As if occupying TV and movies is not enough for them.
LGBT romances in role-playing games only happen to you if *you* want them. :P
Personally, I can calmly play these games, because any romance, whether heterosexual or not, simply glances off of my heart lusting only for power and gold.
@shawne That's because people are people. When speaking about a class of people as a whole, all you can do is generalize. "How do evil people approach love/romance" will have a different answer than "How does character X, who happens to have an alignment with an evil component, approach romance/friendship?"
I can tell some assume too much about my point of view from my questions, which are intended to draw a variety of responses. I have no problem with and actually like Dorn's character a lot. I wouldn't want him to be any different and much prefer him to a goody-two-shoes character. Apologies to those of you who are bored with this topic; I'm not asking you to read it.
Kholdstare comments that as a gay guy he'd like to see a non-evil romance option. kmfdm makes good and valid points about gay characters in video games being somehow twisted or broken. I agree. I think it's worthwhile to point this out and ask the game designers (gods in their own way) why GLBT companions get represented like this.
To answer my own question, I don't think Dorn is a comment on the designers' p.o.v. about evilness or sexuality. I think Dorn's character reveals that video game designers have one primary narrative available when they write a GLBT character and that narrative involves some form of 'twistedness.'
EDIT: I realized I posted on the wrong thread. Carry on. :P I thought this was a different thread.
EDIT EDIT: OH I understand it was merged with another.
EDIT EDIT EDIT: Oh damn I'll just say what I have to say and please nobody be offended by anything here, I'm trying to be very cautious in my words.
@egalor_original Although I agree society disproportionately regulates the amount of 'exposure' if you will to certain minorities, there's no reason to not include gay/lesbian/bi characters in the game. Or there's no reason to not include them in television and film theatre.
I just don't want it shoved down my throat.
Society ought not ostracize anybody, however, society ought not do what they're doing now which is utterly bombarding people with their own particular moral high grounds relating to accepting of gays, ethnicity, women, religion. I haven't met a single homophobe in my life, but I've met too many people who are fanatical in their want and need to force other people to discuss topics like that which they don't want hear.
You don't have to make everyone into a minority activist, tell people how you feel and don't let it go so far. You can't backwards ostracize.
@Ward My first thread merge... Hopefully, we can stop having the same points tacked over once again by the Good Ship "Discussion". I don't guarantee it, though.
@Ladyrhian Congratulations! 10 more of those and you get a free badge. ;D
Don't worry, I think I've learnt from all this. When people are offended by what you have said, regardless of whether you're logically or technically offending them, you've got to ditch it. Unfortunately that's just how it works. Political correctness gives somebody the right to be irrecoverably offended at whatever they like regardless of the other person's intent.
I'm prepared to run away if violence breaks out here.
@Ward I try to go by the term "polite from the wrists down". You can think whatever you like, blow off steam to someone else in private, whatever makes you feel better, but don't put it in your responses. I.e. Be polite in posting, no matter your personal feelings on the subject.
I've been wondering what it's like to kiss a half orc, especially with such an underbite as Dorn's. I mean... isn't that dangerous? Look at his fangs!
On a further note which is far more interesting I would like to know how evil characters can love. How do they perceive it? How does it feel for them being loved and love somebody else - and does that ever get in conflict with their alignment (though I admit good aligned characters, or lawful ones can act out of their alignment too for love - any alignment for that matter I think)?
I guess there may be alot of characters like Eldoth who just misuse someone who adores/trusts them (Skie) - but is this always the case with evil characters?
How do evil characters justify their evil actions towards other people to their loved one? Do they do it at all? Do the try to hide it? Do they even see their actions as evil?
( @LadyRhian I'd like your opinion on this - not only on how evil characters perceive love, but maybe some lore about half orcish relationships and stuff like that if you know something about it^^)
I've run a pen an paper 3.5 game for many years. I think evil characters are capable of love as any good or neutral character. They may do terrible things to other people, but not to their loved ones and families as a result of their alignment, which is a strong tendency but not a rule for their behavior.
I think I understand where you are coming from... Political Correctness can be exceedingly annoying especially in the media. Something I have noticed recently in the mainstream media in the UK... they never refer to men on the news. Or rather they always refer to women.
Example: There is a particularily brutal murder, and the Police Spokesperson is a woman. The news refer to her as the Policewoman or Police Spokeswoman. Which is fine, except when the Spokesperson is a Man they always say Police OFFICER or Police Spokesperson. Never Policeman or Police Spokesman. I mean, what is the problem with calling the Policeman, a Policeman? Why is he always a Police Officer? Or Conversely, why is the woman part of a Policewoman always emphasised? Why can't she be a police officer too?
On the flip side when they are talking about the criminal or the bad thing/person. They always use gender neutral terms when talking about a woman, and gender specific terms when talking about a man. The murderer/criminal when male is always referred to as "The Man" or "the male suspect" but when it is a female they almost always say things like "the alleged criminal" or "the suspect" or just outright use her name (if possible).
And the reason for it is political correctness; and also, I am unsure if it is an unspoken unconcious misandry that has come to pervade the mainstream media these days, or if it is continued unconcious mysogyny. Sadly.
So I totally get it.
But the thing is, you are wrong.
No one has or is "shoving gayness down your throat" which is really unfortunate way to put it btw (both in the double entendre sense and the offensive sense).
The reason having LGBT representation in gaming is such a big deal, is the same reason Sexism is still a "big deal" in Gaming. It's because the Heteronormative White Male is still by far and large the biggest represented demographic in gaming (in the actual games that is). It's because the consumer base is now more diverse than ever, and quite frankly many "minorities" are outright ignored in most cases and in some still treated with sneering disdain in certain quarters and games. And that in this so called "enlightened age" is really not an acceptable state of affairs.
I mean if no one said:-
"Hey, I would like to see more Gay Characters (that aren't offensive stereotypes) in games!" Or "Hey, I would like to see more Female Characters (that aren't offensive stereotypes) in games!" or "Hey, I would like to see more Non-White Male Characters (that aren't offensive stereotypes) in games!"
Then absolutely nothing would change. Developers and publishers would have continued treating women like sex objects in games, gay folk as jokes at best in games, and the token black people as cannon fodder in games. And many publishers and developers continue to do this, sadly. Far more than you might think.
And THAT is why this issue is still a "hot topic" as much as it might annoy you.
You might automatically think in egalitarian terms (though I don't think you are as egalitarian as you think you are) and thats great (if its true) but a large section of the gaming community (both developers and fans) continue to be racist, mysoginistic, and homophobic. And if it isn't discussed, and isn't challenged by the entire community then it will NEVER change and NEVER get better.
Yes the topic might get frustrating, and annoying for those of us who DO think in egalitarian terms. And we might wonder why people who DON'T still even exist these days. But it doesn't mean the topic shouldn't be discussed.
Or that women, LGBT folk, Black people, Arabs, and so on don't have a right to make their voices heard; that they don't have a right to see some form of semi-sensitive inclusion in a medium they love just as much as you.
@fitscotgaymer I'm not attempting to be rude, but I find your name ironic. It's like, a pun or something... man. ;D
The way they speak on the news is highly controlled and filtered through to give the victims (I mean the general audience) a particular opinion about the discussion. It's very easy to use words to control people and by swapping out words in the media with different words you can give the public an assumption or you can disguise the meaning of it all by making the story unclear with misleading English.
I agree the way they speak on your news seems absolutely terrible.
The truth is 'gayness' and 'blackness' and 'religiousness' is shoved down our throats, in so many ways. For a culture that embraces black people as musicians of the highest esteemed regard, we seem very hung up as a society about being racist.
Black people were stereotypically known for playing bass, souling, blues and jazz in the 20th century. Now they're commonly known for rap, smoking and booze and rampant sexism. Note, that is a generalization, so don't take it literally. But my point is, the 'rappers' who do that sort of music today are purposely misrepresenting their race in the most stereotypical fashion possible.
There were so many famous black musicians, but now the art which came from the black community has devolved into shallow and sexist rubbish stereotypes designed to indoctrinate little children into 'ghetto'.
Are they purposely trying to make the lowest sector of the socio-economic classes the preferred state in a bid to raise children in a certain way? Maybe, but I think you and I can both agree the black population is being unfairly represented in our today's pop industry.
The same applies to the gay community. SOME of the popular figures in our culture seem to misrepresent themselves in this horrible, almost parodic, inaccurate form that loses all important meaning. The blatant, offensive, completely over the top way some of these people make themselves appear, just to make a point, is aweful.
What I mean by this are the people who make a 'thing' of their sexuality by purposely speaking a certain way, dressing a certain way and appearing in a certain light. I know plenty of gay people who you would not pick as being that way unless you asked them.
Then again, I know plenty of gay people who talk and dress and outrageously present themselves as a 'stereotypical' gay. One of those has to be a front. Or maybe neither are. I don't know.
What I'm trying to say is a very small group of people in these communities horribly misrepresent themselves with this completely outrageous behaviour. Can't you agree with that?
In this day you almost have to have a gay friend, a black friend and a woman friend just to not be discriminatory. I have all three, but somehow people still think I'm (insert prefix here pl0x)ist.
@fitscotgaymer: A very well written post, if I might say! However, even though I support these 'minorities', political correctness sometimes can really get on my nerves too. Anyway, as long as LGTB stuff isn't forced upon me in games, I have no problem with it. As I explained earlier in the Gay Romance topic (now closed), if you make characters LGTB, at least do it right. Not like in Dragon Age 2. The characters being 'player-sexual' undermined their personality and background, because their sexual oritentation wasn't part of themselves, but just something directed at the players. Sexuality became a gameplay feature and no longer a trait which made the characters that bit more unique. I think Dragon Age Origins did it right by presenting a variety of characters, each with their own background and sexual orientation. I'm tired of people complaining that this or that character wasn't available to them in Origins, because they focused just on the fact of their sexuality and didn't see it as part of the character's personality anymore. In other words: a certain character can't be banged -> dramafest from the players. Really, I think character integrity matters much more than their option of being 'bang-able' or not.
I'd like to give people some food for thought on topics related to the Forgotten Realms.
First, on Ed Greenwod's Forgotten Realms setting: I'm newly educated that Ed envisions this world as so inclusive. It remains an interesting observation that despite the vision of the creator, which presents all sexualities as simply normal, video games based in FR don't match Ed's vision and instead represent our cultures' less inclusive narratives about GLBT people.
Second, on the companions' sexual orientation, there are two stock GLBT characters that Overhaul didn't use: the freeswinging bi rogue girl and the mincing effeminate gay elf bard (well maybe Garrick's in the closet). I much prefer Dorn to either. What other stock characters would people enjoy having as companions?
Third, as an example on roleplaying evil characters, I'd like to briefly share an event from the pen and paper game I DM. I'm running a pirate campaign in the Pirate Isles of FR where the characters are pirates and my husband plays a chaotic evil female human cleric of Umberlee, the Bitch Queen. The group discovered a doppelganger cult had infiltrated a temple of Umberlee and after capturing the one masquerading as the high cleric, his cleric called the townspeople to the temple to witness the monster and publicly drown it for all to witness. The day after this medieval-style sacrifice, the group got jumped on their way to buy stolen goods, and the most of the people they were going to buy those goods from were bleeding to death. To the surprise of the other characters, the cleric stopped her attacks to heal all the injured NPCs and prevent them from dying. The moral of the story is, sometimes, evil heals.
At the end of the day, most people are tame about their sexuality, race, gender and religion. I have found most people here don't care about those kind of things. If they want to bully you, they find something they can hurt you with. If it isn't one of the above, it's your nerd glasses. But some people just don't want to let it die. I want equality in all things, but I don't want totalitarianism in the form of being forced to accept certain stereotypes in order to not be (insert prefix)ist.
That's the real problem here man, you almost have to accept the stereotypical facets of the ethnic and gay communities, just to not be an ist. Even though these stereotypes don't represent them properly.
About DA2 - I don't actually agree with you on that. At least not entirely.
First, the LIs are not "all Bi". Sebastian is straight. And Anders is only "bisexual" in a universe that has Male Hawke. Isabela is and always has been bisexual and free swinging. It's part of who she is. Only Fenris and Merill are actually "bisexual" or rather "player sexual" - in any and all universes.
Second, the other companions are pretty much universally heterosexual. Aveline, Varric, Bethany, & Carver. All Het.
Third, most other important characters in the game are Het as well. Viscount Dumar, the Arishok, Grand Cleric Elthina, Knight Commander Meredith, First Enchanter Orsino. All established in lore as Het. The only non companion "important" character that isn't heterosexual is The Seneschal.
Forth, the Devs admitted that in an ideal universe they would prefer a number of romances each with a "set" sexuality. A coupla gay chars, a coupla bi chars, and a coupla straight chars. To accomodate everyone. Unfortunately in DA2 (and probably going forward) there was and is a very real resource allocation issue to consider that meant that the best course of action was to make most of the LIs sexually fluid so that people had both choice and inclusiveness. Yeh it isn't the best way to deal with it but i'd prefer that over getting a single LI that was a hideous stereotype.
I'm "fit" (pics on my bsn profile lol). I'm Scottish. I am gay. And I am a gamer.
I am a gay gamer. I am a gaymer. Har har. lol.
I agree with you about the sometime irritation that political correctness can cause in wider society, as I said I understand where you are coming from. But as I said I also disagree with you in respect of the gaming community.
In respect of the gaming community these issues of prejudice against minorities is STILL a major issue (I mean honestly, just look at the outrage Bioware have had to weather in recent years because of their inclusiveness policies, and also the outrage on these very forums about Dorn being bisexual) that has to be challenged and dealt with.
And honestly in wider society and in gaming both - I would rather have a situation where people are being over sensitive and too "politically correct" for words so they don't offend people than have a situation where people slung around hurtful, degrading, and nasty words like "faggot" or "whore" or "nigger" - wouldn't you?
Sure it's irritating to all buggery but I would rather suffer that irritation than allow the fosterage of an environment and society where hated, bigotry, and ignorance are allowed.
@fitscotgaymer Your name reminds me of a story. I knew somebody who really flaunted his gayness and I told him once it's nicer to assume people are straight until they say otherwise.
He wasn't offended, but for some reason he thought I should of known he was already. Hence my point, why do people think they need to make sexuality a thing?
I genuinely think it's appropiate to assume people are straight until you're told contrary, because you would not believe how many people are incorrectly said gay when they aren't.
I donn't want a situation where people are overly sensitive, because that leads to furthur manipulation. Who benefits from PCness? I don't know, the money is going to somebody. But how far can it go? Do we start telling Santa to not have worker elves because it offends Indians (sweatshop).
That is far fetched, but it's an example of how far PCness can go. How far can it go? Far.
You can't make society where hate, bigotry and foolishness isn't allowed. You can only educate people. As I said before man, people use what you have to insult you terribly. If it isn't your religion, race or sexuality, then chances are it shall be your nerd glasses.
I wonder if maybe aspects like race weren't made into a 'thing' people wouldn't have the foresight to use it to ostracize people.
Nothing to do with flaunting anything. Also like I said, funny little play on words.
And I have to say that you are quite wrong about assuming people are straight until told otherwise. That is incredibly rude to make assumptions about what a person is like, or what they are, or what they do before knowing who/what they are. You shouldn't assume ANYTHING until told otherwise.
I assume folk are asexual until they tell me they like girls, boys, both, animals, feet. Whatever. Because you know what they say about assuming. You make an "ass" out of "u" and "me" by doing so.
Perhaps I shouldn't have said "allowed" - perhaps I should have said "a society where it is made clear by society at large that hatred, prejudice, bigotry, and ignorance of that kind isnt tolerated or acceptable". Better?
I didn't say you're flaunting anything. I said the person who I refer to was in his voice and look. I also didn't mean I assume they're straight as in treat em as straight, I don't treat people in a way based on their gender/race/sexuality/religion/creed.
I meant I told the guy that it's nicer to assume personally that somebody is straight until you're told otherwise in order to not promote false stats about people. Why go around saying to people "I think he/she is gay" when you don't know, even if you're pretty damn sure? I don't say anything about their stats period until I know. I don't need to use people's sexualities in conversation so for my own knowledge about other people I assume they are straight until I know otherwise.
I get what you mean - I think - I mean, I don't want to believe that your are being ignorant or bigoted here. I do think you are being somewhat obtuse though.
Assuming someone is straight until told otherwise is as bad as assuming someone is gay until told otherwise.
It isn't any nicer, or any more correct. And to say that it is, is an extremely heteronormative thing to say. Understandable, you see things from your own (Heteronormative) view point, but not correct either. And heteronormativity, when rigidly stuck to, can be just as damaging to others as outright bigotry.
And perhaps that is why people accuse you of being bigoted?
Because to me it seems like you look at things from your own view point as a heterosexual male (understandable as you are a heterosexual male, so ordinarily this wouldn't be a problem) and refuse to consider the view points of those who are not heterosexual males (which is where a heteronormative viewpoint does become a problem). Or so you are appearing to me.
@fitcotgaymer Let me google heteronormative and I'll get back to you man.
I get what you are saying, yes it probably is just as bad I see you're point of view here. But since most people are straight (a known and clear fact), it's a better bet to assume people are straight.
If I know somebody who is utterly gay but I don't have their word, I'm going to think they're gay but when asked for my opinion by others I will not say what I think, I'll not know though.
You misspelled my username! I shall be supremely offended!
*flounces off offended*
All of Scotland shall be horrified when I tell them!
Seriously though, I really do think you are failing to identify with a non heteronormative view point and it is really colouring how you are coming off to folk here. And perhaps elsewhere. Now I do not need to be heterosexual to be able to "imagine myself in the position of a heterosexual" and to be able to see things from their point of view. So I wouldn't imagine that you would find it, as you seem fairly intelligent, difficult to find some sort of empathy for the view point of a homosexual or bisexual person. Or any other minority that you are not a part of.
I do not wish to, again, say you are wrong. But.
Your assertion that most people in the world are straight. Is... not correct.
Neither you nor I are a psychologist so we can not declare with absolute certainty that most of the world is heterosexual or not. But most psychologists across the world agree that most humans (and indeed most creatures on this earth) are actually bisexual to varying degrees.
According to what I understand from what I have read, most psychologists agree that the Kinsey Scale is probably a somewhat accurate way of measuring sexuality; and that the general thrust of it is probably correct. If you haven't heard of the Kinsey Scale, it is named after the psychologist who created it. His scale basically measured sexuality from 0 to 6, with 0 being exclusively heterosexual and 6 being exclusively homosexual. And his studies in regards to it discovered that while most people leaned towards the "0" end of the scale, most folk in fact actually existed somewhere in the middle - from 1 to 5.
Basically he realised that most humans were actually bisexual and many simply falsely identified (and continue to falsely identify) as heterosexual because of the heteronormative society we live in.
@Ward@fitscotgaymer I, too, assume people are asexual until I am told. I guess you could say I simply don't care what sexuality people are. They are still people, and I treat them as such. I worked with one lady who is a lesbian (or bi, it's hard to tell, since I never talked to her about it). And recently, we got a new co-worker, a man, who one of my fellow workers asked if I thought he was gay, due to the way she perceived his interest in certain subjects (she didn't say what they were, and I didn't ask). I told her quite honestly that I didn't waste my time thinking about it since I didn't care. If he was, fine, if he's not, also fine.
But Ward, you are getting dangerously close to the edge here... I think you need to back off a bit from this conversation.
Comments
If you are a man.
Personally, I can calmly play these games, because any romance, whether heterosexual or not, simply glances off of my heart lusting only for power and gold.
Kholdstare comments that as a gay guy he'd like to see a non-evil romance option. kmfdm makes good and valid points about gay characters in video games being somehow twisted or broken. I agree. I think it's worthwhile to point this out and ask the game designers (gods in their own way) why GLBT companions get represented like this.
To answer my own question, I don't think Dorn is a comment on the designers' p.o.v. about evilness or sexuality. I think Dorn's character reveals that video game designers have one primary narrative available when they write a GLBT character and that narrative involves some form of 'twistedness.'
EDIT EDIT: OH I understand it was merged with another.
EDIT EDIT EDIT: Oh damn I'll just say what I have to say and please nobody be offended by anything here, I'm trying to be very cautious in my words.
@egalor_original Although I agree society disproportionately regulates the amount of 'exposure' if you will to certain minorities, there's no reason to not include gay/lesbian/bi characters in the game. Or there's no reason to not include them in television and film theatre.
I just don't want it shoved down my throat.
Society ought not ostracize anybody, however, society ought not do what they're doing now which is utterly bombarding people with their own particular moral high grounds relating to accepting of gays, ethnicity, women, religion. I haven't met a single homophobe in my life, but I've met too many people who are fanatical in their want and need to force other people to discuss topics like that which they don't want hear.
You don't have to make everyone into a minority activist, tell people how you feel and don't let it go so far. You can't backwards ostracize.
Inb4 somebody jokes about shoved down my throat.
People seem to be able to double guess themselves and think they've made a mistake easily, or maybe that's just me.
@Ward My first thread merge... Hopefully, we can stop having the same points tacked over once again by the Good Ship "Discussion". I don't guarantee it, though.
Don't worry, I think I've learnt from all this. When people are offended by what you have said, regardless of whether you're logically or technically offending them, you've got to ditch it. Unfortunately that's just how it works. Political correctness gives somebody the right to be irrecoverably offended at whatever they like regardless of the other person's intent.
I'm prepared to run away if violence breaks out here.
I think I understand where you are coming from... Political Correctness can be exceedingly annoying especially in the media.
Something I have noticed recently in the mainstream media in the UK... they never refer to men on the news. Or rather they always refer to women.
Example: There is a particularily brutal murder, and the Police Spokesperson is a woman. The news refer to her as the Policewoman or Police Spokeswoman. Which is fine, except when the Spokesperson is a Man they always say Police OFFICER or Police Spokesperson. Never Policeman or Police Spokesman.
I mean, what is the problem with calling the Policeman, a Policeman? Why is he always a Police Officer? Or Conversely, why is the woman part of a Policewoman always emphasised? Why can't she be a police officer too?
On the flip side when they are talking about the criminal or the bad thing/person. They always use gender neutral terms when talking about a woman, and gender specific terms when talking about a man.
The murderer/criminal when male is always referred to as "The Man" or "the male suspect" but when it is a female they almost always say things like "the alleged criminal" or "the suspect" or just outright use her name (if possible).
And the reason for it is political correctness; and also, I am unsure if it is an unspoken unconcious misandry that has come to pervade the mainstream media these days, or if it is continued unconcious mysogyny. Sadly.
So I totally get it.
But the thing is, you are wrong.
No one has or is "shoving gayness down your throat" which is really unfortunate way to put it btw (both in the double entendre sense and the offensive sense).
The reason having LGBT representation in gaming is such a big deal, is the same reason Sexism is still a "big deal" in Gaming. It's because the Heteronormative White Male is still by far and large the biggest represented demographic in gaming (in the actual games that is).
It's because the consumer base is now more diverse than ever, and quite frankly many "minorities" are outright ignored in most cases and in some still treated with sneering disdain in certain quarters and games.
And that in this so called "enlightened age" is really not an acceptable state of affairs.
I mean if no one said:-
"Hey, I would like to see more Gay Characters (that aren't offensive stereotypes) in games!"
Or
"Hey, I would like to see more Female Characters (that aren't offensive stereotypes) in games!"
or
"Hey, I would like to see more Non-White Male Characters (that aren't offensive stereotypes) in games!"
Then absolutely nothing would change. Developers and publishers would have continued treating women like sex objects in games, gay folk as jokes at best in games, and the token black people as cannon fodder in games.
And many publishers and developers continue to do this, sadly. Far more than you might think.
And THAT is why this issue is still a "hot topic" as much as it might annoy you.
You might automatically think in egalitarian terms (though I don't think you are as egalitarian as you think you are) and thats great (if its true) but a large section of the gaming community (both developers and fans) continue to be racist, mysoginistic, and homophobic.
And if it isn't discussed, and isn't challenged by the entire community then it will NEVER change and NEVER get better.
Yes the topic might get frustrating, and annoying for those of us who DO think in egalitarian terms. And we might wonder why people who DON'T still even exist these days. But it doesn't mean the topic shouldn't be discussed.
Or that women, LGBT folk, Black people, Arabs, and so on don't have a right to make their voices heard; that they don't have a right to see some form of semi-sensitive inclusion in a medium they love just as much as you.
Do you get what I am saying?
EDIT:
Corrected poor grammar in the post!
The way they speak on the news is highly controlled and filtered through to give the victims (I mean the general audience) a particular opinion about the discussion. It's very easy to use words to control people and by swapping out words in the media with different words you can give the public an assumption or you can disguise the meaning of it all by making the story unclear with misleading English.
I agree the way they speak on your news seems absolutely terrible.
The truth is 'gayness' and 'blackness' and 'religiousness' is shoved down our throats, in so many ways. For a culture that embraces black people as musicians of the highest esteemed regard, we seem very hung up as a society about being racist.
Black people were stereotypically known for playing bass, souling, blues and jazz in the 20th century. Now they're commonly known for rap, smoking and booze and rampant sexism. Note, that is a generalization, so don't take it literally. But my point is, the 'rappers' who do that sort of music today are purposely misrepresenting their race in the most stereotypical fashion possible.
There were so many famous black musicians, but now the art which came from the black community has devolved into shallow and sexist rubbish stereotypes designed to indoctrinate little children into 'ghetto'.
Are they purposely trying to make the lowest sector of the socio-economic classes the preferred state in a bid to raise children in a certain way? Maybe, but I think you and I can both agree the black population is being unfairly represented in our today's pop industry.
The same applies to the gay community. SOME of the popular figures in our culture seem to misrepresent themselves in this horrible, almost parodic, inaccurate form that loses all important meaning. The blatant, offensive, completely over the top way some of these people make themselves appear, just to make a point, is aweful.
What I mean by this are the people who make a 'thing' of their sexuality by purposely speaking a certain way, dressing a certain way and appearing in a certain light. I know plenty of gay people who you would not pick as being that way unless you asked them.
Then again, I know plenty of gay people who talk and dress and outrageously present themselves as a 'stereotypical' gay. One of those has to be a front. Or maybe neither are. I don't know.
What I'm trying to say is a very small group of people in these communities horribly misrepresent themselves with this completely outrageous behaviour. Can't you agree with that?
In this day you almost have to have a gay friend, a black friend and a woman friend just to not be discriminatory. I have all three, but somehow people still think I'm (insert prefix here pl0x)ist.
First, on Ed Greenwod's Forgotten Realms setting: I'm newly educated that Ed envisions this world as so inclusive. It remains an interesting observation that despite the vision of the creator, which presents all sexualities as simply normal, video games based in FR don't match Ed's vision and instead represent our cultures' less inclusive narratives about GLBT people.
Second, on the companions' sexual orientation, there are two stock GLBT characters that Overhaul didn't use: the freeswinging bi rogue girl and the mincing effeminate gay elf bard (well maybe Garrick's in the closet). I much prefer Dorn to either. What other stock characters would people enjoy having as companions?
Third, as an example on roleplaying evil characters, I'd like to briefly share an event from the pen and paper game I DM. I'm running a pirate campaign in the Pirate Isles of FR where the characters are pirates and my husband plays a chaotic evil female human cleric of Umberlee, the Bitch Queen. The group discovered a doppelganger cult had infiltrated a temple of Umberlee and after capturing the one masquerading as the high cleric, his cleric called the townspeople to the temple to witness the monster and publicly drown it for all to witness. The day after this medieval-style sacrifice, the group got jumped on their way to buy stolen goods, and the most of the people they were going to buy those goods from were bleeding to death. To the surprise of the other characters, the cleric stopped her attacks to heal all the injured NPCs and prevent them from dying. The moral of the story is, sometimes, evil heals.
That's the real problem here man, you almost have to accept the stereotypical facets of the ethnic and gay communities, just to not be an ist. Even though these stereotypes don't represent them properly.
Lol.
@Kitteh_On_A_Cloud
Thank you for your compliment.
About DA2 - I don't actually agree with you on that. At least not entirely.
First, the LIs are not "all Bi". Sebastian is straight. And Anders is only "bisexual" in a universe that has Male Hawke.
Isabela is and always has been bisexual and free swinging. It's part of who she is.
Only Fenris and Merill are actually "bisexual" or rather "player sexual" - in any and all universes.
Second, the other companions are pretty much universally heterosexual. Aveline, Varric, Bethany, & Carver. All Het.
Third, most other important characters in the game are Het as well. Viscount Dumar, the Arishok, Grand Cleric Elthina, Knight Commander Meredith, First Enchanter Orsino. All established in lore as Het.
The only non companion "important" character that isn't heterosexual is The Seneschal.
Forth, the Devs admitted that in an ideal universe they would prefer a number of romances each with a "set" sexuality. A coupla gay chars, a coupla bi chars, and a coupla straight chars. To accomodate everyone. Unfortunately in DA2 (and probably going forward) there was and is a very real resource allocation issue to consider that meant that the best course of action was to make most of the LIs sexually fluid so that people had both choice and inclusiveness.
Yeh it isn't the best way to deal with it but i'd prefer that over getting a single LI that was a hideous stereotype.
@Ward
My username is indeed a pun. Or a play on words.
I'm "fit" (pics on my bsn profile lol). I'm Scottish. I am gay. And I am a gamer.
I am a gay gamer. I am a gaymer. Har har. lol.
I agree with you about the sometime irritation that political correctness can cause in wider society, as I said I understand where you are coming from.
But as I said I also disagree with you in respect of the gaming community.
In respect of the gaming community these issues of prejudice against minorities is STILL a major issue (I mean honestly, just look at the outrage Bioware have had to weather in recent years because of their inclusiveness policies, and also the outrage on these very forums about Dorn being bisexual) that has to be challenged and dealt with.
And honestly in wider society and in gaming both - I would rather have a situation where people are being over sensitive and too "politically correct" for words so they don't offend people than have a situation where people slung around hurtful, degrading, and nasty words like "faggot" or "whore" or "nigger" - wouldn't you?
Sure it's irritating to all buggery but I would rather suffer that irritation than allow the fosterage of an environment and society where hated, bigotry, and ignorance are allowed.
He wasn't offended, but for some reason he thought I should of known he was already. Hence my point, why do people think they need to make sexuality a thing?
I genuinely think it's appropiate to assume people are straight until you're told contrary, because you would not believe how many people are incorrectly said gay when they aren't.
I donn't want a situation where people are overly sensitive, because that leads to furthur manipulation. Who benefits from PCness? I don't know, the money is going to somebody. But how far can it go? Do we start telling Santa to not have worker elves because it offends Indians (sweatshop).
That is far fetched, but it's an example of how far PCness can go. How far can it go? Far.
You can't make society where hate, bigotry and foolishness isn't allowed. You can only educate people. As I said before man, people use what you have to insult you terribly. If it isn't your religion, race or sexuality, then chances are it shall be your nerd glasses.
I wonder if maybe aspects like race weren't made into a 'thing' people wouldn't have the foresight to use it to ostracize people.
Nothing to do with flaunting anything. Also like I said, funny little play on words.
And I have to say that you are quite wrong about assuming people are straight until told otherwise. That is incredibly rude to make assumptions about what a person is like, or what they are, or what they do before knowing who/what they are. You shouldn't assume ANYTHING until told otherwise.
I assume folk are asexual until they tell me they like girls, boys, both, animals, feet. Whatever. Because you know what they say about assuming.
You make an "ass" out of "u" and "me" by doing so.
Perhaps I shouldn't have said "allowed" - perhaps I should have said "a society where it is made clear by society at large that hatred, prejudice, bigotry, and ignorance of that kind isnt tolerated or acceptable". Better?
I meant I told the guy that it's nicer to assume personally that somebody is straight until you're told otherwise in order to not promote false stats about people. Why go around saying to people "I think he/she is gay" when you don't know, even if you're pretty damn sure? I don't say anything about their stats period until I know. I don't need to use people's sexualities in conversation so for my own knowledge about other people I assume they are straight until I know otherwise.
I get what you mean - I think - I mean, I don't want to believe that your are being ignorant or bigoted here. I do think you are being somewhat obtuse though.
Assuming someone is straight until told otherwise is as bad as assuming someone is gay until told otherwise.
It isn't any nicer, or any more correct. And to say that it is, is an extremely heteronormative thing to say. Understandable, you see things from your own (Heteronormative) view point, but not correct either.
And heteronormativity, when rigidly stuck to, can be just as damaging to others as outright bigotry.
And perhaps that is why people accuse you of being bigoted?
Because to me it seems like you look at things from your own view point as a heterosexual male (understandable as you are a heterosexual male, so ordinarily this wouldn't be a problem) and refuse to consider the view points of those who are not heterosexual males (which is where a heteronormative viewpoint does become a problem).
Or so you are appearing to me.
@Nazad
Lol. Awesome.
I get what you are saying, yes it probably is just as bad I see you're point of view here. But since most people are straight (a known and clear fact), it's a better bet to assume people are straight.
If I know somebody who is utterly gay but I don't have their word, I'm going to think they're gay but when asked for my opinion by others I will not say what I think, I'll not know though.
You misspelled my username! I shall be supremely offended!
*flounces off offended*
All of Scotland shall be horrified when I tell them!
Seriously though, I really do think you are failing to identify with a non heteronormative view point and it is really colouring how you are coming off to folk here. And perhaps elsewhere.
Now I do not need to be heterosexual to be able to "imagine myself in the position of a heterosexual" and to be able to see things from their point of view. So I wouldn't imagine that you would find it, as you seem fairly intelligent, difficult to find some sort of empathy for the view point of a homosexual or bisexual person. Or any other minority that you are not a part of.
I do not wish to, again, say you are wrong. But.
Your assertion that most people in the world are straight. Is... not correct.
Neither you nor I are a psychologist so we can not declare with absolute certainty that most of the world is heterosexual or not.
But most psychologists across the world agree that most humans (and indeed most creatures on this earth) are actually bisexual to varying degrees.
According to what I understand from what I have read, most psychologists agree that the Kinsey Scale is probably a somewhat accurate way of measuring sexuality; and that the general thrust of it is probably correct.
If you haven't heard of the Kinsey Scale, it is named after the psychologist who created it. His scale basically measured sexuality from 0 to 6, with 0 being exclusively heterosexual and 6 being exclusively homosexual. And his studies in regards to it discovered that while most people leaned towards the "0" end of the scale, most folk in fact actually existed somewhere in the middle - from 1 to 5.
Basically he realised that most humans were actually bisexual and many simply falsely identified (and continue to falsely identify) as heterosexual because of the heteronormative society we live in.
But Ward, you are getting dangerously close to the edge here... I think you need to back off a bit from this conversation.
I don't think he is.
I think he is being a bit obtuse about his viewpoint yes, and thus isn't coming off great, but I don't think he is being mean or anything.
At least we are now dicussing the topic civilly. :-)