And I like that the inclusion of homosexuality can just be incidental.

I think by RAW it's a maneuver.

I don't really care either way but I'm glad it appears the author added that aspect of the character without it being some sort of social statement or in book commentary. *** charcters are fine in my estimation as long as their purpose is not to be The *** Character.

Bottom line is I don't want any "social commentary" or "social justice" in my space opera (and it looks like this isn't the case here but I hope this doesn't become the case - as Lorne hinted at it can go to stupid places in the setting).

(1) It is a social statement.

(2) The big problem with "The *** Character" is when they're completely one-note (as in, wholly defined by their sexuality) or they play into common social stereotypes (which are tedious and frequently offensive).

(3) You don't want social justice in your space opera? lol what do you think the Rebellion is all about dude?! It's a bunch of oppressed and marginalized people, many of them non-human and with a decent number of non-male leaders, fighting The Man. Social justice has been in Star Wars literally since the beginning when Princess Leia bucked the stereotype of the fragile meek princess.

The Rebellion is not "all about social justice". If it was then social justice crusaders wouldn't feel the need to harp on the movie or the setting.

And the movies certainly are not. I've heard social justice warriors whine for years about how sexist, racist and non-diverse Star Wars is.

This is an example of what I'm talking about. It's space opera. You want to shoe horn your pet political and social theories into the framework of the story and I want to just enjoy a unique brand of space opera. I want to leave all the acrimonious cultural and political stuff at the door.

Is this an actual problem with some people?

I play a bi character in one of my games. An Entrepreneur/Performer who is also a Bothan spy...figure that one out.

I'm not *** IRL. I don't fight for any agendas either.

I was going thru the Far Horizons book and saw the male dancer on page 30 and thought, "How can I play a performer..." and while thinking about it, I turned a couple pages back and saw the Entrepreneur. It clicked. A male Bothan spy who has no sexual orientation. He does what needs to be done in order to gather information for his brokerage. I wanted a character somewhere between Bruce Willis in The Jackel and your typical *** male stereotype. So...I'll play him like he was a hetro male basically but with more options when conducting business.

When I brought the idea up to my GM, he said it sounded awesome. When I introduced him to our group, there was no outburst either.

Dunno.

And my character is a Clawdite, and we know from Zam Wessell that their physical gender doesn’t really have any impact at all on the gender that they choose to present outwardly — or their behaviour towards other sentient life forms.

It might make a difference if they were knowingly encountering another Clawdite, but outside of that it seems to me like inter-species sexual relations doesn’t necessarily have anything at all to do with “gender”.

(On a similar topic of translations/unfortunate choice of words, the F&D specialization called "Aggressor" is definitely a no-go in French, if you translate it literally, it is almost always used as a synonym for a sexual offender. I presume this wasn't intentional either, and I was never quite sure if I should have warned the designers about it during the F&D Beta...)

I wouldn't worry too much about that. FFG has localizers who will catch it and say, "Uh, hey guys..."

And I like that the inclusion of homosexuality can just be incidental.

I think by RAW it's a maneuver.

I don't laugh out loud too often on these boards... but when I do, hoo-boy.

I think that this is a good thing. More from the "hey, she's gay, we're now moving on" thing than anything else.

It's the "embrace all forms of sexuality" thing (except the predatory/harmful stuff).

I don't think you get it. But in any case it's mighty telling and pretty convenient that you can dismiss racism, sexism, etc as simply inconveniencies to stories you enjoy.

I don't really care either way but I'm glad it appears the author added that aspect of the character without it being some sort of social statement or in book commentary. *** charcters are fine in my estimation as long as their purpose is not to be The *** Character.

Bottom line is I don't want any "social commentary" or "social justice" in my space opera (and it looks like this isn't the case here but I hope this doesn't become the case - as Lorne hinted at it can go to stupid places in the setting).

I don't mind social issues explored through any media. What I don't care for is a lot of the shameless PC gratuity tokens that Hollywood aims for by simply inserting a flashing neon sign over a character or plot device that is simply trying to take credit for being diverse for the sake of being able to say they included 'group X' in their story.

So for example, if the character's relationship is part of the story and she happens to be lesbian, that's fine imo. If it's more like she's on the bridge and calls the first officer over "Bob, have I mentioned that I'm a lesbian?" "No ma'am, you haven't." "Well I am, now lets get back to finding Darth Vader and the Emperor." That's a bit exaggerated but my point is as long as anything is actually part of a story I'm fine with it. If it's an obviously contrived piece of drivel to make some lame attempt at scoring PC points, I am not. We will need to actually have the book in hand to know either way.

Spoilers: LGBT people don't like that kind of flat and token portrayal either.

The ones that hate are your lives so boreing that you have to hate others to make your lives interesting?

And we are all ailen to each other.

So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

...not a numerical value of how many times you've orbited the sun ...

WHAT? We orbit the sun? I thought it was the other way around!

Otherwise, it sounds terrible to me. I mean the plot. "The Emperor and Darth Vader are stranded…" I don't need to read on. And as far as one character's sexual orientation is concerned: it may be the first explicit mentioning of a LGBT orientation but the question came u with very few characters so far. On the Imperial side, I would assume you would keep it a secret lest you give some rival leverage. Or you get the treatment you would have been given in the US forces in the 90s: just look up the investigation of the USS Iowa turret explosion not to mention any hazing between soldiers.

And as far as the rebels are concerned, take any of the briefing scenes and ask yourself what you actually know about the characters: usually not even the call sign.

Considering that the EU is legends now, Luke - brought up in a conservative society - might have had his coming out somewhere between Episode VI and VII for all we know. He only had a crush on Leia before he found out about their relation, so why not? It's not gonna happen because of the outrage it would cause from all the "I'm-not-homophobic-but-not-Luke" people, but wouldn't that be AWESOME?!?

And the movies certainly are not. I've heard social justice warriors whine for years about how sexist, racist and non-diverse Star Wars is.

This is an example of what I'm talking about. It's space opera. You want to shoe horn your pet political and social theories into the framework of the story and I want to just enjoy a unique brand of space opera. I want to leave all the acrimonious cultural and political stuff at the door.

I don't think you get it. But in any case it's mighty telling and pretty convenient that you can dismiss racism, sexism, etc as simply inconveniencies to stories you enjoy.

I don't really care either way but I'm glad it appears the author added that aspect of the character without it being some sort of social statement or in book commentary. *** charcters are fine in my estimation as long as their purpose is not to be The *** Character.

Bottom line is I don't want any "social commentary" or "social justice" in my space opera (and it looks like this isn't the case here but I hope this doesn't become the case - as Lorne hinted at it can go to stupid places in the setting).

I don't mind social issues explored through any media. What I don't care for is a lot of the shameless PC gratuity tokens that Hollywood aims for by simply inserting a flashing neon sign over a character or plot device that is simply trying to take credit for being diverse for the sake of being able to say they included 'group X' in their story.

So for example, if the character's relationship is part of the story and she happens to be lesbian, that's fine imo. If it's more like she's on the bridge and calls the first officer over "Bob, have I mentioned that I'm a lesbian?" "No ma'am, you haven't." "Well I am, now lets get back to finding Darth Vader and the Emperor." That's a bit exaggerated but my point is as long as anything is actually part of a story I'm fine with it. If it's an obviously contrived piece of drivel to make some lame attempt at scoring PC points, I am not. We will need to actually have the book in hand to know either way.

Spoilers: LGBT people don't like that kind of flat and token portrayal either.

Spoiler follow up. I didnt say they did.

That's fair, I just wanted to clarify. Sorry if I came across as hostile, 2P51.

OMG! Luke is gay? This changes absolutely---nothing about Star Wars.

Star Wars could do with being a little less white bread. Lucas may not have intended the crude racist stereotype aliens in the prequels to be such, but they certainly were recieved that way by the audience. I enjoy Star Wars, but the Nemoideans were positively painful.

Its Bullcrap, stop sexualizing and politicizing everything! Homosexual behavior has no place in Star Wars!

Its Bullcrap, stop sexualizing and politicizing everything! Homosexual behavior has no place in Star Wars!

Why doesn't it?

personally I don't have a care about this. If you are LBGT or whatever if you need validation from a fantasy series then you probably have bigger issues than what this implies to anyone else.

To the writers or whoever made the decision that this needed to be part of your book to pander to a group specifically to say hey we're progressive see see. This doesn't raise my opinion of you regardless what my personal beliefs may be it just makes me go well we know where you stand.

Its Bullcrap, stop sexualizing and politicizing everything! Homosexual behavior has no place in Star Wars!

Well, that took a while, but I guess every neighbourhood gets its moron...

personally I don't have a care about this. If you are LBGT or whatever if you need validation from a fantasy series then you probably have bigger issues than what this implies to anyone else.

How did you get from a character being a lesbian to people needing validation from a fantasy series? It's not as though fulfilling such a need is the only possible explanation for this character's sexuality. As regards to anyone who does want validation, what is unusual with that? Fantasy is a genre heavily-read by teens - an age group who has to come to terms with emerged sexuality and is still exploring that. Absolutely the majority of teenagers don't start out completely comfortable and confident with sex and if you're a minority group with fewer of your friends around you feeling the same way, then sure - a little validation that it's normal can help. You might argue that everyone should be perfect and confident about sex and tell them they have issues if they're not, but that isn't how it works. What does work is knowing that one's sexuality is normal. Having the occasional character that shares your even in fiction, normalizes that sexuality and that, presumably, is a good thing.

To the writers or whoever made the decision that this needed to be part of your book to pander to a group specifically to say hey we're progressive see see. This doesn't raise my opinion of you regardless what my personal beliefs may be it just makes me go well we know where you stand.

No-one said they "needed" to include a gay character, no-one has established that their motivation was to "pander" to some demographic and you certainly haven't established that the novel will be adversely impacted by a character being gay instead of straight. These are three assumptions that you have made without any evidence. Why do you feel a lesbian character requires any more special justification to be so than a character to be blonde or Black or have a pirate eye-patch? Why do you leap to these assumptions? Isn't it the case that we've simply reached a stage where a character might be lesbian just because?

Its Bullcrap, stop sexualizing and politicizing everything! Homosexual behavior has no place in Star Wars!

If you argued that sex had no place in Star Wars, I might agree with you - it's a setting for kids for the most part and anyone who disagrees go watch the movies. Just because many adults enjoy it doesn't mean we should see Han and Leia do anything more than kiss.

But the fact that you specifically call out an exclusion for gay characters, I am doubtful about. I live in Europe. I don't at all see that this makes the novel "politicized". What's political about having a lesbian character in the book?

You should have seen the amount of "childhood ruined!", "burning my books now!" and "the fans don't want this!!!" type of replies The Star Wars Underworld got on their FB page when they covered this... It was terrible.

That's why it remains the underworld. It's full of morlocks.

@

you misunderstand what my point was. This is my interpretation of the decision to have characters who are of any sexual orientation be A big deal to begin with. It doesn't do anything except generate click bait and some sort of outcry of HOW DARE YOU. I am just tired of people using things like sexual orientation as a topic of discussion.

Its Bullcrap, stop sexualizing and politicizing everything! Homosexual behavior has no place in Star Wars!

Well, that took a while, but I guess every neighbourhood gets its moron...

So explain why it's ok for you to label him and call him names if you're promoting an issue where you don't want someone labeled and called names? It may lead to group adoration from people that agree with you but it certainly doesn't further an agenda. It's more or less valueless if you're actually trying to open eyes and broaden horizons. It seems to me if you're wanting to advocate tolerance you ought to practice it lest you paint yourself a hypocrite.

I again have no issue with LGBT characters being included in any genre, but in general regardless of the particular 'group' if it's done in an obvious shameless attempt to grab some free PC points, that's usually a good sign it's bad art and the artist is replacing real talent and vision with controversy.

Its Bullcrap, stop sexualizing and politicizing everything! Homosexual behavior has no place in Star Wars!

Why not? One could argue that gay has just as much place in Star Wars as straight does. Sexuality one way or the other has no real impact on the story (with the notable exception that a straight relationship - Anakin and Amidala having children - is kind of the cornerstone of the whole saga. But beyond that, big deal!)

Its Bullcrap, stop sexualizing and politicizing everything! Homosexual behavior has no place in Star Wars!

Well, that took a while, but I guess every neighbourhood gets its moron...

So explain why it's ok for you to label him and call him names if you're promoting an issue where you don't want someone labeled and called names? It may lead to group adoration from people that agree with you but it certainly doesn't further an agenda. It's more or less valueless if you're actually trying to open eyes and broaden horizons. It seems to me if you're wanting to advocate tolerance you ought to practice it lest you paint yourself a hypocrite.

I again have no issue with LGBT characters being included in any genre, but in general regardless of the particular 'group' if it's done in an obvious shameless attempt to grab some free PC points, that's usually a good sign it's bad art and the artist is replacing real talent and vision with controversy.

Let's replace LGBT with black. Would you still consider me calling him a moron hypocritical? Frankly I am sick and tired of people asking others to be tolerant of utter intolerance and I will never stoop so low. The rest of your post? I have no idea, it seems like speculation just for the heck of it and I'll cross that bridge when we find it.

Warning - can of worms opening in 3. . . .2. . . .1 . . . .

Its Bullcrap, stop sexualizing and politicizing everything! Homosexual behavior has no place in Star Wars!

Well, that took a while, but I guess every neighbourhood gets its moron...

So explain why it's ok for you to label him and call him names if you're promoting an issue where you don't want someone labeled and called names? It may lead to group adoration from people that agree with you but it certainly doesn't further an agenda. It's more or less valueless if you're actually trying to open eyes and broaden horizons. It seems to me if you're wanting to advocate tolerance you ought to practice it lest you paint yourself a hypocrite.

The key difference is that tolerance for bigotry* is a load of crap - any right minded, compassionate person SHOULD hate bigots. If hating the klan or neo nazis or the black panthers or any other subset of people who are actively trying suppress the rights and freedoms of others makes me a hypocrite, then I gladly embrace it, because that s#it is just plain wrong.

* This is assuming that Steve is coming from a place of bigotry - which I freely admit may very well not be the case. But for the sake of argument, we'll discuss the Bigger Picture beyond just this one post.