Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

[Steve]

This question sort of ties into my recently revived thread Sex and the Single Superhuman (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25698).

We've probably all seen characters built with Psych Lims like "Lecherous" or "Flirtatious" or something else along those lines to show a character with a stronger than normal amount of lust. But have you ever seen a character take a Psych Lim to show a non-hetero sexual orientation? Is it worth a Limitation? Or does this delve into an area of personality that is not worth points, but is more of a background thing?

[ghost-angel]

I've used Social Limitations in campaigns where it would matter. Otherwise we don't usually consider this a Limitation in our games.

Using a Psych Lim brings up all sorts of debatable issues of choice vs not choice and such that really, is best left elsewhere. Using a Social Lim skips that and goes right into the rammifications of dealing with other people and their reactions to it. Which is really the Limitation involved anyway.

[Dust Raven]

Sexual orientation shouldn't be a psych limit. For one, it doesn't really limit the character (can you think of a game mechanic advantage to being hetero?). At best, it might be a Social Limitation, and only in appropriate settings/eras. Heck, in some cases, it could even by a Distinctive Feature (watch an episode of Will & Grace for an example of someone with, and without the DF, don't worry, it won't turn you gay).

[Dr. Anomaly]

Actually, I think it could be a Psych Lim...if the character felt troubled/guilty about having that particular sexual orientation.

[ghost-angel]

Actually, I think it could be a Psych Lim...if the character felt troubled/guilty about having that particular sexual orientation.
Possibly. A more appropriate Psych Lim would be along the lines of "unwilling to accept sexual orientation." and will thusly place themselves in relationships that they aren't happy with, cause grief for both sides and they would only do to be "Socially Acceptable"

I have a feelng a Social Lim is still a better fit though, especially if it's got "Others unware of PCs Sexual Orientation." ... like "Unaware of Adventuring ID."

[nexus]

I would go for Social Limitation with is value being highly dependent on the culture/era the game was set in. Now issues with your orientation could lead to all sort of Psychological limitations.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Possibly. A more appropriate Psych Lim would be along the lines of "unwilling to accept sexual orientation." and will thusly place themselves in relationships that they aren't happy with, cause grief for both sides and they would only do to be "Socially Acceptable"

I have a feelng a Social Lim is still a better fit though, especially if it's got "Others unware of PCs Sexual Orientation." ... like "Unaware of Adventuring ID."
Mmmm...I think you're right. The sexual orientation itself isn't the Psych Lim, but the character's reaction to it would be.

If the reaction was a negative one, I mean.

[OddHat]

Only if it will actually cause the player to make significantly different role-playing choices, or otherwise be an issue frequently in play. Even then, a Social Limit may be a better fit. If Jack Hero is gay, but he's in a committed relationhip with Captain Justice in 2005 and both of them are out, I'd say it's not worth any points. If Jack and the Captain are adventuring in the 1950s, it's a serious social limit. Being in the closet is probably worth points as a social limit in any time period, if it will affect the way the character is treated in the game (see Tom Cruise).

If Jack Hero is a major gay, lesbian and transgender rights activist, a couple of minor Watched and Hunteds probably make sense, and/or a psych limit like "Lectures Constantly" if you really want to go over the top.

A character might like gymnast girls and martial artists, but he or she won't be getting points for it in my campaign unless it seems likely to come up in play.

[keithcurtis]

I think it would be a Social Limitation. Most Social Lims are dependant on culture. It would be very minor in a modern America-based campaign compared to say, one based in 1938 Germany. Might not be worth anything in a Classical Greek or Roman campaign.

Keith "context is important" Curtis

[ghost-angel]

I would go for Social Limitation with is value being highly dependent on the culture/era the game was set in. Now issues with your orientation could lead to all sort of Psychological limitations.
I think this is the best reaction .. compensating one way or the other can lead to all sorts of Psych Lims on the part of someone like this.

Flamboyant comes to mind as a Psych Lim for someone who feels he need to "flaunt it" as it were.

Going the other direction of denial could lead to Depression, Insecurity, and other things revolving around a characters apparent self loathing and/or denial.

Though in my experience most gay people I know have neither Social or Psych Lims of any nature and are simply People. And this is, and should, be the baseline.

[Dust Raven]

Not to get on a soapbox here or nothing, but there are large number of people that believe that homosexuality is not a mental condition, but a physical one. A person simply is or is not gay, and no amount of therapy or mental "repair" will change that (though anyone could be brainwashed or hypnotized into acting like anything, but that's hardly therapy). Thus to give someone a Psych limit for being gay would be like giving someone a psych limit for being a woman (or a man). It just doesn't make sense. Granted, this is just a theory, but personally I can't imagine any of the gay people I know being anything other than gay (actually, for most of them, if they suddenly turned straight, I'd think something was wrong with them).

[Super Squirrel]

This isn't about whether it is a mental condition or not. This is about whether it is a disadvantage. I think as a Psych Limitation, it isn't really something worth points. That said, I think Homophobic and Hetrophobic are good disadvantages. Not worth many points, but certainly worth points.

[ghost-angel]

Not to get on a soapbox here or nothing, but there are large number of people that believe that homosexuality is not a mental condition, but a physical one. A person simply is or is not gay, and no amount of therapy or mental "repair" will change that (though anyone could be brainwashed or hypnotized into acting like anything, but that's hardly therapy). Thus to give someone a Psych limit for being gay would be like giving someone a psych limit for being a woman (or a man). It just doesn't make sense. Granted, this is just a theory, but personally I can't imagine any of the gay people I know being anything other than gay (actually, for most of them, if they suddenly turned straight, I'd think something was wrong with them).
I agree completely ... however I will say that how one acts, and how one thinks, may have a lot to do with their sexual orientation thus creating, as Nexus pointed out, Subsequent Psych Lims based on the fact that they are or are not gay.

Your statement is also why, in my first post, I stated avoiding a Psych Lim also avoids the "Choice" vs "Not Choice" debate that comes long with the is it Psychological or Physical issue.

Either way, in appropriate Game Settings there can be rammifications of being of certain orientations.

[Steve]

I agree completely ... however I will say that how one acts, and how one thinks, may have a lot to do with their sexual orientation thus creating, as Nexus pointed out, Subsequent Psych Lims based on the fact that they are or are not gay.

I guess I asked the question poorly. My original example was a character who had "Lecherous", but that can work regardless of a character's sexual orientation. So confidence or embarasment would be how you could present how the character feels about their orientation, but the orientation itself is not a Disad. Then there could be Social Limitations that also apply, like Harmful Secret where there is prejudice.

Have I understood correctly?

[ghost-angel]

I guess I asked the question poorly. My original example was a character who had "Lecherous", but that can work regardless of a character's sexual orientation. So confidence or embarasment would be how you could present how the character feels about their orientation, but the orientation itself is not a Disad. Then there could be Social Limitations that also apply, like Harmful Secret where there is prejudice.

Have I understood correctly?
Yep. You got it.

[Roland]

If the character is in the closet, it would seem to be a limitation similar to Secret ID. But one could be in the closet with respect to any number of things, not just sexuality.

[McCoy]

If the character is in the closet, it would seem to be a limitation similar to Secret ID. But one could be in the closet with respect to any number of things, not just sexuality.
As an openly Gay man, I think social limitation or dinstinctive feature is the way to go on this.

But also in 21st century America it isn't worth a lot of points.

I probably would Max it out to 10 points for openly Gay, 15 for being in the closet. Like public ID and Secret ID.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Thinking about it, I think I have to switch my opinion and agree with everyone who said it should be a Social Lim, and not a Psych Lim. And I also think McCoy summed it up best, with the best comparison. :thumbup:

[McCoy]

Thinking about it, I think I have to switch my opinion and agree with everyone who said it should be a Social Lim, and not a Psych Lim. And I also think McCoy summed it up best, with the best comparison. :thumbup:
Thank you!

[Dr. Anomaly]

Thank you!
You're welcome. Your "Public ID/Secret ID" comparison just suddenly "clicked" for me. :)

[Trebuchet]

As an openly Gay man, I think social limitation or dinstinctive feature is the way to go on this.

But also in 21st century America it isn't worth a lot of points.

I probably would Max it out to 10 points for openly Gay, 15 for being in the closet. Like public ID and Secret ID.It's probably not worth much more than 5 points as a Disad in 21st century America, but in other places and times it might be an entirely different issue (such as in parts of the Middle East, where homosexuality is seen as a crime punishable with death by stoning). Under circumstances like that, it would certainly be worth as much as a Secret ID.

[The Souljourner]

As others have said, it's more of a social disadvantage, and then very dependant on the culture. In modern America, I definitely wouldn't make it the same as public ID / secret ID.. that's a much more important secret and has much more serious ramifications if it gets out. Sure, there may be tabloid articles if it gets out that Captain Justice is gay, but if his secret ID gets out, his family could be held hostage or killed.

I'd make it 0/0 (out/not) points in progessive parts of the country, 5/10 if you're in a conservative part of the country (bible belt, etc).

-Nate

[Dr. Anomaly]

5/10 if you're in a conservative part of the country (bible belt, etc).
Yeah...a part of the country where the phrase "buckle up!" has nothing to do with getting into your car...

[Derek Hiemforth]

I think a Social Limitation is definitely the right way to model the restrictions of a minority sexual orientation in general. However, I think ghost-angel had a good point too. While the sexual orientation itself is not a Psych Lim, individual characters might (or, of course, might not) also have Psych Lims related to it. For example, a homosexual person who lives in a culture that holds an exceptionally negative view of homosexuality might (if he has "bought into" that view enough) have both a Social Limitation describing how the world around him reacts to him, and a Psychological Limitation describing guilt or low self-esteem that he feels himself.

Or to put it maybe more clearly, if a character's sexual orientation causes society to look down on him, that's a Social Limitation. If the character's psyche, background, belief system, etc. are such that his sexual orientation also causes him to look down on himself, that's a Psychological Limitation.

All IMO, of course. :)

[Blue]

Don't think even the "lecherous" or "flirtatious" limits have been used in my campaigns. Generally those are more like character traits than limitations.

Superman doesn't flirt. I'm not sure someone who does should get points for it.

But back to topic, no. The *only* way this is a psych limit in my game is if the population is vastly disproportionate; If you're male and attracted to men, and there are only a couple of you left on earth, but there are loads of women, yeh that would be a problem.

[AliceTheOwl]

As for point values, I think it would depend on the GM. In a game where the GM roleplays his NPCs as open-minded, and the citizenry is tolerant, it probably wouldn't be worth any points. But if you pay 5, 10 or 15 points, you'd better expect it to come up, and in ways that your character won't like.

As an example, two of us in Josh's Valdorian campaign took a 10-point "woman in a man's world" limitation. Now, because I took that limitation, I fully expect some misogyny from the NPCs my character interacts with, and it would be extraordinarily bizarre for me to get mad at him for using the disadvantage.

[bigdamnhero]

Or to put it maybe more clearly, if a character's sexual orientation causes society to look down on him, that's a Social Limitation. If the character's psyche, background, belief system, etc. are such that his sexual orientation also causes him to look down on himself, that's a Psychological Limitation.
Well put.

I have to say I'm not sure I'd give points for being openly gay in most "modern" US campaigns. That's not to say that gays don't still suffer from discrimination. But how many points a disad is worth also depends on how you plan to use it in-game. If I gave a PC points for it, then I as GM would be forced to regularly put that character in situations where he is discriminated against because of his orientation. Personally, I'd rather not go there. Ditto for racial discrimination.

As for a character being closeted, I'd give it a couple points for Harmful Secret, but again the value would depend on how much damage the PC would suffer if the secret got out. So if one of his teammates or family members is a raging homophobe he risks alienating them, but he probably won't lose his job or be jailed or lynched. (Again, not that those things don't still happen, but I'd prefer to keep them out of my games.)

Or, to twist OddHat's example: if Jack Hero is gay, but he's in a committed relationship with Lady Justice... now that's gotta be worth a few points.


bigdamnhero
"Rasputin, bring in the bucket of soapy frogs and remove his trousers."

[beauxdeigh]

Most disadvantages are hooks for me, as a GM, to use to build more interesting stories for my players. The points spent in that field on the sheet are, in a way, a contract between the player and the GM. They, together, agree on what will make the character interesting and real, and promise to abide by that list, for the benefit of the story. Powers and talents and skills don't ground a character in the genre, disadvantages do.

If a teleporting martial artist character has the disad Flirtatious and the movie star beauty girlfriend of the team's brick is in the room, the character should make at least one pass at her, whether or not it would irk the brick. I, as the GM, put her there just for that reason, hoping to give the character the chance to roleplay, and expect no less.

A gay superhero, in or out, offers some great opportunities, even in the bluer parts of 21st century America. If a player wanted a character who was gay, I would use one of McCoy's values for the disad. His numbers sound just about right.

[Mentor]

As for point values, I think it would depend on the GM. In a game where the GM roleplays his NPCs as open-minded, and the citizenry is tolerant, it probably wouldn't be worth any points. But if you pay 5, 10 or 15 points, you'd better expect it to come up, and in ways that your character won't like.

As an example, two of us in Josh's Valdorian campaign took a 10-point "woman in a man's world" limitation. Now, because I took that limitation, I fully expect some misogyny from the NPCs my character interacts with, and it would be extraordinarily bizarre for me to get mad at him for using the disadvantage.
Agreed. If the player perceives that their sexual preference is a PsychLim, then both player and GM ought to work it in to the campaign through role play, hopefully without being demeaning or insulting.

[bigdamnhero]

Don't think even the "lecherous" or "flirtatious" limits have been used in my campaigns. Generally those are more like character traits than limitations.
I would agree. I tend to be fairly strict about players trying to get points just for having a personality. It has to limit them in some way. Now if he/she is lecherous to the point where he/she frequently hits on inappropriate people leading to fights and misunderstandings, or he's easily duped by a pretty face or something, then that's a disad.

To be fair, I have broken my own rule on occassion. I used to have one player who tended towards very 2-dimensional characters: power-sets with legs. So letting him take points for personality traits was the only way of assuring that his character would have any personality at all. Fortunately the other players were all busy taking "real" disads, so it didn't become an equity issue.


bigdamnhero
"Zathras is used to being beast of burden to other people's needs. Very sad life. Probably have very sad death, but at least there is symmetry."

[Just Joe]

I agree with with most of what's been posted here, but I have a thought about how homosexuality could play out a lot like a psych lim in some game worlds. Suppose you're playing a closeted gay character in a game world where being gay is a substantial social limitation. If the character never acts gay in any way (e.g., dates only people of the opposite sex), then the limitation might not be worth any points. (It might stink for the character, but would not effect actual in-game actions). But if the character does not completely suppress his or her homosexuality, then the limitation becomes more significant. Arguably, when trying to hide signs of being gay, an ego roll might be appropriate. Even if an actual roll is not made, it could play out like a psych lim that is role-played with no ego roll actually being made: it is in the character's nature to react in such-and-such a manner, but the character tries to resist doing so because doing so can have bad consequences. And the moderate/strong/total distinctions have some applicability here. The "totally" limited character is (almost) completely unwilling or unable to hide her or his sexual orientation (a major disadvantage in some times and places). The "moderately" limited character suffers a relatively small limitation (in terms of points), even in some oppressive game worlds. The "strongly" limited character is somewhere in between.

Whaddaya think?

[Steve]

I just want to say thank you to everyone who has posted on this thread.

My original reason for my questions on this matter has to do with my recent character posting of White Phoenix (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=886919), a teenaged martial artist character that combines aspects of Ranma 1/2, Captain Marvel/Shazam, and Peter Parker/Spider-Man. The character has two limitations that I thought were appropriate: Uncertain Gender Identity (15 point Psych) and Harmful Secret (girl who is really a boy, 5 points). White Phoenix is 16 years old at this time, a boy who is able to physically transform into an attractive girl, a kung fu fighter straight out of a video game. I am currently working on an adult version of the character, one who has been living with this ability for 3-4 years, and I am trying to work through what his/her personality would be like after going through puberty and entering young adulthood able to experience life as either gender.

All your comments have been very helpful.

[ThatDarnCat]

Back in the days of Champions I, II, & III I had a character with a very high libido. I played the character in two very different campaigns, using the vision in my head. He didn't have any psych or social limitations based on his sexual proclivity and both GMs handled this differenty.

In the furst game sexual situations were pretty much non-existant. I don't think the GM felt comfortable dealing with them.

In the second game the characters sexual inclinations became a focal point of the champain when he became sexually infolved with two of his female teammates and several of the villainesses. At one point he was captured by the evil fem group and the only thing that saved him from death was his relationship with 3 of the group.

At no time did I recieve p[oints for something I didn't think was worth points, but in retrospect my actions should have been worth something since it did have some serious ramifications on the game world later in the campaign.

As to the issue of sexual orientation, any points gained because of a disad should be based on the activities of the character. It's one thing to be lecherous, it's another to allow your villainous paramore to escape the scene of the crime after you have stopped him or her from robbing a museum. Aint love grand? =^.^=

[Mike W]

I don't think that sexual orientation is worth a Psych Lim, but it might be a Social Limit based on the society you're playing in. If you're playing in a society that harshly discriminates against or punishes people of a particular sexual orientation then it might be worth something as a Social Limitation.

[McCoy]

I just want to say thank you to everyone who has posted on this thread.
You're welcome. Glad we could help.

[PhilFleischmann]

Or, to twist OddHat's example: if Jack Hero is gay, but he's in a committed relationship with Lady Justice... now that's gotta be worth a few points.
I'd say it's these kinds of situations which are the Psych Lims (depending on whether and how often they affect play). The most obvious one, which I thought of immediately on reading the first post was where Jack Hero (gay) is in love with Captian Justice (straight). You take the basic unrequited love disad, and add the additional frustration and complication of differing orientations. This has a different effect depending on whether Captain Justice is aware that Jack is gay, or whether Jack is publicly known to be gay*, or perhaps Cap even is aware of Jack's feelings.

*At some point this might even become a psych lim or social lim for the Captain. "He and Jack are always partners in fighting crime. Jack is gay. Maybe Capt. Justice is too?" or "I respect him as a fellow crime fighter and he's a good friend, and he's saved my life many times, but I can never return the love he feels for me." etc.

But then again, nevermind. Is this really going to affect the game enough to be worth points? Are we playing Soap HERO? Chick-Flick HERO?

[OddHat]

Is this really going to affect the game enough to be worth points? Are we playing Soap HERO? Chick-Flick HERO?

This may be a better question than you'd think. :) Almost all of my campaigns have a soap opera element to them; in those campaigns, "In Unrequited Love With X" would be a valid disad. It would likely come up in play regularly, and might even be something I'd hang an adventure on. In a campaign with minimal or no soap opera elements, the disad would probably be worthless.

[nexus]

Don't think even the "lecherous" or "flirtatious" limits have been used in my campaigns. Generally those are more like character traits than limitations.

Superman doesn't flirt. I'm not sure someone who does should get points for it.

But back to topic, no. The *only* way this is a psych limit in my game is if the population is vastly disproportionate; If you're male and attracted to men, and there are only a couple of you left on earth, but there are loads of women, yeh that would be a problem.

I've had lecherous or Flirtacious used in my games. I run them as the character's lechery as such he/she makes unwise choices, hits on the wrong time/place and is very easily seduced and tricked into doing things by the promise of sex.

[OddHat]

I've had lecherous or Flirtacious used in my games. I run them as the character's lechery as such he/she makes unwise choices, hits on the wrong time/place and is very easily seduced and tricked into doing things by the promise of sex.

Yup. A big part of Flesh Gordon's schtick is that he will make very foolish decisions when faced with a decent looking villainess, heroine, or damsel in apparent distress. It makes the character more fun in play.

[ghost-angel]

I've got a Hedonistic character who also does some very stupid things in the name of Fun and Never Done That! Those types of Disads, if played properly, can be very interesting in game.

[ThatDarnCat]

And don't forget that some players like to delve into social issues and live for drama. Just because you don't doesn't mean somefur else doesn't live for it.

If you use these kinds of hooks in your game you might discover an aspect of the game beyond 'beating up the bad guys'.

So talk to your players and find out if they want to before you rule it out.

[Sean Waters]

Interesting topic. My (rather generic) take on it is that practically ANYTHING can be a disadvantage if it controls your PC's actions in some way, so being gay might be a disadvantage for one character (especially if they are married with kids and in denial they can't quite deny) but a source of strength for another character comfortable with their gender preference choices. I think the only way to look at this is to ask the question: what game effect is it going to have - will the character suffer compulsion/loss of respect/embarassment/some other effect, how often and how much of a problem is that going to be in game.

I mean if Captain Wonderful is in the closet but all that ever happens is he secretly admired the cut of The Swashbuckler's gib then probably not worth much. OTOH if he has a hunted who might (somehow) find out about his sexual preferences AND the GM wants to have the populace react negatively it could be worth a lot more.

OK, not helpful, really: how much of an issue to you want it to be? Assign points appropriately. On the face of it it doesn't seem to me any more of a disadvantage than defining your character as heterosexual, unless they are pro-actively and annoyingly so.

I also tend to allow disadvantages that might not have a direct in-game effect but ARE going to take up some of the PCs run-time. It is something more of an art than a science assigning disadvantage values to that though....

[Beetle]

I probably would Max it out to 10 points for openly Gay, 15 for being in the closet. Like public ID and Secret ID.I'm surprised. Shouldn't "openly gay" be worth more points since it's more likely to result in the character suffering negative effects (heckled, denied housing, physically attacked, etc.)?

[ghost-angel]

I'm surprised. Shouldn't "openly gay" be worth more points since it's more likely to result in the character suffering negative effects (heckled, denied housing, physically attacked, etc.)?
If he's "in the closet" for whatever reason he would believe that "coming out" would be even more damaging than actually being gay.

And there's suddenly the danger that any and all social interactions and networking the character may have done with immediately be null and void.

And of course a possible "media circus" and anything else that might go with the world's perception of you suddnely and sharply altering itself.

Being "open" about has a certain level of "been there done that" and/or "I can take what you can throw" mentality to it.

[OddHat]

I'm surprised. Shouldn't "openly gay" be worth more points since it's more likely to result in the character suffering negative effects (heckled, denied housing, physically attacked, etc.)?

IMO the Public vs Secret ID model works well for this. A gay man (or lesbian woman) in the closet can have their whole life disrupted if they get outed. The character must constantly try to hide the fact that he or she isn't straight. Being outed can mean divorce, job loss, loss of friends, alienation from family, etc, and then the character must deal with continued discrimination after the secret is revealed. An out gay man or lesbian woman has already been through that; his or her social status and relationships have already stood up to the test of coming out, and there's no need to try to hide a significant part of his or her life.

In your own campaign you could switch them, but then it would probably be best to switch public and secret ID as well.

[McCoy]

I'm surprised. Shouldn't "openly gay" be worth more points since it's more likely to result in the character suffering negative effects (heckled, denied housing, physically attacked, etc.)?
What ghost-angel and OddHat said. Plus those without secrets are immune to blackmail. I think that leading the double life is more stressful than any persicution from being openly Gay.

No, I KNOW that, for me, leading the double life was more stressful than any persicution from being openly Gay.

YMMV, but from my life expierence being in the closet was more of a disadvantage.

[ThatDarnCat]

What if the character has homosexual tendencies but never acts on them? The only way being a closeted gay would be a disad is if they are in secret relationships. Then they have something to be outed for.

If you are physically attracted to farm animals but never act on this desire you can't have villains show up with blackmail photos. So having said attraction to sheep isn't a disadvantage.

But if Captain Heroic and Mr Toughguy are having a secret love afair then there is the chance of something going wrong and photos of them in flagrante dilecto just might show up in the Weekly World News and is worth points.

[McCoy]

What if the character has homosexual tendencies but never acts on them?
Never?

Never surfed a Gay web site?

Never let their eyes linger a fraction of a second too long in the shower at the gym?

Never subscribed to more than three bodybuilder magizines?

Never realized they can lip sync the Cowardly Lion's part in The Wizard of Oz?

Never busted a move on the dance floor to I Will Survive or It's Raining Men?

Never planned a summer vacation around following the road company of The Lion King on Ice from city to city?

Never TiVo'ed all the Steve Reeves gladiator movies?

Never set foot in Greenwich Village, the Vieux Carre, the city of Chicago or the state of California?

[Mister E]

Are we talking about Aquaman?

Yeah, treating homosexuality as a Psych Lim isn't right, unless billed as some kind of mania. For instance: if James Bond was gay, I'd totally write it up as a Psych Lim that villains could take advantage of. Not a big Limitation, but maybe an EGO +5 Roll. He has a reputation to maintain, but he's not totally man-crazy.

As a Social Limitation, it makes perfect sense; but only for a Character that was a priest; in the military; or otherwise needed to keep it a secret... and that's not what we're talking about.

We're talking about Aquaman.


~ Mister E

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/6145/jle2048xz.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[OddHat]

Are we talking about Aquaman?

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/6145/jle2048xz.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

If Aquaman were gay, he'd have noticed every detail of her costume. Especially the handbag and shoes.

Aquaman's just repressed.

[McCoy]

If Aquaman were gay, he'd have noticed every detail of her costume. Especially the handbag and shoes.

Aquaman's just repressed.
"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to OddHat again."

[JmOz]

Okay, my opinion:

As a base line, 5 points Social Limitation if you live in a more progresive country in the 21 century (Occasional, Minor).

If you are "out" then you CAN RAISE it to Frequently for a 10 point social lim, this is up to you (it will depend on how offten you want it to come up)

If you are from a more repressed society the Minor can be upped

Now you can also take other disads that relate to your prefrence, these are all optional:

Distinctive Feature
Psyc Lim (Flamboyant, feer of discovery, etc...)
Soc Lim (secret-if you are still in the closset)
Hunted (Probably with the -5 for not trying to kill) for the press, etc...

[ghost-angel]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to OddHat again."
I gave him some rep for that ... damn but that was funny.

[Sean Waters]

I'm surprised. Shouldn't "openly gay" be worth more points since it's more likely to result in the character suffering negative effects (heckled, denied housing, physically attacked, etc.)?

There is a subtle but meaningful difference between 'openly gay' - like an awful lot of media celebrities, and 'desperately camp' (also, of course, like a lot of media celebreties but not AND THIS IS THE IMPORTANT BIT necessarily the same ones).

Personally I think that your sexual orientation and how you deal with it is only a disadvantage in some situations, and those situations tend to be dictated by your own attitude and your immediate environment which, lets face it, in most situations you canalso control.

I mean if you like to hang out at the Bigot Bar and Grill then you are likely to have more problems being openly gay (whatever that means) than if you choose to hang out at Rainbow Bar and Grill. And the entertainment won't be so good.

Ultimately this has to be a matter for the player and GM to discuss: you can play an entire campaign as a gay character, open or closed (erm....) and no one would even bat an eyelid OR, you can get up in the morning to find your car on fire and your hallway full of excrement: really it is something to explore with the GM. Mind you, I think you have to be a little careful it does not descend inot characature, at least any more than the rest of the game.:)

[prestidigitator]

I would say both being in the closet and being openly gay would be (more or less of) a Social Limitation in certain contexts. Therefore I would likely make the context fit the value of the Limitation taken by the PC rather than the other way around.

If both circumstances are represented as Social Limitations, coming out (or, for example, going back in the closet if moving to a new locale) doesn't even take much of a change in Disadvantages, although it can be a convenient point to (partially) buy off the Disadvantage, redefine it, or even increase its frequency/severity.

[bigdamnhero]

It occurs to me we've been talking about this mostly from the superhero side. What about from the Mild-Mannered Secret Identity side? The orientation is the same (except in some very wierd cases) but the out-ness may not be. Maybe Steve Schlepman is in the closet -- his poor mom's heart couldn't take the shock -- but as Captain Fantastic he's quite flamboyantly out. Or the reverse. I'm not sure if one would be any better/worse than the other, although presumably Cpt Fantastic doesn't have to worry much about getting beaten up by random drunken homophobes. But you've added a further element of conflict to the character's dual-identity. Plus, if people discover that Stevie is gay they might be more likely to connect him with the Capn.

Whaddaya think? +5 pts? More?


bigdamnhero
"Having great purpose isn't all it's cracked up to be. I've had great purpose and I've had no purpose. And I have to say, no purpose is a lot easier. Expectations are low. People don't ask you for anything. Count your blessings."

[ghost-angel]

I think it would be worth a bit more on a Secret ID Disad if the two sides had very different sexual fronts.

Especially if the Secret ID is keeping up the facade with a Normal Dating and the Heroic ID is an open advocate of being gay.

Imagine the psychological profile of a character that not only denies their own urges but possibly even publicly opposes their Heroic ID's stance. Odd bit of self loathing may come into play.

At the very least, whether or not being gay (in or out of the closet) warrants any Disadvantages it can bring with it a host of issues that are disadvantages.

I've never had a chance to really explore this in a game setting though - I've only ever had one character that wasn't strait, and I hadn't realized they were gay until I'd started to really roleplay them and get into the character and their mindset. Even then it was in a setting where sexual orientation had little meaning beyond your selection of mates.

[Sean Waters]

Well, arguably in certain settings/places being openly hetero might be a disadvantage.

I am very wary of making any precedent that assumes being gay is automatically a disadvantage, although, of course, it may well be in certain games.

You could use being gay as the justification for any number of disads though.

[Capt JT Kohonez]

I think it would also depend on what part of the world the character spends alot of his/her time. While being gay might night be a problem in say NYC or SF, being in Kabul under the Taliban would be a different story.


As an openly Gay man, I think social limitation or dinstinctive feature is the way to go on this.

But also in 21st century America it isn't worth a lot of points.

I probably would Max it out to 10 points for openly Gay, 15 for being in the closet. Like public ID and Secret ID.

[Derek Hiemforth]

If Aquaman were gay, he'd have noticed every detail of her costume. Especially the handbag and shoes.

Aquaman's just repressed.Yep. This shows more that Flash is gay... he's noticing the costume instead of the huge tracts of land it barely conceals. ;)

[McCoy]

I think it would also depend on what part of the world the character spends alot of his/her time. While being gay might night be a problem in say NYC or SF, being in Kabul under the Taliban would be a different story.
Which is what makes it a social limitation rather than a psychological one.

[Derek Hiemforth]

I am very wary of making any precedent that assumes being gay is automatically a disadvantageNothing is automatically a Disadvantage. You can name absolutely anything you like -- any character trait, enemy, physical ailment, psychosis, anything at all -- and I can give you an example of some kind of scenario in which it would be advantageous (or at least, worth no points as a Disadvantage). All Disadvantages are always totally dependent on the campaign they appear in, the character they appear on, how the GM plans to use them, etc.

That's basically why I find resources like Jack Butler's "Master Lists" of Disadvantages to be much less useful than many people seem to. Don't get me wrong... I totally admire the level of insane devotion that spawned them, and perusing them might be useful for inspiration. But the point values attached to them are meaningless, IMO, because there's just no way to value a Disadvantage effectively in isolation from the character, campaign, and GM who will be using it.

[Just Joe]

Well, arguably in certain settings/places being openly hetero might be a disadvantage. Sure it can. Have you seen the episode of Tripping the Rift where the ruler is a closet hetero?

[Just Joe]

Which is what makes it a social limitation rather than a psychological one.
I agree up to a point, but consider these examples:

1. A strict chivalric code of honor. Probably not too big of a disadvantage in a society where such a code is common and respected, but maybe close to a death warrant in many Dark Champions games. Still, a psych lim may be the best way to model it if it seems appropriate for the character to get an ego roll to avoid acting on it when it looks particularly disadvantageous.

2. Kleptomania. Little or no disadvantage in a radicial anarcho-socialist society, but maybe close to a death warrant in just about any medieval society (and quite a few others). Still, a psych lim may be the best way to model it if . . . [ibid.]

[prestidigitator]

Nothing is automatically a Disadvantage. You can name absolutely anything you like -- any character trait, enemy, physical ailment, psychosis, anything at all -- and I can give you an example of some kind of scenario in which it would be advantageous (or at least, worth no points as a Disadvantage). All Disadvantages are always totally dependent on the campaign they appear in, the character they appear on, how the GM plans to use them, etc.

That's basically why I find resources like Jack Butler's "Master Lists" of Disadvantages to be much less useful than many people seem to. Don't get me wrong... I totally admire the level of insane devotion that spawned them, and perusing them might be useful for inspiration. But the point values attached to them are meaningless, IMO, because there's just no way to value a Disadvantage effectively in isolation from the character, campaign, and GM who will be using it.
Well said! I agree completely.

[Dust Raven]

Nothing is automatically a Disadvantage. You can name absolutely anything you like -- any character trait, enemy, physical ailment, psychosis, anything at all -- and I can give you an example of some kind of scenario in which it would be advantageous (or at least, worth no points as a Disadvantage). All Disadvantages are always totally dependent on the campaign they appear in, the character they appear on, how the GM plans to use them, etc.
Couldn't agree more.


That's basically why I find resources like Jack Butler's "Master Lists" of Disadvantages to be much less useful than many people seem to. Don't get me wrong... I totally admire the level of insane devotion that spawned them, and perusing them might be useful for inspiration. But the point values attached to them are meaningless, IMO, because there's just no way to value a Disadvantage effectively in isolation from the character, campaign, and GM who will be using it.

This last part I mostly disagree with. While there are many Disads that would vary, there are many others that seems rather consistant from campaign to campaign and character to character. The majority of what's on that list is stuff like that. Some of what's on the list may not apply at all, naturally, but if it does it's highly likely to have the values listed.