@Medivh1234 Please stop changing the subject and moving the goalposts. We are talking about accepting homosexual relationships and your original assertion that most/all religions condemned such and were against it and your second, unsupported assertion that it was only accepted in a vanishingly small number of small and isolated cultures. You have been proven wrong on both points, and now you are just whining. Trying to drag in rape and child abuse (the Greek youths would have been older than 15 and younger than their early to middle 20's- not child abuse) is ridiculous. It's like saying that heterosexual rape somehow invalidates that the majority of marriages in the US are heterosexual. It doesn't.
And no, you accused me of lying about what he said, so I linked to the post where he said it. QED. And as for lying about supporting him if he said there was no homosexuality in the Realms, you're wrong again. One of my friends was in a campaign run by her boyfriend, where the dominant religion was a horse God and horse Goddess. The religion stated that horses were better than humans, and centaurs were better than humans, having horse parts, but below actual horses. One of the duties of the worshippers of the deities Barabek and Baratekay (the name of the deities) was to keep your horse "satisfied", and yes, he meant sexually. My friend was playing an Anti-Paladin and after one adventure, she got the requisite harness and whatnot, and "Satisfied" her stallion, leaving her unable to walk for a few days. Did I like this world? No, I did not (and I didn't even have to play in it!). But it was his world, and that's the way he designed it. (and worshippers of Barabek and Baratekay got bonuses out the ying-yang, so while there were other gods, following them was a significant disadvantage in his world.) But you know what, it was his world, so he got to say what goes. I wouldn't want to play in that world, but I have no problems with it existing. If I can support the creator's right to do as he pleases in that, having a worldwide ban on gay characters existing is no biggie for me accepting it- but, unfortunately for you... that's not the way the Realms actually is.
What. The. Fuck. Horse religion? Bestiality? This topic is getting creepier every minute. O_o
Edit: Sorry, that was just my initial reaction to that horse religion part. I do think @LadyRhian is right, even though I do not fully agree with her opinion on the fact that authors can twist and bend their created worlds as much as they please. I mean, they can, but if boundaries are passed, there will obviously be critique in the long term. Personally, I think including relationships such as those during the time of the classic Greek culture in modern games would be morally despicable (relationships between children and adults are generally frowned upon nowadays, as far as I know). But mind you, with this I am not saying that the authors can't do that, just that this decision will probably backfire on them knowing the morals and world views of their modern day audience. It's not something most would consider acceptable nowadays. So yes, an author is, in a sense, a 'god' of his own world. But there will be others to point things out to him/her when it goes wrong or transgresses boundaries better left untransgressed.
So guys! What about Baldur's gate? The new characters are pretty cool, huh? And they're romanceable, huh? And acceptance of non-hetronormative people in the Forgotten Realms appears to be cannon? Cool! Or irritating, depending on your worldview!
Now that that's cleared up, let me pose a few questions: Do you think bisexual characters should have different "dialogue paths" built in to their character depending on whether they're romancing somebody of the same gender or opposite gender?
Should all NPC's have a friendship path, based on whether your alignment / class / actions agree with their worldview? Should all romances first go through the friendship path, in this case?
Now that that's cleared up, let me pose a few questions: Do you think bisexual characters should have different "dialogue paths" built in to their character depending on whether they're romancing somebody of the same gender or opposite gender?
Should all NPC's have a friendship path, based on whether your alignment / class / actions agree with their worldview? Should all romances first go through the friendship path, in this case?
Yes, absolutely. To both. Although not every character should have to go through friendship--some people don't work that way.
Hmm... As to gender-bias, I guess that just depends on the character when it comes to romancing. For bi characters, I haven't seen gender bias... Not saying it doesn't exist, just that I haven't seen it. Most of the bi characters I have seen do not show gender-biased dialogues, and I'm cool with that.
I just think it would add more depth to the characterization, and make the player's choice of gender feel more important--rather than simply changing pronouns here and there, it would actually change how others interact with you.
Even if it was just rewriting the same dialogue but with words moved around or altered slightly, so that it doesn't just feel like "What I said before, but for a girl."
Back on topic... I am glad such options exist for those who are interested. And for those who aren't, no big deal - it doesn't have to happen. Everyone wins n_n
What I myself would be most interested in, is well-written friendship paths. Romance can be fun, but equally fun was the Xan Friendship path mod for instance. @Aosaw, I completely agree it's a pity if the interesting backgrounds of a character, winning their hearts and trust can only be done while romancing them.
As to gender-specific dialogue-lines wether an NPC is dating a male or female Charname, well, some dialogue's will be the same, not not, is my logical thinking. On the one hand, allusions to the physical should of course partly be gender specific. Even for things that both genders have in common, like arms or legs, pointing on the beauty of those usually highlights different aspects in man or woman. On the other hand, if you like a person's character, alluding to that or conversations about your quest, or the world of Faerun about you, wouldn't matter much.
Trickiest is things that relate to psychological traits, that might or might not be feminine or masculine. IRL i see differences between the way men and the way women interact with other persons and with their lovers, but that's a fourth tricky ground, besides intra-sexes sexuality, inter-age sexuality and inter-species sexuality.
Mmmm, bacon and cheese. I just received my Netflix DVD of the "Clash of the Titans" sequel. It would go awfully good with a bacon and cheese pizza, mmmmm.
LOL. I know that that's outrageously off-topic, and I apologize. @MedullaOblongata, I have a good friend who uses baffling non-sequitur to invoke humor, in an attempt to diffuse hostility, and sometimes, just because it amuzes him. Kudos to you.
@Medivh1234 Please stop changing the subject and moving the goalposts. We are talking about accepting homosexual relationships and your original assertion that most/all religions condemned such and were against it and your second, unsupported assertion that it was only accepted in a vanishingly small number of small and isolated cultures. You have been proven wrong on both points, and now you are just whining. Trying to drag in rape and child abuse (the Greek youths would have been older than 15 and younger than their early to middle 20's- not child abuse) is ridiculous. It's like saying that heterosexual rape somehow invalidates that the majority of marriages in the US are heterosexual. It doesn't.
And no, you accused me of lying about what he said, so I linked to the post where he said it. QED. And as for lying about supporting him if he said there was no homosexuality in the Realms, you're wrong again. One of my friends was in a campaign run by her boyfriend, where the dominant religion was a horse God and horse Goddess. The religion stated that horses were better than humans, and centaurs were better than humans, having horse parts, but below actual horses. One of the duties of the worshippers of the deities Barabek and Baratekay (the name of the deities) was to keep your horse "satisfied", and yes, he meant sexually. My friend was playing an Anti-Paladin and after one adventure, she got the requisite harness and whatnot, and "Satisfied" her stallion, leaving her unable to walk for a few days. Did I like this world? No, I did not (and I didn't even have to play in it!). But it was his world, and that's the way he designed it. (and worshippers of Barabek and Baratekay got bonuses out the ying-yang, so while there were other gods, following them was a significant disadvantage in his world.) But you know what, it was his world, so he got to say what goes. I wouldn't want to play in that world, but I have no problems with it existing. If I can support the creator's right to do as he pleases in that, having a worldwide ban on gay characters existing is no biggie for me accepting it- but, unfortunately for you... that's not the way the Realms actually is.
What. The. Fuck. Horse religion? Bestiality? This topic is getting creepier every minute. O_o
Edit: Sorry, that was just my initial reaction to that horse religion part. I do think @LadyRhian is right, even though I do not fully agree with her opinion on the fact that authors can twist and bend their created worlds as much as they please. I mean, they can, but if boundaries are passed, there will obviously be critique in the long term. Personally, I think including relationships such as those during the time of the classic Greek culture in modern games would be morally despicable (relationships between children and adults are generally frowned upon nowadays, as far as I know). But mind you, with this I am not saying that the authors can't do that, just that this decision will probably backfire on them knowing the morals and world views of their modern day audience. It's not something most would consider acceptable nowadays. So yes, an author is, in a sense, a 'god' of his own world. But there will be others to point things out to him/her when it goes wrong or transgresses boundaries better left untransgressed.
Yeah, that was pretty awful- but sadly (and I do mean SADLY) that was an actual campaign. I didn't make it up. It was after hearing about this that we started to drift apart. I had a hard time just talking to him... There are things I can cheerfully say I would rather never have learned or heard of. That is #1 on the list. It made me want to scrub out my brain with triple strength brain bleach and a wire brush.
And yes, that's the curb on authors- you can make it, but when and if they come, they can make up their own mind and experience their own reactions to what you made, and if you decide to make a world like he did- expect people to be downright uncomfortable and/or start uncomfortably and sidle away if you try to get close. The repercussions would and should be that the author has to live with people's reactions to his world and work of creation.
Heh, I thought gay romance was a pretty touchy subject... But yeah I think she was just using that to make a point :P
Yes. It's his world. He had a right to create it his way, and I had the right, after hearing about this world, to never EVER want to play in it, and to avoid it and him like the plague. A right I exercised vigorously.
And to continue the post I was writing to Medivh1234- Any consequences for the author should be the shunning of his work. But I am also rather Libertarian when it comes to choices and consequences. I think that the author having his work critically panned is fine. People telling him/her/whoever that they are a creepy little twisted (insert expletive deleted here) is also fine. But banning it because someone might be offended- no. I believe everyone has to decide for themselves (or their children, if they have them) what is right for them. It's not up to society to police things which aren't crimes simply for the reason "think of the children!" Parents have a right to personally decide when their child is mature enough to handle certain subjects. If a child asks a parent for a game, and the parent decides to buy that game to shut the kid up, and never looks at the box to see if the game is rated R, AO, M or whatever and *why*, then they have also abdicated their later right to complain if they find their kid playing Rapey Gorefest 19 and never expected to find such a thing in the game box. It's not up to society to regulate it- it's up to the parents- that is their job. And if you're "too tired" or "too busy" or too lazy to do the work of monitoring what your kids are consuming in an entertainment format, you shouldn't have kids. Maybe a dog would be more your speed. And if you're an adult, the same goes for you. If it's not criminal and you don't like it after reading/seeing/experiencing it, you can leave. Walk out of the movie, throw the book away (or even burn it if you own it and are that skeeved by it), and/or don't continue to play the game. (And if you don't own the media, return it. I work in a library. I cannot tell you how many books the system gets back defaced and/or cut to pieces because someone objected to the content and instead of just throwing it back (or leaving a review telling people *why* it's objectionable), they decide to cut out the offending parts so that no one else can experience it. We lose every copy of "The Joy of Sex" that way, not to mention, "More Joy of Sex" (and they won't even attempt to buy "The Joy of Gay Sex" and/or "The Joy of Lesbian Sex"!) But not even books like "Gray's Anatomy" or books showing mastectomies from Breast Cancer are immune. We got back a copy with all pictures depicting sex organs and breasts excised from the book with a razor. (Yeah, a picture in a medical reference text is apparently extremely threatening to some people... go figure!) It's nobody's job to be profanity or objectionable materials censor for the world- the only privilege you get in that is for any kids you are personally responsible for, and yourself. But that's my opinion, and I know others don't feel that way.
Personally, I think including relationships such as those during the time of the classic Greek culture in modern games would be morally despicable
Mmm, yes, as opposed to killing, stealing, break and enter, etc. :P
Not this discussion again. I was just making a point. Personally I find shagging a horse way more disgusting than murder. I mean, both are despicable ways of action, but bestiality is just... eurgh...
I think we can all agree that "satisfying your mount" is not a socially accepted behavior, and probably never will be (at least until we come to understand animals as being just as sentient as ourselves and establishing lines of communication with them, such that a human and a horse might be able to develop this kind of relationship naturally, but that's probably millennia away)...
Most of us dont want to play the a roleplaying campain where you have to pleasure your horse as casual as fueling up your old car before going to Starbucks.
You people would love my Fantasy world btw... it would be a exact copy of this one... exept i would have the powers of superman, and that everyone who attempted major criminal acts would suddenly get a violent case of Cholera, that only affected them. and no religion ... and every boyband was detainted in Birkenau camps... forced to listen to Deep purple until redemtion...
and i would have two perfect elf girlfriends... that made out.... like .. allot...
@Medivah1234 Just bringing up the image is extremely distasteful to me.
The image of justin beiber* and his crew being sent to a cold hard room where he is force to listen to "smoke on the water" ?
Not to be rude or anything, but you did actually bring up not only Horsesex but also child and baby molestation in this thread... For somebody so hung up in creative rights and individual expressive freedom beyond all limits and regulations.. your kind of a quick trigger when it comes to me...
Now i dont consider myself a prude so am just gonna let it slide.. am gonna look at your pretty portrait and consider you a hot tsunderer*
*that above was also a joke **i know justin beiber is not a boy"band", but i hope you will let this slide aswell
@Medivah1234 At least I was discreet about it, or I tried to be while I was getting my point across. I'm sorry, you may think it's a joke to talk about concentration camps... I don't. If you'd just said, "Tied to a chair while being forced to listen to..." that would have been much less extreme and less objectionable.
Let me guess. One or two "conservatives" were whining about be oppressed by honest discussion, and whinging about the intolerance of intolerance.
Thank you again, LadyRhian, and to EG for answering. Cultural details on the setting are not forcing an agenda, and are completely optional anyway. I think the point of a commercial setting is to use it as a sandbox, put bits of it in your world, etc. I'm not a big FR fan, but the city maps alone are a robust campaign accessory, of higher quality than what I can generate myself.
Comments
Edit: Sorry, that was just my initial reaction to that horse religion part.
Now that that's cleared up, let me pose a few questions: Do you think bisexual characters should have different "dialogue paths" built in to their character depending on whether they're romancing somebody of the same gender or opposite gender?
Should all NPC's have a friendship path, based on whether your alignment / class / actions agree with their worldview? Should all romances first go through the friendship path, in this case?
Even if it was just rewriting the same dialogue but with words moved around or altered slightly, so that it doesn't just feel like "What I said before, but for a girl."
Trickiest is things that relate to psychological traits, that might or might not be feminine or masculine. IRL i see differences between the way men and the way women interact with other persons and with their lovers, but that's a fourth tricky ground, besides intra-sexes sexuality, inter-age sexuality and inter-species sexuality.
LOL. I know that that's outrageously off-topic, and I apologize. @MedullaOblongata, I have a good friend who uses baffling non-sequitur to invoke humor, in an attempt to diffuse hostility, and sometimes, just because it amuzes him. Kudos to you.
And yes, that's the curb on authors- you can make it, but when and if they come, they can make up their own mind and experience their own reactions to what you made, and if you decide to make a world like he did- expect people to be downright uncomfortable and/or start uncomfortably and sidle away if you try to get close. The repercussions would and should be that the author has to live with people's reactions to his world and work of creation. Yes. It's his world. He had a right to create it his way, and I had the right, after hearing about this world, to never EVER want to play in it, and to avoid it and him like the plague. A right I exercised vigorously.
And to continue the post I was writing to Medivh1234- Any consequences for the author should be the shunning of his work. But I am also rather Libertarian when it comes to choices and consequences. I think that the author having his work critically panned is fine. People telling him/her/whoever that they are a creepy little twisted (insert expletive deleted here) is also fine. But banning it because someone might be offended- no. I believe everyone has to decide for themselves (or their children, if they have them) what is right for them. It's not up to society to police things which aren't crimes simply for the reason "think of the children!" Parents have a right to personally decide when their child is mature enough to handle certain subjects. If a child asks a parent for a game, and the parent decides to buy that game to shut the kid up, and never looks at the box to see if the game is rated R, AO, M or whatever and *why*, then they have also abdicated their later right to complain if they find their kid playing Rapey Gorefest 19 and never expected to find such a thing in the game box. It's not up to society to regulate it- it's up to the parents- that is their job. And if you're "too tired" or "too busy" or too lazy to do the work of monitoring what your kids are consuming in an entertainment format, you shouldn't have kids. Maybe a dog would be more your speed. And if you're an adult, the same goes for you. If it's not criminal and you don't like it after reading/seeing/experiencing it, you can leave. Walk out of the movie, throw the book away (or even burn it if you own it and are that skeeved by it), and/or don't continue to play the game. (And if you don't own the media, return it. I work in a library. I cannot tell you how many books the system gets back defaced and/or cut to pieces because someone objected to the content and instead of just throwing it back (or leaving a review telling people *why* it's objectionable), they decide to cut out the offending parts so that no one else can experience it. We lose every copy of "The Joy of Sex" that way, not to mention, "More Joy of Sex" (and they won't even attempt to buy "The Joy of Gay Sex" and/or "The Joy of Lesbian Sex"!) But not even books like "Gray's Anatomy" or books showing mastectomies from Breast Cancer are immune. We got back a copy with all pictures depicting sex organs and breasts excised from the book with a razor. (Yeah, a picture in a medical reference text is apparently extremely threatening to some people... go figure!) It's nobody's job to be profanity or objectionable materials censor for the world- the only privilege you get in that is for any kids you are personally responsible for, and yourself. But that's my opinion, and I know others don't feel that way.
Mmm, yes, as opposed to killing, stealing, break and enter, etc. :P
Most of us dont want to play the a roleplaying campain where you have to pleasure your horse as casual as fueling up your old car before going to Starbucks.
Well i guess thats something....
and i would have two perfect elf girlfriends... that made out.... like .. allot...
No horses...
And i dont belive Birkenau was renowed for forcing people to listen to rock music....
Not to be rude or anything, but you did actually bring up not only Horsesex but also child and baby molestation in this thread... For somebody so hung up in creative rights and individual expressive freedom beyond all limits and regulations.. your kind of a quick trigger when it comes to me...
Now i dont consider myself a prude so am just gonna let it slide.. am gonna look at your pretty portrait and consider you a hot tsunderer*
*that above was also a joke
**i know justin beiber is not a boy"band", but i hope you will let this slide aswell
Thank you again, LadyRhian, and to EG for answering. Cultural details on the setting are not forcing an agenda, and are completely optional anyway. I think the point of a commercial setting is to use it as a sandbox, put bits of it in your world, etc. I'm not a big FR fan, but the city maps alone are a robust campaign accessory, of higher quality than what I can generate myself.
And BACON.
...*Dies of heart-attack*