Community

Somehow I got the strange idea once and I am coming to a point where I can use it in my game:

Hydra is the honnorific title for the dragonborn warlord, leader of the "hundred heads" (a Tiamat worshiping army), And one of the scenes I want the players to walk in on is:

"As you enter the renovated temple, there are many tables, benches, and beds, all around you find only dragonborn men and women socializing in seeming equal status. At the far end of the room where was once a statue of bahamut is now a stone throne with a heavily built dragonborn in his scale armor with 'roman' skirt. On either side of this leader stand a slippery looking archer, their crossbows trained on you but their eyes cast down at the king, or more precisely the silkcovered body servicing the king on its knees. The leader hold up a hand for the party to stop as his body tightens up to release a mighty roar of domination with wings unfurled as the servant makes a choking sound, behind and around all other dragonborn cheer in salute as the silk wrapped dragonborn rises up to be an even larger male than the king but dressed as a harem attendant. As the servant takes a submissive seat below the kings side, softly nuzzeling and kissing his leg, the leader becons the party closer without even bothering to cover himself up. "Greetings 'heroes'."

My question is if the villian can still be taken serriously if it is already acknowedged to be gay from the onset in a dominant role?

Also if it is revealed that the harem attendant is the true leader and has his servant pose as the king, is he still as intimidating if he is a socialy submissive gay?

sure, if it's cool with your players.

personally, i wouldn't think about it any differently than any other villain, however your players may be the kinds of people who just snicker the whole time because the bbeg "hearts the ****"

A villain's sexuality doesn't change their villainousness, at least as long as you don't make a big deal out of it. So the PC have just witnessed the king getting a blowjob from his male servant. That doesn't make him any less intimidating. And if they find out that the real king was actually the one giving the blowjob, then they should feel the same sort of feelings they would had the same scenario had a heterosexual cast. This scene just reveals a bit about the guy, nothing more. It would only become a problem if every time the PC's encounter him his sexuality is emphasized. Dropping the big reveal that the big bad is gay will at least interest the players, or possibly repulse them if they're particularly immature, but belabouring the point that he is gay afterwards will only get annoying, or worse, make the villain seem comical, which is what you're trying to avoid.

Demetri_Knighthawk wrote:

"As you enter the renovated temple, there are many tables, benches, and beds, all around you find only dragonborn men and women socializing in seeming equal status. At the far end of the room where was once a statue of bahamut is now a stone throne with a heavily built dragonborn in his scale armor with 'roman' skirt. On either side of this leader stand a slippery looking archer, their crossbows trained on you but their eyes cast down at the king, or more precisely the silkcovered body servicing the king on its knees. The leader hold up a hand for the party to stop as his body tightens up to release a mighty roar of domination with wings unfurled as the servant makes a choking sound, behind and around all other dragonborn cheer in salute as the silk wrapped dragonborn rises up to be an even larger male than the king but dressed as a harem attendant. As the servant takes a submissive seat below the kings side, softly nuzzeling and kissing his leg, the leader becons the party closer without even bothering to cover himself up. "Greetings 'heroes'."

. . . Okay, I had to read this a couple of time to finally get it, but are you suggesting that the players are walking in on the leader giving somebody a blow job in public? . . . I don't feel like that's appropriate for any villain, no matter his or her sexuality, but maybe that's just me.

My question is if the villian can still be taken serriously if it is already acknowedged to be gay from the onset in a dominant role?

Also if it is revealed that the harem attendant is the true leader and has his servant pose as the king, is he still as intimidating if he is a socialy submissive gay?

That depends entirely on the maturity of your group. However, if you have doubt about it, I'd suggest something a little more subtle than having him sucking a guy off when they meet him.

Maybe I'm being overly sensitive because I myself am gay, but public oral doesn't sound like a very positive portrayal. If you play your games with that kind of degree of sexualization otherwise, then by all means go for it, but if the sexualization here would be out of place in the campaign, I'd advise against it and again suggest something more subtle...

This is true, Crimson Concerto. The key to getting your players to be mature about sexual situations in your game is to make sure the sexual element doesn't stick out like a sore thumb...or any other number of things that stick out.

if i were a player in your game the homosexual activity would not faze me. but that isn't to say that i would not be fazed. because 1:as the dm you would likely be a friend of mine 2: you bring sex into gaming would wierd me out a little and 3: i assume that you would be acting out the dragonborn's orgasm, really weirding me out.
it's like when my character goes to a bar and tries to pick up on ladies and my dm (a man) role plays the ladies flirting with me. so in reality, me and my friend are pretending to be other people and flirt with each other. no fun...
i say all sex "off camera" in dnd.
but that's just this gamers humble opinion.

Hmm, maybe have the bad guy give a dirty/sultry/sexy look to one of the male characters. Let teh character walk away thinking "Wait, was he coming on to me?" Give them something to really make him memorable, and if you doubt your groups maturity, that would be much more subtle than "You walk in and see a dragonborn recieve bj...from a guy."


for teh record, I got no problem with gays, but the whole scenario would get me to snicker a bit, and cause a few one-liners to come out that me and my characters are prone to

I don't think the villian being gay would be any less intimidating. Personally, I'd be more subtle about it as well. The "money shot" was a bit much in my opinion (gah, I couldn't find a way for that not to sound bad) but maybe having them find him laying with male servants or something similar could be in order. Shock isn't always about what you see, but what you think you are seeing. Just my opinion.

Thank you all for the very consice and mature responses.

Hehe this sounds like a BBEG in a more comedy flavored campaign. Nothing wrong with gays, but I often have to think about those extravagant bastards in those idiotic parades who give gays in general a bad name. So when picturing the described scene I see:

An extravagantly gay dragonborn with fairy wings in a Scottish skirt (Kilt) or tutu who is receiving a blow job letting out a very high pitched roar (lack of testosterone does influence voice) as the party of adventurers enters. The one giving the blow job then uses one of those french Renaissance handkerchiefs to wipe the dragon goo from his face which has a little birthmark speckle. This all taking place in some lair with '70s decorations and the two guards wearing really wrong and really tight leather armor. To make it even more funny is to equip one of them with a whip. Perhaps have a group do the YMCA in the background as well.

Really...I can't take such a BBEG serious no matter how threatening he truly is. I'd probably knock them all out cold and capture them. Then set up a traveling theater/parade with them as the main act...and they just have to be themselves without acting. Not a bad way to make money of a BBEG.

The honorific title "Leader of the 100 Heads" will get a different meaning then what you're aiming for as well then.

So if you want to play a gay BBEG...play it like any proper gay in society. They're not the extravagant types who constantly shout for attention like a bunch of *****es. Except for the way they dress, use their body language you hardly even know they are gays. And it isn't like they come onto anyone of the same sexe so if you want to flirt with a player character then make sure it is justified as "teasing" or find a proper motivation why your BBEG might be attracted to an adventure he/she just met and doesn't really know that well. Perhaps he likes the determination of coming this far etc.

I think an openly gay warlord villain can work perfectly well. Just ask Alexander the Great.

As others have said, I think the opening scene being public sex is gratuitous, and makes more of an issue of his sexuality than needs be. A kiss/nuzzle from the king's lover would get the same point across, while oral sex in front of a cheering crowd suggests exhibitionism, as well as a sense of depravity or sexual obsession in his followers (is an orgasm really cheer-worthy?).

If the king poses as a servant then he is far less intimidating. It dents his credentials as the powerful leader, perhaps a tactical warlord could be a power-behind-the-throne character sucking up to the king (no pun intended) and making tactical decisions, but I do not see a Tiamat-worshipping king as the type for a socially submissive role - it puts a rather large dent in his authority.

I may be repeating everyone but the level of maturaty in the group would designate how adult you want this whole thing. I have no problem with a gay villian as long as you dont over emphise it to the point of characiture. then it could be insulting. now personally i would be a little uncomfertable about anyone being serviced in that way in d&d no matter who is performing said act. but thats just me, i try to not over sexualize my campaigns.

Perhaps instead have him have a male follower chained near his throne and when they come in he steps down off of it and caresses his cheek and the servant looks lovingly up at him. Maybe even have multiple male followers laying around the throne in harem type outfits to help point it out. This would avoid the obvious sexual tendencies (dominant, submissive, etc.) of the BBEG (maybe leaving those to be discovered in a more private setting like his personal chambers) but should still point out that he is gay.

I had a gay villain in one game. Male drow. The party had been captured and taken before their new master. What they saw was a decidedly dominant male drow with a naked human male on all fours before his throne being used as a footstool. I described the whole ball-gag and S&M get-up just to get everyone's skin crawling. (They thought that their new 'master' was going to be a female drow.) Standing just behind the throne were two younger males, not quite adult. ("They're so much more pliable when you raise them right, hmmm? I can't wait until they've left childhood behind...") Oh, you should have seen everyone squirming!

Fortunately, this was a very mature group and they understood that I was handing them a villain from whom mere escape wouldn't be good enough. They'd have to kill him, and oh did they want to! He kept using phrases like "I'll have to break you horses before you can be properly ridden." Of course, I'd never force such a thing on the PCs, but it gave the session a level of desperation that I haven't seen since.

Disclaimer: I've also used gay good guys, too.

Falstyr wrote:

An extravagantly gay dragonborn with fairy wings in a Scottish skirt (Kilt) or tutu who is receiving a blow job letting out a very high pitched roar (lack of testosterone does influence voice)

This is what I was expecting from the OP upon seeing the title of the thread. Kudos for keeping it clean OP.

The quoted material is bigoted and stereotypical, not representative. Captain Jack Harkness is a good mention of an openly gay character who has none of those traits. Although the actor has worn kilts.


For the OP, I want to mention that one way to clearly show the villain is gay is to think of all the stuff you would expect a straight Villain to be doing, and switch genders of any female/male characters. Another way to be clear about the character, and a lot more subtle, is to drop comments in during play.
"The maid stands out in your memory as one of the most unattractive women you've ever seen doing that job."
"The tactician, although short, appears to work out as much as the guards do."
"The King winks at you, as he mentions there are other punishments well-behaved prisoners receive."

I would avoid bringing light to the villiain's sexual preferences unless there's a good story reason for doing it. For that couple lines of flavor text, you risk the players wondering why the Dragonborn villain is gay, and trying to find the evil wizard who corrupted him, et cetera, et cetera.

Since your villain will not likely be entering into a relationship with any of the PCs, his sexual preferences are unimportant. What is important, as far as the game is concerned, is the sexual act in which he is engaged when the players come across him. The question then becomes why.

Take the following spin on your scenario into account: What if the villain is not doing this out of sexual gratification, but to humiliate the servant? The villain is making the servant do this because... well, he's powerful and he CAN.

Let's kick it up a notch. What if that servant was actually an unwilling slave? What if it was the NPC the heroes were sent to rescue? What if it was the family member of one of the PCs? All of a sudden, the stakes of this combat just skyrocketed, and killing this guy is going to be a hell of a lot sweeter.

Preferences don't really matter. Gay or straight, he's a villain. It's motivations that matter where villains are concerned.

It's not a problem in and of itself. I certainly have a problem being in a game with that kind of maturity level. The problem is why is it relevant that he is gay and what is the purpose of the scene described?

Shiftkitty wrote:

Of course, I'd never force such a thing on the PCs, but it gave the session a level of desperation that I haven't seen since.

HA! HA-HA!! HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!!!!!!

But more to the point, what in the hell gave you the idea to make a gay dragonborn? Seriously, the mental image conjured up by the OP is more disturbing than most RL gorn.

Also, though I may be wrong, I think having a pinis (damned word-filter) capable of being "blowed" isn't something organisms with scales tend to have.

On another note, if you really want to play the scene over into comedy without using the anachronistic stereotypes Falstyr mentioned, you could have him involuntarily breathe fire into the air when he comes.

Caelicola wrote:

Also, though I may be wrong, I think having a [removed] capable of being "blowed" isn't something organisms with scales tend to have.

Nor are mammaries.

That sums up my thoughts about this thread.

I'd find it hilarious if one of the players 1hkilled him while he was getting it.

NO. Bad idea.

I question whether someone "socially submissive", regardless of gender or orientation, would ever really advance to a position of power, especially in a militaristic culture. And especially if they would have the respect of their subordinates, if they publicly humiliate themselves by supplicating to a servant, even with the ostensible purpose of deception.

There is a reason Kings, Queens, Emperors/Empresses of ages past and modern political leaders all insist on decorum, protocol, and underlings displaying appropriate levels of obeisance and deferral to them. It's to continually reinforce their role as Alpha.

You can certainly have someone who is sexually submissive, who enjoys being degraded, tied up, used, in private, who is publicly an authoritarian leader.

This isn't even a matter of culture, but goes to game theory and evolutionary psychology. We are pack animals, like chimps and dogs, and social interactions will often carry a degree of status negotiation, where each is trying to reinforce their position in the social hierarchy. Behaviors that emphasize strength, confidence, and aggressiveness will tend to cause weaker individuals to back down and defer, whether in decisions, food, mates, or anything else of value. The respect of the pack/tribe then goes to the stronger leader, who is more capable and effective of getting what they need. This is why women in positions of authority often need to emulate those alpha behaviors.

You'll find many examples in history of gay or bisexual men who attained positions of power (Alexander, several Roman emperors, Popes, Kings), and numerous women who also rose to power. But I think you will find that they were strong personalities who were capable of bending others to their will through leadership and charisma, rather than being passive and submissive people who happened to be assigned power anyway.

As a gay man I have to say that while the idea of a gay villain is ... well, it's actually something I feel rather conflicted about, but generally neutral on so long as the character's sexuality itself is not seen as the cause or a symptom of their villainy. For example, the situation Shifterkitty mentioned above, where the threat of having another male force the characters into a sexually submissive position inspired the players to "a level of desperation that I haven't seen since," is something that I would consider a very poor use of non-heteronormative characters that does nothing more than reinforce the player's negative preconceptions towards homosexuality.
In the OP's example, I have two questions. First, why do you want the villain to be gay? Is it to give him a more interesting, three-dimensional personality? Honestly, in the situation that you've outlined, it seems more like you're using the character's blatant display of sexual behavior that (I assume your primarily heterosexual male) players will find disgusting solely as a means of making him seem like an acceptable target for the players to kill. Secondly, why are you introducing the character's sexuality in such a ... provocative manner? Having the party meet the villain while he is sexually servicing a minion is gratuitous and over-the-top, don't you think?
If you're really interested in having a gay villain who isn't an offensive stereotype, I would suggest going for the Alexander the Great approach: have two warlords who lead the Dragonborn together, both male, who rule together like a king and queen would. Never draw any specific attention to it; simply present them straightforwardly and allow players to draw their own conclusions as they will. They will be much more likely to interact with the villain as though he were a genuine menace to be feared, and less a joke to be laughed at and decapitated.

Personally, I just don't like the idea of a Villain's "hook" being that they are gay.

"Korfax is the butcher of a thousand innocents."
"Arithnos is the demon-summoner that attempts to resurrect the damned empire of Bael Turath."
"This guy is gay!"

Drackthor wrote:

Personally, I just don't like the idea of a Villain's "hook" being that they are gay.

"Korfax is the butcher of a thousand innocents."
"Arithnos is the demon-summoner that attempts to resurrect the damned empire of Bael Turath."
"This guy is gay!"

Yeah, when you put it like this, the idea is really offensive. I wonder what other characterization the OP has planned for this villain or if that's just really it...

echelon_house wrote:

As a gay man I have to say that while the idea of a gay villain is ... well, it's actually something I feel rather conflicted about, but generally neutral on so long as the character's sexuality itself is not seen as the cause or a symptom of their villainy.

I feel the same way.

echelon_house wrote:

For example, the situation Shifterkitty mentioned above, where the threat of having another male force the characters into a sexually submissive position inspired the players to "a level of desperation that I haven't seen since," is something that I would consider a very poor use of non-heterosexually-normative characters that does nothing more than reinforce the player's negative preconceptions towards homosexuality.

This, I disagree with. I believe kitty's use to be rather inspired.

To turn the tables on it, would you, playing a homosexually male character, be more or less interested in preventing the villain from winning if the villain was a dominant woman who wished to force you sexually?
Especially if she might be unable to resist doing the same to other, underage characters?

(it's the last part that would have been my primary motivation in kitty's group)

Well, to be fair, a gay villain would be an easy way to make him memorable...


and about the one party that was captured by the gay drow: I don't see it as gay=evil, but more along the lines of a typical straight guy's response. Even if the player doesn't mind gays, there's still the thought of "No way man! I don't give a crap, I ain't blowin no dude!" That doesn't stem from prejudice, but from the thought of doin something he doesn't want to. Just like how I hate chili, while my friends love the stuff, and I'm just thinking "How can you guys eat that crap?!" It's the same thing.

crazysamaritan wrote:

I feel the same way.

This, I disagree with. I believe kitty's use to be rather inspired.

To turn the tables on it, would you, playing a homosexually male character, be more or less interested in preventing the villain from winning if the villain was a dominant woman who wished to force you sexually?
Especially if she might be unable to resist doing the same to other, underage characters?

(it's the last part that would have been my primary motivation in kitty's group)

It's not the same thing. If you did the above example... Real life concerns of LGBT people would make your game have some rather unfortunate implications.

TL;DR You end up saying it's okay to beat up gay people for being gay; even if that's not what you meant to do.

Falstyr wrote:

Nothing wrong with gays, but I often have to think about those extravagant bastards in those idiotic parades who give gays in general a bad name.

Speaking as someone who has marched in those parades, I'm having a hard time letting this one go. But I suppose I'll pick my battles.

1958Fury wrote:

Speaking as someone who has marched in those parades, I'm having a hard time letting this one go. But I suppose I'll pick my battles.

Good idea, last thing we need is for this topic to close as a political battleground....

KainHighwind wrote:

Good idea, last thing we need is for this topic to close as a political battleground....

You read my mind.

I think it's the description of a roman skirt and the opulence all around, but my first thought is:

"Hey. It's a dragonborn Caligula."

Beyond that, I don't think his being gay really matters.
It's a great example of a decadent leader (in this case an evil one) who has all the comforts he desires at his beck and call.

I'd like to have the following question answered regarding this concept.

Is the BBEG's sexuality something that is really needed in the adventure, or is it being used for the typical heterosexual "ewww" response? If it is the latter, I seriously would reconsider your choices. I could think of an example in which I could see it being used to further the story, or at least give more depth, just not as presented.

A borderline primitive tribe of dragonborn, the separation of tasks in the society is divided between the men and the women, each sex doing different but equally important roles. This fact has always created a strain in the leadership, since most cultures are patriarchies, yet the females believe they deserve to lead as well. Suddenly, a new male rises from the tribe, a young but wise beyond his years shaman. Physically he is male, but his preference in mates are for those of the same sex. This unusual orientation has elevated him to a position to be able to perform ALL tasks, and he is seen as a revered and sacred being, transcending the status quo.

Rhovanion wrote:

Physically he is male, but his preference in mates are for those of the same sex.

See you seem to be confused here. You're either trying to say "He's psychologically a heterosexual female" or "He's gay". I'll point out that both of very very very different things.

P.S. This is why straight people should not try to make homosexual fictional characters.... ever.
P.P.S. That above statement is purposefully over the top.

Darkless_One wrote:

See you seem to be confused here. You're either trying to say "He's psychologically a heterosexual female" or "He's gay". I'll point out that both of very very very different things.

Quoted for truth.

P.S. This is why straight people should not try to make homosexual fictional characters.... ever.
P.P.S. That above statement is purposefully over the top.

Now now, that's not entirely fair. You might as well say homosexuals should never try to make heterosexual characters, males should never try to make female characters, or humans should never try to make elf characters. It's about insight and maturity. Some people can pull it off well, and I'm fortunate enough to know two of them.

What if instead of showing that he's gay, you show he enjoys breaking people? Perhaps this guy doesn't care if they're male or female, he simply enjoys breaking their will till they do as he wants without question. Maybe he gets rid of them after that, who knows, but I could see a seen like this then.


"As you enter the command tent of the enemy general you're struck by the opulence of it all. Sitting along the sides of a long carpet are the dragonborn officers celebrating their recent victory. All the way down the carpet you see a large dragonborn sitting on a throne flanking the throne are males and females of multiple races all scantily clad and chained to the throne. Two slaves also kneel next to the throne resting their heads along the edges and running their hands along the dragonborn's legs. As you get closer you recognize one of the slaves kneeling to be General Harken of the Sons of Thunder, the man you were sent to rescue."

I think this would set him up as a powerful villain able to break anyone of their willpower.

Crimson_Concerto wrote:

Now now, that's not entirely fair. You might as well say homosexuals should never try to make heterosexual characters, males should never try to make female characters, or humans should never try to make elf characters. It's about insight and maturity. Some people can pull it off well, and I'm fortunate enough to know two of them.

That's why the post post-script notes that the Post-script statement is over the top.

Well, this thread is now reaching it's "Debate whether or not someone's actually prejudiced or not" and "Try to express your opinion without it sounding bad" phases, so I think we can declare this thread's effective Character Development a solid nil.

Demetri_Knighthawk wrote:

Somehow I got the strange idea once and I am coming to a point where I can use it in my game:

Hydra is the honnorific title for the dragonborn warlord, leader of the "hundred heads" (a Tiamat worshiping army), And one of the scenes I want the players to walk in on is:

"As you enter the renovated temple, there are many tables, benches, and beds, all around you find only dragonborn men and women socializing in seeming equal status. At the far end of the room where was once a statue of bahamut is now a stone throne with a heavily built dragonborn in his scale armor with 'roman' skirt. On either side of this leader stand a slippery looking archer, their crossbows trained on you but their eyes cast down at the king, or more precisely the silkcovered body servicing the king on its knees. The leader hold up a hand for the party to stop as his body tightens up to release a mighty roar of domination with wings unfurled as the servant makes a choking sound, behind and around all other dragonborn cheer in salute as the silk wrapped dragonborn rises up to be an even larger male than the king but dressed as a harem attendant. As the servant takes a submissive seat below the kings side, softly nuzzeling and kissing his leg, the leader becons the party closer without even bothering to cover himself up. "Greetings 'heroes'."

My question is if the villian can still be taken serriously if it is already acknowedged to be gay from the onset in a dominant role?

Also if it is revealed that the harem attendant is the true leader and has his servant pose as the king, is he still as intimidating if he is a socialy submissive gay?

Showing a villain using his power to force his sexual desires on other characters is a good way to breed hatred for that villain. But I don't think describing the sex act in detail is a good idea, as it gives a far too intimate, awkward glimpse into the villain's intimate life. Find ways to demonstrate that the villain uses his power to force himself on others without doing this. Remember the scene in Kevin Costner's Robin Hood where the Sherriff of Nottingham is seen fondling the clothes of a scantily dressed woman, ordering her to meet him at his room at a certain time to perform favours for him. She is very scared, but it is obvious she will obey him to avoid torture or death. The same technique can be used for homosexual male villains, merely change the gender of the victim. Perhaps the PCs will find him assaulting a male servant (ie. a male servant makes a mistake, so the King kisses him, then beats him mercilessly just as the PCs walk in).

Another thing to consider is, with a villain every aspect of their personality should be leveraged to make them threatening as an opponent. If he is gay, find a way to use that to show how threatening the villain is. A dapper, articulate, yet deadly and merciless personality might fit into this npc. Although that may not suit a racuous dragonborn. The features and traits of a villain affects how he expresses or demonstrates his evil nature as a villain.

Darkless_One wrote:

TL;DR You end up saying it's okay to beat up gay people for being gay; even if that's not what you meant to do.

You totally miss the pedophilia in there, don't you?

crazysamaritan wrote:

You totally miss the pedophilia in there, don't you?

Most men in mideval times took wives of 12 years on average. In any case making a character gay and a pedophile is a load of bad. For many many reasons.

Here's a not at all comprehensive list
[LIST=1]

Villainizing Homosexuality

Villianizing Pedophilia

Linking Pedophilia to Child Molesting

Linking Homosexuality to Pedophilia

Linking Homosexuality to Pedophilia to Child Molesting

I would advise you not to wade into THAT mess without a degree in Gender Studies or Psychology at the very least.

Darkless_One wrote:

Stuff about drawing conclusions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodnight_Moon

I can use your same complaints and turn the linked book into a disturbing tale of Communism and Big-Brother. That I can do so does not prove the book is designed to introduce readers to communism or supports the idea in the first place. "Death of the Author" allows people to read problems into the story that do not exist.

crazysamaritan wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodnight_Moon

I can use your same complaints and turn the linked book into a disturbing tale of Communism and Big-Brother. That I can do so does not prove the book is designed to introduce readers to communism or supports the idea in the first place. "Death of the Author" allows people to read problems into the story that do not exist.

Contriving a meaning is not the same as seeing an implied one. You must be careful with controversial subjects or you imply meanings. It doesn't matter what your intent is.

Darkless_One wrote:

Contriving a meaning is not the same as seeing an implied one. You must be careful with controversial subjects or you imply meanings. It doesn't matter what your intent is.

Yes, it is; Hitler was a villain, does that make all Germans automatically more evil than other countries?

You cannot prove the intent of the author, only the conclusions that you reach from the author. "Contrived" or not, you need the author to agree that "X made the villain evil".

crazysamaritan wrote:

Yes, it is; Hitler was a villain, does that make all Germans automatically more evil than other countries?

You cannot prove the intent of the author, only the conclusions that you reach from the author. "Contrived" or not, you need the author to agree that "X made the villain evil".

You obviously know next to nothing about the unconscious mind. Therefore I kindly suggest you remove yourself from this argument.

Also, no, you don't need the author to agree. Once you think something, it stays in your mind forever.

Darkless_One wrote:

Also, no, you don't need the author to agree. Once you think something, it stays in your mind forever.

You just agreed with me; contrived and implied is the same.

Thank you.

crazysamaritan wrote:

You just agreed with me; contrived and implied is the same.

Thank you.

No, I didn't, actually.

Contrive
–verb (used with object) -trived, -triv⋅ing.
[LIST=1]

to plan with ingenuity; devise; invent: The author contrived a clever plot.

to bring about or effect by a plan, scheme, or the like; manage: He contrived to gain their votes.

to plot (evil, treachery, etc.).


Imply
–verb (used with object), -plied, -ply⋅ing.
[LIST=1]

to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated: His words implied a lack of faith.

(of words) to signify or mean.

to involve as a necessary circumstance: Speech implies a speaker.

Obsolete. to enfold.

You totally miss the pedophilia in there, don't you?

I'm going to have to object again, just in principle. One of the reasons why the OP's original situation is offensive is because it suggests that a gay villain represents the the threat of gay rape, thus implying that gay=rapist. this is, obviously, not true; it's also not true to imply that child rape=pedophilia. Technically, pedophilia is just the attraction towards children, and most child sexual molestation is done by straight men who want to dominate others. Rape is more about power then sex, after all. Thus I would have to say that the idea that one can kill pedophiles for being who they are is just as immoral as killing homosexuals for the same reason.

If the OP is dead set on doing this. The best way to avoid unfortunate implications is to, before introducing the villain, have a hero or similarly good NPC who is openly gay and represent the 'norm'.

Darkless_One wrote:

No, I didn't, actually.

lists definitions of the actions

Not the act, you spammer!

from before]You end up saying it's okay to beat up gay people for being gay wrote:

You end up saying it's okay to beat up gay people for being gay; even if that's not what you meant to do.

The author can imply that, or the reader can contrive that.

The same idiocy can occur with Germans. Because they have a history of being involved with large-scale battles, one can contrive or imply that they are all evil. If the reader decides they're evil, it doesn't matter if it was implied or contrived, it's out of the author's hands.

My point to you, about kitty's game being rather inspired was that it played upon his player's fears on multiple levels.
1) established as a villain on some level (paladin's radar went off, maybe)
2) planned to capture/kill the PCs (players don't like losing)
3) planned to perform undesired acts upon the PCs
4) planned to perform similar acts to underage children, possibly before they were of age

You seem to have fixated on #3 as "but what he plans to do is perfectly natural for him!"
You know what? Cannibalism is perfectly natural, too. But some societies frown on it for some reason. Why should you get rid of perfectly good meat?
Some societies marry children off before they're 10, but unless the D&D group establishes that as normal, I think you're supposed to accept your society's mores as the game's more, too.

Darkless_One wrote:

If the OP is dead set on doing this. The best way to avoid unfortunate implications is to, before introducing the villain, have a hero or similarly good NPC who is openly gay and represent the 'norm'.

No, the best way to represent the 'norm' is to make him neutral. Otherwise, you're trying to set up gay as morally superior to straight!

crazysamaritan wrote:

No, the best way to represent the 'norm' is to make him neutral. Otherwise, you're trying to set up gay as morally superior to straight!

Actually, no. You have good straight people, therefore the first gay person introduce to a series should also be good, thus establishing they have the same baseline. Indicating superiority requires subjugating the supposed lesser rather than showing the supposed greater is a good light.

Darkless_One wrote:

Actually, no. You have good straight people, therefore the first gay person introduce to a series should also be good, thus establishing they have the same baseline. Indicating superiority requires subjugating the supposed lesser rather than showing the supposed greater is a good light.

Straight people are Good, Evil, and Unaligned.

The Player's Handbook is pretty clear that most people are unaligned.
So if the "norm" for homosexuals is Good, then homosexuals are, on average, more moral than straight people.

crazysamaritan wrote:

Straight people are Good, Evil, and Unaligned.

The Player's Handbook is pretty clear that most people are unaligned.
So if the "norm" for homosexuals is Good, then homosexuals are, on average, more moral than straight people.

You are therefore assuming homosexual are not included as part of "most" people. I think you've shown your bias here enough times.

P.S. Godwin's Law

This thread’s a regular laugh-riot. Thanks for that, really.

Seriously though, the passage presented to us where the villain is actively engaging in oral sex at the time the PC’s first see him really is ridiculous. There’s simply no need for anything so explicit. And believe me, I typically find nothing wrong with something being overly descriptive. The desired effect (i.e. getting across the point that the villain is openly homosexual) can easily be achieved without making an utter mockery of the whole thing.

The given passage could easily be replaced with the following:

“As you enter the renovated temple, there are many beautifully crafted tables, benches, and beds scattered about the main hall. You find only Dragonborn men and women in this place. They’re clothed in the finest garments, milling about or lounging on the luxurious beds, as they socialize in seemingly equal status. At the far end of the room, where it seems there was once a statue of Bahamut, is now a stone throne with a heavily built Dragonborn in his scale armour.

On either side of this leader stands a slippery looking archer, their crossbows trained on you but their eyes cast down at the king, or more precisely the silk-covered and well-muscled body of the kings’ concubine. The larger Dragonborn male writhes at the kings’ feet, nuzzling and clawing at the great leaders’ legs as if begging for attention.

His eyes are trained on you as you continue to approach; he waves away the concubine in a dismissive and uncaring manner. As the massive attendant slinks away, the king smiles at you. ‘Welcome to my humble abode.... heroes.’”

The above is a purely off the cuff “re-imagining” of the original piece. I spent less than two minutes on it, so my apologies if it’s a little rough. The rewrite is full of small clues that hint not only at the fact that the villain prefers the company of same-sex partners, but also that he dwells in opulence and clearly has a “dominating” persona.

The point is that it’s very easy to get across the point that the villain is homosexual without making it center-stage. There’s no reason for it to be pushed to the foreground anymore than need be, and quite frankly, I can’t understand the need.

Making mountain out of a mole-hill with regards to the villains’ sexual preference serves no purpose unless you really are trying to use the homosexuality as a reason to hate the villain. And if that’s the case then you have larger problems to deal with than the potential reactions of the players.

I don’t know. I just don’t get it I suppose. It’s one thing to make a passing reference that implies control and domination of a sexual sort, regardless of it being hetero or homosexual, but something entirely different to shine the spot-light on it while you metaphorically jump up & down screaming “HE’S A ****ING HOMOSEXUAL! GET IT? GAY! HE LIKES MEN.... BUT HE’S A GUY TOO! GET IT?”

Finally, forgive the caps in that last bit. They’re typically not my style (in other words I hate all caps) but seemed an apt metaphor for what the OP’s original piece was getting at.

~Bizkit

P.S. The idea of evetually finding out that the villain is actually the concubine is terrible by the way. Being submissive behind closed doors is one thing, but leaders need to at least appear dominant when in public. Otherwise they don't remain leaders for long.

Darkless_One wrote:

You are therefore assuming homosexual are not included as part of "most" people. I think you've shown your bias here enough times.

P.S. Godwin's Law

No, I'm not. Let's make homosexuals a large percentage of the population. 40%

If that 40% is mostly good, let's say 20 parts are Good, 10 parts are Unaligned, and 10 parts are Evil.
The remaining 60% of humanity, in order to make humans mostly (50%) Unaligned, they must be at least 40 parts Unaligned. That leaves exactly 20 parts to be good/evil.

To make humanity equal parts good and evil, 5 parts must be good, and 15 parts must be evil.

So we compare the numbers, where percent is percent of the whole of humanity;
Good (25%): Homosexual (20%) + Non-Homosexual (5%)
Unaligned (50%): Homosexual (10%) + Non-Homosexual (40%)
Evil (25%): Homosexual (10%) + Non-Homosexual (15%)

The Homosexual population is more good and less evil than the non-homosexual population.

crazysamaritan wrote:

No, I'm not. Let's make homosexuals a large percentage of the population. 40%

If that 40% is mostly good, let's say 20 parts are Good, 10 parts are Unaligned, and 10 parts are Evil.
The remaining 60% of humanity, in order to make humans mostly (50%) Unaligned, they must be at least 40 parts Unaligned. That leaves exactly 20 parts to be good/evil.

To make humanity equal parts good and evil, 5 parts must be good, and 15 parts must be evil.

So we compare the numbers, where percent is percent of the whole of humanity;
Good (25%): Homosexual (20%) + Non-Homosexual (5%)
Unaligned (50%): Homosexual (10%) + Non-Homosexual (40%)
Evil (25%): Homosexual (10%) + Non-Homosexual (15%)

The Homosexual population is more good and less evil than the non-homosexual population.

I have nothing more to say to you on this topic.

Darkless_One wrote:

Completely Missing The Point

I'm glad you've realized that.

The issue of setting up a Good gay as the "norm" is only made worse by reducing the homosexual population size. "norm" should be the same as the majority.

crazysamaritan wrote:

I'm glad you've realized that.

Oh! Hahaha. I see what you did there. You took a point I was trying to make, and implied that it applied to me through response. Very clever! Never seen that before.

Darkless_One wrote:

Oh! Hahaha. I see what you did there. You took a point I was trying to make, and implied that it applied to me through response. Very clever! Never seen that before.

Never seen THATbefore.

crazysamaritan wrote:

Never seen THATbefore.

You forgot to press the space key.

Darkless_One wrote:

You forgot to press the space key.

doh!

echelon_house wrote:

For example, the situation Shifterkitty mentioned above, where the threat of having another male force the characters into a sexually submissive position inspired the players to "a level of desperation that I haven't seen since," is something that I would consider a very poor use of non-heteronormative characters that does nothing more than reinforce the player's negative preconceptions towards homosexuality.

First off, the guys I game with, while not homophobes, are more of the homouneasy sort. I love to play with my group's psyches like that. I know what motivates them, and I pull no punches.

Second off, did you miss my disclaimer immediately following my original post? What does that reinforce?

Waterbizkit wrote:

This thread’s a regular laugh-riot. Thanks for that, really.

Seriously though, the passage presented to us where the villain is actively engaging in oral sex at the time the PC’s first see him really is ridiculous. There’s simply no need for anything so explicit. And believe me, I typically find nothing wrong with something being overly descriptive. The desired effect (i.e. getting across the point that the villain is openly homosexual) can easily be achieved without making an utter mockery of the whole thing.

The given passage could easily be replaced with the following:

“As you enter the renovated temple, there are many beautifully crafted tables, benches, and beds scattered about the main hall. You find only Dragonborn men and women in this place. They’re clothed in the finest garments, milling about or lounging on the luxurious beds, as they socialize in seemingly equal status. At the far end of the room, where it seems there was once a statue of Bahamut, is now a stone throne with a heavily built Dragonborn in his scale armour.

On either side of this leader stands a slippery looking archer, their crossbows trained on you but their eyes cast down at the king, or more precisely the silk-covered and well-muscled body of the kings’ concubine. The larger Dragonborn male writhes at the kings’ feet, nuzzling and clawing at the great leaders’ legs as if begging for attention.

His eyes are trained on you as you continue to approach; he waves away the concubine in a dismissive and uncaring manner. As the massive attendant slinks away, the king smiles at you. ‘Welcome to my humble abode.... heroes.’”

The above is a purely off the cuff “re-imagining” of the original piece. I spent less than two minutes on it, so my apologies if it’s a little rough. The rewrite is full of small clues that hint not only at the fact that the villain prefers the company of same-sex partners, but also that he dwells in opulence and clearly has a “dominating” persona.

The point is that it’s very easy to get across the point that the villain is homosexual without making it center-stage. There’s no reason for it to be pushed to the foreground anymore than need be, and quite frankly, I can’t understand the need.

Making mountain out of a mole-hill with regards to the villains’ sexual preference serves no purpose unless you really are trying to use the homosexuality as a reason to hate the villain. And if that’s the case then you have larger problems to deal with than the potential reactions of the players.

I don’t know. I just don’t get it I suppose. It’s one thing to make a passing reference that implies control and domination of a sexual sort, regardless of it being hetero or homosexual, but something entirely different to shine the spot-light on it while you metaphorically jump up & down screaming “HE’S A ****ING HOMOSEXUAL! GET IT? GAY! HE LIKES MEN.... BUT HE’S A GUY TOO! GET IT?”

Finally, forgive the caps in that last bit. They’re typically not my style (in other words I hate all caps) but seemed an apt metaphor for what the OP’s original piece was getting at.

~Bizkit

P.S. The idea of evetually finding out that the villain is actually the concubine is terrible by the way. Being submissive behind closed doors is one thing, but leaders need to at least appear dominant when in public. Otherwise they don't remain leaders for long.

I wholeheartedly agree.  As I've said before, the key to including sexual aspects in a game is to make sure they're subtle.  You can't flaunt them in the player's faces and expect them to treat them seriously.  Your proposal is, in my opinion, an infinitely better way of introducing a homosexual villain than the heroes walking in on him recieving a blow job in public.  Unless the guy's supposed to be so depraved that he thinks he can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants and nobody can do anything about it, I'd expect him to restrict his sexual activities to the privacy of his bedroom.

Wow... people get WAAAY to worked up over this stuff. The guy just wanted a way to make the villain memorable, and people took that and made this a politicle bashfest... people get up in arms over the tiniest things...

Well, homosexuality is a hot-button topic. What did you expect?

Zousha_Omenohu wrote:

Well, homosexuality is a hot-button topic. What did you expect?

And since it was about a villain, it also got mixed-up with "the alignment wars"

(hey, if the change from 3e to 4e gets called "the edition wars", then by-Golly, Good vs Evil discussions get to be called "the alignment wars"!)

But we got way off topic... The guy wanted a good way to pull off a gay villain and he's been told how.


And I don't understand why it's such a hot-button... So you'd rather do your own sex over the other. big. deal. ( I am aware that I probably just fanned the flames, but that's my opinion on the matter. Also if this keeps on, this will de-volve into why lesbian porn is hawt, but gay porn is considered nasty, which is for another topic entirely)

I don't think the problem was homosexuality in and of itself but the way it was portrayed. I mean, come on, the villain was getting a blow job in public! No one does that, in real life or in fiction, and it made it look like the OP was solely interested in having a gay villain for the shock value. While I think that it's become clear that the portrayal of the villain's sexuality should be toned down drastically, it almost looked like the image was establishing a link between homosexuality and depravity, which offends people.

KainHighwind wrote:

But we got way off topic... The guy wanted a good way to pull off a gay villain and he's been told how.


And I don't understand why it's such a hot-button... So you'd rather do your own sex over the other. big. deal.

For simplification sake, assume there are two groups.

Group 1) Wants to show anyone not like them are evil.
Group 2) Doesn't want unfair representation of anyone.

Group 1 might interpret a gay villain as "all gays are evil".
When all gays are portrayed as evil, Group 2 gets upset, and defends them.

Group 2 might portray a realistic villain, who happens to be .
When is something that Group 1 is, they get upset with Group 1.

What most of us posters (Darkless_One, crazysamaritan, Waterbizkit, and Shiftkitty, for example) are trying to do, is make sure that the OP stays in a Group 2 type of portrayal for his game. I think we're also demonstrating how easy it is for people to get divided into an opposing view, even when they agree.

Our "off-topic" is relevant, in-as-much as it talks about how you should be careful about the portrayal. In a similar manner, you don't want to portray every female as submissive to the PCs. Or all the villains having the name of Bismark. Or Dark-skinned humans only as savages. The problem is, when you say something like "The X Villain", you always run the risk of making it seem like X is an evil trait. Even if you share that trait.

(for example, if I portrayed every german as evil, you could still draw "unfortunate implications", despite the fact that I am german)

Zousha_Omenohu wrote:

it almost looked like the image was establishing a link between homosexuality and depravity, which offends people.

That's possible, but the problem you run into here is that, as a rule, Villains are EVIL. How many ways can you portray that before it becomes redundant?

You're not wrong; it's a point that needs to be brought up. I just don't think Depraved == gay is the appropriate conclusion that should be drawn, when before the group sees this, they're told this guy is the Villain. Villain == Evil. In this situation, Evil == Depraved.

However, I feel that as the OP tones the idea down, the link between depraved and gay should also decrease.

Yes, and I know this. But the overemphasizing of the villain's sexuality might cause one to draw the incorrect conclusion that the reason for the villain's depravity IS his sexuality, which the OP indicated was not the case. Unless you're going for creep factor, a villain's sexuality should not be flaunted in the players' faces to try and get a reaction out of them.

Since the king is a dragonborn then dragonborn sexually reproduction should follow that of most reptiles in that the sex organs are very small and almost in a state of hirbantion till mating season. This is due to the animals not spending energy on them till they need them. Thus when mating season rolls around they become enlarged for the mating season. Also reptiles along with almost all birds, amphibs and fish have a cloaca which is a opening at the base of the tail where waste is excrated from the body. This is here the eggs are also laid and such


As for dragonborn you can assume they have a reptile reproduction system. Since they hatch from eggs and such.

However it you game and your the dm, But i wonder the reason for having such a overt introdution and all. and the reason for it.

mobow213 wrote:

dragonborn sexually reproduction should follow that of most reptiles

Except reptiles don't have mammaries.

I know, this is the second time I've brought it up, but that throws so much logic out the window!

Ecology of Dragonborn clearly states that Dragonborn are mammals.

P.S. There are several scaled mammals.

I guess that answers that question.

The player in my group most likely to play dragonborn likely would make his character have a small bosom anyway. He prefers flat-chested girls. For some reason that's all he plays. Reptilian girls with flat chests.

KainHighwind wrote:

Wow... people get WAAAY to worked up over this stuff. The guy just wanted a way to make the villain memorable, and people took that and made this a politicle bashfest... people get up in arms over the tiniest things...

At the risk of sounding pretentious, I need to inform you that you simply don't get it.
It's okay, that you don't get it, and it shouldn't at all be expected that everybody get it (after all, if everybody did, we wouldn't have problems with this the way we do), but it'd be good for you to realize that you don't get it.

Best gay villains ever- Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd from Diamonds are Forever.

Jesus this thread has some massive insanity.

Anyways, I've played an openly gay character, which wasn't a big deal as I've never imagined sexual orientation as terribly defining in any D&D setting. I sort of imagine it as it has always been with humanity throughout history (especially in polytheistic cultures, or even just non-judeo-christian ones): People are gay, and gay people will exist whether or not people accept that. Classically, people who practiced homosexuality were generally also the ones with an opportunity to do so. That stuff probably matters less to a peasant who just needs a wife who can carry a pig under each arm while eight months pregnant. Love or even attraction are probably not that big a deal compared to setting up a family for increased survivability.

On the other hand, just like the upper classes in, say, ancient Greece were primarily the ones we know to have practiced homosexuality because they had time on their hands, their base needs were satisfied so they could pursue their more personal wants and needs. Some poor farmer out on a muddy field was probably just as gay, but he had GLEEMAX!GLEEMAX!GLEEMAX!GLEEMAX! to do and certainly did not have time to write a book about his experiences.

So anyways, where is this getting? Look at D&D. It's a world of stories being told, and the stories always center on the impressive, memorable characters. PC's, villains, etc. Most of these characters generally fit into the "adventurer" rung of the societal ladder or higher. Adventurers have little to nothing tying them down, they're overall free to make their own choices. To pursue their own sexual orientations would be a natural thing for them. Most villains generally have enough power to pursue their evil plans, so one can assume they can also shag who they like, or love who they like if you're going for a more human approach.

As a player, I've encountered several npc's who may or may not have been gay. Some parodically so (But never mean-spirited or in my view particularly offensive. Sure, one npc was a classic gay stereotype, but that was just one of those "random people you meet in a bar" npc's, not one that drove the story. Mind you, this in a campaign setting where homosexuality would likely be seen as something very natural.) and some who were actually quite believable. The interesting thing, of course, would be that the more interesting and believable, the less certain or open the homosexuality would be. Not that it was hidden, but I find it very rare that sexual orientation actually matters in a roleplaying game. Some people may prefer to keep heavy sexual thematics in their campaign, and I respect that, but I rarely find it a very useful tool. As such it can certainly be there (such as my character being openly gay), but the more emphasis you put on it, the less interesting the character will become. My character (cleric of lathander converting to amaunator) was struggling with his own insecurities, the fact that he may be viewed as a heretic, his travelling companions, etcetera, and drew on his partner for support, and that relationship was also where he could let his emotions out when he usually kept them bottled up. The character could have been played the exact same way whether his partner was a male or a female. I (and my friend) made the choice of having gay characters (perhaps inspired by a less-than-impressing lesbian couple played by two other members of my gaming group, and wanting to show 'em it being done properly) and rolled with that.

As for all my memorable villains, I have never touched upon their sexuality unless I wished to have a set family structure for them, but that doesn't actually prove anything about them actually being straight. All of the major villains I've written myself I've left their sexuality alone because it doesn't really matter.

The idea that a straight person couldn't write/act a gay character, or a man couldn't write/act a female character. All you need to do to make a believable character in any medium is to be a person, and draw on that. It only actually fails when someone thinks "gay" instead of "person" as their first step.

TL;DR version: If you normally introduce your villains by having a member of the opposite sex perform oral sex on them, and that's what your group is used to, go for it! The scene will be memorable while still following a certain trend.

However, if most of your villains are actually not introduced via sex, and your gaming group might raise their eyebrows at such a thing, perhaps it would be unfair to this villain to just make him "that gay guy we killed". Do you want your players to remember him for kicking ass or taking names, or getting head in public?

PS. I actually kinda liked the idea of some sort of primitive tribe of dragonborn seeing a gay or transgendered character as something to be revered. That's not too unusual. HBT's have been considered natural shamans in many cultures, and if you wanna use viking cultures as an example, witchcraft was considered the realm of women, and men who worked magic were generally considered to be homosexuals and thus "closer" to being female.

Those are not politically correct opinions, of course, but they're more historically accurate and interesting than naturally assuming that any culture in D&D that most likely accepts dwarves, elves, dragonborn, tieflings and half-orcs is somehow still shocked at the idea that someone might not be heterosexual. My delicate sensibilities. That lad just kissed another lad on the cheek! I'd better go home to my inter-species halfbreed girlfriend and lie down for a bit!

Seriously half-elves cool but gays not? That'd be pretty insane.

What about gay heroes in fiction? I nominate Pfirsich Rommel, "The Desert Peach" by Donna Barr.

HellaGust wrote:

Jesus this thread has some massive insanity.

Anyways, I've played an openly gay character, which wasn't a big deal as I've never imagined sexual orientation as terribly defining in any D&D setting. I sort of imagine it as it has always been with humanity throughout history (especially in polytheistic cultures, or even just non-judeo-christian ones): People are gay, and gay people will exist whether or not people accept that. Classically, people who practiced homosexuality were generally also the ones with an opportunity to do so. That stuff probably matters less to a peasant who just needs a wife who can carry a pig under each arm while eight months pregnant. Love or even attraction are probably not that big a deal compared to setting up a family for increased survivability.

On the other hand, just like the upper classes in, say, ancient Greece were primarily the ones we know to have practiced homosexuality because they had time on their hands, their base needs were satisfied so they could pursue their more personal wants and needs. Some poor farmer out on a muddy field was probably just as gay, but he had GLEEMAX!GLEEMAX!GLEEMAX!GLEEMAX! to do and certainly did not have time to write a book about his experiences.

So anyways, where is this getting? Look at D&D. It's a world of stories being told, and the stories always center on the impressive, memorable characters. PC's, villains, etc. Most of these characters generally fit into the "adventurer" rung of the societal ladder or higher. Adventurers have little to nothing tying them down, they're overall free to make their own choices. To pursue their own sexual orientations would be a natural thing for them. Most villains generally have enough power to pursue their evil plans, so one can assume they can also shag who they like, or love who they like if you're going for a more human approach.

As a player, I've encountered several npc's who may or may not have been gay. Some parodically so (But never mean-spirited or in my view particularly offensive. Sure, one npc was a classic gay stereotype, but that was just one of those "random people you meet in a bar" npc's, not one that drove the story. Mind you, this in a campaign setting where homosexuality would likely be seen as something very natural.) and some who were actually quite believable. The interesting thing, of course, would be that the more interesting and believable, the less certain or open the homosexuality would be. Not that it was hidden, but I find it very rare that sexual orientation actually matters in a roleplaying game. Some people may prefer to keep heavy sexual thematics in their campaign, and I respect that, but I rarely find it a very useful tool. As such it can certainly be there (such as my character being openly gay), but the more emphasis you put on it, the less interesting the character will become. My character (cleric of lathander converting to amaunator) was struggling with his own insecurities, the fact that he may be viewed as a heretic, his travelling companions, etcetera, and drew on his partner for support, and that relationship was also where he could let his emotions out when he usually kept them bottled up. The character could have been played the exact same way whether his partner was a male or a female. I (and my friend) made the choice of having gay characters (perhaps inspired by a less-than-impressing lesbian couple played by two other members of my gaming group, and wanting to show 'em it being done properly) and rolled with that.

As for all my memorable villains, I have never touched upon their sexuality unless I wished to have a set family structure for them, but that doesn't actually prove anything about them actually being straight. All of the major villains I've written myself I've left their sexuality alone because it doesn't really matter.

The idea that a straight person couldn't write/act a gay character, or a man couldn't write/act a female character. All you need to do to make a believable character in any medium is to be a person, and draw on that. It only actually fails when someone thinks "gay" instead of "person" as their first step.

TL;DR version: If you normally introduce your villains by having a member of the opposite sex perform oral sex on them, and that's what your group is used to, go for it! The scene will be memorable while still following a certain trend.

However, if most of your villains are actually not introduced via sex, and your gaming group might raise their eyebrows at such a thing, perhaps it would be unfair to this villain to just make him "that gay guy we killed". Do you want your players to remember him for kicking ass or taking names, or getting head in public?

PS. I actually kinda liked the idea of some sort of primitive tribe of dragonborn seeing a gay or transgendered character as something to be revered. That's not too unusual. HBT's have been considered natural shamans in many cultures, and if you wanna use viking cultures as an example, witchcraft was considered the realm of women, and men who worked magic were generally considered to be homosexuals and thus "closer" to being female.

Those are not politically correct opinions, of course, but they're more historically accurate and interesting than naturally assuming that any culture in D&D that most likely accepts dwarves, elves, dragonborn, tieflings and half-orcs is somehow still shocked at the idea that someone might not be heterosexual. My delicate sensibilities. That lad just kissed another lad on the cheek! I'd better go home to my inter-species halfbreed girlfriend and lie down for a bit!

Seriously half-elves cool but gays not? That'd be pretty insane.

quoted for agreement.



Also, OP, I'm curious as to your decision on your villain

I once played a half-human/half-fiend (we used stats for a tiefling) whose mother was a succubus. I'd played many different types of characters over the years. By 3.5 however, I was curious :P if I could actually pull off a gay role.

Outwardly, he was beautiful, while inwardly he was ugly, thanks to a sinister heritage. I never actually described him as gay, only implying in his backstory that his great beauty often led him into intimate encounters and he was driven not so much by lust (as might be expected) but by curiousity. He had no discernable sexual preference, having been with both women and men.

The role was interesting and fun to play, not only for me but apparently the others in the group as well. He's remembered not so much as the gay guy but as the pretty boy :P. I had described him as the epitome of physical beauty, immune to any scarring or disfigurment (he otherwise took damage normally).

Just going by my personal experience, I'd say an openly gay villain is possible. Just be sure to give 'im more than just the gay shtick. As written, the OP is a bit over-the-top and I'd prolly laugh out loud (the question of orientation aside).

Others have already mentioned how unlikely it is for a leader to be submissive in public and I agree with that.

I like Waterbizkit's rendition of the scene the best:

“As you enter the renovated temple, there are many beautifully crafted tables, benches, and beds scattered about the main hall. You find only Dragonborn men and women in this place. They’re clothed in the finest garments, milling about or lounging on the luxurious beds, as they socialize in seemingly equal status. At the far end of the room, where it seems there was once a statue of Bahamut, is now a stone throne with a heavily built Dragonborn in his scale armour.

On either side of this leader stands a slippery looking archer, their crossbows trained on you but their eyes cast down at the king, or more precisely the silk-covered and well-muscled body of the kings’ concubine. The larger Dragonborn male writhes at the kings’ feet, nuzzling and clawing at the great leaders’ legs as if begging for attention.

His eyes are trained on you as you continue to approach; he waves away the concubine in a dismissive and uncaring manner. As the massive attendant slinks away, the king smiles at you. ‘Welcome to my humble abode.... heroes.’”

Alright...wow. I didnt think this would be so widely interperted(sp)

So I need to tone down the blatant sexuality, got it.

The dragonborn leader would be too hard pressed to be in charge and in a socialy submissive role, got it.

now, why a blatantly overthe top introcuction (flawed as it has now been shown to be) in the first place?

my group tends to make the usual jokes about gays and lesbians, even though we have 1 gay member and a man in a womans body with a collection of ...well never mind that part. They often depict anyone gay as limpwristed and speaking in enfeminate italics with Xenaesque lesbians who are two steps shy of growing a beard of their own withthe 18 in both str and con.

I wanted to show the group that the villian can be gay and evil and dominant.
The second part was to see if the fillian can be submissive and still remain a threat or if his 'look' would break the image too far away even from the high stength and inteligence. I seem to have gotten the answer to the second half.

Demetri_Knighthawk wrote:

The second part was to see if the villian can be submissive and still remain a threat or if his 'look' would break the image too far away even from the high strength and intelligence. I seem to have gotten the answer to the second half.

You can have a submissive, "macho" (instead of effeminate), and gay villain, but such a villain wouldn't be the villain. The reason is in the first adjective.

Honestly I think it could be kind of funny if the villain was in the closet about his homosexuality. Have him keep making Freudian slips, then quickly correcting himself with a stereotypically heterosexual line or gesture, such as flexing. Of course, if you're going for seriousness, this probably isn't the best approach...

“As you enter the forcably abandoned temple, there are many beautifully crafted tables, benches, and beds scattered about the main hall each of a different style. You find only Dragonborn men and women in this place. They’re clothed in the finest garments of their victims, milling about or lounging on the luxurious beds, as they socialize in seemingly equal status. At the far end of the room, where it seems there was once a statue of Bahamut, is now a stone throne with a heavily built Dragonborn in his scale armour.

On either side of this leader is an ankle of the statue, now serving as a seat for a slippery looking archer, their crossbows trained on you but their eyes cast down at the king, or more precisely the silk-covered and well-muscled bodies of the kings’ concubines. A Dragonborn male larger than the leader writhes at the kings’ feet, nuzzling him while clawing away at the other men of other races all at the great leaders’ legs, as if each begging for attention.

His eyes are trained on you as you continue to approach; he waves away the concubines in a dismissive and uncaring manner. As the attendants slink away only as far as their silk teathers alow, the king smiles at you. ‘Welcome to my humble abode.... heroes.’”

Alright this is the new intro only slightly changed from the previous submission thanks to waterbizkit. I added a few concubines and have decided that for a twist his breathweapon will be an aphrodesic "poison" to explain the overenthusiastic thralls.

works for me. I'd play in that campaign

You would really have to know the players. When I was in high school my DM made an adventure in which the head of the theives' guild was gay and we had to kidnap his lover or something like that to get information. I was still in the closet at the time, and when the other players started making comments like "ok, time for us to go out *** bashing" I was extremely uncomfortable.

Falstyr wrote:

Hehe this sounds like a BBEG in a more comedy flavored campaign. Nothing wrong with gays, but I often have to think about those extravagant bastards in those idiotic parades who give gays in general a bad name.

The way Mardi Gras gives straights a bad name? Last time I checked Mardi Gras was way more extravagant, out of control, and crazy than a gay pride parade.

I've only skimmed this thread, but I'd say subtly is key, and in seriousness, I don't think heroes or villians need to flaunt their sexuality.
I surprisingly have two gay villians at the moment, for no other reason than they just seemed to write themselves.
Between them they are the "High King and Ecclesiastical Prince of Gencapria". The only way the players knew they were gay is that during a conversation between them and the party the King put his hand over the Prince's and that when the King was later nearly killed the Prince (who was no combatant) rushed in to try and save him. In fact the whole thing passed one player by and everyone else told him, he's still not sure.
Could be because I play elves as tough old angry natives who are about as limp wristed as a golem.

As a gay player myself, I am pleased to see that this topic didn't degenerate into a flame war. Kudos to all. As for the villian, I like the revised description above! I have played for several years with the same group and always play gay characters and it has definitely never been a problem with my group. Every group is different though, so I guess it's best to know your players and if they will appreciate the fact that he is truly a villian first who happens to gay. Good luck!