And this is a surprise how?

Also, I lol'd when they called you the ignorant one

It's a funny reversal, people generally expect those who affiliate or sympathize with LGBT to be the crazy tolerant ones.

Excessive tolerance and sensitivity is just as bad as intolerance, I think.

>go to /tg/
>comment that homosexuality is wrong
>flamewar
>justasplanned.jpg

I think it mostly depends on how you actually worded things. Without seeing what you said and they said, I can't really come to a conclusion either way. I can imagine them recounting their own experience:

>some guy posting on RPG.net in a discussion on in-game LGBT rights
>LGBT PEOPLE ARE ABERRATIONS IN MY FANTASY
>conscientiously object to apparent bigotry
>BUT IT'S AGAINST CHRISTIAN VALUES
>illustrate the intolerant attitude being presented and disagreeing
>BEING NICE TO GAY PEOPLE ISN'T REALISTIC
>ok yeah no, dismiss as ignorant
>moderation intervenes and does whatever mods do

Repeating I don't know what you said or what they said, but I mean, there are so many things that I see as being really easily misinterpreted by both sides here.

The root cause here is having sexuality even matter in your tabletop gaming.

Unless you're playing FATAL, leave it at home.

>>17853
also agreeing here

I guess you probably offended some people who define themselves through their sexuality who thought they'd never enjoy a game with you as the GM or something, setting them into a rage.

>post on RPG.net
>have a conservative opinion
>CLEARLY A TROLL/SOCKPUPPET
>banned
My experience on The Big Purple, at least. When defending Ron Paul from accusations of racism becomes a bannable offense...well, I'm done there.

>>17859
Not even conservative, just realistic and appropriate for the setting.

Where'd you get the idea LGBT people were looked upon as aberrations? I mean, the bible doesn't actually say much against it, and there's a wide history of that kind of stuff throughout the ages. Tolerance for LGBT issues isn't a modern thing. Quite the opposite in fact.

>>17861
I beg to differ good sir. On homosexuality, the bible says this:

Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

Not that this was really enforced at any point in history, but during the dark ages up until the 19th century most gays kept their sexuality a secret for fear of persecution.

>>17866
19th? Try mid-20th. We effectively executed Alan Turing for being a poofter. That sure taught him to help the fledging field of computing and defeat Nazi intelligence, the bastard.

>>17861
There's a wide history of that kind of stuff throughout the ages, but definitely not the European middle ages. Not sure what history books you've been reading, but try a quick Google on "medieval homosexuality".

>>17866
Old testament~

Anyway this is kindof a moot point since that kind of intolerance only came about because of religion, and if you don't have the same religion in your game then of course it's not going to be an issue. Now, please inform me of which medieval RPGs actually have Christianity or Judaism in them?

>>17870
Not many...

Out of the box.
It isn't that hard to strip the magic from 3.5 and leave any monster out that is completely magical, then put in, instead of separate Gods, separate branches of a single major religion or even separate religions.

Futhermore, it's not a far cry to say that some cultures (Say, for example, Goblins, or Drow) could take up a similar stance for separate reasons.

Also, I think they got mad because you said, and I quote:

>I favor traditionalist Western settings with strong gender roles so LGBT people are going to be looked upon as aberrations and will probably be discriminated against

Note the
>I favor
bit there. They may have confused you liking the setting for interesting roleplay opportunities with scandal and religious conflict and all other sorts of things, but they probably read:
>I favor LGBT people being looked upon as aberrations and probably being discriminated against

>>17872
I get the feeling this is exactly what happened.

>>17870

>Anyway this is kindof a moot point since that kind of intolerance only came about because of religion,

lol

Actually the only thing that came about after religion was that the guy doing the fucking was ALSO looked down upon as a disgusting little sub-human (And in some instances this was always the case ANYWAY). Generally speaking it was considered marginally acceptable to stick your dick in another dude, but getting a dude's dick stuck in you made you a laughingstock.

But sure, let's pretend that religious institutions are responsible for denigrating homosexual behaviors and that it wasn't already a wildly common social concept even in pre-christian europe. Let's pretend that religion is responsible for war too, while we're at it.

Personally, I do think that homosexuality is wrong, but that's really beside the point. The point is that Internet hugboxes are absolutely retarded, and equating frowning upon gay sex with MURDERDEATH ALL THE QUEERS may be a bit of a leap in logic.

Egh... I have to scratch my head at the people who insist that their settings be as authentically medieval as possible in terms of women's rights, gay rights, etc etc... and then don't bat an eye at throwing a dragon or a reality-bending sorcerer or even a lowly orc at the party.

I can accept that a setting's not as progressive as the modern day, but carbon-copying a 12th century view of morality onto it comes across as a bit unnecessary. Why? Is it so that your suspension of disbeleif won't be hurt while you're slinging fireballs at trolls?

>>17874
It was the spread of Judaism, Christianity and Islam that lead to the extent that homosexuality was persecuted. The only sanctions for homosexuality in pre-Christian Greco-Roman and Norse societies (to choose two major western cultures) were social. That's it. If you were gay you were looked down on, and even then usually it was only the receiving partner.

Judaism introduced the concept of homosexuality as being against the law of god, and Christianity introduced the concept of killing them for it. And Islam kind of ran with it. Obviously an oversimplified explanation, but not wrong.

Most cultures, prior to exposure to the big three, had no qualms. Most of Asia was very accepting, and China even had a form of a 'gay marriage' ceremony as recent as the 18th century. Pre-European invasion, African homosexuality was mostly sanctioned by society. As mentioned earlier, the extent of negativity to homosexuality in pre-Christian Europe was social.

>>17875
Well this is kind of what I expected. I don't think it really counts as being a hugbox thing if you're actually taking a stance that is offensive to some people. I'm not saying not to have your stance (because if I wanted to say that I would be posting in BDA), but I'm saying that makes >>17852 and >>17872 all the more poignant.

>It was the spread of Judaism, Christianity and Islam that lead to the extent that homosexuality was persecuted. The only sanctions for homosexuality in pre-Christian Greco-Roman and Norse societies (to choose two major western cultures) were social.

Discrimination includes social sanctions.

As far as actual violent persecution, yes you're looking at the spread of judeo-christianity there. But the fact that they were discriminated against (which is, in fact, all that is mentioned in the OP, can't say the same for the RPG.net thread because there's never more than a biased summary for these things) before it is still true.

Of course without knowing to what extent the OP meant 'discrimination' this is all pretty much moot. Though the 'christianized' culture is specifically mentioned anyway which kind of makes one wonder how this even came up.

>>17879
Well note that I specified "the extent that homosexuality was persecuted." Your post >>17874 seemed (to me) to imply people were disparaged terribly regardless of religious values, and that was the point I was replying to. Man, if that wasn't your point, I'm totally okay with accepting what you said, but it would have been wrong to imply judeo-christianity wasn't responsible for how negative modern prejudices are. It's not responsible for them ever existing, but they'd be much lesser if not for it.

I'd say the topic kind of moved away from the OP a while ago. I mean, what's there really to discuss? Guy stirred pot, got banned, now what?

>>17881

>and that was the point I was replying to.

Understandable. That's totally my bad.

I'm not gonna deny that those people are pretty dumb, but the "MAH REALISM" argument seems a poor one to me. You have no problem accepting dragons and wizards and bearded midgets in your fantasy but add dudes who diddle other dudes and people who are cool with that? THAT'S ONE LINE WE SHOULDN'T CROSS, MAN

I mean which of those has the least actual impact on the setting? It's really inconsequential but choosing between the two, I'd definitely go with having the gay be a-okay in my setting, mostly because the alternative gives people the wrong impression, no matter how well you justify it in the context of pretend goblin killing

>>17885

I personally thing the complaining about realism is a bit silly itself. You CAN be picky about what you want in your setting and not seem like a jerk.

I'm just going to take this idea and exaggerate it to a silly level just to make a point -> "Wah your thing has dragons and magic why cant i play my cute anime girl ninja maid who is loved by everyone"

Sexuality is a touchy subject, but I think it can be resolved by simply not playing in games you think misrepresents your sexual preferences. It's not like anyone is forcing you to play with this guy. And, likewise, nobody is making you play a game that deals with subjects you dont enjoy (but that is not the problem discussed by OP and therefore irrelevant)

As someone who believes everyone is equal regardless of silly things like sexuality, I can see the appeal of making a setting that has discriminatory values like these. Nice people play evil characters in games all the time, your character in game does not necessarily reflect what you think in real life.

>>17885
>mostly because the alternative gives people the wrong impression
I don't play with faggots who get offended by that shit.

>>17892
The way you just phrased that speaks volumes.

>>17908
I can't help but agree.

 

>>17909

I imagine he meant it in the CK Louis context.

>>17875

Good job validating their opinions against you.

If you make homosexuality taboo, then it becomes more fun