Jump to content

LGBT characters?


dannydb
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, DocSchlock said:

Yes, we did. Wyrd did a much better job post-Book 4 with Sandeep and adding Abby in TOS (a real African faction in a tabletop game is huge). But having the only real diversity in miniature gaming doesn't mean they win some imaginary diversity prize - Wyrd can always do better in representing how the world actually looks instead of "Here's a bunch of straight  / white people because that's the default."

Are we ignoring the entire Ten Thunders faction and Perdita's family? What about Big Jake and Joss? Possibly Ramos?

Are they white too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, iamfanboy said:

Note that my wife is sleeping right next to me and my reaction to homosexuality is, "Well, if it's important to you than fine, whatever" so I've got no real dog in this fight to demand 'representation'. (If I'm being 100% honest, I find transgender folks as boorish as anyone else who thinks one dramatic change will suddenly inflict happiness upon them and fix all that is wrong with their lives, but it does me no personal harm so they're free to do whatever they want.)

I mean, there's a perfectly fine medical basis for it; and other treatments would dream to be as successful as transitioning is in alleviating dysphoria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just want to chime in something I've noticed, that kind of bothers me...

It seems that the people who are complaining the loudest about "Oh, when it's heteronormitive it's not seen as sexual but if it was gay it would be!" are the ones who are actually pushing the most heteronormative attitudes.

I see a lot of assuming that "straight" is the default. That just because the Honeypot has a brothel, that that's somehow automatically 'straight' when in reality the sexuality and sexual orientation of both the workers and clients of the honeypot are "undefined" - which should be the standard until clarified. It's the same with colette and the showgirls; yes, they use their sexuality to distract people. but that's an act of MANIPULATION using their sexuality to get what they want; it's not an act that actually shows their sexual orientation.

it's the same kind of dangerous assumption that just because a character hasn't shown sexual attraction, they must be asexual. it's the same kind of BS that leads to the "what are you, gay?" question when a male isn't aggressive chasing after women. isn't it possible that, say, Ramos is straight, he's just capable of not being distracted by the showgirl's sexuality?

seems to me, that the people who are most interested in fighting "heteronormity" here are also the ones who are pushing it the most.

Maybe we should all stop assuming that "a character is straight unless it's made explicit that they're not" and start assuming that "a characters sexual orientation is undefined until it's defined", yes?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Astrella said:

I mean, there's a perfectly fine medical basis for it; and other treatments would dream to be as successful as transitioning is in alleviating dysphoria.

I know actual hermaphrodites exist, and until very recently a doctor's main method of 'dealing with it' was to force them into female through surgery before the father or mother saw too much of the child and that was WRONG, but far too many of the trans people I've met are just... well... deeply unhappy with themselves. I mean, yes, misery is a human condition, and at least they're not doing something harmful like joining a cult or using illegal substances to correct that misery, but I still think it's still in the same general category of magical thinking: "If I do this one thing, my life will be perfect."

But that is just my personal feeling. I'm not gonna look at the trans person sitting at my Deadlands table on Mondays and say, "Sorry Emily, your life is a lie and you need to wake up and learn to be happy with your dick." She wouldn't thank me, I could be wrong, and anyway her character is hilariously fraught with options for a cunning GM and I'd be sad to see it leave. A Texas Ranger who managed to pull the 1 in 27 chance of owing a life debt to the Men in Black Dusters from the Veteran of the Weird West table? Amazing.

Y'know, I'm grateful for talking about this. It really helped cement my feelings about Emily. Even if I think she's deluding herself, so what? We all have to lie to ourselves, or else the pitiless weight of knowing that our lives are without meaning and that the uncaring universe turned for billions of years before our existence and will turn on, unchanged, after our deaths would drive us to suicide. Thanks to denial, I'm immortal, but I'm not sure how the rest of YOU deal with it. :P

3 minutes ago, Kyris said:

seems to me, that the people who are most interested in fighting "heteronormity" here are also the ones who are pushing it the most.

Maybe we should all stop assuming that "a character is straight unless it's made explicit that they're not" and start assuming that "a characters sexual orientation is undefined until it's defined", yes?

What happened to being able to like posts? I'm sad it's gone.

I think that the attitude of the Malifaux writers is "Sex is unimportant to most of the characters until the moment that it is." That's fine. I'm not saying that they HAVE to have someone who isn't cisgendered, but if they did, it should adhere to some core ideas to make it more than just a boring token meant to appease a certain demographic.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most trans people (myself included) don't expect transition to magically fix all problems, it's a specific solution to a specific problem that sadly comes with a lot of misunderstanding and discrimination for a lot of us, which is often the reason for the unhappiness. Discrimination leads to like, losing family, friends, job, being hurt, etc... being a minority by itself comes with a lot of stress which causes depression and other mental health issues. And well, dysphoria is still a thing on top of that. Transitioning has had a good impact on my overall well-being though, I no longer feel like the detached zombie I was years and years ago. 

Also I actually find the whole overall meaningless of existence pretty empowering; it means that we can give our own meaning and shape to it. What I do and what I value matters because I chose so, not because existence makes it matter or gives it purpose.

=====

For the other thing; the problem is that the societal standard is still that people are assumed to be straight unless otherwise proven. Also characters are written, they're not just random people on the street, and yes, technically a bunch of characters could not be straight it's unlikely to be the case. Like, say with the honeypot customers example, sure they could all be bi, but we just never happen to see them involved with men or any proof that they are? Like doesn't that feel like an easy way out?

My main issue in this thread anyway has mostly been the people who seem to be against even the idea that there could be lgbt characters in Malifaux.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Astrella said:

My main issue in this thread anyway has mostly been the people who seem to be against even the idea that there could be lgbt characters in Malifaux.

And no one has said that there can't be. Just that it wouldn't be in the limelight or that they wouldn't be overt about their orientation because it is still for the most part early 1900s morals and values. What people have an issue with is characters who are completely defined by the fact that they're gay. It just makes for a shallow character and will only feel like someone somewhere checked a box on their diversity checklist instead of someone making an actual character with depth. People want good characters, it doesn't matter if they're gay, straight or whatever so long as they're good characters.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, santaclaws01 said:

And no one has said that there can't be. Just that it wouldn't be in the limelight or that they wouldn't be overt about their orientation because it is still for the most part early 1900s morals and values. What people have an issue with is characters who are completely defined by the fact that they're gay. It just makes for a shallow character and will only feel like someone somewhere checked a box on their diversity checklist instead of someone making an actual character with depth. People want good characters, it doesn't matter if they're gay, straight or whatever so long as they're good characters.

Why is it though that worrying about bad characters who are defined by a single character trait only seems to happen when it's in the context of that trait being a minority group such as being LGBT? Do people have so little faith in the writers that they assume they'll do a bad job when they've already proven that they can do well writing both straight/undefined and specifically LGBT characters (thinking of Kadeton's story example here)?

When Asami was revealed, did anyone say they were okay with having an Oni master but only if it wasn't shoved in their face or pushing an agenda?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kyris said:

Maybe we should all stop assuming that "a character is straight unless it's made explicit that they're not" and start assuming that "a characters sexual orientation is undefined until it's defined", yes?

Up until now, I'd been arguing from my own knowledge base, but for this I went to my brother. He's a bisexual man who is well-read on material pertaining to LGBTQ issues.

His response, copy-pasted directly was:

"well, it seems to me that a way they're right-- it would be nice if everybody understood that, but in practice there is a sort of cultural tendency towards presuming heterosexuality, so in practice there's a need to make queer characters visible so that queer folks can know they're represented."

So there is a presumption of heteronormativity, but it doesn't represent a character flaw specifically on the part of those arguing in here. Rather, it's us acknowledging that there is a common cultural bias, and proposing that the appropriate tack to take is as my brother said above.

 

10 minutes ago, iamfanboy said:

I know actual hermaphrodites exist, and until very recently a doctor's main method of 'dealing with it' was to force them into female through surgery before the father or mother saw too much of the child and that was WRONG, but far too many of the trans people I've met are just... well... deeply unhappy with themselves. I mean, yes, misery is a human condition, and at least they're not doing something harmful like joining a cult or using illegal substances to correct that misery, but I still think it's still in the same general category of magical thinking: "If I do this one thing, my life will be perfect."

Y'know, I'm grateful for talking about this. It really helped cement my feelings about Emily. Even if I think she's deluding herself, so what? We all have to lie to ourselves, or else the pitiless weight of knowing that our lives are without meaning and that the uncaring universe turned for billions of years before our existence and will turn on, unchanged, after our deaths would drive us to suicide. Thanks to denial, I'm immortal, but I'm not sure how the rest of YOU deal with it.

The condition you mention is called "ambiguous genitalia" nowadays, since we've come to understand hermaphroditism doesn't accurately describe what happens in humans (although there are still animals that can be described as hermaphroditic). There are geno- and pheno-types we use as shorthand for medical and social purposes, which commonly works for stuff like medicine and medical research, but we're beginning to understand there's a lot more out there than we expected that don't fall neatly into those ranges, and may even fall into the range of the other sex.

As a short summary, there's having 1 or 3+ sex chromosomes, partial or complete sex hormone insensitivity, genetic mosaicism, deletion/gain in sex chromosomes (Y chromosome losing SRY region or X chromosome gaining SRY region being the most well-known), and alteration of sex chromosomes (SRY change in function). There are others I haven't covered for succinctness, seeing as how this post is long enough as it is.

In neurobiology, there's actually growing interest into sex-specific differences owing to hormone and other exposure during brain development. Publications seem to indicate their are certain features that are highly correlated with our common definition of "sex" (see: a given set of sex chromosomes plus average hormone function, etc), but then there are studies that purport to show individuals that are wired up more like the other sex, and some that seem to demonstrate a distinct setup. It's been suggested that transgender individuals might display one of those two phenotypes. 

Sex in humans is an immensely complicated thing because it's a function of multiple systems, and changes in any system could result in mild, to moderate, to drastic shift from the average phenotypic range we use as shorthand.

Astrella already gave her two bits on misunderstanding and discrimination as possible causes rather than what you presume to be the cause of Emily's unhappiness. It may very well be that the Emily you talk about is different from the average man in that regard, whether or not that difference is currently detectable by modern science. While it may give rise to her feelings that there's something about herself that needs to be changed to have her appearance line up with her self-image and initially cause distress in that regard, I don't think she's "lying" to herself, and personally take the stance that it's society's reaction that causes ongoing distress.

If I need to be corrected on any of this, Astrella, let me know. My beat is obesity/T2D physiology, so while I know enough of the basics to read up on the intersex physiology stuff, it's not 100% my thing. Plus I have to go to my brother for a bunch of the more LGBT-experience type questions.
 

51 minutes ago, Dogmantra said:

Why is it though that worrying about bad characters who are defined by a single character trait only seems to happen when it's in the context of that trait being a minority group such as being LGBT? Do people have so little faith in the writers that they assume they'll do a bad job when they've already proven that they can do well writing both straight/undefined and specifically LGBT characters (thinking of Kadeton's story example here)?

When Asami was revealed, did anyone say they were okay with having an Oni master but only if it wasn't shoved in their face or pushing an agenda?

I think you're bang-on. There's a lot of hand-wringing about one-dimensional characters, which I think is a strawman. I mean, it's possible to write a character that is complex and engaging but also happens to be openly LGBT. While people here have said they'd like to see an openly LGBT character at some point - respecting the writers saying they'll handle it as they see appropriate - I don't think any of us intend for it to be one-note.

 

 

 

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. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're going round in circles here.

The question was raised can x type be included in the game.
Most people agreed x type probably does exist and that they are fine with x type being included in the game but please lets not use x's type as a format for the character because ... reasons.
Writers and creators then said "Hey guys x type is in the game, we've even used real life examples of x type and done it in a way that doesn't use x's type as the foundation of character because...reasons.

Then a whole bunch of discussions and disagreements happened about peoples interpretations of the setting of the game and some open and honest discussion that could be seen as cuddle moments where every comes together and plants flowers and shit, while a few people stood in the shadows of near by trees and spat into the dirt and said they didnt like flowers.

Then someone put up a strawman with one of those voice recorders from 80's stuffed toys.

Someone took down the strawman and said I hate those voice recorders.

Now we're back to: Refer to what the writers and creators have already said: the characters are already included, just not overtly. 

Assumptions on the part of the reader are not the writers responsibility, refer to previous arguments regarding hitting people in the face with things (even if that's a great hobby)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Dogmantra said:

Why is it though that worrying about bad characters who are defined by a single character trait only seems to happen when it's in the context of that trait being a minority group such as being LGBT? Do people have so little faith in the writers that they assume they'll do a bad job when they've already proven that they can do well writing both straight/undefined and specifically LGBT characters (thinking of Kadeton's story example here)?

When Asami was revealed, did anyone say they were okay with having an Oni master but only if it wasn't shoved in their face or pushing an agenda?

Because when people make a call for a specific character trait, writers can feel pressured to put out a character with that trait and then that character will usually end up rushed or one dimensional. Even good writers can make mistakes at times, and mistakes are always more likely to happen when someone feels rushed to do something, and so the response is "let them do it in their own time". Do people have so little faith in the writers that they think they're all against putting LGBT characters into the fluff?

And you know as well as I do that that's comparing people's reaction to others wanting an Oni master to others wanting a LGBT character is a false equivalency. For one, Oni don't actually exist in the real world, and they haven't been near a center of an ever increasing culture war for the past few years. Additionally, Oni had been a hanging characteristic in the game for quite awhile and people wanted synergy with that.

I should also disclaim that I'm just speculating on what peoples' reasoning is. I was solely responding to the idea that there were people in this thread who just outright didn't want LGBT characters at all. People can get understandably sensitive about this topic and I just wanted to point out the distinction between not wanting LGBT characters period, and not wanting bad LGBT characters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a slot in this fight, but if the story doesn't call for it either way, then does it matter?  I'm all for equality and representation, but not if it's being done for the sake of just having a character in the game like that.  If it serves the story, I'd love it.  If it's thrown in on top just to add it in, then it's going to be obvious that it's being done on purpose.  If that's the case, you might as well take the South Park approach and name the character Token.  Which, I can only imagine, would be potentially more insulting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, goat90 said:

And yes the internet is a strong answer, if you get angry at me using Autistic the way I did, be careful about other words, and memes as well (see my profile pic as an example). If you're going to call out a word being used in a way you don't like, and even get angry, social interaction within the confines of the internet is no place for you my friend.

You are, naturally, free to post in whatever way you want from the safety of your anonymity and the Internet. But we are a community and I would like to believe that, instead of the "pistols drawn at dawn" of the usual Internet, we could give each other the benefit of the doubt and maybe adjust our behaviour if someone politely requests it. I dunno - I've found that I enjoy this place a lot better when I try to be considerate of other people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Four_N_Six said:

I don't have a slot in this fight, but if the story doesn't call for it either way, then does it matter?  I'm all for equality and representation, but not if it's being done for the sake of just having a character in the game like that.  If it serves the story, I'd love it.  If it's thrown in on top just to add it in, then it's going to be obvious that it's being done on purpose.  If that's the case, you might as well take the South Park approach and name the character Token.  Which, I can only imagine, would be potentially more insulting.

Not every aspect of every character "serves the story". If they did, we'd have awfully one dimensional characters.

And what is "serving the story" anyway? The storyteller is telling the story. They can make it any way they want (well, in Wyrd's case there's the management of the story and then the writing and both parts have different freedoms). It's not as if the story is somehow a representation of history - it can go many ways and some of these are probably worse or better than others (Ulix and Lady Justice hooking up romantically might not be the best way forward) but most sensible conclusions are probably on pretty even keel in that some prefer one whilst others would've liked the other outcome a bit better but only a handful of people are truly disappointed in however things go. There's no "fact" here.

Furthermore, riffing off of this point but not in direct answer to you, Four_N_Six anymore, I have to echo what Dogmantra said - why are people worried that a gay character would be one note? How many one note characters are there in Malifaux (and I mean characters who appear in stories, not ones with just a paragraph in the profiles section)? I can't name any. Which doesn't mean that there aren't any but they probably aren't very common.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/7/2017 at 3:55 PM, Astrella said:

Also it's this annoying hostility towards inclusion that parts of the Wyrd community always seem to have that just puts me (and other people) off from investing in the game right now. I know the previous big debacle around sexism gave Wyrd a bad reputation already. (And that's not cause Wyrd themselves are big meanies persay, but at least in the case I mentioned their response to what happened was lackluster)

First of all, thank you for your input and taking part in this conversation, Astrella. Much appreciated! :) 

And now, on what was quoted. I don't know whether it was a coincidence or not but one of the main points of contention leading to that debacle you mention was that there never was a situation where you had a box of three Minions with one being male and two being female. They were either all women (in case the Minion was defined by being a woman like Oiran or Belles or whatever) or they were all men or they were two men and one woman.

Now there are several boxes with two women and one man in them (off the top of my head, Sanctioned Spellcasters, Wokou Raiders, Bandidos, Autumn Knights, Shieldbearers, and probably more that I'm just not remembering at the moment). So, whether that was due to feedback or just random chance, change can happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Math Mathonwy said:

Furthermore, riffing off of this point but not in direct answer to you, Four_N_Six anymore, I have to echo what Dogmantra said - why are people worried that a gay character would be one note? How many one note characters are there in Malifaux (and I mean characters who appear in stories, not ones with just a paragraph in the profiles section)? I can't name any. Which doesn't mean that there aren't any but they probably aren't very common.

Replying to this last bit, just to tie it together with something...

I'm not (and this is no linear discussion, so I speak only for myself!) worried about the writing per se, I'm worries about Wyrd and the writers being pushed for specific agendas. There are already LGBT+ characters in the game, and I hope Wyrd keeps on pushing the envelope in having an ever more diverse character set. But in my opinion we've already seen how peer pressure led to one change, which left a character less rich.

I'm referring to the Lizzy Lovelace debacle, where an awesome tribute to a female scientific genius and a nod to a famous female serial killer combined in a brilliant way so the name itself translated to "female evil genius". Someone took issue with there being a character named L. Lovelace*, and after a while Wyrd was condoning rape just by using that name. It got ugly enough (and spilled over to venues other than this forum) that I think it was a wise decision to cave and change the name. A wise decision, but one that left the game poorer than it would have been otherwise.

Hence I take issue with the idea that Malifaux is not diverse (it is, and it's getting more diverse with every book), that Wyrd is not remarkably inclusive and progressive for a game company (they're job is to sell a game, not an ideology. That said, I love that they have a progressive message, but that message is worthless if they focus more on the message than the game), or that the forum users in general are bigots opposed to any form of representation (I have not seen anyone opposed to LGBT characters in general in this thread). I'm think it's legitimate to worry about politics taking the upper hand in a game, especially given the context (the feminism/rape culture debacles), especially when Wyrd is probably the most progressive game company out there!

TLDR: Wyrd is a really progressive game company on social issues, let's not accuse them of anything else. Let's enjoy the diversity already in game, including LGBT orientation, and look forward to more in coming books and Chronicles, not complain about things not being fast enough from a truly progressive company.

 

* I have always considered myself a feminist, and being a university educated male I have a lot of feminist friend, of both male and female. When this thing struck, I discussed it with many of my friends, and every single one of us felt Lizzy Lovelace was a much more empowering name for the character than Anna Lovelace...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, tmod said:

Replying to this last bit, just to tie it together with something...

I'm not (and this is no linear discussion, so I speak only for myself!) worried about the writing per se, I'm worries about Wyrd and the writers being pushed for specific agendas. There are already LGBT+ characters in the game, and I hope Wyrd keeps on pushing the envelope in having an ever more diverse character set. But in my opinion we've already seen how peer pressure led to one change, which left a character less rich.

I'm referring to the Lizzy Lovelace debacle, where an awesome tribute to a female scientific genius and a nod to a famous female serial killer combined in a brilliant way so the name itself translated to "female evil genius". Someone took issue with there being a character named L. Lovelace*, and after a while Wyrd was condoning rape just by using that name. It got ugly enough (and spilled over to venues other than this forum) that I think it was a wise decision to cave and change the name. A wise decision, but one that left the game poorer than it would have been otherwise.

Got to say that my opinion is 100% opposite. I thought it brave of Wyrd to change the name, not be intimidated by the angry hordes, some of whom suddenly found the old name the best thing Wyrd had every done (because evil feminists wanted to change it!*) but rather taking an analytical look and making the right decision.

But even if you take the opposite view, your argument here is essentially a slippery slope one. That if Wyrd were to include an overt LGBT character that there would be a sizable risk that they would do it somehow in such a way as to make the story actively worse than if they didn't include such a character.

I dunno, I have more faith in Wyrd than that, I've got to say!

Quote

Hence I take issue with the idea that Malifaux is not diverse (it is, and it's getting more diverse with every book), that Wyrd is not remarkably inclusive and progressive for a game company (they're job is to sell a game, not an ideology. That said, I love that they have a progressive message, but that message is worthless if they focus more on the message than the game), or that the forum users in general are bigots opposed to any form of representation (I have not seen anyone opposed to LGBT characters in general in this thread). I'm think it's legitimate to worry about politics taking the upper hand in a game, especially given the context (the feminism/rape culture debacles), especially when Wyrd is probably the most progressive game company out there!

Being the most progressive is not a huge achievement, really, if we're considering the big minis games companies :P Not sure how to measure that very well, mind. I mean, Infinity, for example, has at least one trans character (whose being trans is not her defining trait, mind, but a really important part of her backstory) and have always been pretty great at being racially diverse yet they continue do stuff like the Tech Bee (which is just embarrassing!).

EDIT: *Not referring to you here, naturally! (Just to make absolutely sure since this is a written medium - I have absolutely nothing against you and consider you a good contributor! Heck, even here, even though I'm disagreeing with you, I think that you are presenting your case thoughtfully)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Pyrflamme:

's all good stuff you posted. :)

 

59 minutes ago, Math Mathonwy said:

First of all, thank you for your input and taking part in this conversation, Astrella. Much appreciated! :) 

And now, on what was quoted. I don't know whether it was a coincidence or not but one of the main points of contention leading to that debacle you mention was that there never was a situation where you had a box of three Minions with one being male and two being female. They were either all women (in case the Minion was defined by being a woman like Oiran or Belles or whatever) or they were all men or they were two men and one woman.

Now there are several boxes with two women and one man in them (off the top of my head, Sanctioned Spellcasters, Wokou Raiders, Bandidos, Autumn Knights, Shieldbearers, and probably more that I'm just not remembering at the moment). So, whether that was due to feedback or just random chance, change can happen.

Oh, thank you!

And yes, definitely that's been a good thing. New Monster Hunter that got spoiled a bit ago looks really cool too. And I think we all benefit from the game having a bunch of assorted characters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still haven't read all the posts but this is just a nitpick I got from getting to page 5. Can we just use the word a norm or normal as it is supposed to be used. LGBT are not normal. They are en exception. This in no way means they are worse then Hetero Cis whatever. They are just no the norm. Just something I liked to get of my chest with Heteronormativity being thrown around. If you meet a person who looks like your average man you can make a educated guess that they are Cis, Hetero, Male. Because that is the norm. If he states otherwise or more data comes your way (For example he is holding hands with another man) you may redefine you guess. But still that is off topic from what I was saying. Anyway I will rephrase it not everything is Normal but it is not a bad thing. This is why we usually make a guess that people visiting Honeypot are Heterosexuals, for the most part at least as it is the Norm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8.7.2017 at 9:54 PM, Math Mathonwy said:

1. Got to say that my opinion is 100% opposite. I thought it brave of Wyrd to change the name, not be intimidated by the angry hordes, some of whom suddenly found the old name the best thing Wyrd had every done (because evil feminists wanted to change it!*) but rather taking an analytical look and making the right decision.

2. But even if you take the opposite view, your argument here is essentially a slippery slope one. That if Wyrd were to include an overt LGBT character that there would be a sizable risk that they would do it somehow in such a way as to make the story actively worse than if they didn't include such a character.

I dunno, I have more faith in Wyrd than that, I've got to say!

3. Being the most progressive is not a huge achievement, really, if we're considering the big minis games companies :P Not sure how to measure that very well, mind. I mean, Infinity, for example, has at least one trans character (whose being trans is not her defining trait, mind, but a really important part of her backstory) and have always been pretty great at being racially diverse yet they continue do stuff like the Tech Bee (which is just embarrassing!).

4. EDIT: *Not referring to you here, naturally! (Just to make absolutely sure since this is a written medium - I have absolutely nothing against you and consider you a good contributor! Heck, even here, even though I'm disagreeing with you, I think that you are presenting your case thoughtfully)

Let's see if I can get the quotes working here... Crap, my phone isn't cooperating, I'll just add a numbering in the quote...

1. I think this might be a case of what people are expecting to see. The thing is, I followed that debate closely, and I couldn't see any "horde" or "horde mentality" except the anti-L. Lovelace side. There was one loud, female, and obviously smart and well-formulated poster who frequently posted claims of an anti-feminist horde, but I couldn't see any trace of them on the forum* **. There was one or two obvious trolls on the pro L.L. side, but no more than om the contra L.L. side. Thus I don't think there's anything brave about Wyrd's choice, I would characterise it as a change of heart due new information at best, otherwise expedience or even cowardice (no critique implied, I would have reached the same conclusion!). The wast majority of posters where either indifferent, anti-L.L. or even very vocally anti. When a company gets accused of condoning rape and gender violence it's only sensible with full-on damage control!

* There were many warnings about moderation about at those times, so I might have missed some deleted posts due to time zone differences.

** I only followed the debate on this forum, so any postings on Twitter, Facebook or other media I would have missed. (I know there were rumours about threats via email, and I hope that was dealt with by the police).

2. I might not have gotten my stance through clearly. I'm very much NOT opposed to Wyrd adding more LBGT characters, overt or covert, and I thought I'd stated as much (but obviously not clearly enough). I'm opposed to adding ANY character just to be able to check a box. So far Wyrd have done a great job doing that, and I'm confident we will see more minorities, including sexual orientation, represented both in the open and more hinted at in the future. What I take issue with, and my only reason for getting involved in this thread, is that I worry about people peer pressuring Wyrd to rush to add more overt LGBT characters. That's the only way, in my opinion, that Wyrd can get this wrong, and we might even get stereotypes that in the end will do more harm than good. Wyrd will do this om their own, I don't think they should be bullied into doing the right thing...

3. I agree, not a huge achievement at all, but then again, they're in the business of making games, not politics. I appreciate their progressive agenda, and I think we should applaud the fact that they are best in class (or close) and applaud every move in the right direction. Ie, it's a better endeavour to call out any suspected LGBT characters already in the game (or even write and publish fan fiction), than to lament a real or perceived lack of representation for a specific group.

4. Appreciated, even though unnecessary in this case. :-)

PS! I haven't addressed the bit about male-female ratios, so I will briefly as that was the other feminist issue that exploded. I think the premise is a little bit faulty, for several reasons. There are a whole host of reason why some personality types might be more common in any given setting, and the idea that every single group should be represented, and represented equally is unrealistic in my opinion. Also, there are very few settings where you get a perfect gender distribution. That said, I think the seemingly increasing rate of female representation is great for the game. In my opinion there will always be things lagging, but Wyrd is getting there, and should be applauded when improving.

Edit: slight clarification

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/7/2017 at 1:54 PM, goat90 said:

You are arguing based off of an assumption, Malifaux could be different sure, but we dont know nor will ever know the social climate of a fictional world. Historical accuracy or not, taking the climate of the world at the time Malifaux takes place1800-1900, its a safe bet that any sort of divergence from social norms such has Homosexuality would still be seen with distain.

 

And really.... from my entire argument you pulled autistically? Come on bro/chick its the internet

Your argument is that we can't know the social climate of a fictional world and yet we can (somehow) know that divergence from social norms would be seen with disdain. Furthermore, that since homosexuality is a divergence from social norms in 1800-1900 in the real world that it "is a safe bet" that these standards would apply in a fictional world that we can't know the social climate of.

Logical flaws aside we could ask: Are there any examples of social norms from that time period in the real world being violated and are they met with disdain? I can think of plenty: Women with prominent roles in front line combat, lack of the use of racial epithets in casual speech, lack of conspicuous religious displays, and marriage and children frequently being absent from female characters' lives. Are any of these met with disdain? No. Yet you think it's safe to assume that in the special case of homosexuality it would be? 

Finally, in my opinion, the people who, civilly, called you out for using autistically as a slur were right to do so. Putting people down for something they have no control over is crummy behaviour. The fact that it's semi commonly done on the internet doesn't justify your doing it here.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/7/2017 at 7:02 PM, TheJoyInGaming said:

Are we ignoring the entire Ten Thunders faction and Perdita's family? What about Big Jake and Joss? Possibly Ramos?

Are they white too?

Are the Ten Thunders and the Ortegas enough that you think the "Diversity" box gets checked for everyone?

Wyrd are the best at tabletop minis game diversity - but that doesn't mean they can't do even better (as they've already shown they can in TOS).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, DocSchlock said:

Are the Ten Thunders and the Ortegas enough that you think the "Diversity" box gets checked for everyone?

Wyrd are the best at tabletop minis game diversity - but that doesn't mean they can't do even better (as they've already shown they can in TOS).

No, not for everyone. But they cannot physically fit in every minority with a limited number of models. I think they've a good job from the start with inclusivebeds, but I'm still glad whenever I see new minorities represented as the scope of the game increases...

(On a jokier note I'm still waiting for a mid-thirties Western Norwegian white heterosexual male with glasses, and an interest in sport, science, politics and history... And yes, I'm prepared to be at back of the line... :-p).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tmod said:

No, not for everyone. But they cannot physically fit in every minority with a limited number of models. I think they've a good job from the start with inclusivebeds, but I'm still glad whenever I see new minorities represented as the scope of the game increases...

(On a jokier note I'm still waiting for a mid-thirties Western Norwegian white heterosexual male with glasses, and an interest in sport, science, politics and history... And yes, I'm prepared to be at back of the line... :-p).

 

Back of the line?

So you don't get any gay men behind you! Spot the homophobe! (joking obviously):D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Durza locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information