Homosexual Relations In The Witcher 3

[weirdwayne15]

To babli...that's about as disturbing as some porns I've come across and is precisely why I can't stand games that go "full-on homo" In mass effect you were only allowed to be game in the last game (which made my celibacy finally pay off) In Dragon age they certainly allow more freedom unfortunately you couldn't choose to be good friends or lovers it was if you are good friends you automatically become lovers...in Skyrim their idea of including homosexuals was proposing marriage to an NPC who then is pretty much a doll to decorate your home. So what I'm suggesting isn't a major orgy at the fountains of dyrads. But the tasteful inclusion of people who happen to be gay...and I still hope for a homosexual refuge in the world, though doubt it will happen.

 

[username_3644762]

I really don't want this shit in this last Witcher game.

 

[weirdwayne15]

Points 1, 3 & 4 mainly.

The reasons for 3 & 4 have been voiced out several times during this thread so I'm not gonna repeat them.

As for 1. Just read The Sword of Destiny short story. It proves his point false.

Point 3

"But why is it wrong to have evil homos?" Because the Witcher doesn't exist in a void. I encourage you to watch a documentary "The Celluloid Closet" which describes the portrayal of homosexual characters in the media over the last few decades. They're all evil. Imagine someone produced a movie where everyone of your ethnicity is evil, wouldn't you consider it a prejudiced piece of s*it? But when it's gays, it's suddenly alright? Yeah, right.

I believe he's referring to Dethmold being a scumbag, which has been mentioned and so I don't see where he's wrong.

Point 4
"But the witcher's world is homophobic!" The witcher's world is also misogynist and non-humanphobic, yet that doesn't stop CDPR from putting women and nonhumans in the game.

Here he points out that the world is homophobic, which it is. As has been stated in this thread already there are gay men who can't be open about it for fear of persecution. Or that if you are gay you're normally an outcast sorcerer. As for being misogynistic I'd say this would fall under the category of the objectification of women, not to mention even the trailer for the witcher 3 showed a bunch of men beating on a defenseless woman. It is part of their universe, it has also been mentioned in this thread about the world being non-humanphobic. Meaning that the majority of the world hold hatred for or looks down upon non-human races.

So then with these being said how is he wrong?

 

[ATiBotka]

Is this the BSN?
Is this just fantasy?

 

[eskiMoe]

Point 3

I believe he's referring to Dethmold being a scumbag, which has been mentioned and so I don't see where he's wrong.

Given the context, he is over exaggerating. The world of The Witcher is full of scumbags. I mean Vernon Roche was a scumbag, so was Iorweth, Henselt and many others. And yes, Dethmold as well.

The point is moot.

Point 4

Here he points out that the world is homophobic, which it is. As has been stated in this thread already there are gay men who can't be open about it for fear of persecution. Or that if you are gay you're normally an outcast sorcerer. As for being misogynistic I'd say this would fall under the category of the objectification of women, not to mention even the trailer for the witcher 3 showed a bunch of men beating on a defenseless woman. It is part of their universe, it has also been mentioned in this thread about the world being non-humanphobic. Meaning that the majority of the world hold hatred for or looks down upon non-human races.

So then with these being said how is he wrong?

I just thought the point was wrong as it was established earlier that 2 very important NPCs in the game were in fact homosexuals. How is that not putting gay characters in the game? However having a myriad of gay characters in the game makes no sense, given the world and lore like someone pointed earlier "a bad joke". It would be forced.

I really don't want this shit in this last Witcher game.

Yeah. Pretty much my thoughts.

 

[unclejoe.480]

When I saw this thread`s title I was like 'here we go again' and I was not mistaken. It is happening again, some LGBT person has played the TW and ,man oh man, just coudn`t stop her/him-self from delivering his/her opinions on some parts of the game. I am not going to vote in this thread. The whole discussion here seems ridiculous to me.

Edit - And when I think about all this I do know what is going to happen. The OP and the rest of disputants will drag the discussion for 10 pages making up new arguments or reversing what someone else said. Additioanlly, they will make no progess beyond the fact that the TW is a medival dark fantasy game, which uses both racial and sexual tensions to build up a story. Some will react in revulsion and some willl not bother, bottom line. Fruitless, utterly fruitless.

 

[MarcAuron]

I think Geralt is straight and that shouldn't be changed.

But I also think that some of the arguments here against adding homosexual NPCs are dumb as hell.

Not really, a majority of users here has a serious Lore grasp, and refuses quota meeting for the sake of PC pandering.

"But it's not the witcher's books!" Do you know what else isn't in the books? Dryads having sex. In fact, the books specficially state that dryads DON'T do that. Since the games decided to change this just for the sake of fanservice, why shouldn't they add homosexuality? Because it doesn't appeal to the homophobes?

Dryads have sex for the sake of conceiving offspring, some are former humans, one is "mistakenly" having sex with Geralt, and Freixenet is being held as a sperm bank.
The games changed nothing except Geralt's ability to persuade a Dryad far away from home to be impressed by a successful hunter, which is never excluded in the books.

"But none of the characters in the books are queer!" Except Ciri, Philippa, Triss... And then there's the fact that most characters in the games are original characters, who were never in the books and were made from scratch. So why the hell not make a homosexual character?

Most characters from the games are from the books or their descendants and relatives Ciri, Philippa, Triss,Siegfried,Emhyr, posibly Leuvardeen, Vattier, Sabrina, Dandelion, Zoltan, the brothel Madame in W1, Asssire, just with a few variables.
They made a homosexual character, he however doesn't meet the PC demands, doesn't appeal as a physical material Bioware style, and isn't fitting in the standard quota meeting and pandering. And he is a fantastic bastard that doesnt need to be defined by his sexuality, because he has more going on for him.

"But why is it wrong to have evil homos?" Because the Witcher doesn't exist in a void. I encourage you to atch a documentary "The Celluloid Closet" which describes the portrayal of homosexual characters in the media over the last few decades. They're all evil. Imagine someone produced a movie where everyone of your ethnicity is evil, wouldn't you consider it a prejudiced piece of s*it? But when it's gays, it's suddenly alright? Yeah, right

Nobody is obligated to care, John Wayne murdered more Natives in his movies that probably the entire colonization era,and?
A majority of movies these days are having evil white men, and empowered 50 kg women that kick ass, nobody takes it serious. What makes a gay man more special, his personality, or his sexuality? The popular demand answers this as -his sexuality, so this underlines the pandering, Pc element and affirmative action feel, that doesn't belong in life, not to mention in art.

"But the witcher's world is homophobic!" The witcher's world is also misogynist and non-humanphobic, yet that doesn't stop CDPR from putting women and nonhumans in the game.

There is nothing mysoginistic in the games, it's lacking the Biowarian brainwashing, quota and empowerment except for Ves. Competent women from the games and the books dont' need this at all. Absolutely understandable however with Avelline, Isabella and the likes. Both, women and non-humans are established by Sapkowski.

"But you shouldn't change the existing franchise!" WTF, in what way is adding a homosexual NPC a major change to the franchise?

Adding a homosexaul and then letting him die for being gay ,wouldn't work, he would need to be absolutely awesome, help Geralt, make a pass on him, be gently rejected, have brain and appearance otherwise it would be bad, and these type of characters don't belong in the games because even the protagonist has flaws.
Imagine the straight gamers bitching about Geralt failing at something.

What's more, I find it ironic and hypocritical that the game which portrays prejudice against the nonhumans as bad is itself too prejudiced to put positive, or at least neutral gay characters and non-white characters (before you say anything - there are black people mentioned in the books, so they do exist in the witcher's world). It's like the message goes "Prejudice against creatures that don't exist is bad, but prejudice against real people with real problems is ok!"

Darker, not necessarily black people are so far away that the possibility of meeting them is slim, even if, their culture is vastly different and has potential to create a shitstorm about racial prejudice and more Pc demands.
Why is a gay person so special to be portrayed as neutral or positive?
Yes PC demands, I need to see someone complain about shirtless men in the Witcher 2 or about all evil being white men, aside from the insane Loredos mother.

 

[Kindo.824]

The world was created that way by Sapkowski so you should probably take that comment to him.

Personally, I really don't find sausage fests that appealing, being straight and all. So I have no issue on how the world is depicted.

First of all, one person's sexism or homophobia does not excuse another person's enforcement of said sexism or homophobia. Secondly, you seem to be taking this to an unnecessary extreme, as no-one has mentioned sausage fests with willies flailing about wildly, with disgusting, life-view-challenging male homosexuals having open sex at every street corner of the game. The keyword here is 'appeal,' and I understand if you do not find penises or male on male romances and relationships appealing, but does that automatically mean it should not be allowed to exist to begin with, as far as this medium which we are discussing goes, at least? That sounds a bit selfish to me.

The Witcher is an established franchise. Changing it "in the name of tolerance and gender equality" would pretty much destroy the world created by Sapkowski and loved by many. Me in particular.

This thing called 'male homosexuality' is a pretty powerful thing, then, if it is able - through its mere presence - to destroy an entire franchise.

 

[Garrison72]

One thing I cannot stand when it comes to discussions like these, is the apparent hypocrisy as people harshly speak out against male-male relationships and romances in games, loudly proclaiming that homosexuality does not fit in with the world and what not, while at the same time being perfectly acceptant to the presence of female-female ones.

Then take it up with Sapkowski. If the OP is familiar with the universe even a little bit, he knows this post is pointless.

 

[eskiMoe]

This thing called 'male homosexuality' is a pretty powerful thing, then, if it is able - through its mere presence - to destroy an entire franchise.

For me it is. Especially since on the first page we were talking about the possibility of Geralt being gay in the game. It would totally destroy the franchise for me.

 

[chicra]

Points 1, 3 & 4 mainly.

The reasons for 3 & 4 have been voiced out several times during this thread so I'm not gonna repeat them.

As for 1. Just read The Sword of Destiny short story. It proves his point false.

Sword of Destiny says that Dryads have sex only for kids and only out of their own initiative, never because a man asks them to. The sex with the dryad in the Witcher is pure fanservice. What's more, the dryads don't go around naked. And it's repeatedly said that they're terrifying and powerful, which you never see in the game. Even when Geralt is preparing for battle against the Salamandra, who does he ask for help? A powerful, fearsome dryad? Nope - a pacifist druid.

The dryads in the games are NOTHING like in the books and they're only there for the fanservice.

 

[chicra]

Then take it up with Sapkowski. If the OP is familiar with the universe even a little bit, he knows this post is pointless.

Sapkowski doesn't consider the games canon. You could make everyone in them homosexual or have Philippa heterosexual and his opinion won't change.

 

[eskiMoe]

Sword of Destiny says that Dryads have sex only for kids and only out of their own initiative, never because a man asks them to.

You should've said this is the first place.

The sex with the dryad in the Witcher is pure fanservice. What's more, the dryads don't go around naked. And it's repeatedly said that they're terrifying and powerful, which you never see in the game. Even when Geralt is preparing for battle against the Salamandra, who does he ask for help? A powerful, fearsome dryad? Nope - a pacifist druid. The dryads in the games are NOTHING like in the books and they're only there for the fanservice.

I agree. Like the sex cards, it was a rather unnecessary design choice in the game. I was never offended by it though, but understand if some people did. And I'm sure CDPR has gotten the memo about it already.

 

[chicra]

You should've set this is the first place.

My point was that both the developers and the gamers don't seem to ahve any problems with changing things from the books, as long as it suits their fancy. When the game caters to straight male fans, it's all fine and dandy, but the moment someone suggests that it could cater to the minorities as well, then suddenly everyone is complainging. Don't try to tell me there's no hypocricy in this.

If someone doesn't like to see homosexuality because it doesn't fit in their personal preferences, then fine, they're entitled to their opinion. But they shouldn't hide behind excuses.

 

[Garrison72]

Sapkowski doesn't consider the games canon. You could make everyone in them homosexual or have Philippa heterosexual and his opinion won't change.

People who want a gay option should be posting on the Cyberpunk forums, where we will get to play a blank slate PC. As for the topic in general being dealt with, CDPR already showed they are capable of doing it, far better than most.

 

[Dprelate]

Please take your crusade elsewhere.
it's pretty obvious that the majority of fans like Geralt the way he is. so there's no need for asking.

 

[Blothulfur]

Far as I was concerned the features of the game that wander too far from the books have been widely criticised whatever group they're supposedly blatant fanservice for, certainly what happened with the sex cards and the opportunities for nooky in the first game, thus their exclusion from the second game. Or idiots asking Geralt to use a bow, or whatever other dumb ideas have appeared.

Mind you I think all these shrieks about fanservice are pathetic arguments, whom exactly are they fan service for? I know I don't get off on pixels, however well rendered, rather go down a club and get a bit of the real thing.

Edit: Still I say that the second game catered nicely to the gays, two damn good characters who both have their fine qualities, neither of whom holds a candle next to Bernard Loredo's villainy.

 

[ReptilePZ]

Sword of Destiny says that Dryads have sex only for kids and only out of their own initiative, never because a man asks them to. The sex with the dryad in the Witcher is pure fanservice.

Geralt and Morenn in the books do have sex without procreation being a factor, since it's known that witchers are infertile, I say you're wrong.

The lack of clothing on the dryad was, however, in conflict with the lore. I don't know if it's because in the short story they're often mentioned together with naiads, sylphs or nymphs who are traditionally portrayed naked, or if CDPR just decided to add in fanservice (which is something I generally dislike).

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

My point was that both the developers and the gamers don't seem to ahve any problems with changing things from the books, as long as it suits their fancy. When the game caters to straight male fans, it's all fine and dandy, but the moment someone suggests that it could cater to the minorities as well, then suddenly everyone is complainging. Don't try to tell me there's no hypocricy in this.

Everyone here thinks of me as a "social justice crusader" and "PC fascist."
However, I do not believe there should be any change to Geralt's sexual orientation, only because it would feel very forced that a 100+ year old man who has been in love with Yen to suddenly discover he's bi.

That being said, I 100% agree with the op that I would like to see homosexual relations in the game as well as more diverse and varied homosexual and bisexual characters. And no, this does not mean I expect gay weddings to be happening with the blessing of the Order of the Flaming Rose (although well I would not be surprised if some of them are flaming homosexuals har har). It means that we could have homosexual characters who are "in the closet" and / or who are persecuted as the Witcher world would be inclined to do.

After all the Witcher universe prides itself on being realistic, and homosexuality in the medieval era naturally existed. If one of the themes of the series is the monstrosity of modernity and its laws and persecutions of racial minorities, the poor, mages, and women, why not demonstrate its monstrosity towards homosexuals as well?

With this hug open world and a 100+ hour long game, they have the opportunity to show the world being diverse as it should be, why wouldn't they seize it?

 

[secondchildren]

One thing I cannot stand when it comes to discussions like these, is the apparent hypocrisy as people harshly speak out against male-male relationships and romances in games, loudly proclaiming that homosexuality does not fit in with the world and what not, while at the same time being perfectly acceptant to the presence of female-female ones.

Just this^