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.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8489/8249508041_094e86f6c7_b.jpg

I'm fairly certain that IS the normal skin for most female characters in these types of games. And yet I still sometimes play them.

 helium42 wrote:
Do you care to offer an example of a straight-pride parade?

Any parade where they show straight couples. Which is just about every single one of them, really. The overwhelming majority of parades are planned with heteronormative values in mind. Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade just to throw out a random example. Heterosexuality is celebrated every day, on TV, in books, in games, in the media, and yes, in parades as well.

The fact is, homosexuals are an oppressed minority. Therefor they DO have a need for this kind of thing, to try to express that "it's okay to be homosexual". However, heterosexuals do not have that need. Because heterosexuality is the norm, no one is questioning whether or not it's okay to be heterosexual-- it's assumed.

I'm hope to stay on topic but still add another part to this discussion. Those posting that sex has no part in the modern 40K universe are right. However, that's an extremely big problem. You're not removing a huge part of a character by ignoring sex, but you're taking out an essential tool for making your characters live. (Were talking novels and fluff here, not TT.)

Back in the Rogue Trader days, 40K was open ended and encouraged you to rp a little. Taking the fluff then and now there is a stark difference. It's like comparing Andrew WK to emo. Sex existed obviously back then. Now, there are markers of it floating around unmoored. (SoB, daemonettes.) Slowly, the game was made more appealing to Liefeld loving 14 year old boys.
Characters in 40K today are like those in the Star Wars prequels; jarringly infantile and artificially sexless. I don't mean to bash people who enjoy the fluff, but it's becoming more apparent there's little there for the likes of me.

 mattyrm wrote:
The sexuality of a character is irrelevant to me. What a character likes to see naked has no relevance at all on whether or not I like the character. Nobility, honesty, self secrifice and most importantly, the ability to drag himself up from the dirt and royally kick some ass are what make a character likeable to me, not the gender of their sexual interests.

Druss the legend is a legend because of his iron code!

"Never violate a woman, nor harm a child. Do not lie, cheat or steal. These things are for lesser men. Protect the weak against the evil strong. And never allow thoughts of gain to lead you into the pursuit of evil."

If he does all that gak, I'm going to think he's awesome, it doesn't matter if his wife is called Rowenna or Rowan.

So, yes I would.

As above, story wise for sci fi whether their sexuality should not come into it. If it did then it should have a good reason, I would not read/play something that tries too hard to show what sexuality they are. Regardless of their particular sexual tendancies it shouldnt affect the story lines really.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:
The Black Library authors aren't, generally speaking, good enough that a characters sexuality becomes an issue. Worrying about that when reading about Space Marines or Orks is like worrying that your tire pressure might be a little low when your car is being engulfed in flames. There's bigger issues at hand.

But you said you have a harder time identifying with a gay character, which is completely different from this. I brought up the 40k stuff because those things are a MUCH bigger difference than simply being attracted to different people, so if you have a hard time identifying with a gay character then it must be impossible for you to identify with a space marine.

And thank you for convincing me to ignore the 40k novels. If they're really so shallow that the only thing that matters is constant battle with no time spent on character development, personal lives, etc, then I really don't see why anyone (well, anyone over 15) would ever want to read them.

You can have a plot without romance. If a book is about military action, even with character development, it might focus more on how characters struggle with a crisis of faith, filling the shoes of a fallen mentor, struggling to stay alive in a chaos-riddled world, battling mental isues to stay effective...anything really. Gaunt's Ghosts covers that pretty well. I don't know if there are LGBT characters in there, but relationships are pretty much side-notes in the books, and yet characters develop like crazy, and grow as people. You don't need to define a character's sexuality to develop their personality. Hell, half the Ghosts might be gay, I'd have no idea. Because unless they actively start boinking women (or each other), their sexuality is not really relevant with regards to the story at hand.

Personally, regarding the OP's question: I really don't see a reason why sexuality is relevant in table-top games (assuming it's wargaming), given the whole point is more "how the hell do I wreck that tank" over any relationship status, it'd be a neat fluff thing but not entirely relevant.
In a role-playing game, or in a story I'm reading for that matter, I don't see how a gay character would be that much different from a straight character. I mean, honestly, beyond who they find attractive, any attempts to make them further point out their sexuality just turns them into tropes. Because normal people (straight or gay or bi or whatever) don't run around proclaiming their sexuality. It might just come up, or it might not. I doubt my ability to role-play a gay character simply because he'd just act the same way as a straight guy would, except he'd find guys attractive. Any attempt on my part to emphasize the fact that he is a gay character just makes him a trope.

I think my issue in fiction is when "the mighty general who leads his armies to glory and also happens to be gay" turns into "the gay general who also happens to lead his armies to glory". Don't make it the first and most important part of a character's personality. If I'm writing a straight character, I don't make his desire to boink women a more significant aspect of his personality than anything else, so why should gay characters be like that?

(Also, just tossing this out there, I see Space Marines as asexual, not gay. Sexuality is not relevant to their life, which entirely revolves around faith and war. If it doesn't help them deliver righteous fury, they don't really care)

Would you read about or play with a gay character?

Looking at the question itself, the only issue OP is asking about is the character's sexual orientation. OP assumes the character would be otherwise interesting, powerful, etc.

So imagine a character you already like and then just add gayness. Does that make you like the character any more than you already did? Does is make you like the character less?

That's one way to look at it, that sexual orientation is just something incidental. The other way to look at it is that a character's gayness or straightness is definitive of who they are. So again, imagine a character you like. Make a list of the things you like about that character. Is their sexual orientation on that list?

It seems to me that sexual orientation might very well be a big part of who we are. But that doesn't mean it's an especially interesting part of who we are, at least not without a particular context.

The settings of most wargames have little or nothing to do with real life. That doesn't mean real life is not the context for those games. Games, just like books or movies, can be stocked up with commentary on their real world context.

Given this, OP's question can be reframed as "would you like to play a wargame where the characters' sexual orientation was an important aspect of the setting or where the character's sexual orientation was a commentary on real life issues?"

My answer to that question is No.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Which actually leads to the point that it's frequently forgotten that, while homosexual acts have been around as long as sexual acts have been, the idea of a "gay identity" is a fairly recent development. Several people in the thread have mentioned things like the homosexuality of ancient Spartans, Greeks and so on, but referring to such people as "gay" in the current context is anachronistic. Spartan men who... "initiated youths into manhood" would have had wives as well, and generally held to the ancient historical adage "a woman for children, a boy for pleasure."

But the ancient Greeks also had beliefs that what we would refer to as 'love', could only be had between men. They had wives, but they were more like animals that were there to be used for procreation, that was my point, and also 'battle-brothers' in a way were encouraged to have relationships with one another in Sparta particularly. The Man-boy love is a separate thing entirely. Symposium by Plato makes for an interesting read.

If there was an table top game based on the Authority comics does it matter that The Midnighter and Apollo are gay? If you are playing a wargame set in Victorian England (not steampunk) and a character is gay, and with that story line you can look at the historical laws of the time outlawing homosexuality is that interesting? This is the question. I think most feel they would a few have felt that they wouldn't. I do feel that this topic could be opened up to ask why are there so few Black characters in war games? Why are Asians always marshal arts masters? Where are strong women? And how do the models that are made reflex the people that are playing the game and if the models reflexed a wider range of humanity would there be more people playing table top games?

Cogs wrote:
If you are playing a wargame set in Victorian England (not steampunk) and a character is gay, and with that story line you can look at the historical laws of the time outlawing homosexuality is that interesting?

In a war game? Unless the war game is called "Arrest That Homosexual" or something, it's hard to imagine how the characters' sexual orientation would be relevant to the game itself. And I personally have no interest in a war game that is about the characters' sexual orientation. I think RPGs are better suited to this discussion. Some people play RPGs to try and understand what it might be like to think of things from a different point of view. In that case, playing a character who has a different sexual orientation than you might be interesting.

 Melissia wrote:

 helium42 wrote:
Do you care to offer an example of a straight-pride parade?

Any parade where they show straight couples. Which is just about every single one of them, really. The overwhelming majority of parades are planned with heteronormative values in mind. Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade just to throw out a random example. Heterosexuality is celebrated every day, on TV, in books, in games, in the media, and yes, in parades as well.

The fact is, homosexuals are an oppressed minority. Therefor they DO have a need for this kind of thing, to try to express that "it's okay to be homosexual". However, heterosexuals do not have that need. Because heterosexuality is the norm, no one is questioning whether or not it's okay to be heterosexual-- it's assumed.

Any parade where a heterosexual couple is depicted is a form of straight pride parade? Are you actually saying this with a straight face or are you trolling now? The Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade is an example of a straight-pride parade? Are you serious? Please enlighten me, since I'm just one of those lost heterosexuals who has no idea what is going on around me apparently.

I do not believe that when I see a homosexual couple depicted in art, be it word, video, or any other medium that it equates a celebration of homosexuality any more than when I think a depiction of a straight couple equates a celebration of heterosexuality. You speak of oppression and exclusive parades but fail to provide a decent example. At lease enlighten us as to how the Thanksgiving Parade, with it's cartoon balloons is somehow an undercover straight pride event. I don't believe that homosexuals are oppressed nearly as much today as you'd like to think. I base that observation on popular culture, and how homosexuals are included in television, music, and the written word.

I really don't care about the sexual orientation of a character in a written work or in a game. There have been some compelling books written covering the subject (I really enjoyed Louis and Lestat in Anne Rice's vampire series). I wouldn't enjoy role playing as a homosexual character, but more because I would have trouble finding the motivations of the character; basically for the same reasons that I do not role play as a female character, or as a character whose morals are too far different from mine (I have trouble role playing as a "bad guy").

I think all she means is that most of our culture reinforces the idea that heterosexuality is normal and thus preferable. A gay pride parade challenges those assumptions. Hence, to substitute the concept of homo-normativity for hetero-normativity, things like the Macy's Day Parade could be considered "Straight Pride Parades." You've got to read through Melissia's invective a little. The point as she made it is way overstated but that's not a good enough reason to dismiss it. It is certainly true that hetero-normativity is a largely unspoken and unseen assumption in our society. The cultural preference for heterosexuality is so overwhelming that it's easy to pretend there is nothing else and therefore no preference in the first place. It's like looking for constellations during the day.

 Manchu wrote:
Let's do an experiment.

Andrew Ryan was a multi-millionaire who became disillusioned with what he described as the "parasitic" economic and moral aspects of of modern society. He therefore put his considerable fortune to work building the city called Rapture beneath the waves of the North Atlantic. He envisioned a society in which artists, scientists, and business men could realize their genius unfettered by legal or moral constraints, answerable only to their own success or failure in the marketplace. Ryan preferred to have sex with women.

Andrew Ryan was a multi-millionaire who became disillusioned with what he described as the "parasitic" economic and moral aspects of of modern society. He therefore put his considerable fortune to work building the city called Rapture beneath the waves of the North Atlantic. He envisioned a society in which artists, scientists, and business men could realize their genius unfettered by legal or moral constraints, answerable only to their own success or failure in the marketplace. Ryan preferred to have sex with men.

Which character is more interesting?

I'd say they were both the same. It's an extraneous point either way there-- not surprising since Andrew Ryan was intentionally designed as a critique of Ayn Rand's Objectivism. Anything that doesn't play directly into saying "Rands sucks, grow up" in that character is muddying the point with that character. Chekhov's gun and all.

For an example where sexuality matters even while not being front and center, try the stories surrounding Alexander the Great. It's too important to why he doesn't get married and have a kid until almost too late, and also does a bunch to explain how distraught he is the last year of his life. There's no reason sexuality like that couldn't be included with seeming over the top. Unless we're at the point that every time a character is shown doing anything the least bit non-straight, it's considered too much.

It would not bother me... a Brony on the other hand, I would not.

 Manchu wrote:

Cogs wrote:
If you are playing a wargame set in Victorian England (not steampunk) and a character is gay, and with that story line you can look at the historical laws of the time outlawing homosexuality is that interesting?

In a war game? Unless the war game is called "Arrest That Homosexual" or something, it's hard to imagine how the characters' sexual orientation would be relevant to the game itself. And I personally have no interest in such a game. I think RPGs are better suited to this discussion. Some people play RPGs to try and understand what it might be like to think of things from a different point of view. In that case, playing a character who has a different sexual orientation than you might be interesting.

Further to my post, I pretty much agree with you, as I said, Druss is a great character so I wouldn't mind if he was gay and it happened to mention that he was, but generally sexuality isn't enough of a part of the story in the things I'm interested in for it to matter. He spend maybe 4 pages talking to his wife in any of his books, so his sexuality wouldn't be an issue anyway because its heroic fantasy, not an epic love poem.

And if it IS a big enough part of the story, your talking about either erotic fiction, or a fething love story, and I have no interest in reading love stories, be they something by Bronte or something like Twilight or 50 shades of grey or any of that gak.

I probably do about 40-50 books a year. And I like violence, humour, heroism and history, maybe a bit of science. So I read fantasy, comic fantasy, sci-fi, military gak, history books, science books, comic books... and that's probably about it. I have read hundreds of books the last ten years, but I cant think of any that weren't of that genre, so why worry about the characters sexuality?

Several gay heros in Marvel comics, they spend 99.9% of their time beating bad guys up though, so its of no consequence.

So I'm in no way averse to a hero being gay, but its just not that big of a deal in any book I enjoy. If the book contains 100 pages of dialogue between the protagonist and his/her parter, and its full of all consuming passion and love and desire and feelings and all that gak, then I've no interest in reading it, whether he's fething a Victoria's Secret model or a Bearded Biker.

Unless were talking about passion and love for his sword/firearm/50 foot robot with a flame-thrower attachment. Id probably read that.

 Manchu wrote:
Given this, OP's question can be reframed as "would you like to play a wargame where the characters' sexual orientation was an important aspect of the setting or where the character's sexual orientation was a commentary on real life issues?"

My answer to that question is No.

I took the original question as whether you'd exclude a character from your game (whatever game that is) if the fluff behind him or her included or hinted at homosexuality. And whether knowing that a character has what can be considered deviant sexual preferences (ie - same sex) in a fictional story would be off putting to read. In essence it's a question on (dis)comfort levels with the subject matter of non-heterosexuality.

Yes.

 Manchu wrote:
I think all she means is that most of our culture reinforces the idea that heterosexuality is normal and thus preferable. A gay pride parade challenges those assumptions. Hence, to substitute the concept of homo-normativity for hetero-normativity, things like the Macy's Day Parade could be considered "Straight Pride Parades." You've got to read through Melissia's invective a little. The point as she made it is way overstated but that's not a good enough reason to dismiss it. It is certainly true that hetero-normativity is a largely unspoken and unseen assumption in our society. The cultural preference for heterosexuality is so overwhelming that it's easy to pretend there is nothing else and therefore no preference in the first place. It's like looking for constellations during the day.

That is an excellent point, but it does illustrate that, for people determined to see the universe through the prism of sexuality, they will necessarily be dissapointed.

To look at things as diverse as the Thanksgiving day parade, the Israel Independence Day Parade and the Al-Nakba Parade and see a "celebration of hetero-normative values" isn't just odd, it drains these events of all meaning.

It's also worth pointing out in the broader discussion of sexuality, there is a a moral context that is not exotic for a society to prefer procreative relationships to non-procreative, idealize monogamy over other forms, value chastity, etc, etc. One cannot so cavalierly describe people of good faith that disagree as one side being right and the other side being bigots (Not saying that you are doing so Manchu, you clearly are not). But this tendency is a distressing constant in the discourse of today, the idea of argument through moral superiority. it is a style that ensures a lack of agreement and is singularly unpersuasive... but it is satisfying to the maker.

Playing: absolutely not.

Reading: Not if I can avoid it. For example, I found it a gratuitous intrusion into A Thousand Sons, which I otherwise enjoyed. And I can't think of a situation I'd be interested in reading in which it would be other than gratuitous.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
That is an excellent point, but it does illustrate that, for people determined to see the universe through the prism of sexuality, they will necessarily be dissapointed.

To look at things as diverse as the Thanksgiving day parade, the Israel Independence Day Parade and the Al-Nakba Parade and see a "celebration of hetero-normative values" isn't just odd, it drains these events of all meaning.

It's a bit of a simplification, but yeah, almost every mainstream event involves a bunch of hetero-normative values being displayed positively. The original question was combative and on the same level as "When's White History Month". If you've never been on the outside looking in it's very hard to describe exactly how jarring it is when the majority of society is geared directly away from you and almost everyone around you seems completely oblivious to it.

It's also worth pointing out in the broader discussion of sexuality, there is a a moral context that is not exotic for a society to prefer procreative relationships to non-procreative, idealize monogamy over other forms, value chastity, etc, etc. One cannot so cavalierly describe people of good faith that disagree as one side being right and the other side being bigots (Not saying that you are doing so Manchu, you clearly are not). But this tendency is a distressing constant in the discourse of today, the idea of argument through moral superiority. it is a style that ensures a lack of agreement and is singularly unpersuasive... but it is satisfying to the maker.

Good faith is nice and all, but when you arguing for a group of people to be considered second class on the basis of a immutable characteristic, that tends to get people riled up. Again, it's a civil rights issue, so you shouldn't expect to be able to stand in the way of it (regardless of your reasoning) and not take a bunch of flak for it. Think of it this way: you can always change your position (which by definition is not immutable), but the minority person can't just stop being what they are. It's pretty obvious which one has to give. BTW, monogamy and chastity have zero to do with orientation, so you should really not bother bringing them up in reference to it.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
the idea of argument through moral superiority

Funny, most of the people trying to claim homosexuals are evil are trying to use that.

I'm not, however, condemning people. I am expressing the desire that writing becomes more inclusive so that more people can enjoy it.

When you say "Play With" do you mean kissing, touching etc..or are we going for [let's keep it PG, thanks]?

Dont really know where I stand on this one.

As this has developed I am now wondering more why is it that most characters in these games are white males? Where are the minorities and the women?

I would read about, but likely I would never Play a gay character. Just not in my nature. However a lot of people are haters and have a hard time dealing with homosexuals. As a biologist i can assure any and all that homosexuality is natural. It is found in the animal kingdom and there is some interesting evidence concerned with the biology. Just saying.

Cogs wrote:
As this has developed I am now wondering more why is it that most characters in these games are white males?

Lazy writing and misplaced marketing ideologies.

edit: [/puts on flame-retardant suit...]

primalexile wrote:
It would not bother me... a Brony on the other hand, I would not.

Hwee wheel captoor you! For Dizcord!

 Breotan wrote:
Lots of people play Dark Angels.

Cogs wrote:
As this has developed I am now wondering more why is it that most characters in these games are white males? Where are the minorities and the women?

What are you talking about? Salamanders and Sisters of Battle in Warhammer 40k. Pfft.

 Melissia wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Only if he isnt one of those types of gays who goes arounds and flaunts it. I dont mind gays, but that gets on my nerves.

But it's okay for straight people to flaunt it (And yes, people flaunt their sexuality ALL THE TIME, regardless of sexuality).

Um, where did I say I also didnt hate that?
I hate it when a guy flaunts hit heterosexuality.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
The cultural preference for heterosexuality is so overwhelming that it's easy to pretend there is nothing else and therefore no preference in the first place. It's like looking for constellations during the day.

That is an excellent point, but it does illustrate that, for people determined to see the universe through the prism of sexuality, they will necessarily be dissapointed.

I actually agree with you pretty strongly on that point. I was just trying to summarize Melissia's point, not adopt it. I don't think there is any obligation on war game designers or video game designers or movie or television producers to push characters with attributes X, Y, or Z simply because there are real people with attributes X, Y, or Z. To me, this is confusing obligation with commercial opportunity. If there are enough people with (or without) said attributes interested in buying a product that gives central prominence to those attributes, then a business person ought to consider taking advantage of that market. But the existence of a market is not the same thing as the justification for its underlying characteristics.

In general, I think the most important thing is that a gay (or any demographic) character feel like a convincing individual. A trap it's easy to fall into when writing a character different from your norm is to lapse into a stereotype of some sort like Psycho Lesbian or Witty Non-Threatening Best Friend and never move beyond it--yes, you're technically depicting LGBT people, but in a very dated, stereotypical way that's going to be offensive at worst and a missed opportunity at best. Another one is to be so fearful of causing offence that the character ends up as a bland, inoffensive cypher. If you can make a character feel like a 3d person for whom having (this trait) isn't the entire sum of their personality, they're much more likely to be interesting and well-recieved.

I don't read the HH series for romance. I read it for blowing gak up and finding out how the legions fell to chaos. Don't care if any of the characters are straight, gay, lesbian, or bi.

Let's start heading towards Terra already, BL!