Homosexuality among eladrin

[Ajar]

Most of my players are still tinkering with various character options, but I have one who has pretty much decided what she wants to play: Vesta, a male eladrin Vekeshi mystic ensnaring swordmage. We're still working on why he's in the RHC and why the RHC wants him in the first place, but today she asked me an even more interesting question: how would society react to him if he was openly gay?

In the imaginary world of Zeitgeist, it's a very interesting question for eladrin males. I don't see it as a big deal for Risur or Danor. In Drakr or Crisillyir I could go either way, maybe even by region within the two nations. But how would other eladrin view a gay eladrin male? I see a couple of main options:

• Eladrin view it as a form of surrender to their race's doom, going against what the Vekeshi stand for. In this context, maybe Vesta was inducted into the Vekeshi ranks before realizing he was gay, and later became ostracized from them. This would open things up for him to join the RHC later.
• Eladrin view it pragmatically, since the odds of finding an eladrin female are so low anyway, there is little to no social cost to being a gay male eladrin -- just one less male eladrin to compete with. In that case, Vesta could still be actively Vekeshi, which makes his induction into the RHC a little trickier.

I'd love to hear your ideas!

 

[Riastlin]

For starters, if you were to attach a negative stygma to his being gay, I would make sure you know your group well enough to know that they are "cool" with that. Obviously you could be treading in dangerous waters there. That being said, since you are asking, I'm also assuming that your group is mature enough to be able to handle the situation.

As for what I would do: Personally, I don't see any reason to attach a negative stygma to it. As you say, its almost a matter of practicality. I suppose it could be argued that they should "settle" for elves but even that could just as easily be twisted into a negative stygma. It certainly seems as though EN Publishing is trying to be progressive in their campaign -- after all Aodhan is black, so I see no reason why there would necessarily be bad connotations to being gay.

If; however, you think your group can handle having a negative stygma attached to homosexuality AND your player is interested in having said stygma, then by all means, go for it. It certainly could lead to some interesting role playing. I wouldn't do it though unless the player is still willing to play a gay character if there's a negative stygma (in other words, don't create a situation where she's dissuaded from doing it).

Perhaps better yet though, you can make it such that there really isn't a stygma, but the PC thinks there is. The PC sees his true feelings as a betrayal and an acceptance of defeat and uses those feelings as fuel toward accomplishing his ultimate goal -- the return to prominence of the eladrin race. In this regard, you as DM, are not saying anything negative about homosexuality but rather you have a PC that is struggling with his own inner turmoil. It could be similar to prior editions of paladins who didn't want to kill and would struggle with the consequences of their actions.

Again though, make sure you know your players and know that they would not be offended by any suggestion that there's something wrong with being gay. Obviously it can be a very sensitive real life subject.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

For starters, if you were to attach a negative stygma to his being gay, I would make sure you know your group well enough to know that they are "cool" with that. Obviously you could be treading in dangerous waters there. That being said, since you are asking, I'm also assuming that your group is mature enough to be able to handle the situation.

Definitely find that out first.

That said, I think the answer to the question is "C, both of the above." Some eladrin would likely be upset about the perceived "failure to rage against the dying of the light," while others (probably most of them) would see the sense in it.

 

[Shisumo]

The painful bitterness of the character would be really powerful from a roleplaying standpoint, at least for me: "Stop saying it makes sense! I'm not gay because it makes sense! If the Malice had never happened, I'd still be gay!"

The delicious character possibilities would be enough to make me want to go that way just because...

 

[Kzach]

I thought all eladrin were already gay?

No, wait, that's blood elves from Warcraft.

Carry on.

 

[gideonpepys]

We had a gay character in our last Ptolus campaign. I would be tempted to avoid viewing this fact as extraordinary in any way (notwithstanding the death of eladrin women).

Homosexual behaviour between eladrin men would not make them gay. If your character is gay, it would not be because of the Great Malice.

I think most eladrin would form relationships with humans and elves, where possible. Or maybe that carries a social stigma where homosexuality does not?

If the Empire of Elfaivar was relaxed on issues of sexuality (just as the ancient Greeks), might that not have been one of the many provocations or justifications for invasion by the puritanical Clergy?

 

[Morrus]

I personally feel it would be a mistake to bring in real-world gender/race*/sexuality politics into D&D. We play this game as an escapist fantasy, and any ugly real world issues that a player (the human player, not the character) might have a chance of encountering or, worse, be a victim of, just doesn't fit that bill for me. D&D has always been fairly good about being gender-blind - at least in terms of mechanics, NPCs, societal roles, etc. if not necessarily in terms of artwork and chainmail bikinis - and that's a positive thing, IMO. To that end, I'd hope that other forms of real-world bigotry wouldn't appear in the game. I know that these things may have been prevalent in our world during the analogous time period (and still are) but this ain't our world - it's a fantasy game world.

I definitely see a difference between a fantasy-based clash of cultures (orcs vs. elves; paladins vs. evil necromancers; in our case, magic vs. technology) and those in the real world, even if sometimes they are analogous. No real person is ever going to be cursed by an evil necromancer, for example. But a real person might be victim of discrimination in terms of gender or sexuality.

For that reason, in my game I'd hope that things like gender and sexual preference are complete non-issues; a character can be of a (real-world) different skin colour, gender, or sexual preference and the world simply doesn't care one way or the other. I would rather keep the tensions to being between non-real groups, such as tieflings and necromancers - tensions which aren't represented in our own world.

Of course, only you know your players, and whether such a thing could be handled in a mature, appropriate manner.

*As in human skin colour, not as in orc, etc.

 

[Shisumo]

Of course, only you know your players, and whether such a thing could be handled in a mature, appropriate manner.

First of all, this needs to be repeated like a billion times.

HOWEVER. Other than that, I generally disagree with you, Morrus. Addressing real-world issues in "escapist" fantasy is a tradition almost as old as the fantasy itself, and I believe with good reason.

As a for instance, my wife's character in our current Kingmaker game is a grippli ranger. I asked her why a humanoid treefrog from a tribal society would have left to go off and "explore" the territory around her peoples' lands for a human kingdom, and without missing a beat she answered, "Because she's a lesbian, so they threw her out." And I was immediately struck by the possible implications for later in the AP, when she - along with the other PCs - will get to found her own kingdom. I full expect a very alt-sexuality/gender-ID-friendly set of laws from the nation they will found, entirely through my wife's character's efforts, which is a darn sight more satisfying than the current state of the real world - and what is more escapist than that?

We take on these roles and play through the games partly because we want to face and overcome challenges in our imaginations that we could never accomplish in the real world. Hand me a sword and ask me to slay a dragon, and all you've accomplished is giving the dragon a tasty afternoon snack. But do the same with Valeros, defender of Westcrown, and that dragon is going down - and if I choose to associate the dragon with, say, the corporate overlords I have to put up with everyday in my real world job, then so much the better. Why would sex or gender issues be any different? I can easily see a satisying moment when, say, a sexist priest of Erastil - having gently told a female adventurer that she should settle down with a nice husband and start making babies - comes face-to-face with the remains of a giant owlbear slain by that same adventurer, who then smiles sweetly at the priest and says, "Good thing I didn't go off to the kitchen and make you a sandwich, eh?"

As long as they are handled with care and sensitivity, I think exploring those sorts of issues - and others, including race, class and more - in an RPG can be both fun and worthwhile. I'm all for bringing them into the game, where they can be cut down like all the other evils of the world RPG heroes deal with every day.

 

[Morrus]

First of all, this needs to be repeated like a billion times.

HOWEVER. Other than that, I generally disagree with you, Morrus. Addressing real-world issues in "escapist" fantasy is a tradition almost as old as the fantasy itself, and I believe with good reason.

I was only speaking to my own preferences in my own game; I definitely wouldn't presume to attempt to prescribe a viewpoint for gamers as a whole.

If it works for you, in your game, then that's awesome. And I agree that treating bigotry as an evil on par with dragons is a great way to do that.

 

[gideonpepys]

Lesbian treefrog. I love D&D!