| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Demzer
Senior Scribe
873 Posts |
 Posted - 08 Jul 2014 : 16:51:34
|
Lucky me! Garen Thal explained the reasoning behind my posts better than i might have (thanks Garen!).
I wasn't trying to ... uhm ... "post RedKing into submission" and if i conveyed this message i apologize.
I thought i made it clear that i agreed on the possibility for magic to change sex/sexual preferences and whatnot and that my problem was with the notion it could "cure" or "fix" homosexuality, but apparently i wasn't clear enough. |
 |
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jul 2014 : 17:30:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
I'm here for a game, not listen to someone's political agenda. Whether its lore, whether its rules, whether its a silly chart of wand of wonder effects, I'd welcome any of them more than this if its a sign that my game is becoming someone's personal political soapbox. You want to show that you can play a gay character.... produce an NPC who is such AND make it relevant to the adventure. You want to showcase some alien race that reproduces without sex? Ok, make it relevant to the adventure at hand.
I don't see anything about players pushing political views in the 82 words. All I see is an acknowledgment that PCs have the freedom to consider diversity of gender & sexuality. This is in addition to all the racial, nationalistic, and abilities diversity that everybody already knows about. It's just shining the light of truth upon a few more parameters that gamers can play around with, using their PCs.
I don't see you being worried about the possibility of outspoken zealots demanding equal rights for barbarians, Vaasans, and/or draco-halfling hybrids. So why are you so much more concerned that PCs which explore alternative views of gender and sexuality are going to be all that much more aggressive about them? That seems like a phobia, to me.
Who's afraid of the big, bad gay?
The big, bad gay?
The big, bad gay? |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jul 2014 : 17:42:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by redking
It has always been the case that players have been able to design their characters whatever way they wanted to, since original D&D. This seems like a throw away shout out to LGBT people rather than a realistic handling of identity in a fantasy setting with fantastic creatures. Stuff like homosexuality and gender dysmorphia would be the least of potential controversial lifestyles.
But has D&D always said that gamers could/should consider mixing it up in terms of gender, sexuality, orientation, as well as all the other paramaters? My understanding is that the answer is no. D&D has apparently spent most of its history proceeding forward primarily from a hetero male's POV.
I have noticed that the female character of Catti-brie seems oddly absent and passive throughout most of the novel The Crystal Shard, when one considers how active and ubiquitous she appears to be in most of the other stories in which RAS includes her. So a few years back, I asked him why that was. And he told me that it was because she was an after-thought that he only inserted into the story at a very late date. He had actually turned in his first manuscript for the book without any females with speaking parts, whatsoever! His female editor at the time wisely pointed out to him that this would not do, and so with the short time he had remaining, he whipped up this memorable young woman character of Catti-brie and gave her some great lines. But she still wasn't described as being involved in any of the action; she just basically took a back seat to all of the males in the story. This was because Bob didn't have time time to integrate her any more fully than that. That would have to wait until future books...
My point is not that Bob was/is a bad guy. He was simply writing what he knew: male-centered, male-dominant fantasy adventure. That's what D&D was to him (and a whole lot of other people), at the time.
If there are going to be efforts to make the property more inclusive and more inviting to people of other races, and to females, then why not also try to make the property more inclusive and inviting to people of alternative gender-identities and orientations?
quote:
If they want to deal with sexuality and identity in a fantasy setting properly, then I would welcome that.
What do you mean by "properly"? And what is improper about the way that they dealt with it in the 82 words?
All they did was point out that there are other parameters that gamers can consider when designing their PCs. It's not just about race, weapon choice, and spell books. Bringing in passages about Corellon and dwarves really ties it all in with other D&D/FR fantasy setting stuff.
So what did they do wrong?
quote:
Originally posted by redking
The fact is that real life sexuality and identity is not the same as fantasy identity and sexuality. In throwing out a few words to placate LGBT people WOTC hasn't considered the in-game implications of the words.
I don't see the 82 words as only or primarily being intended to placate LGBT people. They only serve to open all people's eyes to some other parameters that should be taken into consideration when designing characters. That serves everybody--not just LGBT people. A hetero male gamer can play a female PC, right? Why couldn't he play a lesbian PC, too? Pointing out the parameters of character design, in game, is not really much of a statement about sexual identity in real life, at all.
If I'm told that I can play a drow assassin or an orc warlord in the game, I don't take it that WOTC is giving their approval of me becoming an assassin or a warlord in real life. They're only talking about in world--not the real world.
But by WOTC making sure to point out that the game welcomes alternative viewpoints when it comes to gender identity and sexual orientation, they can make some real life people feel a little better about themselves. I don't think that that's the primary intent or effect of the 82 words, but it is a nice fringe benefit.
quote:
Here we have an instance of 'real life' considerations intruding on fantasy (essentially escapism).
Doesn't all the talk of alignment already reflect important real life considerations? Doesn't that lead to deep intellectual conversations about morality and philosophy?
Hasn't discussion of fantasy warfare brought to mind images of real world wars? Haven't we all seen parallels with real life history in the Realms?
I think that part of what makes any fantasy setting really work is having elements within it that still make it relatable to consumers who live in the real world. When you make it too alien and too escapist, you lose people. You have to use moderation as you balance out the extraterrestrial and the terrestrial aspects.
So why get flustered if one or two more aspects of real life make their way into a fantasy setting?
This just seems like an excessive fear or resentment of these particular aspects.
quote:
I still assert that this is only an issue in D&D now because gay marriage and the transgender movement is such a big issue in the real world.
Then why is WOTC also making such efforts to be more inclusive to females and people of color, as well? Do you detect any particular present-day social movements on those fronts, too? (I thought the racial and sexual civil rights movements were back in the '60s and '70s.)
quote:
Because of this I find it intrusive into my 'fantasy world'. If WOTC wants to deal with sexuality and identity, then I prefer that they do it within the context of the realms and fantasy sexuality and identity, rather than as a shout out to real life political considerations.
I don't see any reference to gay marriage in the 82 words.
quote:
Why speak of only speak of sexuality between man and man when they have not undertaken to speak of sexuality between man and illithid? At least then it would logically fit into the realms.
I didn't see a reference only to male homosexuality in the 82 words, either. I saw a sentence saying that sexual orientation is the player's decision. That's pretty darn gender-neutral.
The passage did mention Corellon of the elves, and bearded female dwarves. It opened the door to more than just human sexuality.
Are you sure the real problem is with the passage, or is it more with the preconceptions that you are projecting onto it?
quote:
It is a slippery slope and will require all kinds of shout outs in the future to whatever identity group is out there.
You mean, like the acknowledgment of non-believers, or at least non-religious persons, like I keep hoping for? I'm not holding my breath... |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
Edited by - BEAST on 08 Jul 2014 18:37:47 |
|
|
|
redking
Learned Scribe
131 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jul 2014 : 18:01:02
|
A final message from me this topic as some people have address me directly.
BEAST - I am glad that someone understood my posts.
Xaviera - Thanks for offering your in game ideas. Tay Sachs and down syndrome is a good point.
The Arcanamach - correct. I only stopped participating in this thread because someone suggested that I should be banned for giving offense.
Garen Thal - the above. It's not like I just threw my hands up when I tired of the discussion.
Cheers to everyone that offered me interesting replies. |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jul 2014 : 18:21:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by redking
This is instructive, a reply from Ed.
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/8384/sexuality-in-the-realms-answer-from-ed-greenwood
"[...] Yet in a polytheistic setting in which everyone “believes in” and worships (in some fashion, even if it’s only “Here’s a prayer, now please don’t bother me today”) ALL of the gods, clergy avoid endorsing discrimination against someone because of sex. [...]" [bold added]
OK, see, that's what I was talking about, earlier. There is an assumption that there can be no atheists or agnostics in the Realms. And that really chaps my hide!
Just because some people encounter magic, arcane or divine, in their lives does not necessarily mean that all people do. So a lot of people would have to take other people's word for it. To me, that invites doubt (at least within those people) as to all things magical, and as to all things divine.
Beyond that, even if someone did indeed believe in the existence of this god or that one, it still does not necessarily follow that said person would in any way engage in worship practices or rituals in that god's name. Said person might actually be quite resentful that no god decided to save his little girl's life last year, or to help make his crop harvest a little bigger this year, or whatever. He might be a polytheist, as in a believer in the existence of the gods, but that doesn't mean that he would be a worshipper of any of them. (Similarly, a dwarf might believe in the existence of King Obould the thug, but that doesn't mean that he would kiss the orc king's butt, or even show any form of deference to him at all, now does it?)
The kneejerk reaction that I have gotten from people when I have suggested these sorts of things makes me enthusiastically believe that there is ample room for WOTC to provide inclusive statements about the sort of diversity that is possible when generating fantasy characters. People just need to free their minds, more and more, to the full range of possibilities. |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jul 2014 : 18:42:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Demzer
I'm strongly against any interpretation that treats sexual orientation like a stab wound, mummy rot or raving drooling madness. The latters can be cured and "fixed" by magic, in the former case there's nothing to cure or "fix". [bold added]
But there are a lot of people who do express their sexuality, whether gay or straight or bi, as a raving drooling madness! 
And I'm sure that there are a lot of straight women who would prefer if certain straight raving drooling mad men could be "fixed"! |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jul 2014 : 19:05:45
|
As someone who has been an atheist even longer than a Realms fan (and I go back to the start of 2e), I've never been bothered with a lack of Realms atheists. I don't have a problem imagining a world where not only are there gods, but they make themselves known to everyone in at least small ways, for instance the mention Ed made about godly presence in firelight late at night or just before sleep (I can't remember the exact quote).
And wasn't that crazy halfling Cyric killed during the Avatar books an atheist? Not that that's the best example (villain in a horrible series).
Humans are humans, and have the same sorts of wonders, problems, and spectrums regardless of setting. This setting just happens to actually have gods, instead of deluded people who think they exist. (Just don't tell the Athar) |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jul 2014 : 19:26:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
As someone who has been an atheist even longer than a Realms fan (and I go back to the start of 2e), I've never been bothered with a lack of Realms atheists. I don't have a problem imagining a world where not only are there gods, but they make themselves known to everyone in at least small ways, for instance the mention Ed made about godly presence in firelight late at night or just before sleep (I can't remember the exact quote).
But the problem is that when people demand that the gods actively help them out if the gods want active worship, all too often the trite cliché response is that that is not how the gods behave in the Realms. Call it an edict of Ao or whatever, but the gods generally refrain from direct intervention.
Now, if they are going to be so passive for whatever reason, then that opens the door to doubt as to their intentions/motives, or even existence.
So someone saw a "god" in a firepit just before bed? Big deal. People see "ghosts" all the time. That doesn't make any of them real. I say that this observation holds particularly true if you're being told that that god loves you and wants you to fare well in life, but you find your life to be especially sucky. It doesn't sound like that loving god's love counts for much, does it? So what kind of a loving god is he/she? Is he/she really even all that loving, after all? Is he/she really even a god, after all?
Are you sure you really even saw what you think you saw? People still have hallucinations in the Realms, don't they?
It's annoying to me that the gods' existence is taken for granted, and yet they get such a free pass to not help their believers any more than they actually do. It's like people are paying protection money to gangsters, when the gangsters don't really do any protecting, but they sure do love to collect the money though.
In the name of drama, in the name of courageous heroism, I'd like to see more characters stand up to and defy the gods. Call them on their inactivity or passivity. Call them on their making escuses for their failure to help people any more than they do. To me, that's the ultimate form of goodly defiance--more than any war against another nation, or resistance against orc invasion, or sneaking around drow caverns. Refuse to bend a knee to he/she who won't even give you the time of day!
quote:
And wasn't that crazy halfling Cyric killed during the Avatar books an atheist? Not that that's the best example (villain in a horrible series).
I haven't read that series yet, precisely because so many have characterized it as pretty weak, like that.
But I have heard great things about Prince of Lies, however. I don't know if a main character is an atheist, per sé, but it definitely sounds as if someone is an anti-theist, there. |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6353 Posts |
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jul 2014 : 20:24:12
|
I just want to jump in and add a counter voice to some of the things that have been suggested.
Let's start by actually looking at the rules. Page 52 of the Basic Rules talks about Lifestyle Expense Checks. These are checks made daily or weekly to maintain your current standard of living. The vast majority of people in the setting are required to make a Poor Lifestyle Expense Check (LEC). This means that they earn roughly 2 silver per day, or roughly 6 gold in one month. That's roughly the average wage for the vast majority of people in the setting.
Now, let's look at the next page. On page 53 it talks about how to get Spellcasting Services. To find someone who can cast a common spell of 1st or 2nd level, such as cure wounds or identify, you're going to have to first travel to the nearest moderately sized town or a small city. Next, you're going to have to shell out anywhere from 10 to 50 gold pieces, plus the expenses of all the material components.
Perspective time. The average person makes roughly 6 gold per month. It's going to require them to double their wages or downgrade their lifestyle to Wretched for two months in order to get enough money just for a first level spell. And that's assuming that you get that first level spell cast on the cheap.
So even first level spells are outside of what roughly 75% or more of the population can afford.
Now, since we know using magic to change biological sex and sexual orientation is going to be much higher than first or second level spells - what do we do? Well, according to the rules you're going to have to travel to a large city, likely a metropolis, where there is some type of magical university or prominent temple. Once you're there, the value of their service is so great that it's sort of moved into the priceless territory. Even the super wealthy 1% are going to struggle to afford it. According to the rules getting these types of services are going to require favors "that only adventurers can provide."
So, realistically speaking, the people who are getting access to spellcasting above second level are the 1% of the 1%. We're talking about the wealthiest merchants, royalty, and the upper nobility. They're likely paying out through their noses, kissing a lot of ass, AND offering favors to get them as well.
And here we're talking about very specific niche spells. Spells that are going to permanently and forever alter your sexuality or biological sex - not temporarily, but forever or at least until magic alters it again. So, in my view we're probably looking at a 9th level spell, or 8th level spell at the lowest.
This means that you're likely going to have to be level 17 at a minimum if it's a 9th level spell, or level 15 at a minimum if it's an 8th level spell.
Using the Tiers of Play discussed on page 10, it gives us a good idea of the type of individual who might have the ability to cast such a spell. For a cleric, we're looking at the high priest of an entire religion. This is the head honcho, the guy or gal who is as close as you can get to a deities divine ear on the mortal plane. For a wizard, you're looking at Larloch, Szass Tam, Halaster, Karsus, Ioulaum, Elminster, the Simbul, etc. You would actively be seeking individuals of this scale of power who can cast the spell.
I think it's reasonable to conclude a wizard of sufficient power would not waste their time researching such a spell. There really is no point or benefit to doing so. That is, unless an adventurer came along, asked them to do it, and likely offered them a lot of gold and several favors.
You're more likely to find a cleric who can do it, but you're unlikely to find many deities or priests who would be interested. That is, unless you created a new deity that was an absolute anti-gay bigot, whose high priest actively sent out the clergy under him to hunt down gay people, dragging them back to his evil high temple, where he mind rapes them to turn them straight. That's likely the most realistic situation in the setting.
However, I do think that overlooks something that is likely fairly common when it comes to sexual orientation and magic in the Realms. I can imagine both the clergy of Sharess and Sune having a ritual that would temporarily change your sexual orientation. However, it would not be to change it from gay to straight. Their ritual would likely involve changing -EVERYONE'S- (i.e. all the participants in the ritual) sexual orientation to either bisexual or pansexual. They would do this because said ritual would be for an orgy, and after all... why deny yourself half of life's pleasures, right? At least from the perspective of a follower of Sharess.
So, it's quite possible that you could have your sexuality temporarily changed by a Priest or Priestess of Sharess if you participate in one of their ritualistic orgies at one of their temples.
Now, let's put things in perspective. In the real world trans* people struggle to get the money to have medically necessary operations performed so that their bodies conform to their gender identity. In the Realms, it's pretty much the same. People who are trans* will struggle to earn enough money to have their physical bodies magically transformed to match their gender identity. This will require a lot of work, and hey - guess what? That sounds like to me a good motivation for someone who is trans* to set off to try and become an adventurer.
For someone who is gay, there are no bigoted religious cults out there who seek to change people. There is no culture of anti-gay sentiment. Western views of sex, sexuality, and even romantic relationships do not frequently match up with the realities of the Realms. For one thing, just as one example, monogamy is not as high valued as in Western culture. People can and do have sex outside of their marriages.
To the extent that views of sexuality and romantic love are influenced in the Realms by religion the two primary deities shaping such perceptions would be Sharess and Sune. And neither deity has a problem with gay people. In fact, you could probably have a same sex marriage right in Sune's most holiest religious site and have the High Priestess herself and likely the deity bless such a union. And from the point of Sharess and her clergy being gay and being straight is likely seen as a sad thing; after all, you're limited in your life's pleasures. So, to the extent that they promote a sexual orientation it would be either bisexuality or pansexuality. After all, the more people you'd want to experience pleasure with the better.
And finally, when it comes to royalty and nobility, I would make the argument that having a gay king and queen is probably seen as a net positive. After all, since monogamy isn't as big of a deal in the Realms as it is in Western society, being gay and seeking romantic love and fulfillment outside of the marriage means you aren't going to produce any bastards. It's actually going to make the kingdom or noble family more stable.
Yes, they will have to sleep together to have children (unless they use the old fashioned turkey baster method). However, once they've fulfilled such obligations, they are free to have romances and sex outside of their marriage risk free. Unlike another well known monarch *cough* Azoun IV *cough* who planted a bastard into the uterus of every woman who came within fifty feet of him. He had so many illegitimate children running around there was actually a feat made so that you could play as one of them in 3E.
So, yes, by Azoun IV standards (who had Vangy running around behind him cleaning up the mess), a king and queen who were gay makes life much more simple and predictable. |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jul 2014 : 20:45:04
|
I disagree strongly on how powerful an "invert sexuality" or whatever you want to call it might be. Ninth level? Are you kidding? Well, if you wanted to use a wish to make it happen, but that's pretty much the definition of overkill.
Polymorph Other is permanent and not only provides massive physical changes, but has a significant chance of also drastically changing the target's mental state. (Note: 2e is my default setting) It has massive combat and infiltration potential. And it's 4th level. Wall of Stone and Wall of Iron have large areas of effect, huge potential both in and out of combat, are permanent, and are 5th level.
In contrast, Invert Sexuality has no combat potential, no real "adventuring" potential at all. It's an extremely limited spell. We have examples of non-permanent but long lasting mental enchantments with much broader applications (charm person and friends) at level 1. So I'd say a temporary Invert Sexuality could easily be 1st level, and a permanent version wouldn't be more than level 3. Heck, you can conjure permanent light at level 2.
Maybe you'd have the permenant Invert Sexuality as level 3 and Define Sexuality (where you could specify exactly what you wanted instead of a perfect switch) would be 4th. But that's as high as I'd go.
I think your point on the pluses of having a gay king is probably fairly valid, though. It would certainly cut down on the Azoun IV antics. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jul 2014 : 21:33:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
I disagree strongly on how powerful an "invert sexuality" or whatever you want to call it might be. Ninth level? Are you kidding? Well, if you wanted to use a wish to make it happen, but that's pretty much the definition of overkill.
Polymorph Other is permanent and not only provides massive physical changes, but has a significant chance of also drastically changing the target's mental state. (Note: 2e is my default setting) It has massive combat and infiltration potential. And it's 4th level. Wall of Stone and Wall of Iron have large areas of effect, huge potential both in and out of combat, are permanent, and are 5th level.
In contrast, Invert Sexuality has no combat potential, no real "adventuring" potential at all. It's an extremely limited spell. We have examples of non-permanent but long lasting mental enchantments with much broader applications (charm person and friends) at level 1. So I'd say a temporary Invert Sexuality could easily be 1st level, and a permanent version wouldn't be more than level 3. Heck, you can conjure permanent light at level 2.
Maybe you'd have the permenant Invert Sexuality as level 3 and Define Sexuality (where you could specify exactly what you wanted instead of a perfect switch) would be 4th. But that's as high as I'd go.
I think your point on the pluses of having a gay king is probably fairly valid, though. It would certainly cut down on the Azoun IV antics.
I agree that a temporary shift to sexual orientation wouldn't be a high level spell.
I imagine that most clergy of Sharess have access to such a spell (though it likely only orients individuals toward bisexuality or pansexuality). Outside of Sharress, I struggle to come up with any other deities who would really care about sexual orientation one way or another.
Without a culture that is actively oppressing gay, bisexual, and pansexual people it's hard for me to think of a reason why anyone in the Realms - at least outside of the core of the setting - would even consider changing their sexual orientation or someone else's. It wouldn't really make sense, because it wouldn't really be relevant. We'd probably find spells that change people from left handed to right handed infinitely more common. (Such a spell could make life easier in some trades, as most tools would be made for right handed individuals. So there is a practical use there, unlike changing sexual orientation - there is no reason to do so in the Realms, since there is wide spread cultural acceptance.)
Spells to change biological sex? Yes, I believe those likely exist due to the demand being there from trans* people. I considered Polymorph Other, but there was no Polymorph spell listed in the Basic Rules. In retrospect, you're probably right that it's lower than level 9 though. If we assume that it's a 4th level spell, then that means you'd need a 7th level caster (cleric or wizard). That's much more reasonable.
However, you'd still have to journey to the nearest metropolis, and it would still be completely out of the reach of the average person. It would still require vastly more than the average person could hope to pay according to the rules. Even if we're considering gold only and no favors, and we scale up the price accordingly it'll cost between 30 gold (REALLY cheap) to 150 gold.
This puts it in the domain of those living wealthy and aristocratic lifestyles. Those who are defined as Wealthy are highly successful merchants, favored servants of royalty, and owners of several small businesses. Those who are defined as Aristocratic are powerful politicians, guild leaders, high priests, and nobility - the richest and most powerful people in society.
So, really, what are we talking about here, even for a level 4 spell? We're talking about something like the top 5% of society maybe being able to reasonably afford it given time.
My point was to counter Redking who basically said that these things wouldn't matter in the Realms because of magic. My counter is that it would still very much matter because it's out of the reach of the vast majority of people in society.
|
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jul 2014 : 22:05:54
|
I take your point about the spells not being something extremely common. Existing, yes, but not within easy reach of everyone.
Just for fun, here are a couple more deities that would likely care enough to provide the spell:
Sune (same reasons as Sharess, only on a more lasting basis)
Shialia (probably only to make reproduction more likely)
Most elven deities (I imagine elves invented most of these spells to begin with)
Possibly the other demihuman deities of love/marriage
Siamorphe (to either set up or prevent an Azoun Horndog Situation)
Ilmater (to alleviate suffering caused by feeling out of sync with oneself or society)
But you're right, most deities probably wouldn't care very much, and the wizard spell versions would likely be fairly obscure outside elven circles. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1842 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jul 2014 : 22:13:48
|
Some quick responses to Aldrick:
quote:
Without a culture that is actively oppressing gay, bisexual, and pansexual people it's hard for me to think of a reason why anyone in the Realms - at least outside of the core of the setting - would even consider changing their sexual orientation or someone else's.
Disagree here, but only to the point that (as I said earlier) people do not fit into neat little boxes with labels. My main issue is the use of the word ANYONE. There will certainly be folks in the Realms who will see non-heterosexuality as somehow wrong. Not in the greater culture, of course, but there will be some-because it just makes sense that they would exist.
Also, I completely agree that a transgender personality may very well become an adventurer to find the money to have the change made. But, I am certain that someone has created such spells...and likely by a transgender who researched it for themselves.
I aslo agree with Hoondatha that such spells would be a good bit lower than 8th-9th level. Though I'm not sure I'd drop below 4th for a permanent version (there has always been rampant debate about the effects [and the level assigned to] the Polymorph spells.
@BEAST: Okay here is where I show that I don't fit into a nice, neat little box with a label. I love the character of Catti-brie. But the fact that RAS was basially required to write in a new character because it didn't meet with the editor's approval for not having a female character (and I will go on record that this was likely done for PC reasons, let us remember that TSR basically lead the charge on changing the common convention of using the masculine to feminine in 'neutral' writing).
My opinion may not be popular, but when authors are required to change their stories to suit others I take offense. It's not that I don't want female characters or female leads. Gay characters or gay leads. Transgender characters or transgender leads. I just do not agree with an artistic expression being required to meet someone else's definition of art.
We now have several instances of certain character 'types' being required for setting novels...be they based on gender, orientation or race. I don't want RAS, Erin M. Evins, Ed etc. etc. etc. being required to put things in their stories. The way I see it, if I want to write a character up (for play or in a novel) and I see them as cis-gender then that's what they are. If I see them as 'loud and proud' gay then that's what they are. I don't want OTHER people deciding such things for me...in either direction.
|
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
|
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1842 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jul 2014 : 22:16:07
|
| Hoondatha: I don't see dwarven priests casting such spells. Not that you mention them directly, but you did mention demihuman deities of love. Their culture, while it may not 'bash' such individuals, seems too steeped in tradition (IMO) for such spells. |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
Edited by - The Arcanamach on 08 Jul 2014 22:16:38 |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 00:35:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
Some quick responses to Aldrick:
quote:
Without a culture that is actively oppressing gay, bisexual, and pansexual people it's hard for me to think of a reason why anyone in the Realms - at least outside of the core of the setting - would even consider changing their sexual orientation or someone else's.
Disagree here, but only to the point that (as I said earlier) people do not fit into neat little boxes with labels. My main issue is the use of the word ANYONE. There will certainly be folks in the Realms who will see non-heterosexuality as somehow wrong. Not in the greater culture, of course, but there will be some-because it just makes sense that they would exist.
I was talking about the core of the setting. I think it's possible once you start stepping out of the core areas, in places where the Faerunian Pantheon has less sway - such as Mulhorand. I was also thinking exclusively among humans.
Reading Hoondatha's post regarding deities of other races, suddenly reminded me of an NPC that I created for the Realms years ago. She was a lesbian dwarf who refused to marry a man and breed, which among the Dwarfs (especially pre-Thunder Blessing) was a big no-no. She was exiled from the clan as a result (although she technically ran away and THEN was exiled). She was an extremely proud, stubborn dwarf who found herself frequently caught between the strongly conservative dwarven traditions and her own struggle for personal independence.
She ultimately fell in love with an Earth Genasi Sorceress, became a dwarven hero, and the Chosen of Moradin.
So, yeah. In my Realms I had my Dwarves have some issues with being gay, though their issues were less someone being gay in and of itself and more to do with literal breeding. They are also a much more patriarchal culture where women have much less equality than among some of the other races. Those are my dwarves, though, not sure what their views would be exactly in canon.
When it comes to humans, though, wherever Sharess and Sune are worshiped it becomes difficult for anti-gay sentiments to take root, even moderately. Mostly because I believe both cults would preach the exact opposite, and as a result would seek to dispute, refute, and uproot any such thinking. People would be exposed to same gender love, relationships, art, poetry, and sexuality. Being gay would ultimately become completely normalized in the culture, as invisible as heterosexuality is today.
When we look around us we rarely stop and think about all the heterosexual messages we're bombarded with throughout the day. Literally thousands of images, conversations, TV Shows, Billboards... all of it. Our lives are literally awash in heterosexuality, and because it's normalized most of it is invisible to us and we don't really think twice about it.
In the Realms I don't imagine it being much different, especially where the faiths of Sharess and Sune are strong. The only difference is that it would also include same sex relationships. The difference between gay and straight people in such a culture would be like the difference between blond and brown hair. Yeah, it's noticeable that there is a difference, but it's not something people really think about. The general attitude would probably be, 'you like what you like'.
There is just no cultural force there in the Realms promoting anti-gay views, and as far as we know there has never been such a force. As a result, gay people have just always sort of peacefully co-existed with heterosexual people. If there is no cultural force in existence saying 'gay is bad' then such thinking would be really bizarre to pretty much everyone. And not only are they not getting a 'gay is bad' message, they're actually getting the opposite as I imagine both Sune and Sharess openly celebrating same sex love and sexuality. So, everyone is getting a 'gay is good' message (or rather 'love is good' and 'sexuality is good' message - there wouldn't be a distinction drawn between being gay and being straight).
In order for such a belief to take hold there has to be an originator of the belief, and something that spreads it. And assuming that such a belief did originate and start to spread, it would immediately face opposition from both the church of Sune and Sharess. They would likely face opposition from other (especially good aligned churches) faiths as well such as Selune, simply on the basis that they'd see it as morally wrong to promote such a belief. Such a belief promotes discrimination, and one of Selune's core beliefs is in tolerance. There would also be the political side of things, as there are certainly gay and bisexual people among the clergy of all the faiths as well as in the nobility and merchant class.
So the moment such a belief surfaces and starts to spread it would immediately face institutional resistance. |
|
|
|
Portella
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
247 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 00:39:16
|
I like the inclusion of the text. I think people did what ever they wanted anyway regardless of it but its good it is there.
|
Purple you say?!
|
|
|
|
xaviera
Learned Scribe
Canada
149 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 01:10:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
However, I do think that overlooks something that is likely fairly common when it comes to sexual orientation and magic in the Realms. I can imagine both the clergy of Sharess and Sune having a ritual that would temporarily change your sexual orientation. However, it would not be to change it from gay to straight. Their ritual would likely involve changing -EVERYONE'S- (i.e. all the participants in the ritual) sexual orientation to either bisexual or pansexual. They would do this because said ritual would be for an orgy, and after all... why deny yourself half of life's pleasures, right? At least from the perspective of a follower of Sharess.
[...]
To the extent that views of sexuality and romantic love are influenced in the Realms by religion the two primary deities shaping such perceptions would be Sharess and Sune. And neither deity has a problem with gay people. In fact, you could probably have a same sex marriage right in Sune's most holiest religious site and have the High Priestess herself and likely the deity bless such a union. And from the point of Sharess and her clergy being gay and being straight is likely seen as a sad thing; after all, you're limited in your life's pleasures. So, to the extent that they promote a sexual orientation it would be either bisexuality or pansexuality. After all, the more people you'd want to experience pleasure with the better.
I completely agree with these comments. We are told that Sharessin are deliberately trained to reduce their inhibitions to intimate personal contact - e.g. by eating food off the bodies of other people - and it seems reasonable to think that this would extend to intimate same-sex contact. In fact, not being bi- or pansexual would likely be a drawback toward advancing in the Temple hierarchy.
However, an essential element (to me, at least) of Sharess-worship is choice, and it seems unlikely that anyone would be forced to participate in something they weren't agreeable to (with the understanding that Sharessin also deliberately subject themselves to unpleasant sensations at times), but the reaction of someone who couldn't enthusiastically participate in intimate encounters with a variety of different types of people (genders, orientations, sizes, appearances, races, demi-humans, etc.) would certainly be noticed and that person likely directed toward a role that involves less (or no) sexual contact (because, despite what their detractors say, sex is not the be-all and end-all of the religion).
|
Writings on Sharess: Thoughts & Prayers by Xaviera ~ High Priestess of Sharess |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 01:10:21
|
Arcanamach: I don't see dwarven priests casting the spells much often, either. Considering the dire dwarven demographics, I could see them casting a temporary version to help gay dwarven men or women procreate, and once pregnancy was achieved letting it lapse immediately.
Sort of a magical cure to "grin and bear it." |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11701 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 02:16:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
Ummm... so a god is a hermroodite, nothing new, although usually it tends to be the god or goddess of reproduction and sexual things, (like sune or whatever. If you don't like your gods or goddess being unique Sleyvas, I suggest you try talking to them, instead of railing against the mortals habits of political correctness. Ed is only writing down what elimister tells him about the hidden fantasy world, that has weird things like flying sunflower monsters.
Or those other political correct things, like the orcs gaining a kingdom instead of just being viewed as evil by birth , I would really suggest you take it up with the fantasy world, am sure they will listen to your complaints, while the every day dnd player will try arguing about the laws of physics when it comes to a fantasy world filled with magic.
*shrugs* who knew 80 some odd words, would make folks so mad, when they already state they ignore various things anyways, from various editions if it doesn't fit in with their world. Maybe you can do that on this one also Sleyvas. You already act like the sundering never happened; so now you can act like the elven god doesn't accept mixed genders. There all good? Nothing to cry about, if you follow your own logic?
Reread what I posted. My reaction is to HOW this is stated. Its basically a shout out to a group. If they want to show this kind of inclusiveness by presenting a product that includes the subject matter (for instance, I knew of Corellon's androgynous nature, and I have no problem with it), that's fine. If they want to discuss drow females being into lesbianism AND how it affects the adventure they're putting out or some group of NPC's, I'm fine with that. If they want to display some dwarven mercenaries who are gay, I'm fine with that. If they want to discuss some mindflayers who mate by infecting humans, and part of the adventure is curing a human before they change, I'm fine with that. I just don't like statements that we all already know and understand that are simply meant to placate a special interest group. I mean, who truthfully didn't understand that you can play whatever you can imagine? |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 02:17:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
Arcanamach: I don't see dwarven priests casting the spells much often, either. Considering the dire dwarven demographics, I could see them casting a temporary version to help gay dwarven men or women procreate, and once pregnancy was achieved letting it lapse immediately.
Sort of a magical cure to "grin and bear it."
No need to really involve magic. Like I said in my previous post, the option for someone who doesn't want to have sex is the turkey baster method. No sex or magic required.
What really matters, ultimately, to groups like human nobility and the dwarves is that there be an heir / pregnancy. They don't really care how it happens. Old fashioned way, turkey baster, whatever. Just get pregnant and push out a healthy baby (preferably male in the case of Cormyr) - that's their focus.
quote:
Originally posted by xaviera
I completely agree with these comments. We are told that Sharessin are deliberately trained to reduce their inhibitions to intimate personal contact - e.g. by eating food off the bodies of other people - and it seems reasonable to think that this would extend to intimate same-sex contact. In fact, not being bi- or pansexual would likely be a drawback toward advancing in the Temple hierarchy.
However, an essential element (to me, at least) of Sharess-worship is choice, and it seems unlikely that anyone would be forced to participate in something they weren't agreeable to (with the understanding that Sharessin also deliberately subject themselves to unpleasant sensations at times), but the reaction of someone who couldn't enthusiastically participate in intimate encounters with a variety of different types of people (genders, orientations, sizes, appearances, races, demi-humans, etc.) would certainly be noticed and that person likely directed toward a role that involves less (or no) sexual contact (because, despite what their detractors say, sex is not the be-all and end-all of the religion).
I agree with all of this. It's pretty different in terms of Realms culture and real world culture. The faiths of Sharess and Sune influence the culture at large, and so the general view would be that being closed minded is a bad thing.
In fact, I think we might even be able to go as far to say that people would likely be encouraged (via cultural pressure / expectations) to go out and experiment. People who refuse to do so would likely be regarded as uptight, prudish, and the like.
People just can't import Western views of sex and sexuality into the Realms. They are radically different and often at odds. |
|
|
|
Mapolq
Senior Scribe
Brazil
466 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 02:22:14
|
I don't believe it would be beneficial for WotC to try to tackle this issue throughly in the game, and I don't believe they're going to. Take the problems discussed above - how to present the sexuality spectrum in a world where such things as being reincarnated by magic are known to be possible? Lots of questions would pop up, and there's probably no good scenario to come from that, compared to what we get by skirting away from the question and leaving such things for the individual. Unfortunately, sexuality is a can of worms in our world and you can't expect people to take it without a strong reaction.
That said, the statement was okay in my opinion, as it's very mildly catering to inclusiveness. If it weren't for the obsession we have with these things, the statement would probably pass off as a reminder that playing characters with traits that are unusual but otherwise not that remarkable and obvious (compared to, say, being half-draconic) can be very interesting. Or a reminder that D&D as a game and the Realms and other worlds as settings don't need to be defined by whatever the current notion of "the fantasy genre" is, and it's totally acceptable to explore the themes you want.
Edit: remember many people, including a good number who will read this book, are still unfamiliar with the concept of roleplaying as we understand it.
|
Never sleep under the jackfruit tree.
Tales of Moonsea - A Neverwinter Nights 2 Persistent World. Check out our website at http://www.talesofmoonsea.com and our video trailer at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am304WqOAAo&feature=youtu.be, as well as our thread here at Candlekeep: http://www.forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12955
My campaign thread: http://www.forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=16447 |
Edited by - Mapolq on 09 Jul 2014 02:24:28 |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 02:25:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Reread what I posted. My reaction is to HOW this is stated. Its basically a shout out to a group. If they want to show this kind of inclusiveness by presenting a product that includes the subject matter (for instance, I knew of Corellon's androgynous nature, and I have no problem with it), that's fine. If they want to discuss drow females being into lesbianism AND how it affects the adventure they're putting out or some group of NPC's, I'm fine with that. If they want to display some dwarven mercenaries who are gay, I'm fine with that. If they want to discuss some mindflayers who mate by infecting humans, and part of the adventure is curing a human before they change, I'm fine with that. I just don't like statements that we all already know and understand that are simply meant to placate a special interest group. I mean, who truthfully didn't understand that you can play whatever you can imagine?
New players, for one. By your logic they should also delete the entire introduction, which basically describes what a roleplaying game is and how to play it. Because, after all, everyone already knows that, right? 
And maybe rather than trying to "placate a special interest group" WotC was trying to make sure that everyone knew that they were not limited to the standard male / female gender binary and heterosexual choices. That the game is fully capable of supporting all types of characters.
Which would make sense, considering that it was posted in the character creation section, under the part labeled for your character Sex. After all, what else were they going to put there? "Your character can be male or female"? Really? Don't we already know that? How about, instead, they let us know that our characters can be more than that.
Then again, I suppose it's all an attempt to "placate a special interest group"? I mean, have you even read the Basic Rules? You do realize what's in there, right? You do realize where it's posted? What would you have put in that section of the rules instead? |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 02:26:09
|
The "turkey baster method," as I understand it, requires a turkey baster, which requires advanced rubber, which the Realms doesn't have. It's an "old fashioned" method in terms of the early 21st century, sure, but it's well beyond non-magical Realms technology.
Of course, I have not made a study of the turkey baster method, so if someone knows how it could be adapted to a late-medieval/early-Renaissance tech base, I'd be interested to hear about it. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 02:39:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
@BEAST: Okay here is where I show that I don't fit into a nice, neat little box with a label. I love the character of Catti-brie. But the fact that RAS was basially required to write in a new character because it didn't meet with the editor's approval for not having a female character (and I will go on record that this was likely done for PC reasons, let us remember that TSR basically lead the charge on changing the common convention of using the masculine to feminine in 'neutral' writing).
My opinion may not be popular, but when authors are required to change their stories to suit others I take offense.
It's odd, then, that at the same time, some editor or another decided that Guenhwyvar could not be a female panther, and attempted to cisgenderize the cat in every publication in which she appeared. (They missed a few female pronouns in Hall of Heroes and Sojourn, though.  )
This is just a hypothesis, but maybe the editors are more likely to be more prone to make suggestions early on in a writer's career, when s/he (<-- see what I did there, in THIS particular scroll???  ) is less likely to stand up and defend a work? Maybe the editors become more laissez faire over time, once the author has gained some cred? |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11701 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 02:39:04
|
I am glad to see this topic changing more towards a productive turn. The discussion of using magic to change genders is especially interesting. This is perhaps the kind of method that WotC should have presented such discussion. To further such, lets take some examples and see how they might affect the world. Note, in the below, I'm specifically providing "villainous" ideas because that's what adventurers can counter.
A high level mage is turned down by a woman. He pays someone to acquire a quantity of her hair. He then makes a simulacrum of her and is seen "dating" her around town. He does not bother to make people aware of the fact that this is NOT the real woman. News of this "cheating" scandal gets back to the woman's lover.
A high level male mage attempts to seduce a heterosexual male. When the male turns him down, he makes a simulacrum of the man. In the "privacy" of his own home, the mage uses his new construct to pleasure himself. The mage is scried upon by another mage, who believes the construct is the actual male. This may be in a society that shuns such interactions. The heterosexual male is then shunned for something he never did. He hires adventurers to find the simulacrum of him and destroy it.
There's probably some other options out there that can involve magic. Can anyone think of such?
|
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 02:47:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
The "turkey baster method," as I understand it, requires a turkey baster, which requires advanced rubber, which the Realms doesn't have. It's an "old fashioned" method in terms of the early 21st century, sure, but it's well beyond non-magical Realms technology.
Of course, I have not made a study of the turkey baster method, so if someone knows how it could be adapted to a late-medieval/early-Renaissance tech base, I'd be interested to hear about it.
Actually, all you need is a syringe. I just call it the Turkey Baster Method because I know that's what is commonly used in the real world. Also, as far as I know syringes were first invented and used during Roman times.
In terms of the Realms technology, I'd imagine all you'd really need would be:
1. Lambskin Condom (or whatever the pre-latex equivalent is in the Realms) for collection. Though I suppose other more creative things could be used, such as a cup.
2. Syringe.
To increase chances of pregnancy it's also helpful if there is a basic understanding of ovulation.
That's basically it... all you have to do is keep trying until it works. |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 03:10:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
A high level mage is turned down by a woman. He pays someone to acquire a quantity of her hair. He then makes a simulacrum of her and is seen "dating" her around town. He does not bother to make people aware of the fact that this is NOT the real woman. News of this "cheating" scandal gets back to the woman's lover.
A high level male mage attempts to seduce a heterosexual male. When the male turns him down, he makes a simulacrum of the man. In the "privacy" of his own home, the mage uses his new construct to pleasure himself. The mage is scried upon by another mage, who believes the construct is the actual male. This may be in a society that shuns such interactions. The heterosexual male is then shunned for something he never did. He hires adventurers to find the simulacrum of him and destroy it.
There's probably some other options out there that can involve magic. Can anyone think of such?
Well, aside from being creepy... it's just an illusion. So, it's not rape or anything because the simulacrum isn't sentient. Wizards can do far more to indulge their sexual fantasies that don't cost them as much as a simulacrum.
I'm not sure that these things would necessarily create problems for individuals in the Realms. In the case of the first issue, it's easily solved by her showing up and appearing at the same time the simulacrum is walking around. Non-monogamy isn't a huge thing in the Realms like in the real world, so it wouldn't really be a scandal per-say. It's more a problem of the creep factor.
There may be some laws on the books regarding false impersonation, though, which could land the wizard in some trouble with local law enforcement.
As for the second problem involving the male... it's even less of an issue since engaging in a romance or sexual activity with someone of the same sex isn't frowned upon. If the guy finds out he might be creeped out about it, not because of the same sex sexual activity, but the fact that the wizard is actively fantasizing about him to the point that he's creating illusions to simulate him to stimulate his own sexual fantasies.
Then again, it depends on personality and the relationship he has with the wizard. If they are friends, it might end up with some teasing. "So, how good was I? Was I all that you expected?" After all, it's happening in the privacy of the wizards home, so he's assuming that no one else knows what he is doing. So that could lead to some amusing conversations / friendly teasing. It depends on the personality of the individual and their pre-existing relationship with the wizard.
If someone (Manshoon?  ) was caught having sex with a simulacrum of Elminster, and he found out about it, I'm pretty sure he'd find it hilarious. Just one example. |
|
|
|
Mapolq
Senior Scribe
Brazil
466 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 03:24:10
|
| Non-monogamy is not necessarily an issue in the Realms, but while the situation is explained, even if it takes a day or so, much damage can be done. Not every marriage in the Realms is polygamous (I think most aren't), and even if having affairs is okay, lying about them is probably not a good sign for any relationship (as in the case of the simulacrum, if confronted with the situation the victim would rightfully deny being involved, and their spouse would understandably think they're lying). Of course, there's endless ways in which people can screw others' lives, that's just one more. |
Never sleep under the jackfruit tree.
Tales of Moonsea - A Neverwinter Nights 2 Persistent World. Check out our website at http://www.talesofmoonsea.com and our video trailer at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am304WqOAAo&feature=youtu.be, as well as our thread here at Candlekeep: http://www.forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12955
My campaign thread: http://www.forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=16447 |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 03:42:21
|
Aldrick: Lambskin condom, absolutely. But the syringe wasn't invented until 1844. Again you're using modern or near-modern tech for your Realms turkey baster method.  |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
I think WOTC entered the modern age
Topic Locked
