Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

[McCoy]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

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]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

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]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

"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]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

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' date=' denied housing, physically attacked, etc.)?[/quote']

 

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]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

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]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

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]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

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]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

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]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

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]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

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]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

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' date=' being in Kabul under the Taliban would be a different story.[/quote']

Which is what makes it a social limitation rather than a psychological one.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

I am very wary of making any precedent that assumes being gay is automatically a disadvantage

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.

[Just Joe]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

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

[Just Joe]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

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]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

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]

Re: Sexual Orientation=Psych Lim?

 

Nothing is automatically a Disadvantage. You can name absolutely anything you like -- any character trait' date=' 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.[/quote']

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.