Character sheet sins

[ApfelSeine]

I'd still establish that preferences are apart of your personality though. You can end up doing things that you don't like depending on the circumstances, sure, but that doesn't change anything about what you do/don't like; it just means you're adapting to the situation based essentially on decisions that are themselves based on preferences to end up with a situation that you will still like overall. Which I would say is in itself a matter of preference, as they're making a choice to create an outcome they would like as compared to the opposite.
Regarding your examples, it's easy to see it this way.


Joe prefers to interact with cats, whereas Suzy would rather watch them as if she were some urban safari.


Suzy prefers to take charge of the situation, Joe essentially prefers to do what other people prefer.


So, sure, if you just say something as broad as "people like cats," you won't get much out of it. But if you were to say "Joe likes cats and also enjoys petting them/Suzy likes cats but would rather watch them do their own thing" then it makes more sense when you describe it as a matter of preference.


Plus, being someone who has lived with close-minded people, preferences very well do determine (and can often be used to predict) how someone will act in any given scenario. I'd even argue that preferences are very well the reason why people are so easy to predict and manipulate depending on how aware of it they are. Also, with the definition you gave for preferences, where a character will focus their attention is also apart of behavior, is it not?


If we take personality to mean a set of qualities/characteristics that make up a person, then preferences are also apart of those characteristics, as likes/dislikes are a major factor in what you do and do not do.

Likes and dislikes do factor into behavior, but they are not the same thing as a personality characteristic. Preferences are often derived from what people are comfortable around, and that level of comfort factors into what aspect of a person's personality is likely to manifest itself in a given scenario. With that said however, how a person behaves reflects their personality, not their preferences. I like the color purple. That does not make me different in any meaningful way from a person who likes the color red. Likes and dislikes can be transitory anyways.


Saying that someone "prefers to do X behavior" doesn't necessarily mean that they will do it. It will vary depending on a person's disposition, and sometimes even upon their current mood. Why even bother to write all of that out when you could simply cite their personality traits of being "friendly" and "solemn"? It's shorter and encompasses a wider range of scenarios. The word "solemn" not only suggests that Suzy tends to keep a distance from animals, but it also suggests that she has a serious nature and will approach most situations with an air of quiet dignity. It's generally better to keep things short and to the point, while still expressing as much information as possible.


Preferences are complicated. You might like dogs, but not all dogs. You might like green but wear blue more often. Listing out all preferences that a person has requires a lot of description and a lot of text. I find it to be a waste of time to go very deep into describing likes and dislikes because much of that information will not end up being used anyways. I'm not saying that likes and dislikes are never important, and I am also not saying that they never affect what you chose to do, but personality traits carry more weight to how a person behaves.


For instance, I like to dance and I love meeting new people. I would like to go straight up to someone and ask them to dance with me. Theoretically that might suggest that at a dance I'm very sociable. However, I'm actually timid and overly analytical. In this scenario, I might like to ask someone to dance, but I won't do it because my personality causes me to become anxious, even when around something I like. If I were making a character sheet for myself, I could list out all of the things that I like to do but that I hesitate to try, or I could simply say that I have a tendency to overthink situations and make myself nervous. That would cover dancing, raising my hand in class, inviting people to hang out with me, etc. I enjoy doing all of those things, but what I actually end up doing is impacted greatly by my personality. You can very easily love something and be terrified by it at the same time. That's a result of personality.


Also, I would argue that the fact that someone is close minded is more of a predicting factor than their particular likes and dislikes. As a result of their close mindedness, you know that they will gravitate towards the things that they like, and shun things that they dislike. In contrast, you can't be entirely sure with someone who is open minded. Perhaps the open minded person is adventurous and will try out things that they don't like, or perhaps they still gravitate towards what they like but still don't resist novelty. Their particular personality will determine that. As I said before, preferences will sometimes (though not always) indicate when a person is likely to exhibit a particular personality trait, but the personality trait exhibited is more representative of who the person truly is.


You can, of course, list every behavior which accompanies each preference that a character has. I find it much more practical to focus on personality traits, since those create a much more comprehensive view of a person's identity. Preferences really are a broad thing, and expanding upon their preferences is a complicated way of describing how their particular personality traits are expressed in a given scenario.


Edit: To summarize, liking or disliking something won't necessarily indicate how a character will behave towards it. Preferring to act a certain way doesn't mean that a character will do so. Perhaps a character acts a certain way, but doesn't like that they act that way. Describing their behavior as "Character A prefers to do X" is not applicable to most situations. It is therefore much simpler to say that a character exhibits certain personality traits.

 

[NarutoDeathNote]

Oh mylanta. This is an interesting discussion.


Personality is defined by the APA as,"...individual differences in characteristic patterns of thinking, feeling and behaving."


I would take that is a reference to the genetic and epigenetic things we inherit from our family that give us a baseline temperament from which our unique personality blossoms. On this foundation, we are taught life lessons from the elders around us, our peers, society, media, etc etc. These lessons teach us, among other things, preferences in our actions and decisions throughout our lives. In some houses, people are taught more nationalistic ideologies and so they might choose to support Trump for his stance on immigration. In another house, someone might be taught more humanitarian values and, in turn, choose to vote for Bernie Sanders for respect to his more egalitarian platform.


You could look at sexuality. Since you're genetically predestined for sexual preference, your actions and choices will then reflect said interest. I think you'd be more accurate to say that personality is intertwined with preference rather than making a hopeless attempt to divorce the two. At best, you might be able to argue that personality begets preference, but in no way can you separate the two.

 

[ApfelSeine]

Oh mylanta. This is an interesting discussion.
Personality is defined by the APA as,"...individual differences in characteristic patterns of thinking, feeling and behaving."


I would take that is a reference to the genetic and epigenetic things we inherit from our family that give us a baseline temperament from which our unique personality blossoms. On this foundation, we are taught life lessons from the elders around us, our peers, society, media, etc etc. These lessons teach us, among other things, preferences in our actions and decisions throughout our lives. In some houses, people are taught more nationalistic ideologies and so they might choose to support Trump for his stance on immigration. In another house, someone might be taught more humanitarian values and, in turn, choose to vote for Bernie Sanders for respect to his more egalitarian platform.


You could look at sexuality. Since you're genetically predestined for sexual preference, your actions and choices will then reflect said interest. I think you'd be more accurate to say that personality is intertwined with preference rather than making a hopeless attempt to divorce the two. At best, you might be able to argue that personality begets preference, but in no way can you separate the two.

They're two separate things though. Sexuality doesn't determine who you are, similarly to how other preferences don't determine that either. While sexuality and dating preferences in general will influence who you are drawn to, how you behave and how you treat the person you're attracted to is determined by your personality. Similarly, if someone tells me that they like Metallica, that doesn't really tell me anything about who they are. It just tells me that they like the sound of the band. Favorites of anything can offer a conversation topic, but they don't determine how you behave. You might love something and know every little trivial fact about it. Someone else might also love the same thing with equal passion, but they don't bother learning everything there is to know about it.


It is useful to know about someone's likes and dislikes. People bond over such shared interests and common ground. Someone might like a politician or celebrity who is a horrible person, but still be a completely likable sweetheart themselves. People too often will jump to assume that they know more about a person from their preferences than they actually are able to discern. Race is also genetically predestined. That doesn't determine anything about personality either though. Race, gender, sexuality, likes, dislikes, they're all a part of identity, alongside personality. There are things which are a part of who you are, but which are separate from personality.

 

[LegoLad659]

To make an oversimplication of this whole thing, since it just came to mind and I feel the need to put it up ( )


An abusive homosexual and a shy homosexual would in no way be similar people. They may both be homosexuals, but their personalities are radically different. Would you call their personalities similar to each other just because they both like people of the same sex?

 

[ApfelSeine]

To make an oversimplication of this whole thing, since it just came to mind and I feel the need to put it up ( )
An abusive homosexual and a shy homosexual would in no way be similar people. They may both be homosexuals, but their personalities are radically different. Would you call their personalities similar to each other just because they both like people of the same sex?

Additionally, an abusive heterosexual person would have a similar personality to the abusive homosexual person (and the shy homosexual person would have a similar personality to a shy heterosexual person). In fact, barring any other major personality traits that might distinguish them, the abusive characters have essentially the same personality. Identifying as homosexual or heterosexual might make a difference to a person's overall identity, but in terms of personality they'd be the nearly identical and would likely behave the same way.


Identity impacts how you see yourself and how others see you, but your personality is what impacts how you behave. Someone might treat you horribly, which is something that almost no one would enjoy, but how you respond is the result of your personality.

 

[Swindle]

For the close-minded topic, their close-mindedness is informed based on preferences towards certain mental behaviors and defense mechanisms that they've learned either from personal experience or others, I'd think. They like the security in knowing that they're right, even if they haven't substantiated whatever it is they wish to argue about. Comparatively, a close-minded person would dislike opposition because it challenges their world-view and having to change something about that is something that they do not like. It upsets them, if you will, for a broader term.


I think the problem to me is that you seem to be acting like a person's likes and dislikes somehow exist in a vacuum outside of the qualities that make up the rest of their person. Since your likes and dislikes/preferences are information gained from your experiences, which you then use to inform how you behave towards others, I really don't quite see what you're trying to get at. Identity is also a characteristic that makes up your person - it's what influences your behaviors towards others, especially in areas where discrimination towards certain demographics takes place. The culture surrounding your identity also affects your behavior towards things.


Additionally, regarding identity, wouldn't the way you see yourself affect your behavior as well?


If it's in relation to the beginning topic of character sheet sins, then I suppose I should clarify that I'm not arguing at all in favor of an individual "likes/dislikes" section in a character sheet. Because your likes and dislikes make up, you know, your person, but merely listing those things isn't particularly complex enough to understand how they'd interact. I get what you're getting at, though. Simply stating likes and dislikes as they are aren't broad enough when an in-depth character that reflects a person would not merely list what they like to do/don't like to do as "this is this and that is that."


I don't know. I just think the terms are much more intertwined than you're making it out to be.

 

[Byatis]

That's interesting because there was a study (by Adrian North of Heriot-Watt University) that relates music choice directly to various personality traits. So, essentially, you can kind of already tell what type of person they will most likely be if you have taken the time to study up on music psychology.


As for the sexuality, I don't really have a problem with it. In most cases, especially if you're in something that is modern/realistic/slice of life, your sexuality will put you into situations that other sexualities won't have to go through. The trials and events of a straight male won't be the same as a homosexual male. I strongly believe that who you are is influenced by what you've been through. So depending on the story, I would say that while it doesn't lay out a specific set of traits, it might give some insight as to why they respond a certain way.


As for pigeon-holing a character, well yes. In real life, you don't choose your sexual preference. It doesn't change based on what way the wind blows. I would believe that if your character is written to be a certain sexuality and is old enough to understand his sexual preferences, then that's just that. However, you should be allowed to put N/A or TBD if you want to develop the character into its sexuality. In life, you're pigeon-holed into your sexuality. I don't see why it should be any different in a roleplay unless it's not meant to be realistic. If it's not, by all means, knock yourselves out.


Edit: Although, I'm not really the type to put it on my character sheets anyway. I'll deal with it for other sheets because at the end of the day if the GM wants it, oh well. The worst that can happen is that the plot doesn't care about your sexuality and you've lost a whole five seconds typing out your characters sexual preference.

 

[NarutoDeathNote]

They're two separate things though. Sexuality doesn't determine who you are, similarly to how other preferences don't determine that either. While sexuality and dating preferences in general will influence who you are drawn to, how you behave and how you treat the person you're attracted to is determined by your personality. Similarly, if someone tells me that they like Metallica, that doesn't really tell me anything about who they are. It just tells me that they like the sound of the band. Favorites of anything can offer a conversation topic, but they don't determine how you behave. You might love something and know every little trivial fact about it. Someone else might also love the same thing with equal passion, but they don't bother learning everything there is to know about it.
It is useful to know about someone's likes and dislikes. People bond over such shared interests and common ground. Someone might like a politician or celebrity who is a horrible person, but still be a completely likable sweetheart themselves. People too often will jump to assume that they know more about a person from their preferences than they actually are able to discern. Race is also genetically predestined. That doesn't determine anything about personality either though. Race, gender, sexuality, likes, dislikes, they're all a part of identity, alongside personality. There are things which are a part of who you are, but which are separate from personality.

Nah, man. You're literally just wrong. These things are a part of your personality, like it or not. It's fine if you want to believe otherwise, but that's about as far as it'll go. Personality and sexuality/preference/whatever is separate as much as being poor is a choice. Being gay dictates your interests and your preferences/interests directly correlate to your personality. They are almost entirely one in the same for how related they are. Please, no more of this nonsense. If part of your personality is racism, you're going to express racism in your choices. Think about that. You're seriously trying to argue that a racist acts just the same as a non-racist because personality traits =/= preferences. Unless you're only arguing sexuality, and then you're still wrong on that, too. Every angle has you exactly wrong, man, which is fine. Everyone makes mistakes. I used to think that being obese or fat was a result of poor caloric management. You think that somehow your choices and interests are not related to your personality. Trump thinks immigrants are ruining this country. Equally wrong, all of it.


Just do some research into it, man. Basic logic alone: people with a more introverted temperament will tend to avoid concerts, whereas extroverts will be less inclined to visit museums. Your personality dictates and is a direct result of your choices. Who you are determines what you do. Come on, man, think. Unless you're choosing not to, in which cognitive dissonance can definitely shape your personality.

 

[NarutoDeathNote]

Every so often, I see this one thing that bothers me so enormously, that I can't help but refuse to give an answer. (Stating my desire to leave it ambiguous instead)
I absolutely hate it when sexuality is on character sheets. I just feel that this is so incredibly untrue to life. It removes valuable potential for meaningful interactions or even plot points. You rarely ever see anyone roleplaying their character attracted or coming on to someone with an incompatible sexuality, much less attaching heavy emotions to such an interaction. In a way, even though it's mostly included in character sheets for RPs with an eye towards romance, it actually hurts potential for romantic interactions.


At the same time, it pidgeonholes the character into that one specified sexuality. In a world of grays, specifying the sexuality means that your character inherently needs to be black, white, or tangerine. I can't just say "my character believes he's straight" without inherently calling into question his straightness. What if nothing happens, no decisive character development that would lead him to think otherwise? He'd still reject homosexual relationships, and now my App seems partially untrue. If he denied someone tooth and nail using his sexuality as the reason, roleplayers might be inclined to "initiate" gay conversion campaigns, which they otherwise probably wouldn't. On the other hand, if I were to say "he's straight", he can't become bi-curious. He can't decide he has different preferences from what he did before, or else it becomes completely untrue. What the fuck is the point of designating a sexuality?


What do you guys think should never go on a character sheet?

Just with the first thing you said. Do you seriously think that sexuality on a character sheet ruins character development? I, personally, think that someone IRL still develops pretty well even if they know their sexual interest. I think you're more upset with unskilled players. Perhaps you consider sexuality IRL to be a choice? That's the only way I can really rationalize this complaint. IRL, when you're gay you're gay. If your character is gay, that's it. They're gay, just like life. If we applied this same logic to a fantasy RP which contains a variety of races, it's as though you're complaining when the GM has you list your race on a character sheet because of it's inherent limitations on, you know, changing races. Just doesn't make sense. The dog goes woof.


If you make a character that's straight, you then develop a character that grows based on his life decisions and experiences who just also happens to be straight. There's more to the growth of a person than who they prefer to hoohah with. I think the overall issue, though, is that IRL you probably imagine sexuality to be a choice, which would be just as laughable as this complaint.

 

[Ammokkx]

Just with the first thing you said. Do you seriously think that sexuality on a character sheet ruins character development? I, personally, think that someone IRL still develops pretty well even if they know their sexual interest. I think you're more upset with unskilled players. Perhaps you consider sexuality IRL to be a choice? That's the only way I can really rationalize this complaint. IRL, when you're gay you're gay. If your character is gay, that's it. They're gay, just like life. If we applied this same logic to a fantasy RP which contains a variety of races, it's as though you're complaining when the GM has you list your race on a character sheet because of it's inherent limitations on, you know, changing races. Just doesn't make sense. The dog goes woof.
If you make a character that's straight, you then develop a character that grows based on his life decisions and experiences who just also happens to be straight. There's more to the growth of a person than who they prefer to hoohah with. I think the overall issue, though, is that IRL you probably imagine sexuality to be a choice, which would be just as laughable as this complaint.

Hostile much?

 

[ApfelSeine]

Did.... did I just get compared to Trump? ( O.o )


Honestly even if I were wrong, which I do not believe that I am, being picky about semantics is a far cry from being bigoted towards certain groups.


Your sexual identity does not determine your preferences. It just doesn't. Neither does introversion or extroversion. I'm an introvert but I love ballroom dancing and meeting people. It wears me out, but I like it. And I'm not an anomaly, introversion and extroversion do not determine how good you are with people or how much you appreciate quiet reflection. Those terms are honestly very frequently misused, and too many generalizations are made from it.


Would I say that a racist and non racist behave the same way? Sometimes they do actually. If a person is close minded or bigoted, they're going to behave that way. Their preferences just determine who they're close minded or bigoted towards. The key factor that makes them behave poorly is the bigotry. The racism just directs it to a particular group. No one deserves to be the subject of unrelenting hatred. That is why bigotry is wrong, no matter who it is directed towards.


Personality and preferences are different things, both from a semantic standpoint, and a behavioral one. I would not consider liking cats to be part of my personality, but I would consider it as part of my identity. Identity is the overarching sum of all traits that make you who you are. Personality is just the behavior part of that, and preferences are the environmental cues trigger behavior. So they intertwine make you who you are, but they separate things.


Also, just as a side note (and because I am a semantics and psychology nerd) you're using the term cognitive dissonance wrong. It doesn't mean to refuse to think about things, it means to have inconsistent thoughts within your own mind, and it's a state that your brain automatically tries to fix. For instance, if you hated the taste of muffins but you liked muffins with blueberries, that would create a cognitive dissonance. How can you like the taste of blueberry muffins if you think that muffins are gross? That creates an inconsistency which your brain tries to fix by either changing your initial thought about muffins, by deciding that you don't like blueberry muffins after all in order to match your initial bias, or by labeling blueberry muffins as an exception to the rule of your not liking muffins. Cognitive dissonance happens all the time when recieving information that conflicts with what you believe. If the information proves to be true, one must either adapt ones initial thought, or ignore the information. It does not shape personality in any way other than the fact that it establishes that one has the ability to analyze information. In fact, it is personality that will predisposition someone to choosing a certain solution to solving conative dissonance, not the other way around.

 

[Ryik]

Just with the first thing you said. Do you seriously think that sexuality on a character sheet ruins character development? I, personally, think that someone IRL still develops pretty well even if they know their sexual interest. I think you're more upset with unskilled players. Perhaps you consider sexuality IRL to be a choice? That's the only way I can really rationalize this complaint. IRL, when you're gay you're gay. If your character is gay, that's it. They're gay, just like life. If we applied this same logic to a fantasy RP which contains a variety of races, it's as though you're complaining when the GM has you list your race on a character sheet because of it's inherent limitations on, you know, changing races. Just doesn't make sense. The dog goes woof.
If you make a character that's straight, you then develop a character that grows based on his life decisions and experiences who just also happens to be straight. There's more to the growth of a person than who they prefer to hoohah with. I think the overall issue, though, is that IRL you probably imagine sexuality to be a choice, which would be just as laughable as this complaint.

On the question of if I think sexuality on a character sheet impedes character development, I would answer that it depends on the world, the situation, and the character's story as I imagine or plan it. The main problem is that people act upon what is listed. It isn't about certainty in sexual interest, but rather the lack of opportunity to necessarily challenge that interest against someone who normally would have. Yes, I'm upset with unskilled players, but god damn does it happen often and consistently.


Sexuality IRL is gray af. Even grown-ass adults can realize they have a different or wider sexual preference than they thought they did. "If you're gay, you're gay, that's it." isn't really how it works, whether sexuality is or isn't a choice. It's not the same as race or what chromosomes you have. You ever heard of the Kinsey scale? It's my opinion that having to choose between (as it is on the scale,) 0, 3, 6, and X always leads to either misrepresented information on a character sheet or other players acting with the knowledge of their orientation, preemptively preventing a "1" Heterosexual male having any romantically-themed interaction with another male, or a "5" Homosexual male having any romantically-themed interaction with a female.


Of course growing as a character doesn't simply entail who they would rather bang, but denying any relationship, whether an outright romantic one or one destined to fail, eventually leads to a type of character development denied. These characters aren't allowed to battle with these conflicted feelings, even if it ultimately wouldn't change their sexuality.

Spoiler

I expected discussion like this, which is why I regretted posting this thread as soon as I did it :V

 

[SirBlazeALot]

Just with the first thing you said. Do you seriously think that sexuality on a character sheet ruins character development? I, personally, think that someone IRL still develops pretty well even if they know their sexual interest. I think you're more upset with unskilled players. Perhaps you consider sexuality IRL to be a choice? That's the only way I can really rationalize this complaint. IRL, when you're gay you're gay. If your character is gay, that's it. They're gay, just like life. If we applied this same logic to a fantasy RP which contains a variety of races, it's as though you're complaining when the GM has you list your race on a character sheet because of it's inherent limitations on, you know, changing races. Just doesn't make sense. The dog goes woof.
If you make a character that's straight, you then develop a character that grows based on his life decisions and experiences who just also happens to be straight. There's more to the growth of a person than who they prefer to hoohah with. I think the overall issue, though, is that IRL you probably imagine sexuality to be a choice, which would be just as laughable as this complaint.

I'd actually like to contest the point that sexuality as a choice is a laughable notion. I'm not sure why people think making the choice to have a certain sexuality would just be like the worst thing ever, or that that somehow invalidates the existence of homosexuality. I think that's quite unreasonable. People make choices on how to live their lives all the time. If someone chooses to be a vegetarian or to convert to a certain religion, does that make them any less valid of a vegetarian or a Christian/Muslim/Buddhist just because they weren't born that way? I've never understood why sexuality as a choice is such a terrible thing. Yes, things were born with like race should be respected, but shouldn't someone's life choices be respected just as much?


But back on topic, I run a lot of RPs and I don't ask for sexuality on my sheets for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I want sheets to be relatively vague, I like to be surprised in RPs. Sometimes I even surprise myself when I find out who my characters end up being attracted to. Secondly, I don't want my players to feel like they've written themselves into a corner. People figure out their characters as they play, and if they want to ship their character with someone outside of their sexuality, they'll either change their sexuality to fit their ship or not do it out of some misplaced sense of "oh shit I already established a sexuality oh noes" as if anyone would care if they changed it. And when sexuality is demanded on sheets, to avoid getting written into a corner, a lot of players put, no offense, snowflakey sexualities that basically mean "Hey, I'll bang anyone." Why not just skip that altogether? Just list the character's sex and call it a day. I give people the choice to put sexuality and gender identity under sex but it feels unnecessary to me, and I'm big on not clogging character sheets with extraneous information. People have to read these things after all.

 

[Frederick]

I'd actually like to contest the point that sexuality as a choice is a laughable notion. I'm not sure why people think making the choice to have a certain sexuality would just be like the worst thing ever, or that that somehow invalidates the existence of homosexuality. I think that's quite unreasonable. People make choices on how to live their lives all the time. If someone chooses to be a vegetarian or to convert to a certain religion, does that make them any less valid of a vegetarian or a Christian/Muslim/Buddhist just because they weren't born that way? I've never understood why sexuality as a choice is such a terrible thing. Yes, things were born with like race should be respected, but shouldn't someone's life choices be respected just as much?
But back on topic, I run a lot of RPs and I don't ask for sexuality on my sheets for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I want sheets to be relatively vague, I like to be surprised in RPs. Sometimes I even surprise myself when I find out who my characters end up being attracted to. Secondly, I don't want my players to feel like they've written themselves into a corner. People figure out their characters as they play, and if they want to ship their character with someone outside of their sexuality, they'll either change their sexuality to fit their ship or not do it out of some misplaced sense of "oh shit I already established a sexuality oh noes" as if anyone would care if they changed it. And when sexuality is demanded on sheets, to avoid getting written into a corner, a lot of players put, no offense, snowflakey sexualities that basically mean "Hey, I'll bang anyone." Why not just skip that altogether? Just list the character's sex and call it a day. I give people the choice to put sexuality and gender identity under sex but it feels unnecessary to me, and I'm big on not clogging character sheets with extraneous information. People have to read these things after all.

People that consider homosexuality a choice often see their homosexual children as being needlessly rebellious, as if they had chosen to be gay simply to inconvenience them. If it was a choice, why not just not be homosexual? And if they persist in being homosexual, it must mean that they are out to spite and hurt them.


It sounds ridiculous, but some exes of mine had parents who often tried to turn their sexuality against them. They'd play victim against their own children, as if the sexuality of someone else caused them inner turmoil and pain. That they were being unreasonable by being gay.


None of them told their kids that it wasn't okay to be gay, though. It was okay for other people.


Also more on topic, I can only say that should the sexuality of my character be important, you'd find out eventually.

 

[SirBlazeALot]

People that consider homosexuality a choice often see their homosexual children as being needlessly rebellious, as if they had chosen to be gay simply to inconvenience them. If it was a choice, why not just not be homosexual? And if they persist in being homosexual, it must mean that they are out to spite and hurt them.
It sounds ridiculous, but some exes of mine had parents who often tried to turn their sexuality against them. They'd play victim against their own children, as if the sexuality of someone else caused them inner turmoil and pain. That they were being unreasonable by being gay.


None of them told their kids that it wasn't okay to be gay, though. It was okay for other people.


Also more on topic, I can only say that should the sexuality of my character be important, you'd find out eventually.

And you can say the same thing about kids converting to a different religion or becoming atheists. That too is often interpreted as an act of rebellion by some parents. But having shitty and unreasonable parents shouldn't make homosexuality as a choice any less respectable among tolerant people who aren't shitty and unreasonable, right?

 

[Swindle]

Hostile much?

I wouldn't say it's hostile, no.


Also @SirBlazeALot, I get what you mean, that it isn't bad if you somehow literally chose to be homosexual/bisexual/etc., but to my knowledge there's no empirical evidence to suggest that it is, in-fact, a choice.


Sexuality can be gray, but I'd say that's namely due to matters regarding genderqueerness or what-have-you.


Also @ApfelSeine, I still don't think you've actually substantiated how preferences are somehow mutually exclusive from personality. If anything, a lot of your explanations have implied that preferences are directly intertwined with behavior (which by your definition is your personality, even though most definitions suggest that personality is the characteristics and traits of a person, which isn't exclusively behavior, but hey). If they intertwine to make you who you are...they're not separate things. It may be a separate factor in what causes a behavior, but it's still a significant part of behavior. The distinction you make between identity and personality only holds ground if we take your definition on personality to be universal - which it isn't. But I suppose that's the fun thing about debates regarding semantics, isn't it? User-defined terms being incongruous with what is popularly understood.


I know that this is a discussion on semantics for you, but frankly discussions on semantics tend to be rather pointless in my opinion.


Also, of course your sexual identity determines your preferences. Lol. It's literally a prime determining factor in what sort of people you're more likely to want to get with. The fact that many people identify by their beliefs and what they like is also a hole in your theory I believe. The amount of tribalism that results from all sorts of media and entertainment outlets and how people allow their political/musical/etc. preferences define them is, although something you can directly change (perhaps unlike sexuality or race or gender, which you typically cannot), is still how they identify themselves which would then still be a determining characteristic of their personality.

 

[Ryik]

Sexuality can be gray, but I'd say that's namely due to matters regarding genderqueerness or what-have-you.

I respectfully disagree.

 

[SirBlazeALot]

I wouldn't say it's hostile, no.
Also @SirBlazeALot, I get what you mean, that it isn't bad if you somehow literally chose to be homosexual/bisexual/etc., but to my knowledge there's no empirical evidence to suggest that it is, in-fact, a choice.


Sexuality can be gray, but I'd say that's namely due to matters regarding genderqueerness or what-have-you.


Also @ApfelSeine, I still don't think you've actually substantiated how preferences are somehow mutually exclusive from personality. If anything, a lot of your explanations have implied that preferences are directly intertwined with behavior (which by your definition is your personality, even though most definitions suggest that personality is the characteristics and traits of a person, which isn't exclusively behavior, but hey). If they intertwine to make you who you are...they're not separate things. It may be a separate factor in what causes a behavior, but it's still a significant part of behavior. The distinction you make between identity and personality only holds ground if we take your definition on personality to be universal - which it isn't. But I suppose that's the fun thing about debates regarding semantics, isn't it? User-defined terms being incongruous with what is popularly understood.


I know that this is a discussion on semantics for you, but frankly discussions on semantics tend to be rather pointless in my opinion.


Also, of course your sexual identity determines your preferences. Lol. It's literally a prime determining factor in what sort of people you're more likely to want to get with. The fact that many people identify by their beliefs and what they like is also a hole in your theory I believe. The amount of tribalism that results from all sorts of media and entertainment outlets and how people allow their political/musical/etc. preferences define them is, although something you can directly change (perhaps unlike sexuality or race or gender, which you typically cannot), is still how they identify themselves which would then still be a determining characteristic of their personality.

Yeah I mean, to my knowledge there's no empirical evidence suggesting that it's a biological thing or a choice or that it can even change over time. It's one of those things that science just hasn't figured out yet. I'm personally of the opinion that that is the case because as much as we know about the brain and how it works, we don't know much. I think love and attraction are very spiritual things and science in its current state can't really nail it. But that's kind of the beauty of it. I think it's a very very interesting topic though, but unfortunately that's not what this thread about. I love talking about it, but I don't want to derail the original discussion.

 

[Swindle]

Lol, I admit that that was painfully oversimplified (and inaccurate) regarding the sexuality thing but I admittedly don't have much to say about sexuality. I just let people do what they want.


Also, supposedly there has been a study which comes closer to the idea that there may be a "gay gene", but it's not entirely sufficient in itself to imply such things.


Largest ever study into the gay gene

 

[Byatis]

But that's kind of the beauty of it. I think it's a very very interesting topic though, but unfortunately that's not what this thread about. I love talking about it, but I don't want to derail the original discussion.

I would have to agree that this has turned into a 'Sexuality: Does it influence who you are?' thread. I think that it would be best to agree to disagree.


I do believe that it shouldn't be labeled as a character sheet sin because it can be an important part of who someone is/where they come from/why they see things the way they do. As stated above, sometimes your sexuality directly influences events in your life. As seen by some of the opinions here, sexuality can be important to people. If you don't want to put a sexuality or disagree with it being there, just leave it blank or fill it with N/A or TBD.

 

[ApfelSeine]

Also @ApfelSeine, I still don't think you've actually substantiated how preferences are somehow mutually exclusive from personality. If anything, a lot of your explanations have implied that preferences are directly intertwined with behavior (which by your definition is your personality, even though most definitions suggest that personality is the characteristics and traits of a person, which isn't exclusively behavior, but hey). If they intertwine to make you who you are...they're not separate things. It may be a separate factor in what causes a behavior, but it's still a significant part of behavior. The distinction you make between identity and personality only holds ground if we take your definition on personality to be universal - which it isn't. But I suppose that's the fun thing about debates regarding semantics, isn't it? User-defined terms being incongruous with what is popularly understood.
I know that this is a discussion on semantics for you, but frankly discussions on semantics tend to be rather pointless in my opinion.


Also, of course your sexual identity determines your preferences. Lol. It's literally a prime determining factor in what sort of people you're more likely to want to get with. The fact that many people identify by their beliefs and what they like is also a hole in your theory I believe. The amount of tribalism that results from all sorts of media and entertainment outlets and how people allow their political/musical/etc. preferences define them is, although something you can directly change (perhaps unlike sexuality or race or gender, which you typically cannot), is still how they identify themselves which would then still be a determining characteristic of their personality.

Alright, I'm going to try again to explain what I mean now that I'm awake and not rambling on while half asleep like my previous post. I have, in fact, provided evidence for why preferences are different from personality. The first thing I did was the say that "liking something" does not directly determine how a specific person will react to it. People can like the same things, but behave differently towards them. The second thing I did was say that people will not always do the things that they like to do, which suggests that it is not the determining factor in how they behave. The definition of personality does not include characteristics and traits in general, but specifically the ones related to a person's distinct character. Preferences can be triggers for those characteristics to emerge, but they are not a part of those characteristics. And even farther removed is the concept of "likes and dislikes". Those tell you next to nothing about who a person is.


For instance, say in a roleplay that you asked someone to fill out the personality section of a character sheet. One person fills out "Tina likes the color red, flowers, balloons, classical music, and squirrels. She dislikes cows, the color green, and loud noises". I don't consider any of that information particularly useful in understanding who the character is. You might be able to make assumptions, but those will not necessarily be accurate. It's also unlikely that every single preference is listed on the description. If another person were to say "John is reserved, timid, quick witted, and focused", that tells you a lot more. It also suggests how he is likely to respond when confronted by what he likes in various circumstances (unlikely to express much interest around others, but perhaps more passionate when he is alone). It is unnecessary to list out every like and dislike that a character has, and if their personality is descriptive enough, you will already have established a comprehensive description of who that character is. People already will have a very solid understanding of the character without knowing anything about what their preferences are. Particularly in a roleplay, preferences are things which can be established throughout the story, and unlike personality they may not even come into play.


Likes and dislikes are, overall, useless in understanding who someone is. Sometimes they influence behavior, and sometimes they don't. Preferences have more to do with the associations a person has attached to certain things. They are sometimes related to, and sometimes unrelated to, the internal and external responses that personality is comprised of. People will often make assumptions about someone because of their preferences, but those assumptions are often colored by one's own biases. The reason that I consider preferences to be separate from personality is because they rarely tell you anything meaningful about who a person is. Preferences are part of a person's identity, but they are not indicative of personality. If someone asked me to say something about my personality, I would not respond by saying "well I like tea a lot". I don't think anyone is likely to say that. Liking tea is not a personality trait. Liking or disliking anything is not a personality trait. If people wanted to know about likes and dislikes, they'd ask you what your preferences were. That is why I consider them to be separate. The fact that people would ask an entirely separate question suggests that there is a meaningful difference.


On the topic of sexuality determining preferences, I'll admit that I used the wrong word. The initial statement was that sexuality determines your preferences/interests. What I should have said is that sexuality does not determine what your interests are. It does, of course, determine who you are likely to be attracted to, and that is a preference. It doesn't influence any preference other than that though. You could be gay and enjoy the company of the opposite gender, or you could be gay and despise the company of the other gender, or you could be gay and be indifferent towards the opposite gender. The same applies to essentially everything else that one can have a preference about. You could be gay and like being a part of a civil rights group, or you could be gay and dislike civil rights groups (such people do exist). Being gay doesn't even necessarily have that big of an impact upon your life experiences. It certainly can have a major role in that, but if you grow up in a supportive and progressive town with accepting parents, it might not make much of a difference at all. Life experiences play a bigger role in shaping who you are, and while being gay can influence what those life experiences are, people of other minority groups may face those same life experiences for a different reason.


So to make my actual point on this subject, sexuality does not determine what your interests are. There's a stereotype that all gay guys like musical theater or drag, but you can be a straight guy and like those things. There's another stereotype that gay guys don't like sports, or "manly things", but many of them do. There are other stereotypes that gay people will present themselves in a certain way, or that gay women will present themselves in a certain way. Some of them will, and some of them won't. Being a particular sexuality does not determine your interests, behaviors, or any of your preferences other than your romantic ones. That is the point I was trying to make, but I used the wrong word so the meaning became confused last time.


Also, one last thing before I end this ridiculously extensive post. I don't understand why you say that semantic discussions are pointless. You're the one who said you couldn't understand why I think that personality and preferences are separate things. I can't explain that without telling you the meaning of each, and you can't refute my explanation without arguing that they have a different meaning than what I've explained. If you didn't want to have a discussion about semantics, or if you think that discussing semantics is pointless, why did you ask? There is no way to explain why they are different things without bringing semantics into it. Even if I were to focus entirely on the mental processes involved, that would still be involving semantics because I'd still be defining what they are in a roundabout way. There is no way to have this discussion without it being about semantics. (Unless you don't care why or how I define the terms as different things. In which case, as I stated before, I don't know why you asked the question in the first place. You could've simply said you disagreed because preferences can influence how and when personality is expressed.)

 

[commanderproton]

This was probably already stated, but, as a writer, I can see a totally valid reason for including seemingly unimportant information in a character sheet. It may not be for the benefit of the other players, but for your own benefit. Answering questions about your character gets you to think about them, to understand them. Sure, the other characters won't know your character is gay or loves macaroni and cheese, but you do, and the character sheet is a handy reference for things like that.


Also, if someone were to compile a dossier on your character, it would likely have information like that.

 

[octopi]

Huh, several people in this thread talked about the character sheet as some kind of in-universe document about your character, and I've never thought of it that way. In my mind, a character sheet is just an out-of-universe overview of who your character is, so a GM can decide to accept/reject and other roleplayers have an idea of what kind of person their character is interacting with. So from my perspective, details like sexuality and likes/dislikes that do not, on their own, help us form an image of who the character is are rather useless as specific character sheet fields. Especially since those things, if relevant, can be detailed in personality/history/whatever anyway. If a character sheet is specifically styled as an identification document or something, I'd probably be much more willing to play along with arbitrary fields. Something to think about.


Also, as a nonbinary person, it actually really bothers me when a GM puts separate gender and sex fields in a character sheet in an attempt to be inclusive. Like... I have a lot of opinions about the definition of "biological sex", which I really don't want to get into here, but even that aside, it's basically asking about your character's genitalia. Why is it mandatory for one to report that in a non-adult roleplaying environment?

 

[commanderproton]

I suppose a way around that is for GMs is to phrase it like:


Name:


Age:


Gender/Sex Identity:


...and so forth.


Again, it might not have a bearing on the game, but stuff like that is good to know and be able to refer to for your own sake.


Also, I once played in a sci-fi game where superhumans specifically with XX chromosomes were being targeted, and a male-presenting character was in danger, despite identifying as a man.

 

[SirBlazeALot]

Huh, several people in this thread talked about the character sheet as some kind of in-universe document about your character, and I've never thought of it that way. In my mind, a character sheet is just an out-of-universe overview of who your character is, so a GM can decide to accept/reject and other roleplayers have an idea of what kind of person their character is interacting with. So from my perspective, details like sexuality and likes/dislikes that do not, on their own, help us form an image of who the character is are rather useless as specific character sheet fields. Especially since those things, if relevant, can be detailed in personality/history/whatever anyway. If a character sheet is specifically styled as an identification document or something, I'd probably be much more willing to play along with arbitrary fields. Something to think about.
Also, as a nonbinary person, it actually really bothers me when a GM puts separate gender and sex fields in a character sheet in an attempt to be inclusive. Like... I have a lot of opinions about the definition of "biological sex", which I really don't want to get into here, but even that aside, it's basically asking about your character's genitalia. Why is it mandatory for one to report that in a non-adult roleplaying environment?

I think it's mandatory to report because our sexes are more than just sex. For instance, when making characters connected to each other, they'd know each other's sexes. Or if you're doing an RP that involves assigning roommates or something similar, then it's information the GM needs. There's a reason why it's included on Driver's Licenses and birth certificates and whatnot, it's handy information.