Jump to content

LGBT characters?


dannydb

Recommended Posts

@Astrella "Can" and "should" by who's measurements and decisions? Popular consensus of a society? Fallible and prone to horrific excesses. If little Jimmy Klansman wants to spew ignorance, he's permitted, and has every right to do it. One must recall, in nearly every case any given position, right or wrong, popular or unpopular, will have an opposite opinion - and which one holds dominance at any given time can transform abruptly. Censorship and condemnation of any form of artistic expression or creative endeavor only empowers social regression. Whether by 'moral imperative' or any other principle. The tool that is used for 'progress' today to squash regression and bigotry can all too easily turn on its wielder when the definitions of 'social acceptability' are changed. Precedent is a dangerous thing.  All expression is free, or none is - and again, those supporting the stifling of free expression, no matter how vile, are traditionally not good people.

 

@Dogmantra Ah, see I agree on that point. Free expression does not mean 'free from consequence' and yes, in that regard I agree. Apologies for the misunderstanding. But criticism  and demanding suppression are two separate things - just as criticism and persecution are two separate things, yeah?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11.7.2017 at 5:20 PM, Ryökäle said:

I disagree.

I like the idea that writers, artists and other creative people can freely express themselves. I find it annoying that we consumers come poking to their work with our sticky little fingers: "You should do more this, or you are racist homophobe who contributes to heteronormative patriarchy." (This was obviously hyperbole)

It must be very uninspiring to add something to story, because you are essentially guilt tripped to do it.

This, very much this.

Actually, the thing in quotation marks doesn't come off as hyperbolic at all given some of the discourse from previous years. It's extreme, but not without precedent unfortunately.

That said, I think we should add feedback by telling Wyrd what we like. I think it's much a more effective way to influence things to praise the tendencies like rather than criticize what we perceive as omissions...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Wolfpact said:

@Dogmantra I utterly disagree. One does not get to tell others what they can or cannot create, based on your prejudices, sensibilities, or beliefs. Maybe your society does, but that is not universal.

No one forces you to read any given creators' work, and if that creator relies on that work for a living eventually they will choose between belief or payday.

Is that diatribe "in-character"? If so, the author is not speaking, the character is, and just because some folks are too fragile to even read a very real viewpoint because they find t troubling or disagree with it -even when it deserves to be disagreed with -  does not mean an author is at all obliged to humor their delicate sensibilities.

 

All expression is free and absolute, or none is.

And those arguing for the latter in any form? Historically, not great people.

I do not know of a single society in the world that does not have laws on what you can and can not say and do.

In extremes I am not allowed to go out and create a sculpture of human bodies because I will violate the laws for murder. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/11/2017 at 6:20 PM, Ryökäle said:

I disagree.

I like the idea that writers, artists and other creative people can freely express themselves. I find it annoying that we consumers come poking to their work with our sticky little fingers: "You should do more this, or you are racist homophobe who contributes to heteronormative patriarchy." (This was obviously hyperbole)

It must be very uninspiring to add something to story, because you are essentially guilt tripped to do it.

So we can't express opinion on what we like and do not like? Because that is all anyone here can do. No one here is in a position to censor anyone (that I know of, at least - Nathan naturally excepted) so why the reaction? The above seems to suggest that criticizing art should be forbidden which is an entirely silly idea.

The biggest thing that we can "threaten" Wyrd with is that we might stop buying their products but no one in this thread seems to be even hinting at that! And if they were, they very much should be allowed to.

...I'm honestly having a very difficult time understanding the counter arguments presented in this thread. *scratches head*

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Havi g lurked for a while Ifigured I might wheigh in. I'm very much with Dogmantra (and other) on this and you put it nicely, too bad I can't find the like function anymore.

I can't see how an LGBT character is bad in any way and I don't see why it would hurt the game. 

Asking for an LGBT character isn't some sort of devious infringement on artistic freedom and I don't get the argument that a character would need to be solely defined by that characteristic and be written shallowly. Kirai is very much defined by her straight relationship to the governor's son and the ramifications of that relationship and I don't see people complaining about her being shallow. 

I don't see the need to defend the writers from this "agenda". Every opinion is more or less an agenda, some are just more mainstream. Labelling something as some sinister "agenda" aimed at limiting free speech seems to purposefully try to counter something through unjust arguments.

Labelling it as an agenda seems dishonest to me. It's one thing to say "I prefer my characters to not have a stated sexual orientation because I don't want sex in my gaming" at which point you are trying to influence the writers in an equal fashion of those asking for LGBT characters. If you are ok with the character of Kirai having a plot to do with love I don't see why ou would automatically assume that a plot based on same-sex love or some internal conflict would hurt the game.

It's a really weird assumption that the whole character needs to be one dimensional simply because one part of it's backstory in some way relates to LGBT issues. To me that seems like an irrational fear can kind of make it look like you are trying to invent reasons to back up your original gut reaction of not wanting gays in your game so I can see how someone would interpret it as anti-LGBT. If it wasn't you might want to revisit the assumption that a character possessing a certain trait must automatically be one-dimensional.

I personally don't think it would hurt the game but I would keep playing either way. I don't really identify with any of the characters so far but I'm not bothered by that since I don't feel sidelined by society.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been lurking around the edges of this one myself, still not certain I want to dip my toes too far into the matter but I do want to say that as someone with genetic spine issues who uses a cane and such for pain management, seeing Hoffman in the game does feel pretty awesome (even if it is tragic that he's not an Arcanist :P).  I think it's important to note that a character can have an aspect like disability (or more on topic here, sexuality) be a core part of their character without it being their character.  Hoffman is a Polio survivor who basically turned himself into a mech to compensate for his physical issues, thus using the idea behind the disability to make an interesting and cool character.  But Wyrd isn't yelling "Polio survivor here, look at our disabled character!" or anything absurd like that in their stories with him, they just used it to help in making a cool, fun, and surprisingly unique character.

While Wyrd may not want to have a character whose core is their sexuality (which as they've pointed out above, they have reasons for which are understandable), like with Hoffman it's perfectly possible to have one's backstory / whatever else in the fluff use things like that without beating it over the reader's head.

On 7/11/2017 at 2:34 PM, Broken Clock said:

Yes, let us jam homosexuality into Malifaux. "Progressiveness" has worked wonders for Marvel! Their sales are record breaking! :D

I'm sorry, but the sexuality of a character largely isn't important, both in terms of mechanics and lore.

I mean, comics work off a totally different system.  There's only so much a writer can do with a character, and if they don't experiment then they stagnate.  New blood (and new ideas, characters, etc) is crucial for comics, even if most of the characters they throw out there don't work.  If one does work and people love it, boom they have a whole new series to fund them for a few more years.  I know people like to point at bad sales with new characters, but every new character that does do well is absolutely worth it in the end for them.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, retnab said:

I mean, comics work off a totally different system.  There's only so much a writer can do with a character, and if they don't experiment then they stagnate.  New blood (and new ideas, characters, etc) is crucial for comics, even if most of the characters they throw out there don't work.  If one does work and people love it, boom they have a whole new series to fund them for a few more years.  I know people like to point at bad sales with new characters, but every new character that does do well is absolutely worth it in the end for them.

I think the problem with Marvel is that they aren't really making "new characters". they're getting rid of all of the characters that everyone loved and turning every super hero- even one's it doesn't make sense, like thor - into Legacy characters. there's an important distinction to make. People don't hate Jane as thor because she's a woman. they hate her as thor because she isn't Thor. Had they made her into a new superhero? no one would've given a shit. and I don't see Wyrd doing something like that anytime soon. - Sure, they might down the line decide it's time for McMourning to retire and give up his operations over to Sebastian. But I don't see anything that drastic happening in wave 7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2017 at 11:10 AM, Pyrflamme said:

On an unrelated note, I re-read the Rezzer story in Shifting Loyalties today. My initial read-through didn't suggest anything besides good friendship, which may have been shaded by Tara's joke about Karina being embarrassed by the presence of handsome men, which is akin to a jibe I might expect to get from my friends about women. Kadeton's comment had me reading it in a different light, though, and I think I twig to it better now. 

On 7/11/2017 at 9:28 PM, Da Git said:

 I never thought of Tara & Karina as being an item till this thread, for example. And even now, they could easily be seen as batty old sisters/friends than a batty old couple! The fact that Tara calls everyone Hun or Darling kinda means it loses its emphasis when she says it to Karina.  Maybe I'm just blind though, I have been completely oblivious when a girl has thrown her affection my way, which hasn't happened often (to my knowledge at least!).

This was very much a feature of my aunts' relationship, sadly. They lived together in an era with a heavy social stigma for female homosexuality (when male homosexuality was outright illegal), so they naturally learned to conceal their relationship in public and pass as "good friends". Even though society gradually became more accepting, they were never comfortable with being open about it, as you might expect from decades of habit. Given the fact that people are still having to fight for gay rights and equality, it's hard to blame them.

For Tara and Karina, I thought that ambiguity would work well - partly because while Malifaux is anachronistically progressive compared to the early 20th century, I feel like there's enough Victorian ideology still floating about for openly gay relationships to be a bit scandalous (and Tara and Karina seem like no-nonsense people who would try to avoid that kind of drama where possible), and partly because I agree with the general sentiment that character sexuality doesn't need to be the focus of a story. I usually try to leave things subtle and open-ended - as long as there's enough freedom for people who are looking for it to identify with the characters and their relationship, then I don't think it matters if others skim over it and think of them as nothing more than good friends. :)

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Math Mathonwy said:

So we can't express opinion on what we like and do not like? Because that is all anyone here can do. No one here is in a position to censor anyone (that I know of, at least - Nathan naturally excepted) so why the reaction? The above seems to suggest that criticizing art should be forbidden which is an entirely silly idea.

The biggest thing that we can "threaten" Wyrd with is that we might stop buying their products but no one in this thread seems to be even hinting at that! And if they were, they very much should be allowed to.

...I'm honestly having a very difficult time understanding the counter arguments presented in this thread. *scratches head*

I'm not opposed to feedback and voicing opinions. It's more about the tone and intent of the feedback. 

Discussion here has been very civil and I do realize I'm perhaps talking about more extreme behavior you see floating around these days (let's not pretend that doesn't exist), where people are basically saying that catering to their political agenda is the only moral thing to do. Not including certain minorities is problematic, certain humor is horrible etc.

I just feel like art, comedy and free expression is being attacked these days. (again, not accusing anyone here, just speaking generally) 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Ludvig said:

Havi g lurked for a while Ifigured I might wheigh in. I'm very much with Dogmantra (and other) on this and you put it nicely, too bad I can't find the like function anymore.

I can't see how an LGBT character is bad in any way and I don't see why it would hurt the game. 

Asking for an LGBT character isn't some sort of devious infringement on artistic freedom and I don't get the argument that a character would need to be solely defined by that characteristic and be written shallowly. Kirai is very much defined by her straight relationship to the governor's son and the ramifications of that relationship and I don't see people complaining about her being shallow. 

I don't see the need to defend the writers from this "agenda". Every opinion is more or less an agenda, some are just more mainstream. Labelling something as some sinister "agenda" aimed at limiting free speech seems to purposefully try to counter something through unjust arguments.

Labelling it as an agenda seems dishonest to me. It's one thing to say "I prefer my characters to not have a stated sexual orientation because I don't want sex in my gaming" at which point you are trying to influence the writers in an equal fashion of those asking for LGBT characters. If you are ok with the character of Kirai having a plot to do with love I don't see why ou would automatically assume that a plot based on same-sex love or some internal conflict would hurt the game.

It's a really weird assumption that the whole character needs to be one dimensional simply because one part of it's backstory in some way relates to LGBT issues. To me that seems like an irrational fear can kind of make it look like you are trying to invent reasons to back up your original gut reaction of not wanting gays in your game so I can see how someone would interpret it as anti-LGBT. If it wasn't you might want to revisit the assumption that a character possessing a certain trait must automatically be one-dimensional.

I personally don't think it would hurt the game but I would keep playing either way. I don't really identify with any of the characters so far but I'm not bothered by that since I don't feel sidelined by society.

Why is it bad to ask artists to jam politically motivated requests into a miniatures game?

1) Maybe I don't like the idea of someone sitting down and thinking to themselves: "man, this game needs more gays! I'm going to make a gay character!".Do you know that feeling you get when you see a stock photo? That perfectly orchestrated mix of genders and races that in no way looks natural? Makes you cringe a little, doesn't it? Well it makes me sick to my stomach because I know a person was behind that photo saying "We need more blacks in our photo. Get me a black!". There is something insidiously racist with fulfilling racial quotas. 

2) A character's sexuality is not really the best launching point for character development of a miniature. Face it, more often than not characters created from this foundation are typically boring and borderline ridiculous, since the genitals they love (something that doesn't matter at all) becomes the focal point of their character. Often times the creator will avoid giving the character flaws or making the character villainous, for fear of insulting people. You end up with a whole mess of constraints, all for the purpose of establishing a character on one of the weakest and most unimportant characteristics imaginable.

An agenda doesn't necessarily have to be sinister. Make no mistake, the frequent occurrence of homosexual characters across every artistic medium is indeed an agenda. Nobody can deny the fact that there are likely far more homosexual characters in movies and television than there are in reality (in relation to their corresponding percentage within the general population). As a minority, I find agendas like these deeply racist/sexist/homophobic because inherent in the request for diversity is the belief that individuals like myself are in dire need of representation, as if I'm so weak and simple that I need a fictitious character to attach myself to or that the primary thing I find important about myself is my sexuality/race. Listen, I'm far more attached to a character who believes in honor and a strong family than I am in a character that likes dick. Those attributes represent me much better.

I think you're attempting to "invent reasons to back up your original gut reaction of" wanting to be inclusive. Homosexuals are not sidelined by society. Homosexuality is very prevalent in popular culture and denying that fact seems very strange.

But, whatever, social justice seems to have permeated into the artifacts I love. Shame. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Broken Clock said:

1) Maybe I don't like the idea of someone sitting down and thinking to themselves: "man, this game needs more gays! I'm going to make a gay character!".

So you consider all fan opinions of character traits as horrid? No one is allowed to voice any preferences of critiques because an artist might take heed?

9 minutes ago, Broken Clock said:

2) A character's sexuality is not really the best launching point for character development of a miniature. Face it, more often than not characters created from this foundation are typically boring and borderline ridiculous, since the genitals they love (something that doesn't matter at all) becomes the focal point of their character. Often times the creator will avoid giving the character flaws or making the character villainous, for fear of insulting people. You end up with a whole mess of constraints, all for the purpose of establishing a character on one of the weakest and most unimportant characteristics imaginable.

I can't name one boring LGBT miniatures game character. Meaning one I would consider more boring than average, that is. Maybe you can?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Broken Clock said:

Nobody can deny the fact that there are likely far more homosexual characters in movies and television than there are in reality (in relation to their corresponding percentage within the general population).

Do you have any actual data to back up that rather bold statement that you decided to put in everybody's mouths?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@broken clock

1. Can't say I've ever had that feeling or problem. I agree that people tend to hang with others similar to them but the game as a whole includes a wide range of crews, the weird part would be to have every single crew have equal presentation of races and genders etc. Having a little bit of everything in the game doesn't seem that weird to me. I had a hard time swallowing the wild mix of different genres between crews when I got into this game, diversity in individual's race or sexual orientation has never felt off for me. You also need to ask yourself which context these quotas exist in. If the goal is to mimic global demographics asians should be a lot more frequent than europeans. Africans should also be more common. The breach is also situated in an alternative timeline and controlled by the guild which is a multinational organisation so the demographics of Malifaux aren't necessqrily those of current day US. It looks like the guild is more or less the east indian trading company so people of Indian descent could easily dominate the dwellers of Malifaux.

Kirai could easily have had a romance with the governor's daughter and be written exactly the same in every other aspect.

2 The point was that a single line in a single story could fulfill the requirement of sexual orientation, it is utterly ridiculous to make a character that is gay as it's big thing, that would be an extremely bad idea. The whole point of including it would be to do it in a natural way, not make it into some big weird character-defining thing. Thst would indeed be counter productive abd more insulting than good. I don't want the sexuality to be the focal point. That would suck.

3 Visavi using the word agenda. Maintaining the status quo is also an agenda, that's why it seems weird to me to talk about the gay agenda. I'm not sure if I'm unique here but the word agenda has a negative ring to me. Iassociate the phrase "gay agenda" with Russia imprisoning gays and neo-nazis threatening journalists, those are the people I've heard use that term.

If we look globally I think there are far more places i the world where it is seriously dangerous to be openly gay than there are places where it isn't. Gays are being persecuted by states all over the globe, thr countries with progressive laws represent a minority of the global population.

Even in the countries with a strong "gay agenda" it'sa lot less safe to be openly gay or transgendered than it is to be straight CIS. I've never been threatened solely because I was straight and I've never had a straight friend tell me they where. Most of my openly gay or transgendered friends have recieved threats of violence and death on the sole merit of being what they are so I can live with them having a slightly higher representation in movies if it normalizes anything for them and leads to less death threats.

People calling for representation are themselves part of the groups they want represented so apparently they feel like it would be nice. I don't see how them wanting that is negative for you? I don't view every minority as weak and pathetic because a few of their members would like to have a character that shares some aspect of their person. As you say it's bonkers to relate to a character just because of one superficial trait, I don't relate to most of the male characters because the mind of Seamus, Nicodem or McMourning are utterly alien to me. No one is forcing us to relate to them just because we (presumably) share a gender/race or sexual orientation though. 

I guess I just can't see the disgusted by diversity argument. Maybe you are sensitive to it because you've been clumped together with others based on arbitrary characteristica. I would guess that less token gay guys and more diverse characters to let them actually not be token gay guys but well written characters would help with that in the long run.

(apoligies if incoherrebt, on my phone)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone obviously sat down and thought the game needed an entire asian faction and I don't think it devalued the game or my perceptions of asians. I sometimes cringe at the panasian vibe and certain models and would probably not delve too deep into the faction as a result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

It looks like the guild is more or less the east indian trading company so people of Indian descent could easily dominate the dwellers of Malifaux.

That wouldn't really make sense. East India Company was founded, owned and led by British people, and it wasn't in the business of transporting Indian natives to the other side of the world. It was in the business of trading valuable scarce goods. They only employed lots of Indian people because that's who was available in colonial India. In Malifaux they would employ whoever would be available as well, and that would probably mostly be people from America and Europe considering where the breach is located.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Myyrä said:

That wouldn't really make sense. East India Company was founded, owned and led by British people, and it wasn't in the business of transporting Indian natives to the other side of the world. It was in the business of trading valuable scarce goods. They only employed lots of Indian people because that's who was available in colonial India. In Malifaux they would employ whoever would be available as well, and that would probably mostly be people from America and Europe considering where the breach is located.

True, but isn't the breach in what used to belong to Mexico before the spanish american war so it would be spanish descendants and not english speakers at least?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

Isn't the breach in what used to belong to Mexico before the apaniah american war so it qouls be spaniah descendants and not engliah soeakers at least?

Possibly, but Malifaux also functions as a penal colony, so there would be a relatively large influx of people from the countries controlled by Guild, whichever those are... Which reminds me, I really can't wait for the new TTB and TOS rulebooks. I want them now!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In either case the fact that the game is in english and several aspects of the story are both probably a result of the english speaking "agenda" of the writers and the conaumers ;) Every work of fiction is influenced by a lot of cultural factors that would be different if they had been created in another time or place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

... but the game as a whole includes a wide range of crews, the weird part would be to have every single crew have equal presentation of races and genders etc. Having a little bit of everything in the game doesn't seem that weird to me. I had a hard time swallowing the wild mix of different genres between crews when I got into this game, diversity in individual's race or sexual orientation has never felt off for me...

This is the best possible point. Malifaux's a melting pot as it is. ^_^

4 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

That wouldn't really make sense. East India Company was founded, owned and led by British people, and it wasn't in the business of transporting Indian natives to the other side of the world. It was in the business of trading valuable scarce goods...

It was after the British government itself stepped in and annexed the private army that the government realized it had acquired a cheap and relatively well-trained fighting force and started exporting those 'native regiments' to other conflicts in other parts of the Empire. So it could make sense now, especially with the change in leadership, to see a bloc of strange manners and customs suddenly exported from, or imported through, the Breach. But you're right, it wasn't their first choice of export.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ludvig said:

True, but isn't the breach in what used to belong to Mexico before the spanish american war so it would be spanish descendants and not english speakers at least?

I assume you mean the Mexican American war? Because Mexico became independent in the 1820s, America got that land in the '40s, and the Spanish American war was in the '90s.

But, getting into the actual timeline, yes, the Breach is what was in Spanish territory if it's the same as what is was in History. The Breach was open in Santa Fe in the year 1787.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always believed that those who create "art" in any capacity should be allowed to create it in the fashion they desire, and it should reflect only what the artist wants it to reflect.  If people like it, they will naturally gravitate towards it. If its something that doesn't tickle their fancy; they'll find something else.

I want Wyrd to do what it does best; and that is create awesome games.  If Wyrd feels that a characters sexuality is playing a pivotal role in the story, then by all means, do whatever you feel like.  

What I don't want Wyrd to become, is a company who starts placing politics,social movements (and their supporters) at the forefront, and put the games (and actual players/ game supporters) on the back burner .  I started this hobby to have fun; not begin a demonstration, or call for a movement.  There are plenty of other avenues that people can do that with if they choose.

I am loyal to Wyrd.  I love what they create, and all of my other Miniature games (40K, Sigmar, X-Wing) collect dust while my Malifaux collection grows.

But that loyalty only continues as long as its about the games.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Viks_Masamune said:

I've always believed that those who create "art" in any capacity should be allowed to create it in the fashion they desire, and it should reflect only what the artist wants it to reflect.  If people like it, they will naturally gravitate towards it. If its something that doesn't tickle their fancy; they'll find something else.

I want Wyrd to do what it does best; and that is create awesome games.  If Wyrd feels that a characters sexuality is playing a pivotal role in the story, then by all means, do whatever you feel like.  

What I don't want Wyrd to become, is a company who starts placing politics,social movements (and their supporters) at the forefront, and put the games (and actual players/ game supporters) on the back burner .  I started this hobby to have fun; not begin a demonstration, or call for a movement.  There are plenty of other avenues that people can do that with if they choose.

I am loyal to Wyrd.  I love what they create, and all of my other Miniature games (40K, Sigmar, X-Wing) collect dust while my Malifaux collection grows.

But that loyalty only continues as long as its about the games.

"I wish there was an LGBT character or two in Malifaux. And no, we don't want characters that are somehow "about" being LGBT, just characters that happen to be such as one facet of their multidimensional character."

"ZOMG! Everybody panic! Malifaux will stop being a minis game and becomes a vessel for the gay agenda! Artists will be forced to write and draw gay erotica! Cats and dogs living together! Mass panic! Social Justice!"

 

...what is this I don't even 

 

Edit: OK, that was maybe needlessly pithy. But it seems that the request put forward has been very modest and yet the objections to it base their argument on some kind of an extremely slippery slope where the freedom of artistic expression is severely threatened and Malifaux stops being a game first and foremost(!).

Which is to me a completely baffling response.

Does someone here honestly think that Nathan will buckle under some imaginary pressure and introduce an eighth faction with the theme of celebrating gayness or something?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Math said (the latter, respectful part) ;). A lot of people seem to have created a false dichotomy and are making this into some last stand for artistic freedom.

Ah, that eight faction would be a glorious collection of horrible tropes. That would surely open them up to criticism and probably legal action. :D

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with thia thread is that all of a sudden people need to defend the artistic freedom of the game designers because consumers make horrible "demands" on them. In the fifteen or so othet wishlist threads I've seen no one has ever felt the need to defend the artistic freedom with tooth and nail. That makes it look like it's this particular group you are against and it's going to be hard for me to see it any other way.

People make wishes for new characters all the time and there have been multiple threads suggesting redesigns of models that didn't work as intended. These threads even lead to changes in those masters that closely resembled the suggestions put forward (Lucius for example). That's an even more blatant attack on thrir artistic freedom that actually did alter the game. Where were the defenders of artistic freedom then? I remember one or two people saying "I don't like whiners making errata to my games" in a single post and then backing out and leaving those wanting to discuss it alone which is a fair and adequate response.

We already have direct mentions of characters sexualities and some of those are central to their plots and I've never heard anyone complain about that. This thread would have faded into obscurity if people didn't so vehemetly defend their wish to avoid a single mention of LGBT in their games. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information