The Thread for all the Shit we just couldn't let go of!

Ok, felt that some facts needed to be thrown in to the gay argument.

First off, my opinion is that sexuality in general is best left out of the game as a rule. Sure, there are certain times when it is a key aspect to the story and there are even the odd (and, quite frankly, highly amusing) occasion when a sexually charge scene is RP'd or written out that helps to progress a story line. Here I think of a scene where Gurthang had an encounter with a "female Night Elf of questionable morals" that was a part of his fall from grace and into alcoholism. The scene never got beyond a strip tease (that never got particularly far due to a planned interruption) and some mild carrying on before logging out as what happened next could be easily interpreted without actually acting it out.
I also think of the wonderfully amusing scene with Tee and Quint and a tub with water and rose petals IIRC. Writing was done so as to progress the story of Tee's taking control of ToC and the sexuality element was written with a very large amount of tongue in cheek (or at least it was read as such).
Sure, have the relationship stuff and people of the opposing sexes being married. All fine and dandy there as it's your basic way of life in a medieval existence. But keep the sex stuff to a minimum as it's generally completely unnecessary for plot progression. And surely the art to true story telling is to be able to put a picture in peoples minds by mere suggestion and not by writing the whole thing out and shoving it in their faces?

Secondly, whilst homosexual leanings are something that have gone back millennia this doesn't mean that it has been openly accepted. Just look at what happened in Top Gear when they went through the Deep South (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2syY12OPkwI) for proof of how people can act when tolerance (a very modern concept, I might add) of that which is different has yet to reach the local populace. The general population in medieval times would have been of the opinion that homosexuality was wrong because it was different. Sure, it could be argued that it was the case in Europe because of Christian beliefs, but look elsewhere and you will find the same is true. Look at South America, didn't happen. Look in Africa, pre-colonialism, didn't happen. Look at Asia, didn't happen. They all had various beliefs, not all Christian, Muslim or Jewish, and yet the existence of evidence to suggest that homosexuality was anything other than despised because it was different just isn't there. Hell, people were feared if they had a genetic defect and had an extra digit on their hand so just think how they felt about men wanting to place their member somewhere other than in a female!

Thirdly, we come to the argument about the Greeks. There are 3 things that need to be said on this particular subject:
1 - Use of descriptive language.
When Homer says that Patroclus and Achilles are close and dear friends this does NOT mean that they are a gay couple. There are 2 possible meanings to it. It is either referring to pederasty or, as I believe to be more likely, just good friends. Remember that the use of language has not had it's post-modern fuck up that we've had. Back then, gay would have meant happy, queer would have meant odd and bent would have been a reference to the angle of leaning of a particular object. The reason I believe that friendship is far more likely is that pederasty is about an older man and a younger man and from what we read about Achilles and Patroclus they are not too dissimilar in age to each other. Indeed, Achilles considers Patroclus to be his equal in every way other than parentage.
2 - Pederasty.
Taking the whole mythology aspect that I've already commented on out of this, we are left with only 1 definite area of existence of this in Greek society, the army. Even then, it is only in the Spartan army that it is seen in mass existence. The Spartans believe that if a man loved the man he was fighting next to as much as a lover then they would fight even harder to protect them in battle.
However, there are many references to people looking down upon the practice and generally speaking against it. It should also be pointed out that even when men were engaged in these sort of relationships, they still had a wife and kids. Pederasty was always an older veteran and a young recruit, thus giving the newbie his experience of life in the army as well as a good stiff cock up his arse!
3 - It was a phase.
The Greeks were dominant for a couple of centuries, no more. Indeed, there are comments from the Romans about the "excesses" in certain "debauched" places like Corinth and Athens that made them looked down upon for allowing homosexual practices to exist. You then see Roman society taking over, where any overt homosexuality is pushed underground and you will only see it as the odd isolated instance and generally only used to placate an idiot ruler (see Nero) or to progress your career (as was suggested in the Rome series about Octavian and Caesar by Octavian's mother). You then have all the various Germanic tribes take over Europe and a lot of "heathen" tribes being all about being butch and strong. Any homosexuality openly shown would have led to you likely being hacked to death where you were found! So, by the medieval times that WoW is roughly set in the impact of Greek lives and lifestyle are resigned to nothing more than legends and myths.

All that said, people playing a gay character like Dumbledore (like Snicka has already said) I see no problem with. However, the only people that will know are those that know where he's coming from. And, to be honest, I don't think that anyone playing a Dumbledore (as they should forever be known) should state that the character is gay until either they are leaving the game or have killed off the character. If they say anything then it will lead people to look at how they RP and question their RP style based on how gay they are coming across as.

uhm..Im curious though to one thing, how do we knw siheld that there is no gay character in wow, its not like there is a large book of the azerothian sexuality, for example, how do we know that pand stonebinder in the spirits rise in thudnerbluff, owner of the mighty spiritual healing hut is straight? when i click on him he doesnt say anything to show so.
I just thought id nark someone sowwy xD

of all the things I said in my post, the gay thing is what people got hung up on. What the hell... I really honestly don't understand whatsoever how homosexuality can be an issue. I really really don't.

And I am pretty sure homosexuality is quite more common up through our history than you think, Gurfang. But seriously, as a norwegian I think the whole gay discussion was ended back in the 70's and I cba getting into such things, I mean.. damn..

Anyways, I like this thread. It has real potential for awesomeness. Tomorrow I'd like to bring up more things about our beloved RP community that has irked me. Ah yes, there shall be good times in here indeed.

torgadon wrote:

uhm..Im curious though to one thing, how do we knw siheld that there is no gay character in wow, its not like there is a large book of the azerothian sexuality, for example, how do we know that pand stonebinder in the spirits rise in thudnerbluff, owner of the mighty spiritual healing hut is straight? when i click on him he doesnt say anything to show so.
I just thought id nark someone sowwy xD

Because unless WoW's genetic make up is based on an incredibly different model to ours the mathematical genetic occurrence of homosexuality dictates that people are straight unless otherwise informed (straight unless they say they are gay). And because there is no gay market that Blizz need to hit and yet there are areas where the game would be marketed (and is being marketed) where having a homosexual character would lead to the banning of WoW.

Quintilius wrote:

of all the things I said in my post, the gay thing is what people got hung up on. What the hell... I really honestly don't understand whatsoever how homosexuality can be an issue. I really really don't.

And I am pretty sure homosexuality is quite more common up through our history than you think, Gurfang. But seriously, as a norwegian I think the whole gay discussion was ended back in the 70's and I cba getting into such things, I mean.. damn..

Anyways, I like this thread. It has real potential for awesomeness. Tomorrow I'd like to bring up more things about our beloved RP community that has irked me. Ah yes, there shall be good times in here indeed.

First off, my post was only after Snicka brought up Achilles and Patroclus. Based on my long time interest in the classical world, watching many documentaries and reading up on the area I couldn't just let it be thrown in there without challenging it based on what I have read, seen and heard about the era.

Secondly, and far more key, is the fact that WoW is NOT (as Lion has already said) the 21st century! This means that any argument about "the whole gay discussion was ended back in the 70's" si null and void as it is in reference to much further back in time than that.

Thirdly, and finally, I should point out that my comment about it's existence in RP came in the broader sexuality scope, not purely limited to homosexuality. Sexual RP is, to me, generally just lazy and silly RP. It rarely has anything it further a story and it's only "benefit" is for people to ERP with each other and be able to argue that it's their characters doing it.

As an actor student I aknowledge that sexuality is one of the key elements that drive human beings and ignoring it completely is to ingore a huge part of what makes a human being. Being gay means so much more for how a character is played than just the sexual part. Playing a gay character does not mean that all you're after is some anal ERP. Sexuality is, and has allways been a very important part of all character development, and saying otherwise would be a direct lie.

And the whole gay discussion reflects opinions had by people here and now, and thus makes my comment about the 70's thing still very valid. I don't see how even the concept of gay would stirr up a discussion at all, anymore than saying that your character has a lisp would. Why would one care?

Sexual RP can indeed be silly, bit that depends on the people doing it, not the nature of sexual RP in itself. Romance has allways been one of the more fascinating stories told and if done by ppl with their head in the right place it can be one of the more immersive and realistic ways of character development RP. But I guess you'd need to be more than average interested in character play to care about such things. *shrug* And I am not talking about emoting the act of Fuckin', but everything around it can be very interesting to explore in RP, I think. And to shy away from such things based on some weird preconceptions, taboos or whatever it might be, is in my opinion rather narrow-minded.

i think the point that every one is missing about having gays in the game lore wise

is the fact that this game is a 12+, and i can not see many mummys and daddys going out of there way to buy little jimmy his copy of wow, if after doing so see him go to goldshire and watch him get a quest from a human knight in a pink toto who calls him self "sarah" with a very gruff vioce, oh wait! thats not a good point, as you do see gay knights in pink toto's

but my point is all jokes aside is that this game is aimed for kids 12+ and some are younger

how you rp your toon is up to you, gay straight its down to the player

also a quick one on ERP, i dont mind it each to there own, but i hate it when they do it in /s, and if see doing this then i think a session of ganking is in order

But Quint, you're putting a modern viewpoint on sexuality! The whole thing about sex in medieval times is that it was generally used for power, humiliation or breeding. Sure, it was enjoyable too (the world wasn't THAT different) but it's general uses were not about that.
Also, life being as hard as it was it meant that odds on you'd be too knackered after working hard to have it that much. You'd make sure that you and the missus had spawned half a dozen kids to keep the family name going and then you'd tend to forget about it.
Nowadays, with a far more relaxation and enjoyment focussed world, sex and sexuality has a far more prominent role but back then it just wouldn't, so applying acting methods to RPing in a medieval setting don't really cut the mustard.

thinking about it,this post is stupid, and i reckon its orignal point was to get people flaming at eahc other and stiring shit, they can just do this in /w to them, if anyhting, this post will start something big up and cause alot of shit to the community, which could affect rp.

As I said before, WoW is not medieval, or any real life time period. It's a sanitized fantasy world with its own internal logic. Projecting medieval attitudes onto WoW is just as fallacious as trying to impose modern attitudes.

Eh...who's flaming, Torg? o.o People are actually having a proper discussion and not flaming eachother for a change. Don't ruin it just because they might.

Crowley is right: I was first very surprised to see female soldiers in Stormwind (as I thought they wouldn't fit in a medieval setting), but then I accepted that WoW is not medieval, but a fantasy world where women can be soldiers.

However, the level of technology (still talking of Stormwind, and not the gnomes) and the political structure (feudal system with kings and knights, the church's prominent influence, etc.) suggests that it is based on medieval culture, and as such, many aspects of the way people think should be closer to the middle ages than to the 21st century.

Edit: Crowley is right in the other point too... so far I haven't seen any flaming in this thread. Maybe it can become a flaming thread easier than others... however, let's be happy that it isn't yet.

Crowley wrote:

Eh...who's flaming, Torg? o.o People are actually having a proper discussion and not flaming eachother for a change. Don't ruin it just because they might.

I may have written or said that wrong, im still half asleep in some IT class, what I meant it that i have a suspicion that this was intended for flaming and that it is going to happen at some point, I could very well be wrong ofc.

http://www.wow-europe.com/en/policy/roleplaying.html

Note the very last heading about naming. Medieval is very clearly mentioned in terms of names. That suggests, by simple deductive reasoning, that the setting is very much medieval. Yes, there are misnomers to the standard medieval world in the form of women in places of power and able to be a part of the armed forces, however I think you'll find that this isn't in keeping with the real world either, merely a sanitised version of what people would like to see.

As you say, it IS fantasy but that doesn't remove the very clear medieval leanings that the game has and the fact that the society is very clearly set out as such, with a few PC alterations.

Snicka wrote:

However, the level of technology (still talking of Stormwind, and not the gnomes) and the political structure (feudal system with kings and knights, the church's prominent influence, etc.) suggests that it is based on medieval culture, and as such, many aspects of the way people think should be closer to the middle ages than to the 21st century.

Rather than being based on medieval culture, I think it's just based in the standard fantasy setting. WoW can be rather dark, but it's still high fantasy rather than low, which means a sanitized world designed for a modern audience. This may not be realistic, but it's how the world is designed, so applying 'realism' in the historical sense just breaks immersion rather than aiding it, because it's at odds with the setting. It's similar to Discworld: the setting is that generic-medieval-Fantasy-place, but the world's tone and internal logic define how people act within the setting.

Gurfang wrote:

Note the very last heading about naming. Medieval is very clearly mentioned in terms of names. That suggests, by simple deductive reasoning, that the setting is very much medieval.

That's...pretty weak. When 'medieval' is discussed here, it's mainly referring to the trappings of the setting; Blizzard refer to most people's idea of a 'proper' setting for conventional fantasy rather than any specific period.

Liontooth wrote:

Quote :

I disagree with you on this: There is not one single character in lore, or in the game that is gay, so I find this pretty odd if someone roleplays a lesbian or homosexual character. And no, I don't have anything against gay people.

Thrall? Duh

No seriously...They can not put a gay character into lore due to it being an international game and the fact that there is wishy washy easily offended people out there that would jump on such a thing.

Quote :

Such as?...

Racism being "OMGHORRIBLE!"
Sexism being the same
Violence being treated like murder cases
The hand of the law tapping bad people on the wrist (Executions still happen in Warcraft people)
and an assortment of other examples

The gay thing's a whole 'meh' to me. I'm a transgender male-to-female, not yet on hormones, girl, who happens to be attracted to females. Gay is just a label anyway. also of interest is that homosexuality is something only frowned upon relatively recenty in the real world (read up on Alexander the Great and Roman Emporers for some examples). As with many things, it came in about the same time as some of the more structured religions. As there is no structered religion in WoW (as there are multiple deities/higher beings), one could argue that ones sexuality would simply be a case of "Oh, you like guys... So?". Unless there's a written rule in any of the various belief systems within WoW that prohibit it, then leave it be, in my opinion.

I have nothing against people RPing racism in the game. What I do have a problem with is the veiled racism that is based on real life stereotypes (I've heard people insult taurens as though they were black, trolls as though they were Jamaican, etc, which is a really bad way to RP racism).

Same with some sexism. I love how Quin is because it's funny. Quin is lovable despite being a mysogonistic, borderline sex-obsessed pig However, I have had people say things that are just plain -wrong- (Like having someone calmly state they'd rape me).

Actually, that'd be really cool if actually horrendous crimes commited by RP'd characters had srs repercussions. It winds me up no end to see the 'Big Bad' run off and live to fight another day >.> I'm glad Tivak had his character die, as it prevented it becoming pantomime (and made it more memorable as a result).

As with Marius, even when there's an argument, debate, or general bitchiness, I still love all of you (except Yinroh and a few others who aren't RPers).

Oh, and I agree with Crowley (but then I usually do *changes her flags OOC description to that of 'Alex sycophant'*

In reference to Torg's comment about flaming, I actually agree with him. However, it is put here so that whenever people don't like the way a thread turns elsewhere it can all go here. A more accurate title for the thread would probably be "Thread for flaming and thread tangents". I see this thread as very much a case of Quint wanting some flaming in it, he likes it. I'm personally not averse to it either, as I'm sure people have seen in the past, but I would also agree with Crowley that the thread has not yet turned that way.
I hope that when it does turn that way that we are able to still have decent discussions as a part of this thread.

Also, those naming policies came in before Blizz went all 'wut lolz, space squid!' on us, so saying the game is based in any one period of real world time-frames is a bit silly. It's not Earth. It is a sci-fi, steampunk, gothic horror, HP Lovecraft, pop culture referencing and generally mish-mashed world with a sense of humour. I don't recall undead driving about the streets of ol' London town on motorbikes, or even something like a troll being able to fly a whirlybird back in the medieval ages. And if they were, damn! That's a cool place.

Crowley wrote:

Gurfang wrote:

Note the very last heading about naming. Medieval is very clearly mentioned in terms of names. That suggests, by simple deductive reasoning, that the setting is very much medieval.

That's...pretty weak. When 'medieval' is discussed here, it's mainly referring to the trappings of the setting; Blizzard refer to most people's idea of a 'proper' setting for conventional fantasy rather than any specific period.

And that "conventional fantasy" setting is a medieval one with castles, serfs and nobles, plate armour and so on. Clearly, if this were just a medieval world then dragons, magic and so on would not exist but that doesn't remove the very clear medieval setting that Blizz have given the lore setting.

Also, in response to Lyranne's comment about Alexander the Great and Roman Emperors, I refer you to my earlier post that mentions the Classical world and would also point out that just because Colin Farrell kissed a guy in the movie doesn't mean that it is based on confirmed fact.

Well, whatever I intended for this thread to be, its working. I am not too big on flaming though, I do not very often go down that road. But I am all for heated discussions. And... this thread can stirr up some shit that can ultimately hurt the community and the RP? Heh, grow some balls will you.

Besides, I think Gurfang are pretty wrong with how you portray sexuality and the medival ages. According to a professor on medival history who had a lecture at the Visby medival festival a few months back there were ALOT of fucking.

And I mean ALOT. They were fucking left and right and there wasn't really all that much discrimination. A guy could fuck another guy, but you didn't want to be the guy on the bottom, cause that would mean you where the "bitch". The professor explained that a man could penetrate, but should not be penetrated. However, a young boy who had not yet gone through the rite of passage was not a man and could be penetrated, so they were. Often the first girl a man in the making shagged was his sister. He got told by his father to shag his sister to get practice.

Also when you got respected visitors it was customary to offer them a shag with your wife or daughter before you got discussed business. So yeah... Sex happened.

I really don't think you are accurate at all when you say fucking was just for gettin' children back then, and that they were too knackered from work to enjoy sex as something recreational. According to the BBC documnetary series "Medieval life" with Terry Jones the peasants didn't work -that- hard anyways. Sex is a basic human instinct and in the mediaval times people were all about basic instincts so I really don't think they had any less focus on sexuality then as now.

Anyways, I still don't see how sexuality was the one big thing to be discussed here. Not that I mind, but it just surprised me.

Not knowing who that professor is I can't be sure about this but I am pretty sure that he would be laughed out of a lot of proper discussion about medieval life if what you have said was his standard comment about sex in that time.
That said, I am sure that there are many others that you might be more supportive of your views just as I will find others who would support my viewpoint. Sadly, in a post-modern world even history is subjective!

As to Terry Jones' comment about working hard, I guess it depends on what you consider hard work to be. Certainly, they would have worked a lot harder than we do today. Those working the land would have worked all the time that the sun provided and in the darker months would still have found that they were working in the dark to get the necessary jobs done. Nobles and the like would have had an easier time of it as the serfs did their work for them, but seeing as they were the minority they are hardly representative of medieval life.

Allright. I've seen your viewpoint and I have given mine. I know from previous experiences that we will never agree in such discussions anyways, it's not meant to be. So I will leave it at that to avoid repeating myself- on this subject that is.

However, I'll say this, as I think I have forgot to make this point, I can fully understand how it is frowned upon that half the female blood elf population are lesbians. But that's really not what I mean when I say gay characters in RP is okey. Most of those lesbians seem to have other agendas than making good and challenging RP.

Chipping in on Lion's comment about slapping bad guys on wrist instead of executing them.

Executing a bad guy is a real pain in wow as most players who want to be bad and mess up (.i.e. finally do something bad enough to get caught!) don't want to lose their character. That said I have had the pleasure of executing another player for treason ... Thanks Ian, was fun!

I tend to stand by Quint's comment of if you are uncommon know your character is uncommon. As an intellectual suddenly and rather inexplicably in power of a military unit Alaster is incredibly uncommon with very unusual ideas, diplomacy, order, etc. He might try to get others to agree but Paul knows he's on a losing streak nine times out of ten IC but that OOC complexities of wiping out other people's characters because you want to means it happens.

*shrugs* The day will come when a GM will launch a war, lose and voluntarily disband and name change his character and that day I will bow down in amazement to someone with that kind of dedication.

On the whole death thing, I'd happily create characters to be evil and then die if the whole levelling thing weren't in the way of enjoying the game in that way. This is where something like Epilogue can be a major good thing for RP as you start from lvl 80 with no need for levelling. In WoW the only ways you can do it are delete the character or pay for a change. However, certainly on SSL, RPers are so pissed off at Blizz not supporting RP that they will almost certainly not pay for a character change (be it gender, name or faction) unless they have more money than sense!