Jump to content

Do you 'support' LGBT supports in "Fire Emblem: if"?


BRSxIgnition
 Share

Do you 'support' LGBT supports in "Fire Emblem: if"?  

451 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you 'support' LGBT supports in "Fire Emblem: if"?

    • Yes, I would like to see - or wouldn't mind - LGBT characters in "Fire Emblem: If"
      364
    • No, I would not like to see - or would mind - LGBT characters in "Fire Emblem: If"
      87


Recommended Posts

It evokes the suspicion for me that maybe they just think gay sex and expressions of affection between gay partners are icky.

Pretty much. I don't think there's anything wrong with getting grossed out by public displays of affection no matter who you are or who you're kissing, and I understand that sexual orientation affects your ability and willingness to watch that kind of thing, say, in a movie. But to then go and say, "I dislike homosexuality," is a big fucking leap. I think that's my issue. It's not that they dislike homosexuality, but wording it as such has its consequences and if that is the way you view it, I'm very sure that it can lead to that person truly meaning that it is homosexuality that they do not like.

It brings a strange moral double standard regarding the term, though. Because persecuting and excluding gay people and all that crap is morally wrong, but disliking a trait is not.

I guess I'll stop here before we derail the thread any further. Man, it's funny how I do so inconsciously with a side commentary that develops into a snow ball.

@Rehab

I can understand this kind of aversion comes from sociological or biological influences that the individual has no control about. Some people are naturally averse to watching same-sex people caressing in public (I dislike both same-sex and heteros doing so in public, but I digress). Others just see this as strange because it is rarely seen, and surprise kicks in a bad way.

Still, even without being able to answer why, should these people be also accounted badly because they dislike a trait? Comparing someone who dislikes homossexuality with someone who persecutes gay people is a tad absurd.

Nah, I think it's relevant to the topic. No nays from me. It's just that, to have that feeling and then say that it is homosexuality in particular, and not that you just aren't a fan of watching two guys kiss because it's not your sexual orientation, is alarming to me. I'm not even sure I would call homosexuality a trait in the sense that most would as something related to the personality as much as people believe it to be, because you can have a guy like John Waters and then you can have a guy like Todd Glass. Both gay, nothing at all like each other aside from that. A lot of gays I could and would describe without the word gay being used at all, I've never found it to be the best descriptor. I'm not saying it's absolutely not a trait, I'm not a linguist and I'm not gay, but I hope I've conveyed my point well.

Anyways, a person who doesn't like seeing two gays kiss isn't a homophobe, it's just a straight person who's not into it. Much like a person having preferences in the race of a lover. It's not racism, it's just preference. That's not disliking homosexuality, if that's what you're saying. But as for a person who truly dislikes homosexuality, even if they don't go out and set fire to a bunch of gays day to day it's a hateful, judging stance that is fundamentally negative and based on absolutely nothing or someone's unresolved issues. There is no logical reason to feel that way and it puts certain people below others. Saying "But I respect you" means nothing. You lose that respect by judging that quality undeservedly and it does make that person a homophobe.

The problem with topics like these is it eventually boils down to:

"Do you support homosexuality? Yes? Great! No? You're a bad person and should change your way of thinking."

It's not much of a discussion when you must support a position, lest you be ridiculed and denounced.

People can like or not like whatever they want, and if you aren't being a dick about it, who cares?

Well, I don't think anybody enjoys a discussion where somebody states their opinion and then bows out when it is questioned. Why state a position if you aren't willing to support it? That's actually the opposite of discussion. Not that anybody has done that. And a person is inherently being a dick about it if you say "I don't like this part of you and others that you can't change that and doesn't affect me at all". With gay relatives and friends, yeah, that's not okay to me. Even if I had never met a gay person in my life, that's still not okay. And I can't imagine how ridiculed and denounced a gay person must feel when having to explain themselves to someone who just plain "doesn't like homosexuality". The empathy is on the wrong side here, guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 554
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It evokes the suspicion for me that maybe they just think gay sex and expressions of affection between gay partners are icky.

Generally that's what I assumed people thought when they said so - which should be obvious as they are straight, and I can't imagine it would be uncommon either for gays to find straight sex repulsive. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Though if you had to sit through something you don't enjoy, there is a lot more heterosexual relationships and sex in fiction to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with topics like these is it eventually boils down to:

"Do you support homosexuality? Yes? Great! No? You're a bad person and should change your way of thinking."

It's not much of a discussion when you must support a position, lest you be ridiculed and denounced.

People can like or not like whatever they want, and if you aren't being a dick about it, who cares?

I agree. I think another important thing, though, is that there should be no ridiculing and denouncement at all. You can criticize or support a position without being rude about it. I hope everyone keeps that in mind when talking about controversial topics like this, because people seem to forget it easily when they're talking about it online vs. in person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I don't think anybody enjoys a discussion where somebody states their opinion and then bows out when it is questioned. Why state a position if you aren't willing to support it? That's actually the opposite of discussion. Not that anybody has done that. And a person is inherently being a dick about it if you say "I don't like this part of you and others that you can't change that and doesn't affect me at all". With gay relatives and friends, yeah, that's not okay to me. Even if I had never met a gay person in my life, that's still not okay. And I can't imagine how ridiculed and denounced a gay person must feel when having to explain themselves to someone who just plain "doesn't like homosexuality". The empathy is on the wrong side here, guys.

You don't need to say much in regards to why you don't like it. It's either going to be "This is against my personal beliefs" or "It's icky".

If someone doesn't like homosexuality, fine. But telling gay people to their face that you don't like it counts as being a dick about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm praying to God and Jesus and all the angels and saints I know for at least CamillaxRinka to be possible. And yes I'm a Christian who supports gay rights and is part of the LGTB community herself (bi and proud). I just hope it's well written and NOT stereotypical.

They're on opposite factions though. :(

Anyways, to answer the poll question, if romance supports are in this game (and I highly suspect they will be, even though I think they'll be far less of a focus than in Awakening) then YES include LBGT romances. (Though I highly doubt there will be any T inclusion.)

And even if by some chance the game doesn't have any romance supports, not even the old style "you support up to A and then get a special epilogue" than I say yes still include LBGT characters anyways, they just won't be able to pair up in the game like the straight characters either.

Awakening had the excuse of the time travel child mechanic (though I say they could have still paired Tharja up with a female Avatar and said that Tharja used some experimental magic to have a child). This game doesn't seem to have it, so there's no excuse or gameplay reason to disallow same sex pairings, assuming pairings exist in the first place.

So yes, strongly in support.

(Also, I have to laugh at the irony of some people talking about how having gay/lesbian characters would restrict options for some players. No, it wouldn't. If you want to romance a lesbian, play as a female character. Want to romance a gay dude, play as a man. Don't like that idea? Gee, it's almost like that's the counterpart of what pretty much every gay and lesbian has to do in almost every game they play.)

Edited by Mad_Scientist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't need to say much in regards to why you don't like it. It's either going to be "This is against my personal beliefs" or "It's icky".

If someone doesn't like homosexuality, fine. But telling gay people to their face that you don't like it counts as being a dick about it.

Except those are awful reasons that present no justification for such an extreme opinion.

My grandad doesn't like mixed-race relationships because they "go against his personal beliefs" / are "icky" and often makes racist comments behind peoples backs. I don't think those are acceptable opinions/behaviors, regardless of whether or not he's "being a dick about it".

Edited by EJ107
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except those are awful reasons that present no justification for such an extreme opinion.

My grandad doesn't like mixed-race relationships because they "go against his personal beliefs" / are "icky" and often makes racist comments behind peoples backs. I don't think those are acceptable opinions/behaviors, regardless of whether or not he's "being a dick about it".

Allow me to play the devil's advocate (although technically I already am, since I don't have a problem with homosexuals). A lot of people are against incest on the grounds of "this goes against my personal beliefs" and "it's icky". That's it. It doesn't clash with the most important principle of dating, "a consensual relationship between two adults" and yet it is socially acceptable and widespread to scorn incest for the same reasons a lot of people scorn homosexuality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allow me to play the devil's advocate (although technically I already am, since I don't have a problem with homosexuals). A lot of people are against incest on the grounds of "this goes against my personal beliefs" and "it's icky". That's it. It doesn't clash with the most important principle of dating, "a consensual relationship between two adults" and yet it is socially acceptable and widespread to scorn incest for the same reasons a lot of people scorn homosexuality.

There are a lot of people who do that, but I don't think that those are justifiable reasons to be against any incestuous relationships either. In fact I've had arguments over the illegality of incest with people recently, my argument being that "Finding something personally repulsive is not a justification for making it illegal".

Incest is different though, particuarly parent/child relationships due to the position of authority the former holds over the latter, which is why adopted children are covered by incest laws despite not being biologically related to their parents. If it is a case of two "separated at birth" siblings I don't think many people would care, but the first thing that comes to mind upon hearing the word for many people is abusive parent/child relationships which definitely should be illegal.

Edited by EJ107
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allow me to play the devil's advocate (although technically I already am, since I don't have a problem with homosexuals). A lot of people are against incest on the grounds of "this goes against my personal beliefs" and "it's icky". That's it. It doesn't clash with the most important principle of dating, "a consensual relationship between two adults" and yet it is socially acceptable and widespread to scorn incest for the same reasons a lot of people scorn homosexuality.

In challenging that argument, you get some very interesting conclusions. Take being against dating someone for their race. In a personal view, it's simply a preference and it acceptable in the sense that its just biological wiring, as long as the reasoning isn't racist, e.g. ideas of racial superiority, segregation or inferiority. Similarly, you can apply the biological wiring for arguments against incest and homosexual pairings, but only in a personal sense - you not feeling any attraction for the other, rather than a discriminatory sense.

We can now look at things from a general point of view. It's largely accepted that being against a type of relationship generally simply due to race, such as the mixed race couples mentioned earlier, when the personal arument above doesn't apply, is unacceptable. This is without personal investment, it can only be due to racist views hence is seen as abhorrent - the unacceptable aspect comes from the racist views held. Now we can apply this to being against a type of relationship due to it being a same sex relationship, without personal investment such an opinion can only be held due to homophobic views. So whether or not this is abhorrent depends on whether homophobic views are acceptable or not, which I'll get into later. In the interest of patterns I'll now look at being against incestual relarionships, using the previously established logic this can only be held in a non personal scenario if one holds anti incest views.

Now we can compare racism to homophobia to incestism (I'll use the word as being against incest for ease of discussion). Racism is abhorrent because it discriminates against someone for something they cannot control, with no non-stereotypical justification for it, typically. With homophobia he same is true, but there is a slight change, a homophonic relationship cannot lead to children by normal means, hence a traditionalist or religious view of relationships can be held against it. The development of technology and social methods for having a child however, means that such an opinion cannot be justified for a general basis, without forcing your opinion on someone else however, such that tolerance should be applied - though I do not wish to argue on whether it's morally acceptable to hold such an opinion. Here's the interesting bit. Let's jump to incest. Considering things rationally I'll ignore social stigma as justification for incestism, and just go for the biological point of view, genes. Off the top of my head, incestual childbirth messes up genes somewhat, hence there is a significant biological risk to an unborn, unchoosing child. So it seems acceptable to justify incestism opinions being forces onto another through legislation, as the relationship negatively affects other people (and not through offense). However, not all relationships lead to children. As the crux of this argument depends on a child, thinking purely rationally incest ahould be acceptable as long as no children are produced.

Now for my on topic bit. As a man who at the very least has an interest in other men, I have no problem with same sex pairings in Fire Emblem, in fact I openly welcome it. Now implementation is a little tricky. The some bi, some gay and some straight route seems wise in the interest of realism, but the idea that the Avatar can magically make every female fall in love with him in Awakening was sketchy at best, so that could be used as a springboard for the Avatar can magically make everyone bi. Considering that for both of them half the issue is biological wiring (unless you want to argue on what love actually is), this doesn't seem like an unnatural jump. From a pairing point of view this makes sense, everyone can pair with who he wants, but then you have the issue of character - your orientation defines your character just as much as your race does, though I philosophically believe that you choose how it defines your character, but tangent - and FE supports are all about interactions, a wholly bi cast would limit that. I believe that the best way forwards is to have everyone magically able to fall in love with eachother, but with the some bi, some straight some gay clause. This stops every support being romantic and allows character development, while giving the Avatar the option to romanace everyone but straight guys or girls of the same gender, or gay guys or lesbian girls of the opposite gender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a lot of people who do that, but I don't think that those are justifiable reasons to be against any incestuous relationships either. In fact I've had argumens over the illegality of incest with people recently, my argument being that "Finding something personally repulsive is not a justification for making it illegal".

Incest is different though, particuarly parent/child relationships due to position of authority the former holds over the latter, which is why adopted children are covered by incest laws despite not being biologically related to their parents. If it is a case of two "seperated at brith" siblings I don't think many people would care, but the first thing that comes to mind upon hearing the word for many people is abusive parent/child relationships which definately should be illegal.

Thanks for your input. I think it's important that we be mindful of not being selectively inclusive of what we find acceptable relationships. I don't find the people not in support of gay relationships in Fire Emblem to be very offensive because 1. there opinions won't change anything and they are just sharing their preferences (as invited by the OP) and 2. I have my own sets of things I want and don't want in the game. I think face-petting is a terrible inclusion but a lot of people will love it. Should I get the "anti-face-petting bigot" title thrown at me? Throwing around the word "homophobe" sure implies other people are bigots simply for expressing their preferences in a game.

Now for my on topic bit. As a man who at the very least has an interest in other men, I have no problem with same sex pairings in Fire Emblem, in fact I openly welcome it. Now implementation is a little tricky. The some bi, some gay and some straight route seems wise in the interest of realism, but the idea that the Avatar can magically make every female fall in love with him in Awakening was sketchy at best, so that could be used as a springboard for the Avatar can magically make everyone bi. Considering that for both of them half the issue is biological wiring (unless you want to argue on what love actually is), this doesn't seem like an unnatural jump. From a pairing point of view this makes sense, everyone can pair with who he wants, but then you have the issue of character - your orientation defines your character just as much as your race does, though I philosophically believe that you choose how it defines your character, but tangent - and FE supports are all about interactions, a wholly bi cast would limit that. I believe that the best way forwards is to have everyone magically able to fall in love with eachother, but with the some bi, some straight some gay clause. This stops every support being romantic and allows character development, while giving the Avatar the option to romanace everyone but straight guys or girls of the same gender, or gay guys or lesbian girls of the opposite gender.

Good post Kwame. I'll just reply to the last paragraph to save some space. It's safe to say that the core argument to this topic is "What is the best balance of pandering to people's desires/giving them options and what do we sacrifice in characterization to accomplish this?" Having everyone be bisexual for the sake of the player's options would strip away characterization and remove uniqueness. Not giving people many options will leave certain groups disenfranchised and dissatisfied. If IS wants to include some LGBT characters/relationship options, I hope they write them well and make them proportional to the cast size.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@NekoKnight: I think EJ hit the nail on the head with his posts. Incest, 99.9% of the time, has someone in a traditional position of power in control. We're never gonna see some outlandish situation where we have to preserve the race, or something like the end of Bored to Death. It's always a travesty, stockholm syndrome up and down, etc. I've more personal experience with incest than one would care to admit, it's such a fucking awful thing. Outside of the idea of taboo, it's incomparable to a homosexual relationship. It's more than just "icky". To reiterate, I don't think that disliking the physical acts themselves is equivalent to homophobia, but disliking homosexuality in general, which is always going to be an irrational belief when framed in any way, is basically homophobia.

Yeah, this is just with regards to a video game, one that isn't exactly going to incite a social revolution. But disliking something as silly as face-petting is much, much different than disliking something of a character that many players could relate to that isn't antagonistic and most likely wouldn't be overbearing. I don't think you in particular are homophobic, and I haven't read the thread nor care to see if anyone in the thread has been (I was originally just responding to the bit about disliking homosexuality being equivalent to homophobia and I don't even know what the original post that sparked that said) but it is silly to be "not in support of" (would/wouldn't mind is definitely more fitting) LGBT supports. The fact that this thread is an either or topic is silly to me. There is no reason for anyone to mind it unless it feels tacked on for the sake of it and inorganic. Like face-petting, for example, which is definitely and objectively shit, so sayeth the almighty me.

Edited by emblempride
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your input. I think it's important that we be mindful of not being selectively inclusive of what we find acceptable relationships. I don't find the people not in support of gay relationships in Fire Emblem to be very offensive because 1. there opinions won't change anything and they are just sharing their preferences (as invited by the OP) and 2. I have my own sets of things I want and don't want in the game. I think face-petting is a terrible inclusion but a lot of people will love it. Should I get the "anti-face-petting bigot" title thrown at me? Throwing around the word "homophobe" sure implies other people are bigots simply for expressing their preferences in a game.

This difference boils down to the reasoning behind wanting or not wanting the feature. Not liking the face petting because the gameplay doesn't appeal to you and you think that the large amount of resources and time that went into it could have been better spent elsewhere is a reasonable and rational argument.

But what reasonable reason could there be to actively oppose any same-gender S-supports in the game? Romantic supports have been in the games for a long time now, and it will have practically no impact on anyone who is not interested in them beyond a handful of support conversations that they can choose to avoid. The only reason to be against it is being against same-gender relationships in general, which is homophobic, just as being against mixed-race relationships in the game would be racist.

It's entirely possible to have non-homophobic reasons for being against specific same-gender romances in a game, though. If a visual novel had a same gender route and people said they would rather those resources went into another straight route I would understand that argument and wouldn't consider it homophobic. Selfish perhaps, but not homophobic. Likewise, If Rinka is only able to S support female Kamui I could understand why several players would be unhappy with that.

Edited by EJ107
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't particularly care much for lesbian/gay stuff, but the way BRS described them, it happens to be the way Bioware handles romantic subplots down to the letter. It also happens that the way Bioware handles romantic subplots is TERRIBLE.

Seems like what you want is to have gays/lesbians/transgenders in for the sake of having gays/lesbians/transgenders in and be able to say "oh gosh we are like, so progressive!"

Fire Emblem did homosexual supports fine with Ike and Soren already. It was well-written, it was touching, and most importantly, it was subtle. If I were to have my way, I'd make it so several characters had options to S- (or even just A-) support with both men and women, their sexuality ultimately depending on who they choose to S-rank, instead of being a constant, , blatant, pervasive part of their character.

Not that having blatantly gay people is bad, I agree with BRS that VC did it right with Jann (but only him, the lesbians were boring tripe), mostly because he was not just "that flaming gay", he was also a funny and charming character and also best girl.

That's my opinion, hopefully my low postcount and 4chan reaction image avatar won't make people disregard it before reading it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't particularly care much for lesbian/gay stuff, but the way BRS described them, it happens to be the way Bioware handles romantic subplots down to the letter. It also happens that the way Bioware handles romantic subplots is TERRIBLE.

...

Fire Emblem did homosexual supports fine with Ike and Soren already. It was well-written, it was touching, and most importantly, it was subtle. If I were to have my way, I'd make it so several characters had options to S- (or even just A-) support with both men and women, their sexuality ultimately depending on who they choose to S-rank, instead of being a constant, , blatant, pervasive part of their character.

Er - I'm sorry to say this but you've completely misread - and/or misunderstood - all of my posts throughout this thread then, as what I want is far less the Bioware Route, and more exactly what you stated in the second stated paragraph.

Actually, I'd love it if that's how romantic LGBT supports are handled in IF. I don't want the characters sexuality to be their entirety, but there should be a woman who can only romance (S-Support) women, a man who can only romance (S-Support) men, and a man and a woman who can S-Support with both. (4 LGBT characters total, not including the programatically bi Kamui.

AKA: exactly what you just said, but with some characters being realistically limited. It's L.G.B.T after all, not B.B.B.B.

Edited by BRSxIgnition
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For Intelligent Systems, this is complicated. Because, while most of us here wouldn't mind it, there is a silent majority that would probably be very upset with LGBTQ characters being included.

Personally, please.

But I would understand why IS wouldn't do it just on the grounds of "better safe than sorry," because that's the kind of world we live in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno about having a lesbian-only character, especially with the waifu-driven direction FE is going. Inevitably someone will want to waifu her as a male character, find out he can't because this chick exclusively munches carpet, will be upset and probably tank sales because that kind of talk gets out of hand easily. The only solution would be to make her unattractive to males, but that means you made an unattractive character and that also harms sales and credibility. Same applies for an exclusively gay man.

Heather already existed in 10, but no one gave her much grief because she wasn't waifuable.

"Everyone is bi" would be the safest bet, or at least "Everyone is bi for My Unit".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno about having a lesbian-only character, especially with the waifu-driven direction FE is going. Inevitably someone will want to waifu her as a male character, find out he can't because this chick exclusively munches carpet, will be upset and probably tank sales because that kind of talk gets out of hand easily. The only solution would be to make her unattractive to males, but that means you made an unattractive character and that also harms sales and credibility. Same applies for an exclusively gay man.

Heather already existed in 10, but no one gave her much grief because she wasn't waifuable.

"Everyone is bi" would be the safest bet, or at least "Everyone is bi for My Unit".

It would hardly tank sales (much less start some sort of boycott). The only people who would complain would be completely petty people who don't know how to make a FemKamui

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unrealistic Solution That Will Never Happen But Could Please Everyone is here!

[spoiler=Aforementioned solution]Give characters S supports for both genders, as if everyone is bi, BUT... And this is the important part...Give each character a switch in the options menu. Like, choose between Straight, Gay, and Bi (I'd say add Ace too but unfortunately we're not there yet). And if you choose Bi, for example, they can now S-support with anyone in their S-support pool who has a compatible sexuality.

So, for example, we have Character A, who is male.. He has possible S supports with Characters B (a female), and C (another male). Now we set Character A to "bi". If Character B, being female, is set to "straight" or "bi", characters A and B have a possible S-support. If C is set to "gay" or "bi", A and C can S-support. That way, if you're against it, you can just keep everyone as "straight". If you're for it, you can choose to have some gay/bi characters in there. And if you're LGB, you can choose which character you want to marry and not be limited to a few options!

Again, it's completely unrealistic, but it's the only solution I can think of that 1) makes sure the LGB characters won't be gimmicky, 2) makes everyone happy, 3) represents LGB characters in realistic proportions (possibly), and 4) doesn't limit possible S supports in any way.

As for the whole incest thing... While I doubt it'll go there because that's so touchy (they'd have to address the taboo), I can see it working with this game because of the relationship you have with all of the siblings. Half of them are like siblings but aren't biologically related to you, and the other half you haven't seen in years.

Trans characters... I don't want them included. While I'm more than up for trans representation, I just know that'll be their character gimmick and be turned into a joke, in which case I'm better off without them.

And for the homophobe debate, and I will only say this once (this is my opinion, and you're not going to change it):

[spoiler=This is kinda long sorry]As far as personal beliefs go, well, I can't tell you to stop being religious. I can tell you about how the Bible endorses slavery or countless other examples of why it's not exactly a final say on life, but that won't change your mind unless you defy the principles of cognitive bias. No, what I'm going to tell you are a few simple things that you probably won't listen to. I'm going to put you in my shoes and hopefully make you think a little bit. Here we go.

I live by a pretty simple philosophy: there's no point in causing drama, and there's no point in hurting others. Life is too short for suffering, be it mine or anyone else's. While I can't change what others do, I can try to fill the world and the people I meet with happiness, because god knows there's not enough of that around. I just feel like I need to spread this around, because no one seems to get it. Why cause pain? What does that accomplish?

Someone mentioned that gay couples can't be a "spiritual family unit" a while back, did they not? (This is when that philosophy comes into hand. Without it, I'd fly off the handle. I'll try to be as calm as I can, but I'm sorry if I get a bit emotional.) There's nothing wrong with kids raised by gay parents, just as there's nothing wrong with kids raised by a single parent who also lack the "spiritual family unit". May I ask, who are you to tell two people that they can't properly raise a child? Who are you to stomp on someone's happiness in the name of your invisible deity? And at that point, is there really any difference between God and Satan? They're both causing pain; one just covers it up behind a disguise of righteousness while the other is honest about it. Is the pain I feel from that comment- the pain that isn't even my own- is that what your God wants? Are the tears streaming down my face, the tears for a friend who thought they were garbage because their parents weren't "normal", are those the rivers in your God's heaven? Did my friend's blood deserve to be shed because it was "tainted"? Are they, one of the most intelligent and driven people I know, "broken"? Incapable of being whole or meaningful? I'd assume their family, with two loving mothers who care about them and drive them to do well, is somehow lesser than that of two heterosexual parents who abuse their children? Because that's what you just told me.

And don't you dare tell me you didn't mean to offend. You meant what you said, didn't you? And this is it.

You don't have the right to deny someone's happiness. If it being in a game bothers you, then just stop letting it. After all, we've had to stop letting you bother us. Don't get all self-entitled with me about putting up with something in a video game when you've never experienced having to lie to yourself. Imagine if, in Awakening, Robin could only S-rank with those of the same gender. Take a minute to process those emotions. The annoyance, the outrage, the frustration as not being able to be yourself. Add in a resigned sigh and a lack of surprise, and congratulations; you've just experienced what the LGBT community feels like all the time. Doesn't it suck? And don't dehumanize us, either. Every time you type something about how you don't want something like this implemented, consider the fact that you are supporting the forcing of that feeling on plenty of good, honest people who, like you, just want to be happy.

Before you think about "well I want to be happy too, why should I sacrifice", I'll answer that question for you. The extent of discomfort you receive from interactions LGBT individuals can be described as "bothered by". The extent of LGBT individuals' discomfort from homophobes can be described as anywhere from "depression" to "suicide".

I'll just get it out of the way before I wrap it up: Why? What will you gain from making others suffer? Is it really worth the consequences? You don't have to be pro-LGBT, and I'm not asking you to be. I'm asking you to be considerate, and to reciprocate what the LGBT community has been doing for you for years- deal with it. I'm asking you not to be all for it, but to be truly neutral- to not mind if it's put in, because even though you don't support it, you're not against making others feel accepted. I am asking you to put aside what you want, because others out there deserve a break at least once. I am asking you to maybe, just maybe, reconsider what you're doing before you go hurting someone else for your own satisfaction.

And as a final note: Please consider what I've said. Really consider it, not just read it thinking I'm just bashing your beliefs. If I've done any Bible-bashing, it's to make you think about the point, and I'd appreciate if you'd do so rather than typing up a lengthy defense of how you are right and I am wrong (by the way, I've read the Bible). I don't intend on replying to any such defenses, as this was not meant to start a debate but rather have you consider a different point of view. I've said what I needed to, I feel a bit better for getting it all out, and I'll leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't particularly care much for lesbian/gay stuff, but the way BRS described them, it happens to be the way Bioware handles romantic subplots down to the letter. It also happens that the way Bioware handles romantic subplots is TERRIBLE.

Seems like what you want is to have gays/lesbians/transgenders in for the sake of having gays/lesbians/transgenders in and be able to say "oh gosh we are like, so progressive!"

Fire Emblem did homosexual supports fine with Ike and Soren already. It was well-written, it was touching, and most importantly, it was subtle. If I were to have my way, I'd make it so several characters had options to S- (or even just A-) support with both men and women, their sexuality ultimately depending on who they choose to S-rank, instead of being a constant, , blatant, pervasive part of their character.

Not that having blatantly gay people is bad, I agree with BRS that VC did it right with Jann (but only him, the lesbians were boring tripe), mostly because he was not just "that flaming gay", he was also a funny and charming character and also best girl.

That's my opinion, hopefully my low postcount and 4chan reaction image avatar won't make people disregard it before reading it.

this line was interesting. maybe instead of each character having a set (canon) sexuality, you more or less get to choose by who they S-Support with? of course this doesn't have to mean every opposite-sex support means they're straight, and every same-sex one means they're gay since bisexuals do exist, but i mean, idk. just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this line was interesting. maybe instead of each character having a set (canon) sexuality, you more or less get to choose by who they S-Support with? of course this doesn't have to mean every opposite-sex support means they're straight, and every same-sex one means they're gay since bisexuals do exist, but i mean, idk. just a thought.

That's basically just the same as making everyone bi, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno about having a lesbian-only character, especially with the waifu-driven direction FE is going. Inevitably someone will want to waifu her as a male character, find out he can't because this chick exclusively munches carpet, will be upset and probably tank sales because that kind of talk gets out of hand easily. The only solution would be to make her unattractive to males, but that means you made an unattractive character and that also harms sales and credibility. Same applies for an exclusively gay man.

So the presence of a character whom the main character can not romance would hurt sales/credibility? I would certainly hope not. One, because complaining that there is a video game character who won't have a relationship with you is just about the most entitled thing I've ever heard and the thought of anyone seriously docking a game for that makes me facepalm. And two, because plenty of prominent games with dating/"waifu" aspects (e.g. Bioware games) happily keeps some characters off limits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the presence of a character whom the main character can not romance would hurt sales/credibility? I would certainly hope not. One, because complaining that there is a video game character who won't have a relationship with you is just about the most entitled thing I've ever heard and the thought of anyone seriously docking a game for that makes me facepalm. And two, because plenty of prominent games with dating/"waifu" aspects (e.g. Bioware games) happily keeps some characters off limits.

Also, can't the LGBT players make the same argument about not being able to romance any of the same-sex characters in the game?

Edited by Pacack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would hardly tank sales (much less start some sort of boycott). The only people who would complain would be completely petty people who don't know how to make a FemKamui

Yah, plus we don't even know if the avatar will be able to "waifu" every character anyways. And since they avatar has both blood-related and adopted siblings in this game, unless they go full on incest, I'm pretty sure the answer is no. So characters are already off limits to avatars of ANY gender.

So the presence of a character whom the main character can not romance would hurt sales/credibility? I would certainly hope not. One, because complaining that there is a video game character who won't have a relationship with you is just about the most entitled thing I've ever heard and the thought of anyone seriously docking a game for that makes me facepalm. And two, because plenty of prominent games with dating/"waifu" aspects (e.g. Bioware games) happily keeps some characters off limits.

I remember I've actually seen comments whining about not being able to romance the lesbian characters in the latest Dragon Age as a guy, but considering the sales of the latest Dragon Age, I don't think it exactly hurt the game much. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's basically just the same as making everyone bi, though.

Is your idea of picking and choosing their sexuality not the same as everyone being bi?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say they should just make some characters straight, some gay, some lesbian, and some bi. The inclusion of some bi characters will actually add to the number of characters the avatar can romance as a particular gender (since the straight and gay characters would essentially cancel each other out in that regard.)

Will some people be upset if certain characters can't be romanced by a straight avatar? Yah, but well, to be blunt, so what? Tough it out. Gay and lesbian people have been having to deal with the fact that they can't romance ANYONE as a gay or lesbian character in every Fire Emblem game in the past, so we can deal with the fact that maybe a few characters are unavailable to straight avatars. (Also, side note, but I feel that there should be some characters, and I don't just mean the siblings, that the avatar just can't romance regardless of gender. This isn't Awakening with the marriage and child birth focus, the avatar doesn't have to be some god of charm that literally every single person of a compatible sexuality will fall in love with.)

In addition, I feel there's no need to make the number of LGBT characters correspond to real world demographic numbers. If we have a higher percentage of them, that's fine, and it doesn't make the game "unrealistic." It takes place in a fantasy world with dragons, magic, and apparently some sort of human-dragon crossbreeding that allows for literal dragon blood to be inside people, but no, it has to for some reason exactly correspond with real world demographics on the number of gay people? Because somehow it taking place in a world with a higher percentage of gay people will shatter the immersion or something?

No, no. The "unrealistic" argument is just a smokescreen. So is the "well it's a medieval society, so it would have to be kept hidden and discriminated against." This is not history, and there is absolutely nothing that says a society with a vaguely medieval level of technology has to be homophobic just because some real world societies were.

Also, the Nohr are based on Rome, which actually allowed same sex relationships between men as long as it fit certain social constraints. (Less is known about same sex relationships among women.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome

And the Hoshido are based on Ancient Japan, and um, bushido anyone? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_Japan#Ancient_Japan

So not only is "well it's a medieval society so homosexuality would be frowned on and hidden" a BS argument because it ignores this is a fantasy setting not reality and so there is zero reason that it would have to be that way in the game, it's also a BS argument because it isn't even historically accurate regarding the nations the Nohr and Hoshido are based on.

Edited by Mad_Scientist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...