|
4 years ago ::
Apr 01, 2009 - 3:02PM
#61
|
|
|
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. 
D&D 4E Herald and M:tG Rules Advisor I expect posters to follow the Code of Conduct, use Basic Etiquette, and avoid Poor Logic. If you don't follow these guidelines, I consider you to be disrespectful to everyone on these forums. If you respond to me without following these guidelines, I consider it a personal attack. I grew up in a bilingual household, which means I am familiar with the difficulties in adopting a different vocabulary and grammar. That doesn't bother me. Persistent use of bad capitalization, affirming the consequent, and flaming bother me a great deal. Rule that I would change: 204.1b
Show
204.1b Some effects change an object’s card type, supertype, or subtype but specify that the object retains a prior card type, supertype, or subtype. In such cases, all the object’s prior card types, supertypes, and subtypes are retained. This rule applies to effects that use the phrase “in addition to its types” or that state that something is “still a [card type].” Some effects state that an object becomes an “artifact creature”; these effects also allow the object to retain all of its prior card types and subtypes.
"Eight Edition Rules Update"
We eventually decided not to change this template, because players are used to “becomes an artifact creature,” and like it much better. Players were used to Combat on the Stack, but you got rid of that because it was unintuitive. The only phrase needed is "in addition to its types"; the others are misleading and unintuitive.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 01, 2009 - 3:05PM
#62
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2009
|
Never seen THATbefore.
You forgot to press the space key.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 01, 2009 - 3:10PM
#63
|
|
|
You forgot to press the space key.
doh!
D&D 4E Herald and M:tG Rules Advisor I expect posters to follow the Code of Conduct, use Basic Etiquette, and avoid Poor Logic. If you don't follow these guidelines, I consider you to be disrespectful to everyone on these forums. If you respond to me without following these guidelines, I consider it a personal attack. I grew up in a bilingual household, which means I am familiar with the difficulties in adopting a different vocabulary and grammar. That doesn't bother me. Persistent use of bad capitalization, affirming the consequent, and flaming bother me a great deal. Rule that I would change: 204.1b
Show
204.1b Some effects change an object’s card type, supertype, or subtype but specify that the object retains a prior card type, supertype, or subtype. In such cases, all the object’s prior card types, supertypes, and subtypes are retained. This rule applies to effects that use the phrase “in addition to its types” or that state that something is “still a [card type].” Some effects state that an object becomes an “artifact creature”; these effects also allow the object to retain all of its prior card types and subtypes.
"Eight Edition Rules Update"
We eventually decided not to change this template, because players are used to “becomes an artifact creature,” and like it much better. Players were used to Combat on the Stack, but you got rid of that because it was unintuitive. The only phrase needed is "in addition to its types"; the others are misleading and unintuitive.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 01, 2009 - 3:43PM
#64
|
Date Joined:
Apr 11, 2007
|
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?
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 01, 2009 - 4:32PM
#65
|
Date Joined:
Apr 20, 2007
|
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.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 01, 2009 - 5:41PM
#66
|
|
|
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...
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 01, 2009 - 7:07PM
#67
|
Date Joined:
Apr 20, 2007
|
Well, homosexuality is a hot-button topic. What did you expect?
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 01, 2009 - 7:24PM
#68
|
|
|
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"!)
D&D 4E Herald and M:tG Rules Advisor I expect posters to follow the Code of Conduct, use Basic Etiquette, and avoid Poor Logic. If you don't follow these guidelines, I consider you to be disrespectful to everyone on these forums. If you respond to me without following these guidelines, I consider it a personal attack. I grew up in a bilingual household, which means I am familiar with the difficulties in adopting a different vocabulary and grammar. That doesn't bother me. Persistent use of bad capitalization, affirming the consequent, and flaming bother me a great deal. Rule that I would change: 204.1b
Show
204.1b Some effects change an object’s card type, supertype, or subtype but specify that the object retains a prior card type, supertype, or subtype. In such cases, all the object’s prior card types, supertypes, and subtypes are retained. This rule applies to effects that use the phrase “in addition to its types” or that state that something is “still a [card type].” Some effects state that an object becomes an “artifact creature”; these effects also allow the object to retain all of its prior card types and subtypes.
"Eight Edition Rules Update"
We eventually decided not to change this template, because players are used to “becomes an artifact creature,” and like it much better. Players were used to Combat on the Stack, but you got rid of that because it was unintuitive. The only phrase needed is "in addition to its types"; the others are misleading and unintuitive.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 01, 2009 - 7:38PM
#69
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 01, 2009 - 8:58PM
#70
|
Date Joined:
Apr 20, 2007
|
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.
|
|
|
