Presenting LGBT Leaders in Civ Games

[evanaurora]

I'm not LGBT, so let me know if I'm out of line here, but I agree- however hesitantly!!!!- that explicit LGBT representation isn't necessary in the same way that having prominent women leaders and culturally diverse civs present.

Let me rephrase that- having same sex rships referenced is amazing! definitely don't "somehow" leave their sexualities out of their civilopedia entries! but the relationships between leaders has never been a focus and it would be an odd thing to introduce in that capacity.

having women leaders and noneuropean civs visible isn't adding a new gameplay element but simply making the game not represent an inaccurate and uninteresting view of history as well as like.... you know.... living in a world where thank goodness we often strive to acknowledge that women have rights and europe weren't le end all be all Height Of Everything!

also "political correctness" is nothing

 

[Ryika]

As a historical side I think it's worth noting that both Hadrian and Trajan had childless marriages with women and were noted for their sexual relationships with males. Civ has had LGBT representation before (Alexander, Oda Nobunaga) but it's cool that Civ will have more LGBT leaders.

No, it's completely irrelevant. Make cool leaders, base choices on relevant stuff and not whether they <insert sexual act between 2 men here> or <insert sexual act between two women here>ed when they lived. There is no need for explicit or implicit LGBT representation.

 

[Atlas627]

I'm not LGBT, so let me know if I'm out of line here, but I agree- however hesitantly!!!!- that explicit LGBT representation isn't necessary in the same way that having prominent women leaders and culturally diverse civs present.

Let me rephrase that- having same sex rships referenced is amazing! definitely don't "somehow" leave their sexualities out of their civilopedia entries! but the relationships between leaders has never been a focus and it would be an odd thing to introduce in that capacity.

having women leaders and noneuropean civs visible isn't adding a new gameplay element but simply making the game not represent an inaccurate and uninteresting view of history as well as like.... you know.... living in a world where thank goodness we often strive to acknowledge that women have rights and europe weren't le end all be all Height Of Everything!

also "political correctness" is nothing

You're not out of line at all. This seems like the practical yet also respectful stance to take.

The leaders aren't being chosen for the sexuality at all, let alone their sexual orientation. The ones that are being chosen for their sexuality (Catherine, Cleopatra, Theodora) should have that sexuality demonstrated; all other leaders should not. Mention it in the Civilopedia biography, please! But if it isn't a part of their personality when interacting with other heads of state, then it shouldn't be on the diplomacy screen.

Also, I was going to note that all of the leaders that are chosen for sexuality are female...but that's also historically what often got them to the leadership position. I'm glad we have some females that became leaders for other reasons, too (Catherine de Medici, Victoria). I'm not sure if they'd ever put in a Male leader that came to power through being sensual. Chances are that such a person would be influencing a powerful female leader or the culture would be a matriarchy, so at that point wouldn't they want to grab the Female leader to help diversity? Interesting thought.

 

[Acken]

The fact that leaders included since the creation of civ have had same sex relations is all we need and will ever need for the game to be lgbt friendly. Its a reminder that in history it existed without being an issue ( at least not always ).

That message does not need to be dirtied by ham handing it.

 

[Martinus]

As a gay person, I don't really care that much about LGBT representation in a game like civilization. Roleplaying games are a different matter, but in an abstracted strategy game it's largely irrelevant.

I'd much rather vote for including also some non-ugly male leaders - that's why I liked Alexander in Civ 5, as he was quite good looking.

What I would be opposed, though, is "white washing" of prominently gay leaders. For example, if the game included Hadrian, then the civilopedia should definitely mention his relationship with Antonious and leaving it out would be a huge ommission.

 

[SMcM]

As a gay person, I don't really care that much about LGBT representation in a game like civilization. Roleplaying games are a different matter, but in an abstracted strategy game it's largely irrelevant.

I'd much rather vote for including also some non-ugly male leaders - that's why I liked Alexander in Civ 5, as he was quite good looking.

What I would be opposed, though, is "white washing" of prominently gay leaders. For example, if the game included Hadrian, then the civilopedia should definitely mention his relationship with Antonious and leaving it out would be a huge ommission.

Are love affairs the sort of thing that are usually included in civilopedia?

No, it's completely irrelevant. Make cool leaders, base choices on relevant stuff and not whether they <insert sexual act between 2 men here> or <insert sexual act between two women here>ed when they lived. There is no need for explicit or implicit LGBT representation.

I agree with this. Representation of anything other than interesting and significant historical civilisations and leaders, and the histories of different regions of the world, should not be a factor in anything I feel.

 

[Martinus]

Are love affairs the sort of thing that are usually included in civilopedia?

I guess it depends on how important the love affair is to the biography. I would be surprised, for example, if Cleopatra's love affairs did not make it into her civilopedia entry.

For Hadrian, his love for Antinous was also a pretty big deal - he deified him after his premature death and introduced his empire-wide worship.