhat prudish sixties, wasn't to fond of the idea that as time progressed more and more homosexual soldiers were joining his unit. Eventually he's the only heterosexual guy in the universe pretty much, and that's he's become the "other" outside of normal society. However he picks up on that this concept is a dumb idea and that given the nature of their job they should all be doing their best to work together and care about what makes them all human instead of their differences.=P

Scalzi handled the point pretty well in Old Man's War. During the soldier's induction the drill sergeant calls them up and starts asking them questions, "Any one here that's a homosexual? That's alright, some of the greatest warriors in history were gay. Alexander the Great was and he'd conquered the world before her was thirty", before going on to ask them questions like, "Who's Hispanic here? Doesn't matter, we're all green now" or "who's favorite color is red?". All that to make the point that it doesn't matter what differences the soldiers may have. When you're facing off against an alien with tentacles for a face it doesn't matter if the guy standing next to you doesn't think or look the same way as you do, just along as their watching your back. ^^

As long as it isn't used as a gimmick by a bad writer then their shouldn't be an issue. I'd read about a Chinese character and yet I'm not Asian, or someone who happens to eat haggis for every meal and yet I hate the stuff. Its the question of if the readership, etc are mature enough to deal with interesting characters, or if they just want Ser Brutus the super human (white) damsel saving warrior...

...Who really needs some yaoi fanfiction written about him come to think of it.

I don't care if you're straight, gay, asexual, or reproduce by acorns falling out of your armpits, just stop falling back and shoot at the target!

 Breotan wrote:
Lots of people play Dark Angels.

And Ultramarines too.

 btr75 wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Lots of people play Dark Angels.

And Ultramarines too.

Actually I could say Space Marines, period, really, given how Space Marines reproduce they're basically a male-only species, much like the Asari in Mass Effect are female-only.

[/tries to get through this without viciously mocking the Space Marine reproductive cycle]

I read lots of the Drizzt books back in the day...those were pretty popular.

 Melissia wrote:

 btr75 wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Lots of people play Dark Angels.

And Ultramarines too.

Actually I could say Space Marines, period, really, given how Space Marines reproduce they're basically a male-only species, much like the Asari in Mass Effect are female-only.

[/tries to get through this without viciously mocking the Space Marine reproductive cycle]

Not to pile on, but... aren't Space Marines intensely homoerotic? Cloistered uber-menschen with an intensely martial culture, not a girl in sight, endless centuries in isolation from any female diversions. Oh, and they explicitly don't breed to produce their heirs, they recruit the finest of the young men.

It seems the only real question is, in the mead halls of the Space Wolves, who're the wolves, and who're the bears? /snap!

Reading about gay characters, no problem ,as long as they are not banging the gay drum all the time, stereotypical gay characters can be good for a laugh (like all stereotypical chars).

Playing gay characters ? never thought about it before. I think i would be more likely to use a gay wargaming model as it would be greatly amusing ingame and post game when playing vs one of those weird "scared/hate gay people" people.

^^' Blood Gorgons infers that the marines, who may not be able to actually have sex, do appreciate the human form enough to have some attractive slaves toting about their personal quarters. Its suggested that these are female, though for a brief point the story focuses on a male one... So youknow, if you don't have a libido then what's it matter if you're slaves are men or women (the majority of the loyalist's serfs are male mind).

That the Astartes take inspiration from warrior cultures like the Spartans speaks of the brotherly bonding that they partake of too (Sure, the language was all they took from the Romans...).

Depends on if he/she was cool or not. I think more about what a character puts his power sword into than his... well you get it.

EDIT: Yo, this thread shows some bias in people. I don't think it's intentional, just a byproduct of living in a hetero-central society. Just because a character is gay, doesn't mean that it immediately means the character is "sexually focused." If that were the case having a line like "X was never the same after his wife was devoured by gaunts on Persius IV," would mean the character's sexuality was central just because it implies heterosexuality. So wheres the difference in replacing 'wife' with 'husband'?