Lack of Gay Character Options in RPGs "A Shame," Says BioWare Producer

[Malk_Kontent]

I don't think it would be to difficult to write LGBT relationships into RPGs, though it would probably be easier with party-based RPGs like Dragon Age, Mass Effect, etc., than open-world "Lone Hero" type games like the Elder Scrolls series. Hear me out: IF sexuality & gender identity (allowing for trans characters) were a part of character creation options, they could establish different character scripts for your party members, at least for the ones that are slated to be relationship options in-game. Say you make a straight character: Love Interest characters A, B, & C run with a complimentary script. Run a bisexual character, and the Love Interest List expends to A,B,C,D, and E, to reflect the same-gendered options who could run a bisexual or gay script. Same thing goes if you run a homosexual character. Not EVERY NPC's script would be altered to match your character's sexuality: Not EVERYONE has to have a script for any sexuality!

But the point is for the scripts of the characters to change, based on the nature of the romance plot. One problem I have with the romance plotlines in some games, for NPC's who can/will go either way, is that the script is IDENTICAL, whether your character is male or female. Liara's romance script, for example, was exactly the same, regardless of the gender of Shepard. Of course, Shepard's script was the same whether Shep was a guy or a girl: I get the "tough, military woman" thing for Shep, but the scripts REALLY shouldn't have been identical! And the same thing goes for including sexuality in RPGs: There NEEDS to be some variance in the scripts, which shouldn't be hard if you're able to choose your character's sexuality during character creation.

 

[JimB]

Of course, Shepard's script was the same whether Shep was a guy or a girl: I get the "tough, military woman" thing for Shep, but the scripts really shouldn't have been identical!

Like where? Can you give specific examples of lines that ought to have differed, and how they should have?

 

[nondescript]

That's not how I would put it, but in a sense yes. Because there are gay Mormons, and gay Muslims. And gay theists, gay polytheists, gay agnostics and gay atheists. LGBTs come in every color across the racial spectrum. And in every period of human history and prehistory in just about every place. So the "us vs. them" divide between LGBT and straight people is particularly thin, because no matter who "us" are there are almost certainly some LGBTs among "us" in open or in the closet from fear and/or irrational shame.

That argument sounds dangerously close to 'well, if we start including the gays, then everyone will want a go.'

My argument is more streamlined: We have started including gays, and everyone deserves a go. I'm not saying they can't have what they earned, but I am standing up and saying, "The LGTB is being represented finally! So who else is the court of public opinion keeping silent? Lets get them up here too."

Why is a call for MORE equality for other groups being taken as an attack on a minority? Particularly since I never said they should show up less?

Because that's how it sounded from the way you phrased it.

Let's try it a different way then: You said the analogy was broken because "while again sexuality is a major part of a person's identity, it is not something that is tied to a particular place or time." Personally, I believe that while one's sexuality isn't linked to anything more than a preference for partners, or finding one physical form more attractive than another. However, none of these stand isolated within us. It's fairly evident that a gay man in the 90's, acted differently than now (or the 70's or 1800's.) Also, the culture around you shapes you, even if you hate that culture. Amish children can leave the society of their free will, but they will still have the ethics and values their family and neighbors taught them.

You refer to time, and history. Do you have hard evidence of past examples, or are you extrapolating from present-day scenarios? I don't know everything that has happened in the past, but I know it matters little compared to what is happening. The world is slowly realizing that judging a person by anything but their actions is wrong. History doesn't teach us how to stop this, only shows that it happened. It's our job to go the next step and figure out why it happened, and prevent it from happening to anyone.

So why stop and bicker about how little progress we're making, when we could be making more progress?

 

[Ratty]

Let's try it a different way then: You said the analogy was broken because "while again sexuality is a major part of a person's identity, it is not something that is tied to a particular place or time." Personally, I believe that while one's sexuality isn't linked to anything more than a preference for partners, or finding one physical form more attractive than another.

But the preference for partners is, I would say, crucial to much of the human experience.

A woman's face with nature's own hand painted,
Hast thou, the master mistress of my passion;
A woman's gentle heart, but not acquainted
With shifting change, as is false women's fashion:
An eye more bright than theirs, less false in rolling,
Gilding the object whereupon it gazeth;
A man in hue, all 'hues' in his controlling,
Which steals men's eyes and women's souls amazeth.
And for a woman wert thou first created;
Till Nature, as she wrought thee, fell a-doting,
And by addition me of thee defeated,
By adding one thing to my purpose nothing.
But since she prick'd thee out for women's pleasure,
Mine be thy love and thy love's use their treasure.


?William Shakespeare, Sonnet 20.[footnote]One of the group of Shakespeare's sonnets that's typically considered to be addressed to a man. Lines 9-14 say the speaker doesn't want the man being discussed physically but many people have interpreted this proverbial "no homo" as a necessary addition to the sonnet to keep Shakespear from getting arrested. Pointing out the passion evident in the rest of the piece. In addition to the (possibly) gay sonnets etc. Shakespeare lived apart from his wife and famously the only thing he left her in his will was his "second best bed", leading many to speculate that he himself was gay or bisexual.[/footnote]

The kind of person you want to spend the rest of your life with is a pretty big deal, and says a lot about you in turn.

However, none of these stand isolated within us. It's fairly evident that a gay man in the 90's, acted differently than now (or the 70's or 1800's.) Also, the culture around you shapes you, even if you hate that culture. Amish children can leave the society of their free will, but they will still have the ethics and values their family and neighbors taught them.

Yes, nature and nurture both shape the person you become. They're not mutually exclusive.

You refer to time, and history. Do you have hard evidence of past examples, or are you extrapolating from present-day scenarios?

Both. But http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LGBT_history

I don't know everything that has happened in the past, but I know it matters little compared to what is happening. The world is slowly realizing that judging a person by anything but their actions is wrong. History doesn't teach us how to stop this, only shows that it happened. It's our job to go the next step and figure out why it happened, and prevent it from happening to anyone.

So why stop and bicker about how little progress we're making, when we could be making more progress?

Fighting for equality is a continual process. Societies can and will erode the rights of the minority over time if they're not actively protected. In some ways you always have to make sure the ground you're standing on is solid. Otherwise it could be two steps forward and three steps back.