I think it maybe be a bit unfair to say if someone, or a group of people, don't agree with your opinion then they are immature or not worthy of respect.
That depends on the specific opinion being discussed. In this specific case, no, I don't think that it's at all unfair.
Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha
Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further.
Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
I think it maybe be a bit unfair to say if someone, or a group of people, don't agree with your opinion then they are immature or not worthy of respect.
That depends on the specific opinion being discussed. In this specific case, no, I don't think that it's at all unfair.
I agree with Crimson for once (on the former). There is cases in times where there is one sides that may be in the wrong, clearly.
Some of the SFW stuff I was able to find. There's a lot of female faun/satyr art if you google "female satyr" and "female faun" on both google and DA. A ton, even. Spoiler:Show
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
But didn't you say earlier that group consensus needs to be respected?
It needs to be respected more than just the DM alone. If the group concensus is not one worthy of respect, however, then no, it does not need to be respected. It just means I'm going to go find another game sooner than if it's just the DM's view that I don't respect.
I know from talking with you over the years C_C where you personally stand on this matter, but I would think that if your group politely asked you to stick with at least a character of the same gender as yourself that you would respect it.
I most certainly would not. I see no good reason to respect such a request, and I would only consider cointinuing playing anyway if I was already planning on playing a character of the same gender as myself (or, if I had yet to decide on a character, if such a character were on my list of possibilities; my characters are about 50/50). If, however, another player did not want to play a character of their own gender in that game, then you can bet that I'd be right behind them and would most likely leave the group as well if they were asked to leave. Fortunately, I've never met a group so immature as to flat out disallow such characters, and my own group certainly knows better than that.
Well, it sounds to me like you have a very open-minded group. However, not everyone is that open-minded, and that doesn't make them bad people. If they're uncomfortable with something it needs to be addressed. You might have players in the group who have never really been around anyone in the LBGT community, and they're maybe a little nervous with things like that in their face. Even if they have no negative bias towards that, unfamiliarity can make them uncomfortable.
No reason to assume that this request comes from someone going "Ewwww....creepy!". But rather, if the other players said "Hey, look. We all like you for who you are, and we're cool, but playing an opposite gender character is sort of uncomfortable for some of us, and/or is disruptive to our suspension of disbelief for roleplaying" (or some other similar argument, but still politely and respectfully posed), I would think that should have some weight in your decision.
That doesn't sound polite or respectful to me at all. That just sounds like a more eloquent wording of the first one. This person is clearly not as cool as they claim. Saying "we're cool" doesn't make you cool.
You say "more eloquent", I say "more polite". If someone at the table is uncomfortable playing (and that means everyone, including the LBGT player), then something needs to be addressed. A game table is a place to have fun with friends and relax. No one should be on edge.
Why not? After all, some of my best friends earlier in life were gay or lesbian, but I've also been around one particular individual who had a "everyone is gay, no disputing it" attitude, and would not let up harassing me (and I'm not exaggerating, it was no-s**t sexual harassment), insisting I was gay. That made me very uncomfortable. But I would assume it is no different from a staright woman being sexually harassed by straight men.
Exactly, it had nothing at all to do with his sexual orientation. If you're going to leap from "this one gay guy was harassing me" to "gay guys make me uncomfortable", then I hate to break it to you, but you're not as cool as you think that you are.
I never said "gay guys make me uncomfortable". They don't. Two of my wife's closest friends right now are gay, and I have no problem at all when we're all hanging out. I don't like cross-gender roleplaying for other reasons I addressed. It may also have to do with the fact that a lot of roleplaying goes on in my games, and I have old prejudices about getting into character that I think that would be a barrier to. I also said, if you note, that I would prefer someone playing a homosexual character of their own gender over a character of the opposite gender. I've seen it, in fact, back in 3e. Gay Hal-Elf Bard. Guy was hilarious at the table.
Yes, it would be absurd, but that's not really a good example.
It's a perfect example. You're taking a character that made you feel uncomfortable and misidentifying the reason that it made you uncomfortable. The jerk dwarf fighter didn't make you uncomfortable because the character was a dwarf or a fighter; it made you uncomfortable because the player was being inappropriate. The cross-gender character didn't make you uncomfortable because it was a gender different than its players; it made you uncomfortable because the player was immature. Being therefore uncomfortable with cross-gender character is exactly as absurd as being therefore uncomfortable as being uncomfortable with dwarves or fighters.
No, the way he played a cross-gender character reinforced what I was saying about good roleplaying. If the jerk dwarf fighter in your example happened, I would be wary of seeing those same behavior patterns, and look to what caused them. in the case of my experience with the cross-gendered character, it was clearly the guy's inability to properly portray a self-respecting, independent female. Does that mean every guy is incapable of that? No. But gender-identity issues would be an obstacle to good roleplaying. In my opinion, anyways.
No, it's my responsibility as a DM to be a fair and objective arbiter and ensure that all the players at the table are having fun. My responsibility is to the game and the group of players as a whole, and the needs and desires of the many outweigh those of any individual.
If you take your responsibilities as a DM more seriously as you take your responsibilities as a friend, then I think that you need to straighten out your priorities... Poor word choice, but it was funny, so I'm not gonna change it. Point being, maybe that's why you keep referring to your LGBT friends in the past and not present tense.
My responsibilities as a DM only apply to the game table. We have people who play who I don't hang out with outside of D&D. If, at the game table, I put my friends first, it would be unfair to the other players (since 2 of my players are also my best friends even outside D&D. My wife also plays). At the game table, I have to be fair and unobjective. So yes, at the game table, my responsibility as a DM comes first, because that responsibility is to be a fair judge of the rules, and make sure everyone has fun. Yes, I do refer to them in the past tense. That's because I've been in the military for the past 5 years. As you may have heard, DADT, was only recently repealled, and said repeals have not even yet taken full effect regarding actual military policy. I haven't HAD any LBGT friends in years (at least not any openly admitted ones), and those that I did are on the other side of the country. I'm terrible at keeping in contact with my old friends from back home, straight or not. I only occasionally even log in to my Facebook, which is the only social media I use at all.
As gamers, we face a lot of negative stigma and ridicule from the larger population. This applies at any age group, even well after high school, when these unfortunate stereotypes persist. LBGT community members likewise face negative social issues in their everyday life. Groups shunned by mainstream society should stick together, and people who fall into both categories should not be made to feel uncomfortable in either, but rather bridge the gap betweeen the two and welcomed by both.
Completely agree!
Gamers are hard to come by in my area (military base in WA), and I would not want to lose any players I found. If the issue of cross-gendered roleplaying was SO important to a LBGT player at my table, I would gather the group together as a whole to try and discuss this and find a solution that appeases everybody.
Does that make more sense C_C?
That sounds far more reasonable than the rest of you've been saying sounded, yes.
I'm glad that, at least on the major overlying issues, we agree. I think your stake in the issue makes it more of a lynchin to you. I honestly haven't had to deal with the issue as a DM, it's just been a policy of mine that I never had to bring up. But I know if it did, that some of my players would be uncomfortable. One in particular is from a small little white town in Missouri, never been around any LBGT people, never even been around anyone that wasn't a WASP, basically. He's not a bad kid, not a racist, not a homophobe, but he's uncomfortable with things he's not used to being right in his face. That doesn't make him a bad person. And I have as much responsibility to him as I would a LBGT player. I would try to find a middle ground where everyone was comfortable.
Well, it sounds to me like you have a very open-minded group.
That should not be an indicator of high quality. That should be a default assumption.
However, not everyone is that open-minded, and that doesn't make them bad people.
Sure, not every flaw automatically makes somebody a bad person, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't still be considered to be a flaw.
If they're uncomfortable with something it needs to be addressed.
I agree. But if you're disallowing it from play, then you're not addressing it. You're specifically avoiding addressing it.
You might have players in the group who have never really been around anyone in the LBGT community, and they're maybe a little nervous with things like that in their face. Even if they have no negative bias towards that, unfamiliarity can make them uncomfortable.
But allowing unfamiliarity to continue is not the proper reaction to that. The proper reaction to that is to fix the unfamiliarity.
A game table is a place to have fun with friends and relax. No one should be on edge.
As I said before, all media are legitimate platforms for social statements and agendas. Entertainment media are no exception, including games. I guarantee, if your player leaves the game having learned something, that that will make the game that much more memorable.
I don't like cross-gender roleplaying for other reasons I addressed. It may also have to do with the fact that a lot of roleplaying goes on in my games, and I have old prejudices about getting into character that I think that would be a barrier to.
That sounds like a personal problem that you should work to get over as opposed to simply avoiding and ignoring, and you can't work to get over that if you disallow such characters.
No, the way he played a cross-gender character reinforced what I was saying about good roleplaying.
Yes, the way he played, not that he played. What's weird is that you clearly realize that this was just a problem with the one player and not a problem with cross-gender role-playing in general, and yet you still have this irrational discomfort with cross-gender role-playing and appear not to care to do anything about it.
Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha
Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further.
Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
I'm curious, what is it about that Satyr that satisfies a need that the Hamadryad doesn't fill?
Is it the hooves and the horns? Is it the treeishness of the hamadryad? Is it mechanical (That one I understand.)
Because (stats not withstanding) we basically got a make and female of a race, and they aren't that different characterwise.
Sure the Satyr is more hedonistic, and the hamadryad is more playful and innocent, but they both lure the opposite sex away and do UNSPEAKABLE things to them.
I'm all for your game, your rules, but I'm glad WotC went with the gender restrictions. Because doing so enabled them to create an amazing story about the ecology of two different races who rely on eachother for survival.
I mean that is AWESOME. And it should be applauded.
And in most game worlds, because of the gender restrictions, that beautuful relationship between the races remains intact.
I honestly wouldn't have a problem with someone trying to be a female satyr (or a male hamadryad, but nobody is really asking for that) but I would require the player to come up with a good backstory for how she came to be. Was it an evil curse that turned a satyr into a female? Was she a female of another race who was changed by the feywild? Or does she really not know why she cameinto existance, and she's spent her life trying to find out the story of her birth.
It's not any different than allowing gnomes or half-orcs into Athas. But there's a reason they don't belong there by default.
Also, to the OP for saying that their character's genitals were unlikely to be used during play; SATYRS YR DOIN IT WRONG!
Is it the hooves and the horns? Is it the treeishness of the hamadryad?
Those might be a big part. Satyrs invoke a certain imagery, and one some people might find interesting on a female character. On the latter note, I find ent-ish male characters very interesting too - and a closest thing to playing a Treant in D&D would be a Hamadryad - male or female.
The other part is that Satyrs and Dryads also invoke certain emotional imagery. Dryads are certainly much more subtle, and Satyrs are... well... not very subtle about their affections. One might say this fits their gender roles, but I _don't like_ established gender roles. So yeah, I find a wild horn-ed female an interesting prospect, because she's not yet another blond bimbo who just waits for the heroes to rescue her.
Check out my D&D-based play-by-post game, based on exploration and roleplaying. Agora
The other part is that Satyrs and Dryads also invoke certain emotional imagery. Dryads are certainly much more subtle, and Satyrs are... well... not very subtle about their affections. One might say this fits their gender roles, but I _don't like_ established gender roles. So yeah, I find a wild horn-ed female an interesting prospect, because she's not yet another blond bimbo who just waits for the heroes to rescue her.
But don't you think it's truer to defying gender roles if you apply them to the races that are saddled with them? So you want to be boisterous and hedonistic? Why make up a female of a hedonistic race when you can turn not only the gender role, but the entire archetype it's based on on its head?
Anyone can play a loud, drunken dwarf who hates elves. But soft-spoken dwarf who feels most at home in the musical breeze of the feywild, now THAT'S a character.
Same can be said for a satyr. You're not tweaking things as much as you think. So satyrs can be females in this world? Okay, so that's normal. "Oh wow, a hedonistic satyr. Never seen one of those before..."
But a hamadryad who shows up in your room the middle of the night, drunk with a few friends who you can't even verify their species let alone race. Now that is a character.
But don't you think it's truer to defying gender roles if you apply them to the races that are saddled with them? So you want to be boisterous and hedonistic? Why make up a female of a hedonistic race when you can turn not only the gender role, but the entire archetype it's based on on its head?
Anyone can play a loud, drunken dwarf who hates elves. But soft-spoken dwarf who feels most at home in the musical breeze of the feywild, now THAT'S a character.
Same can be said for a satyr. You're not tweaking things as much as you think. So satyrs can be females in this world? Okay, so that's normal. "Oh wow, a hedonistic satyr. Never seen one of those before..."
But a hamadryad who shows up in your room the middle of the night, drunk with a few friends who you can't even verify their species let alone race. Now that is a character.
Gender roles are one thing, racial roles are another. Players often choose a race because it bears certain emotional connotation and imagery with it. If you want to play a hedonistic, wild character, you would be attracted to a Satyr because that's what they are. However gender doesn't have those connotations (at least for most people) and is by far much more elastic.
Check out my D&D-based play-by-post game, based on exploration and roleplaying. Agora
