243 replies to this topic

[Kish]

But why?  Why do you think Keldorn would see anything wrong with homosexuality at all?

I suppose you're going to want proof before anyone comes to the conclusion that Keldorn and/or his order may not endorse homosexuality?

May not endorse? You were refuting someone claiming Keldorn endorses homosexuality? No...no, you said Keldorn, and every paladin order, would object to it. You made the claim. Support it.

I can sense the approaching footsteps of an all too familiar line of reasoning: since there's no proof in the game that Keldorn denounces homosexuality, this can only mean he welcomes it with open arms! I never tire of that logic.

That's probably why you use that kind of logic so much yourself. And it's the only kind I've ever seen you use: The game doesn't say one way or another, so your assumptions are logical and anyone who disagrees with you is Wrong because you say so.

Logical: The game doesn't say one way or another whether Keldorn objects to homosexuality. Therefore, if anyone wishes to assert that he does, or that he doesn't, that person should support that claim. The game doesn't say one way or the other whether paladins in general object to homosexuality. Therefore, if anyone wishes to claim that they do, or that they don't, that person should support that claim.

If you use the real world as an example, do you really expect no one in Faerun to take a religious or moral stance against homosexuality?

Real-world religious objections to homosexuality are based on a god who 1) has, in AD&D terms, a debatable alignment and 2) doesn't speak directly to his followers very often if at all, leaving his followers to interpret his words. Faerun deities are way different; none of them are even arguably perfect, but they communicate clearly with their followers. If the Tormites believe Torm objects to homosexuality, then Torm does object to homosexuality; unlike the real world, there is no room for misunderstanding. Keldorn would only object to homosexuality on religious grounds if Torm actually objects to homosexuality, and the only reason you have for thinking Torm might, apparently, is "Yahweh does."

Looking only at the claim that every paladin order would object to homosexuality, and pushing Keldorn aside for the moment, I would contend that "required Lawful Good alignment, if they ever commit an evil act they Fall" is incompatible with "institutionalized bigotry." Real-world religions have nothing like that--no detectable alignments, no Falling and losing flashy magical powers.

That said, no, I don't think no one in Faerun would object to homosexuality--as I hinted above, I would expect Bane and Lolth, for starters, to have strict prohibitions against homosexuality. Homophobia is just unlikely to be any part of the doctrine of a non-evil god, and Torm is a Lawful Good god.

Keldorn's order was strict enough to severely punish his wife's infedelity

Keldorn's order? Keldorn's order wasn't involved with his wife's infidelity.

[Grey Acumen]

See, I wuz right. (Or at least my viewpoint coincided with that of the creator of this mod)

[Longinus]

Infidelity and homosexuality are not the same thing, yet you seem to be equating the two.

I'm merely wondering where else a paladin order's strict code of conduct might apply. This area would be one of them, and given that we can only compare such an order with a real life religious institution and given the fact there's no source material that dictates how homosexuality is perceived in the Forgotten Realms, we cannot rule out non-acceptance.

I agree that in this case the author has every right to decide how the world perceives their character, but believing that the people in that world will shower them in nothing but acceptance is a far cry from the truth.

[Longinus]

The game doesn't say one way or the other whether paladins in general object to homosexuality.  Therefore, if anyone wishes to claim that they do, or that they don't, that person should support that claim.

I couldn't agree more. So, where's the proof that Keldorn's order has no moral qualms with homosexuality? *In my opinion* ideals would come into conflict eventually, but then you can go on assuming no one is bothered in the slightest by a homosexual paladin.

Homophobia is just unlikely to be any part of the doctrine of a non-evil god, and Torm is a Lawful Good god.

Excuse me? Not accepting homosexuality as natural or whatever doesn't automatically amount to homophobia. Do homosexuals literally make others nearby tremble in fear? Maybe it's an innate ability. LMAO.

Keldorn's order? Keldorn's order wasn't involved with his wife's infidelity.

Keldorn can bring the matter of his wife's affair to the attention of "the courts" at which point the offending parties face the type of archaic punishment that belongs in the middle ages. William will be hung and Keldorn's wife will be imprisoned. Whether or not his order is involved is unclear, but if this society frowns upon infedelity so unforgivingly, then what hope is there for an openly gay paladin? I suppose we can continue to pretend that the people living in this fantasy world would have no objections, however.

[Longinus]

On the other hand, your argument becomes distinctly weaker if you consider infidelity to be more "evil" than homosexuality.

I personally doubt any paladin order would be so accepting of homosexuality regardless of how they weigh it on a scale of good and evil, but who can say?

[Longinus]

Well, if any FR diety will be opposed to homosexuality, the grounds can be most probably the interruption of a family cycle and inheritance. Lloth in this case (since drow *should* logically be on the brink of extinction with their mortality vs birth rates) might not like homosexual behaivour, equally with gods that have strong family/duty/order strike, as they most probably would have a wish for their followers to have as many children as possible and raised in the same faith. In this line of reasoning if Lathander indeed has fertility in his protfolio, perhaps he will not be quite glad to have a homosexual paladin to advance his teaching.

Finally, the voice of reason!

[kirkjobsluder]

Hrm, some interesting thoughts about Keldorn. I don't see a problem with Lathander for a couple of reasons. While a paladin must be lawful good, Lathander is neutral good with the goal of spreading joy, hope, and new beginnings more important than the letter of the law. As a result, Lathander would probably be more forgiving of a heartfelt reinterpretation if the dogma into Dante's personal life.

Keldorn and Torm might be another issue because of the focus on duty. An interesting conversation might be pointing out that Keldorn is not without flaw is his marital matters either. I suspect that he would advise chastity as a virtue, and would find a gay paladin more troubling than other characters.

I really don't think that Lloth would care what individual drow do as long as it advances her agenda. We've had that conversation before. If the person higher on the totem pole says to do it, you say "yes ma'm" and do it. The only real law is to not piss off anyone above you. The ultimate judgement for any relationship is if it pleases Lloth.

It seems that there really are not any family dieties at least within the human pantheons listed, and the fertility dieties seem to be described in ways that are open to a friendly interpretation.

[kirkjobsluder]

Well, if any FR diety will be opposed to homosexuality, the grounds can be most probably the interruption of a family cycle and inheritance. Lloth in this case (since drow *should* logically be on the brink of extinction with their mortality vs birth rates) might not like homosexual behaivour...

I think the key phrase is interruption of the family cycle and inheretance. Not all homosexual behavior interrupts this cycle (and if what is published in Dragon is cannon, the Drow have very high birthrates.) I guess I have a very different interpretation of the Drow ethos from others here. I think that ultimately it is a warped version of utilitarianism. Any act that maximizes Lloth's benefits is acceptable (especially if you can get something for yourself in the bargan). I think that Drow society can tolerate any form of sexual behavior as long as you don't disturb the spiders in the streets, and stab you lover in the back afterwards. (Except perhaps for a liason with non-drow. But there again, as long as the slave is fed to the spiders, who is really going to care?)

[Kish]

The game doesn't say one way or the other whether paladins in general object to homosexuality.  Therefore, if anyone wishes to claim that they do, or that they don't, that person should support that claim.

I couldn't agree more.

Then put up or shut up.

So, where's the proof that Keldorn's order has no moral qualms with homosexuality?

It's very simple, really. Prejudice against homosexuals (I'd shorten it to "homophobia," but I'm sure you'd just play dumb again) is an evil quality and, thus, unlikely to be institutionalized by an order dedicated to Good.

[kirkjobsluder]

My views on reactions:

Viconia: An example of the decadent waste that thrives on the surface. Not particularly disturbed by the physical aspects of sexual behavior, but would be disturbed by any form of affection, and the fact that Dante is just not interested (because it means she has one less avenue for controlling him).

Keldorn: Is willing to mind his own business with Charname, but dislikes Dante's paladinhood. Might demand that Dante either renounce Charname or renounce his pladinhood.

Mazzy: The lawful-good hin dieties are all very big on family and community. I think she would probably be disapproving on those grounds.

Cernd: Don't ask, don't tell.

Jaheira: Don't ask, don't tell. If there is a romance conflict she's likely to kick herself in the ass for not noticing it sooner.

Aerie: Perhaps most offended if there is a romance conflict because getting turned down for a male NPC would hit her alleady fragile ego. Later, really not wanting to see affection.

Haer'Dalis: Super annoying level of teasing.

Jan: I had a cousin who was...

Misnc: Does not see why there is a problem.

Edwin: Not particularly opposed to homosexuality, but will use anything to insult another charcter.

Yoshimo: Don't have enough to get a handle on him.

Nalia: Well, according to the Chloe mod she's Bi. I think that she's likely to emphasize with Dante's concerns. (I hope you are not using a plot with an arranged marriage, I have one alleady written.)

Anomen: Big conflict.

Imoen: Very supportive of anything her brother does.

[Grey Acumen]

It's very simple, really.  Prejudice against homosexuals (I'd shorten it to "homophobia," but I'm sure you'd just play dumb again) is an evil quality and, thus, unlikely to be institutionalized by an order dedicated to Good.

Kish. I'd like to point out that while prejudice itself may be evil, that doesn't seem to stop Paladins from being extremely prejudice against anything they view as evil.
Even Keldorn has a 'she goes or I go' attitude towards Viconia. While a lot of it was because she did emphasize her 'evilness' around him, there was still the basic attitude of 'drow are evil' to begin with.
Just because someone is not directly prejudiced against homosexuals does not mean that they condone it.(I am a pefect example of this) While Keldorn's order might overlook it, they obviously emphasize the importance of a family structure(thus accounting for the severity of punishment over Keldorn's wife's infidelity) which would imply that a relationship that cannot form a family(result in offspring) would not be condoned.

Keldorn himself is fairly relaxed as far as Paladins go, not the 'tight-ass holier-than-thou' like the steriotype seems to have become. In the end, I am quite certain that Keldorn would not be prejudiced(as Dante seems incredibly forthright, which is far more important to Keldorn), but he would try to convince Dante to at least try to think about girls(Or try at the very least not think about guys)

I agree with most of Kirk's thoughts, except for Keldorn. I think Edwin would be far more threatened by Dante being gay, especially if he goes through his quest and is turned into a girl. Aerie, yeah, that would be quite a blow. Of course, it would be fun to embarrass the hell out of her by inviting her to join both of you(Don't know if Dante would go along with it though) I don't know if Nalia really should be bi, but it wouldn't surprise me too much, when you have highly privileged people, they do weird stuff just to show that they're more privileged.

[Lady LeFay]

I personally think Yoshimo is bi, or just wouldn't give a rip.

I do not know how Kara-Tur is really written up, but I already notice strong Fuedal Japan influence, so I go with what I know from that. And in the warring states era it was not uncommon for Samurais to become lovers--espeically since it is a common piece of advice for a Samurai to sleep with their swords if they are sleeping with women.

And oddly, I see Mazzy being a bit disapproving, but seeing it's love not lust she'll be later on "well, let's leave you lovebirds be"

Keldorn would be "you two need a lass to straighten you out" (which can lead up to the asking the unfortunate female romance to join in)

Maybe I can have an option for the PC to lightly flirt with the other male NPCs (either to help trigger LT to start, or to get the guy a wee bit jealous), just for a lark.

[Lady LeFay]

And yes Grey, Edwin doesn't like it at all, but he also harasses Dante over his common birth (once even implying incest and beastiality!), but ends up making himself look "queer" by his comments as well, adding to quite a lot of amusing comment.

Edwin already calls Dante an Eunuch, Catamite and Bauche, as well as Hick and mongrel.

[kirkjobsluder]

Keldorn himself is fairly relaxed as far as Paladins go, not the 'tight-ass holier-than-thou' like the steriotype seems to have become. In the end, I am quite certain that Keldorn would not be prejudiced(as Dante seems incredibly forthright, which is far more important to Keldorn), but he would try to convince Dante to at least try to think about girls(Or try at the very least not think about guys)

I don't know if Nalia really should be bi, but it wouldn't surprise me too much, when you have highly privileged people, they do weird stuff just to show that they're more privileged.

Hrm. A part of my view is based on the impression that Keldorn may have different standards for paladins vs. laity. Many contemporary chuches don't mind homosexual people in the pews, but putting them in the pulpit is an outrage. Thus one possible shape that Keldorn's opposition might take is to either be celebate and keep the special status associated with paladinhood, or renounce paladinhood for a romance. If Dante is simply a worshiper of Lathander, then it becomes simply more than a personal quirk because everyone is in some way. If Dante is a paladin however, then he must embody the ethos as much as is humanly possible, even at the cost of personal fulfillment.

In regards to Nalia. I think it is a reasonable interpretation but one issue is possible continuity with other mods. It would be irritating to play with Dante, Chloe and Nalia, and one moment Nalia confesses a liason with a serving girl, and the next moment expresses disgust over Dante's sexuality. With two gay-themed mods looking at other NPC reactions, I think it would be a good idea to align the NPC interactions as much as possible.

[Grey Acumen]

Another Paladin might take up the whole renouncing the paladinhood thing, but from what I've seen(which I'll admit isn't that much) Dante seems incredibly cool, and despite being gay I would gladly add him to my party.
Overall, I believe that Keldorn values the persuit of goodness in general. If you recall, a number of his banters with the PC involve your taint and it's obvious that he finds it outright abominable, he still does the best he can to keep from persecuting you for it, provided you don't start commiting evil deeds.
So as long as Dante doesn't start killing innocent people, stealing, raping and such, he won't consider Dante as anything more than a rather mixed up kid.

[Lady LeFay]

In regards to Nalia. I think it is a reasonable interpretation but one issue is possible continuity with other mods. It would be irritating to play with Dante, Chloe and Nalia, and one moment Nalia confesses a liason with a serving girl, and the next moment expresses disgust over Dante's sexuality. With two gay-themed mods looking at other NPC reactions, I think it would be a good idea to align the NPC interactions as much as possible.

Exactly, I planned on talking with the creator of Valen to see if we can did a mini-patch or whatnot.

There's only a few things Dante will not tolerate or forgive--no matter the reason given: Rape, Murder, Slavery and Undead--espeically Vampirism and Lichdom (since it's "Choice" and not force like Zombie).

So having a UH and a Vampire in the same party without conflict would be extremely wierd.