I feel strange with the idea of a homossexual monk, even Dorn would be preferable than Rasaad, but i will not touch much more this subject as is too dangerous to think or argue about homosexuality, as freedom of thought can be easly labeled as prejudice. It's a shame cos it's a funny topic to discuss if some people left their defensive position to work the theme.
But as people said before, appearantly there's no specific line of thought in Faerûn monastic orders to forbid a homossexual monk. If there was something on the lore, Team BG would be the first to avoid it as D&D plataform games must be loyal to the official lore, in reason of WotC assignment rights (at least is what i read all the times here on the forum).
So if a gay monk is being officialy made, we can be sure that nothing on the lore forbiddes that.
Kamuzin,i know most people are going to disagree with me. But i think most of the time i have expressed my views in a moderate and rational way. I have not personally offended anyone or even expressed irony (like the use of memes) . And thats it.
I also know that most media follow the liberal stablishment . The correct thing would be a more neutral path though. The use of monks with that context points that a single point of view (libertarian) is beeing shoven in the game . With disregard to other views.
For example I'am curious about how they are going to have a brute half orc as a romance option, for both man and woman... imo a half orc would faster rape than romance
@scypher1 Actually, if you go back to the original pen and paper game the entire computer game is based on, it's never said that the Forgotten Realms sees same-sex romances with the same prejudice as modern American society does or as many conservative Christian sects do. It's glossed over and not spoken of, but Ed Greenwood, the guy who created the Realms back when he was no more than a kid (and rewrote and enhanced it over the years), has actually said that there are same-sex relationships in the Realms, and that the Ruler of Silverymoon, Alustriel, basically has massive orgies in her palace, where anyone can do anyone and nobody cares.
And for that matter, Monks never had to be chaste in AD&D. It never said anything about it when the monk class was first introduced in 1e. Nowhere does it say that they cannot marry, cannot have sex or children or even that they can only have relationships with people of the opposite sex (Nor for any other class, either). And this game out in 1981.
Furthermore, in the original version of Baldur's Gate, there were no romances at all- that had to wait until Baldur's Gate 2: Shadows of Amn. And monks are no more Libertarian than any other class. All classes have the theme of improvement through gaining levels and testing one's self. In first edition (1e), every class had to take time off to gain a level to train themselves. Training took 1-4 weeks, based on how well you Roleplayed your class and character, and cost 1000gp per level per week. (Yes, this could be quite an expensive proposition- most of your treasure at low levels went to paying for training for you to go up in levels, so you could go on more adventures to make more money to train to go up levels... it was a nice little hamster wheel. Am I right, Boo? Squeek!)
From where I sit, you are speaking of something you only know through the computer game, and nothing about the pen and paper game that makes up that world (the Sword Coast that you are adventuring in makes up only a very small part of this world). So, really, learn more about Abeir-Toril and the Forgotten Realms in second edition before you say that all Monks there are supposed to be chaste and heterosexual.
You know he can't be labeled as spamming and derailing the conversation as long as you continue to address him...
It's been quite civil, though, I've been glad to note. It's tiring that all romance threads seem to require the obligatory sidetracks ("gay is bad" / "all gamers are guys anyway so why are they catering to chicks" / "boobs" etc.) but it's also nice that these forums allow for vastly different viewpoints to meet in true exchange of thoughts. Rare thing, that.
Anyway... I have two characters in mind. I'm planning to roll my first halfling: True Neutral female thief who's into wealth, power and half-orc blackguards (here's hoping the devs are aware of the golden rule of BG romancing: halflings are irresistable to all LIs). I'm planning to play quite evil with this one, because I want to try out new things in BGEE
As for the second one, I've always liked playing rangers, and my NG or LG female human will compare spiritual and hopefully also biological notes with one bisexual monk.
I want to do a playthrough with a male protagonist as well, but haven't been able to decide on the details yet. Ideally he could pick any of the available romances since I love both Jaheira and Viconia romances and would also like to give Neera a go, and I probably won't manage many BG1 playthroughs with a guy. Perhaps a mage. For maximum cheese, a kensai to mage? Heh. Will have to take another look trough those awesome male portraits @LadyRhian has posted for inspiration.
@kamuizin: The reality of the situation is much simpler than you or @scypher1 are making it out to be - the danger isn't in thinking or arguing about homosexuality, it's in the suggestion of omission for the sake of appeasement.
If we were to accept scypher1's logic, Rasaad's presence in the game - not anything he says or does, but just his existence as a potential gay romance - is intolerable because it offends conservative players. And I dismiss such claims as entitled nonsense because they're based on exclusion, whereas the reason Beamdog has added a same-sex romance at all is for the purpose of inclusion. The content isn't mandatory, and it's not there for you. It's for players who - and I can't stress this enough - could not have made the choices you take for granted in this or similar RPGs.
When all's said and done, the problem isn't that scypher1 dares to talk about homosexuality and to display discomfort - it's that his solution to this discomfort is to take someone else's game experience away from them while framing this as "the right thing to do", despite the fact that his own BG1 experience is not affected in the slightest by this content.
This is not about freedom of thought, and it is about prejudice. And it is therefore indefensible. If you're uncomfortable with the concept, don't have your male PC flirt with Rasaad and you'll be just fine.
It's been quite civil, though, I've been glad to note.
It's been civil, but it's been a merry-go-round of failing to progress, Maybe I'm being overly impatient on the matter, But the arguments have been rationally stated, and they bounced off of Ignorance Armor +7. The need to constantly restate rational arguments because the interloqutor is unwilling to accept them, or to look up the source material and try to see what the rest of the world is trying to tell them is a waste of time, energy and thought that could be better spent coming up with features is the spirit of this thread to enhance the gameplay experience to a higher threshold.
If it's me being the intolerant one, tell me, I've lost the ability to objectively pass judgement on this issue.
This thread inspired me to go through the gay romance first just to see how it's done. But then I remember that it only becomes a full romance in BG2... that's a lot of waiting to see what happens.
Sorry @shawne but debate homossexual themes create biased threads.
Lemme just put it frankly first, i don't exactly support @scypher1 opinion, i only feel alike him in relation of a bissexual monk. I presented my reasons for that and although i exposed that if done, will be a proof of no restriction to monks this sexual option, i just would prefer Dorn to be the gay char than Rasaad, the blackguard as i feel it, would have more sense and coherence in him for this option.
The great proof of the repression existent for this theme, is that each post that cheers a homossexual monk content here get a ton of likes and agrees, no matter what is wrote or in which base it's done (i don't mean exactly your post, but there is pratically no pro gay Rasaad post here without some likes and agrees), while each comment that don't totally agree with the idea is labeled as prejudice.
When you say that @scypher1 logic is inviable, i totally agree with you. I told before, i share the feeling of something misplaced not the arguments of @scypher1.
So evaluating this i have to say thta you put me in a complicated situation as you named me with @scypher1 as if we share the same idea, and that's just not true, we share the same feeling of something misplaced but surelly not the same argues.
I agreed with the majority in this forum already about the possibility of a gay monk and i just expressed that i only don't feel well with a gay monk.
The core idea in your post label any argument against the gay monk idea as opressive and conservative. While some arguments surelly can be all of that, when you label everything against the idea as it you make yourself end exercising the prejudice, a prejudice for any idea who disagree with a gay monk.
In the end, no matter how the words are worked, you label my freedom of thought of prejudice. When you position your comment in a manner where i can't even think different of the majority, prejudice must be reevaluated, otherwise the very right of personal evaluation, that everyone has will be in danger at the risk of a tyranny of the minority.
Remember, i accepted the idea and only told that i don't feel in place with it and yet i'm getting fire for this comment. I'm not naive i know prejudice exist, but here, at this moment in this forum, prejudice is becoming a excuse to force an idea. The very object that you repudiate becomes a weapon to be used against those that disagree in any form the general idea or reasons.
When the enemy that you fight become the weapon that you use, the battle is already lost.
I think that the issue you mentioned would probably work like in real life. Some religious sects in our reality are conservative while others are libertarian, that counts for most of the major religions,as religions ,like people ,philosophies,cultures and everything are plural by nature. There are christian,buddhist ,hindu churches etc that marry gays and support homosexuality,while others do not. That is probably also the same with religion in forgotten realms. Alustriel behaves in a way while others would probably be different.
If you read my last posts you will see that i already mentioned this ( and the talk is getting kinda citrcular). Orders would probably have different views.
And i used to play both D&D and the forgotten realms scenery in the past. Its been a while though. ---------------------------------------------------------
Shawne
Im going just to repost (with some extra observations in the end) :
-As i said before dozen of times, it is not the existence of same sex romance that is wrong,but the way it is made here. Hell,i wouldnt bother if rasaad was a warrior,thief, mage or whatever.
-It makes sense to a conservative player to dislike a game that takes side with libertarian views and apply even to orders and classes who are tipically meant to be INDIRECT REFERENCES to reality. As people said before, players "enter" the game, they throw their views and themselves in the gaming world. It is not acceptable either if the game take a conservative sideor follow a libertarian way.
-An example is of how original bg1 excluded same sex romance, that is taking the conservative side. In the same way portraying all religious orders as accepting of libertarian views is also wrong. Wrong because it does not include all gamers and different points of view. If a conservative religious player creates a character and discovers that monks, paladins or whatever are all endorsing homosexuality,that is bound to cause dissapointment,because he will feel religious classes to be mis-represented in comparison and also think that there is no representation of his beliefs. In the same way if there was a female character which was a (celibate) paladin nun,and your male character convinces her to break her vows,that would also be wrong. It is not wrong to have limits,be you straight or lgbt.
-The game should not take any of these sides,but stay on the middle of them, respecting all views.
-Do not exlude any kind of pov or demography of players. That counts regarding not only lgbt people,bu also people who think differently. That i think is fair.
-Make 2 ,3 or 4 same sex romances ,but do it in with some respect to people who do not share your ideas, ok?
-If rasaad will imminently be the bi character,it would be fine to at least mention that is not common for some orders of monks to endorse homosexuality. That would be realist because it would point a divergence of ideas ,just like it is in reality ,where some people are conservative and other liberals.
-All unanymities are stupid ,be a conservative one or liberal one. Shoving a single idea in the game is never good.
Notes: Plus, Putting ALL religious orders as being libertarian will also mean exluding different POVS. There is a reason why there are consevative and libertarian parties in democracies. And it is to represent different ideas,different people.
And shandyr,note that im not against the same sex romances themselves,but the way it is done in that particular case.
Perhaps the best then could probably be Rasaad mentioning that same sex practice is not comon for all orders. And that some even teach celibacy. That would be appropiate.
If you guys have not noticed. Things are getting very circular. Just make a synthesis of this post with my last ones to get what i meant. I think i said all that i could in a fair way. And i think the subject is getting redundant.
@kamuizin: At the risk of dipping into the shallow end of the discourse - what a load of BS.
No one is "forcing" anything on you. If you don't "feel well" with a gay monk in your game, don't use the gay monk in your game. There are nearly thirty other characters to choose from. You are not being oppressed in any way.
Now, I'm sorry you're uncomfortable with the idea, but exactly what kind of response were you looking for here? "Oh, well, if you're uncomfortable with a gay monk, then we shouldn't have a gay monk"?
If you and @scypher1 are finding your outlook a bit unwelcome (and yes, I am grouping you together because you're both voicing the same opinion via different arguments), it's because players who want Rasaad as a same-sex love interest are motivated by the desire for some basic ability to represent himself or herself in the game. You want concepts that make you squeamish - even if those concepts have nothing to do with you or your game experience - not to be there at all.
You lost this argument before you ever started it. Because, again, this isn't about forcing ideas or freedom of thought or "tyranny of the minority" - it's about you, @scypher1 and people like you who protest content that is designed for other players, at no expense to you. It's about the idea of someone else enjoying the game in a different way from you being so threatening to you that you'd rather take that option away from them, and then having the unmitigated gall to cry oppression when your perspective proves unpopular!
''and people like you who protest content that is designed for other players, at no expense to you. It's about the idea of someone else enjoying the game in a different way from you being so threatening to you that you'd rather take that option away from them, and then having the unmitigated gall to cry oppression when your perspective proves unpopular!''
Is that so? dont all players see the same world, the same story context? Having all organinzations having the same idea regarding an issue that still polarizes people clearly shows compromise to a single view. You may disagree thoug,but the fact is that romances to lgbt people can be shown in a large variety of ways . Choosing a monk for that purpose means an intentional disregard for other views. As showing ALL (but not some) orders and churches,etc holding that same single view.
We live with plurality and different people all the time,different opinions all the time. Why the game should always be artifficially homogenic (either in a way or the other) with that?
A little Reposting again (to you see that im not beeing exclusive) :
- im not against the same sex romances themselves,but the way it is done in that particular case.
-Perhaps the best then could probably be Rasaad mentioning during the romance that same sex practice is not comon for all orders. And that some even teach celibacy. That would be appropiate. That would show PLURALITY.
PLUS: It is not because people think differently to you that they dont respect you or want to oppress you. I also have never said that the option of having same sex romances should be removed.
Who is really being exclusive? Arbitrariously Shoving a single idea and ideology in the game is exclusive. Making mere citations that there are orders of monks who think differents is not exclusive or even agressive. It is realist. People, religions, organizations disagree all the time. And they can do this without being "opressive" or tyranical. Discordance does not mean hostility or enmity,just differences.
It is not even wrong to respect different opinions and not putting a monk with that context. But that i leave in the hands of beamdog. I only know that they have dozens of other ways to present same sex romances
Also,having a diffferent, "unpopular" idea does not mean this idea does not matter. It does not to you,it matters to others. Libertarian ideas where also seen like that in the past. The truth is that having differences of perspective is a human mark.
Why exactly is it necessary to mention that some monastic orders teach celibacy? Just because Rasaad is presumably bisexual that doesn't mean that his monastic order promotes it. Why is it so hard to fathom that there can be monastic orders in the Realms that simply don't consider sexual orientation something relevant?
I just want good stories, and the character backgrounds show big promise. All the possible conflicts that can or can't be overcome with the power of love and some fireballs.
And someone to call me buttercup. That'd be nice too.
So, we're not debating about D&D monks at all. What this is about is that some people don't like it that a monk (of any kind) might be bisexual or homosexual. So noted. Perhaps we can move on?
Damn, I wish we knew anything more of the new romances so I could change the subject into something constructive ><
"Why is it so hard to fathom that there can be monastic orders in the Realms that simply don't consider sexual orientation something relevant? "
Im sure that there are orders who would not consider relevant. While orthers would.
"Why exactly is it necessary to mention that some monastic orders teach celibacy? "
To mention that would be kinda an evolution . As it would show differences of opinions ,it would be realist. And it does not need to be shown in a weird way. Discordance is common,and can be shown in a light way.
" Just because Rasaad is presumably bisexual that doesn't mean that his monastic order promotes it."
It would not be good because it could give the impression that it is common among all orders and religions in faerun. It would also point a compromise in the game to a homogenic view. That certainly dumbs up the game.
Im gonna to sign out since i have work in the afternoon.
@shawne, sorry but to reforce you argue you mix principles here.
First of all i'm not looking for a answer, this isn't a customer service and i'm not making questions, i'm making statement of my views, and so are you. I can return the question to you, what you hope to achieve defending your opinion? We argue here mainly about the thread subject "New romances in BGEE" in the feature request form.
I state that i prefer Dorn as the homossexual romance, and that i don't feel well with Rasaad being the gay romance, just that, and here is what you answer me for that:
"The reality of the situation is much simpler than you or @scypher1 are making it out to be - the danger isn't in thinking or arguing about homosexuality, it's in the suggestion of omission for the sake of appeasement."
I will not even deep too much in the "don't like don't use" argument as i see it as bullshit, not because you use it but because this is a major excuse for pretty much everything (let's make chuck norris NPC, if you don't like don't use).
Again i repeat, you label in general as prejudice "questions" about a gay content. I'm not opposing it here in this thread, i just question the coherence of the content in the way people want it. I point Dorn as a better solution and with that put, there is your answer:
"...players who want Rasaad as a same-sex love interest are motivated by the desire for some basic ability to represent himself or herself in the game."
"Because, again, this isn't about forcing ideas or freedom of thought or "tyranny of the minority" - it's about you, @scypher1 and people like you who protest content that is designed for other players, at no expense to you"
You circle in false statements to justify an inexistent hostility of mine, more than that, you label me as a hater, and therefore every comment made by me is take as a hater comment, this my friend, is the core of prejudice. You state that i'm squeamished of a gay content, but i ask you, can you in this thread point where i exposed disgust about the subject? No you can't cos this is worst than fallacy, it's plain false statement.
In the end @shawne, you didn't lose a battle, as there is no fight to be won or lost in forum arguments, we discuss to improve ideas or reform them, no just destroy for the sake of nihilism, you lose a more important thing, your integrity as you resorted to low pratices as literally change my words to justify your statements and generalize my ideas with @scypher1 ideas, to make easy to you attack my point of view.
I regret to say but the shame, my dear fellow, is entirely on you.
Comments
But as people said before, appearantly there's no specific line of thought in Faerûn monastic orders to forbid a homossexual monk. If there was something on the lore, Team BG would be the first to avoid it as D&D plataform games must be loyal to the official lore, in reason of WotC assignment rights (at least is what i read all the times here on the forum).
So if a gay monk is being officialy made, we can be sure that nothing on the lore forbiddes that.
I also know that most media follow the liberal stablishment . The correct thing would be a more neutral path though. The use of monks with that context points that a single point of view (libertarian) is beeing shoven in the game . With disregard to other views.
Dorn's response. "... No."
but half-orcs not necessarly are evil, dumb or with low charisma. It would be creative to change that stereotype.
And for that matter, Monks never had to be chaste in AD&D. It never said anything about it when the monk class was first introduced in 1e. Nowhere does it say that they cannot marry, cannot have sex or children or even that they can only have relationships with people of the opposite sex (Nor for any other class, either). And this game out in 1981.
Furthermore, in the original version of Baldur's Gate, there were no romances at all- that had to wait until Baldur's Gate 2: Shadows of Amn. And monks are no more Libertarian than any other class. All classes have the theme of improvement through gaining levels and testing one's self. In first edition (1e), every class had to take time off to gain a level to train themselves. Training took 1-4 weeks, based on how well you Roleplayed your class and character, and cost 1000gp per level per week. (Yes, this could be quite an expensive proposition- most of your treasure at low levels went to paying for training for you to go up in levels, so you could go on more adventures to make more money to train to go up levels... it was a nice little hamster wheel. Am I right, Boo? Squeek!)
From where I sit, you are speaking of something you only know through the computer game, and nothing about the pen and paper game that makes up that world (the Sword Coast that you are adventuring in makes up only a very small part of this world). So, really, learn more about Abeir-Toril and the Forgotten Realms in second edition before you say that all Monks there are supposed to be chaste and heterosexual.
Anyway... I have two characters in mind. I'm planning to roll my first halfling: True Neutral female thief who's into wealth, power and half-orc blackguards (here's hoping the devs are aware of the golden rule of BG romancing: halflings are irresistable to all LIs). I'm planning to play quite evil with this one, because I want to try out new things in BGEE
As for the second one, I've always liked playing rangers, and my NG or LG female human will compare spiritual and hopefully also biological notes with one bisexual monk.
I want to do a playthrough with a male protagonist as well, but haven't been able to decide on the details yet. Ideally he could pick any of the available romances since I love both Jaheira and Viconia romances and would also like to give Neera a go, and I probably won't manage many BG1 playthroughs with a guy. Perhaps a mage. For maximum cheese, a kensai to mage? Heh. Will have to take another look trough those awesome male portraits @LadyRhian has posted for inspiration.
If we were to accept scypher1's logic, Rasaad's presence in the game - not anything he says or does, but just his existence as a potential gay romance - is intolerable because it offends conservative players. And I dismiss such claims as entitled nonsense because they're based on exclusion, whereas the reason Beamdog has added a same-sex romance at all is for the purpose of inclusion. The content isn't mandatory, and it's not there for you. It's for players who - and I can't stress this enough - could not have made the choices you take for granted in this or similar RPGs.
When all's said and done, the problem isn't that scypher1 dares to talk about homosexuality and to display discomfort - it's that his solution to this discomfort is to take someone else's game experience away from them while framing this as "the right thing to do", despite the fact that his own BG1 experience is not affected in the slightest by this content.
This is not about freedom of thought, and it is about prejudice. And it is therefore indefensible. If you're uncomfortable with the concept, don't have your male PC flirt with Rasaad and you'll be just fine.
If it's me being the intolerant one, tell me, I've lost the ability to objectively pass judgement on this issue.
Lemme just put it frankly first, i don't exactly support @scypher1 opinion, i only feel alike him in relation of a bissexual monk. I presented my reasons for that and although i exposed that if done, will be a proof of no restriction to monks this sexual option, i just would prefer Dorn to be the gay char than Rasaad, the blackguard as i feel it, would have more sense and coherence in him for this option.
The great proof of the repression existent for this theme, is that each post that cheers a homossexual monk content here get a ton of likes and agrees, no matter what is wrote or in which base it's done (i don't mean exactly your post, but there is pratically no pro gay Rasaad post here without some likes and agrees), while each comment that don't totally agree with the idea is labeled as prejudice.
When you say that @scypher1 logic is inviable, i totally agree with you. I told before, i share the feeling of something misplaced not the arguments of @scypher1.
So evaluating this i have to say thta you put me in a complicated situation as you named me with @scypher1 as if we share the same idea, and that's just not true, we share the same feeling of something misplaced but surelly not the same argues.
I agreed with the majority in this forum already about the possibility of a gay monk and i just expressed that i only don't feel well with a gay monk.
The core idea in your post label any argument against the gay monk idea as opressive and conservative. While some arguments surelly can be all of that, when you label everything against the idea as it you make yourself end exercising the prejudice, a prejudice for any idea who disagree with a gay monk.
In the end, no matter how the words are worked, you label my freedom of thought of prejudice. When you position your comment in a manner where i can't even think different of the majority, prejudice must be reevaluated, otherwise the very right of personal evaluation, that everyone has will be in danger at the risk of a tyranny of the minority.
Remember, i accepted the idea and only told that i don't feel in place with it and yet i'm getting fire for this comment. I'm not naive i know prejudice exist, but here, at this moment in this forum, prejudice is becoming a excuse to force an idea. The very object that you repudiate becomes a weapon to be used against those that disagree in any form the general idea or reasons.
When the enemy that you fight become the weapon that you use, the battle is already lost.
I think that the issue you mentioned would probably work like in real life. Some religious sects in our reality are conservative while others are libertarian, that counts for most of the major religions,as religions ,like people ,philosophies,cultures and everything are plural by nature. There are christian,buddhist ,hindu churches etc that marry gays and support homosexuality,while others do not.
That is probably also the same with religion in forgotten realms. Alustriel behaves in a way while others would probably be different.
If you read my last posts you will see that i already mentioned this ( and the talk is getting kinda citrcular).
Orders would probably have different views.
And i used to play both D&D and the forgotten realms scenery in the past. Its been a while though.
---------------------------------------------------------
Shawne
Im going just to repost (with some extra observations in the end) :
-As i said before dozen of times, it is not the existence of same sex romance that is wrong,but the way it is made here. Hell,i wouldnt bother if rasaad was a warrior,thief, mage or whatever.
-It makes sense to a conservative player to dislike a game that takes side with libertarian views and apply even to orders and classes who are tipically meant to be INDIRECT REFERENCES to reality. As people said before, players "enter" the game, they throw their views and themselves in the gaming world. It is not acceptable either if the game take a conservative sideor follow a libertarian way.
-An example is of how original bg1 excluded same sex romance, that is taking the conservative side. In the same way portraying all religious orders as accepting of libertarian views is also wrong. Wrong because it does not include all gamers and different points of view. If a conservative religious player creates a character and discovers that monks, paladins or whatever are all endorsing homosexuality,that is bound to cause dissapointment,because he will feel religious classes to be mis-represented in comparison and also think that there is no representation of his beliefs. In the same way if there was a female character which was a (celibate) paladin nun,and your male character convinces her to break her vows,that would also be wrong.
It is not wrong to have limits,be you straight or lgbt.
-The game should not take any of these sides,but stay on the middle of them, respecting all views.
-Do not exlude any kind of pov or demography of players. That counts regarding not only lgbt people,bu also people who think differently. That i think is fair.
-Make 2 ,3 or 4 same sex romances ,but do it in with some respect to people who do not share your ideas, ok?
-If rasaad will imminently be the bi character,it would be fine to at least mention that is not common for some orders of monks to endorse homosexuality. That would be realist because it would point a divergence of ideas ,just like it is in reality ,where some people are conservative and other liberals.
-All unanymities are stupid ,be a conservative one or liberal one. Shoving a single idea in the game is never good.
Notes: Plus, Putting ALL religious orders as being libertarian will also mean exluding different POVS. There is a reason why there are consevative and libertarian parties in democracies. And it is to represent different ideas,different people.
And shandyr,note that im not against the same sex romances themselves,but the way it is done in that particular case.
Perhaps the best then could probably be Rasaad mentioning that same sex practice is not comon for all orders. And that some even teach celibacy. That would be appropiate.
If you guys have not noticed. Things are getting very circular. Just make a synthesis of this post with my last ones to get what i meant. I think i said all that i could in a fair way. And i think the subject is getting redundant.
No one is "forcing" anything on you. If you don't "feel well" with a gay monk in your game, don't use the gay monk in your game. There are nearly thirty other characters to choose from. You are not being oppressed in any way.
Now, I'm sorry you're uncomfortable with the idea, but exactly what kind of response were you looking for here? "Oh, well, if you're uncomfortable with a gay monk, then we shouldn't have a gay monk"?
If you and @scypher1 are finding your outlook a bit unwelcome (and yes, I am grouping you together because you're both voicing the same opinion via different arguments), it's because players who want Rasaad as a same-sex love interest are motivated by the desire for some basic ability to represent himself or herself in the game. You want concepts that make you squeamish - even if those concepts have nothing to do with you or your game experience - not to be there at all.
You lost this argument before you ever started it. Because, again, this isn't about forcing ideas or freedom of thought or "tyranny of the minority" - it's about you, @scypher1 and people like you who protest content that is designed for other players, at no expense to you. It's about the idea of someone else enjoying the game in a different way from you being so threatening to you that you'd rather take that option away from them, and then having the unmitigated gall to cry oppression when your perspective proves unpopular!
Shame on you.
''and people like you who protest content that is designed for other players, at no expense to you. It's about the idea of someone else enjoying the game in a different way from you being so threatening to you that you'd rather take that option away from them, and then having the unmitigated gall to cry oppression when your perspective proves unpopular!''
Is that so? dont all players see the same world, the same story context? Having all organinzations having the same idea regarding an issue that still polarizes people clearly shows compromise to a single view.
You may disagree thoug,but the fact is that romances to lgbt people can be shown in a large variety of ways . Choosing a monk for that purpose means an intentional disregard for other views. As showing ALL (but not some) orders and churches,etc holding that same single view.
We live with plurality and different people all the time,different opinions all the time. Why the game should always be artifficially homogenic (either in a way or the other) with that?
A little Reposting again (to you see that im not beeing exclusive) :
- im not against the same sex romances themselves,but the way it is done in that particular case.
-Perhaps the best then could probably be Rasaad mentioning during the romance that same sex practice is not comon for all orders. And that some even teach celibacy. That would be appropiate. That would show PLURALITY.
PLUS: It is not because people think differently to you that they dont respect you or want to oppress you. I also have never said that the option of having same sex romances should be removed.
Who is really being exclusive? Arbitrariously Shoving a single idea and ideology in the game is exclusive. Making mere citations that there are orders of monks who think differents is not exclusive or even agressive. It is realist. People, religions, organizations disagree all the time. And they can do this without being "opressive" or tyranical. Discordance does not mean hostility or enmity,just differences.
It is not even wrong to respect different opinions and not putting a monk with that context. But that i leave in the hands of beamdog. I only know that they have dozens of other ways to present same sex romances
Also,having a diffferent, "unpopular" idea does not mean this idea does not matter. It does not to you,it matters to others. Libertarian ideas where also seen like that in the past. The truth is that having differences of perspective is a human mark.
edit - bisexual, I guess.
Why exactly is it necessary to mention that some monastic orders teach celibacy? Just because Rasaad is presumably bisexual that doesn't mean that his monastic order promotes it. Why is it so hard to fathom that there can be monastic orders in the Realms that simply don't consider sexual orientation something relevant?
I just want good stories, and the character backgrounds show big promise. All the possible conflicts that can or can't be overcome with the power of love and some fireballs.
And someone to call me buttercup. That'd be nice too.
Damn, I wish we knew anything more of the new romances so I could change the subject into something constructive ><
"Why is it so hard to fathom that there can be monastic orders in the Realms that simply don't consider sexual orientation something relevant? "
Im sure that there are orders who would not consider relevant. While orthers would.
"Why exactly is it necessary to mention that some monastic orders teach celibacy? "
To mention that would be kinda an evolution . As it would show differences of opinions ,it would be realist. And it does not need to be shown in a weird way. Discordance is common,and can be shown in a light way.
" Just because Rasaad is presumably bisexual that doesn't mean that his monastic order promotes it."
It would not be good because it could give the impression that it is common among all orders and religions in faerun. It would also point a compromise in the game to a homogenic view. That certainly dumbs up the game.
Im gonna to sign out since i have work in the afternoon.
First of all i'm not looking for a answer, this isn't a customer service and i'm not making questions, i'm making statement of my views, and so are you. I can return the question to you, what you hope to achieve defending your opinion? We argue here mainly about the thread subject "New romances in BGEE" in the feature request form.
I state that i prefer Dorn as the homossexual romance, and that i don't feel well with Rasaad being the gay romance, just that, and here is what you answer me for that:
"The reality of the situation is much simpler than you or @scypher1 are making it out to be - the danger isn't in thinking or arguing about homosexuality, it's in the suggestion of omission for the sake of appeasement."
I will not even deep too much in the "don't like don't use" argument as i see it as bullshit, not because you use it but because this is a major excuse for pretty much everything (let's make chuck norris NPC, if you don't like don't use).
Again i repeat, you label in general as prejudice "questions" about a gay content. I'm not opposing it here in this thread, i just question the coherence of the content in the way people want it. I point Dorn as a better solution and with that put, there is your answer:
"...players who want Rasaad as a same-sex love interest are motivated by the desire for some basic ability to represent himself or herself in the game."
"Because, again, this isn't about forcing ideas or freedom of thought or "tyranny of the minority" - it's about you, @scypher1 and people like you who protest content that is designed for other players, at no expense to you"
You circle in false statements to justify an inexistent hostility of mine, more than that, you label me as a hater, and therefore every comment made by me is take as a hater comment, this my friend, is the core of prejudice. You state that i'm squeamished of a gay content, but i ask you, can you in this thread point where i exposed disgust about the subject? No you can't cos this is worst than fallacy, it's plain false statement.
In the end @shawne, you didn't lose a battle, as there is no fight to be won or lost in forum arguments, we discuss to improve ideas or reform them, no just destroy for the sake of nihilism, you lose a more important thing, your integrity as you resorted to low pratices as literally change my words to justify your statements and generalize my ideas with @scypher1 ideas, to make easy to you attack my point of view.
I regret to say but the shame, my dear fellow, is entirely on you.