Are There Any LGBTQ Survivors In The Game Or Planning To Be
i asked this in the questions for the Q and A but it was one of the non-picked ones (i wonder why). like are any of the survivors in the game now LGBTQ and if not are you planning on there being any? any one have any ideas or seen things that sugest there is? i would say Nea is a lesbian but you never know cause she could be MTF (male to female trans) and Dwight could be Gay. Anyone think of people they want to be LGBTQ in this game's lore?
Tagged:
Mod
Comments
I think it ultimately doesn't matter to most people. People choose their survivors differently. You want to choose a survivor you can relate to, which is fine. For me, I choose based on appearance, so I don't think I would ever play Nea or Quentin (aside from getting their teachable perks and to use up all their offerings and add-ons) because quite frankly, they are ugly survivors. I main David King, mostly because he looks better than Dwight with a beard (even though I wear glasses, I am not bald, which is part of Dwight's beard cosmetic), but I definitely don't relate to David K at all because he can be violent, but I am not. If they ever decided to include sexuality into someone's backstory, that wouldn't make me want to play them any more or less than normal. In my opinion, their backstory only needs to explain their disappearance and why they have the unique perks they do. Nothing else is important because it doesn't affect game play at all. There is nothing truly special about each survivor, because they are just cosmetic. They can discuss sexuality if they want, but I think it would make little difference in the long run.
YOU ARE THE ONE DERAILING IT! Stop quoting me back here! I'm not even trolling you just butthurt because everyone isn't agreeing with your "I need to force my sexuality to feel empowered!" Concept and yes block me! Jeeez for a 17 yr old you act like a 5 yr old.
Agreed
well it doesnt have to be apart of thier backstory (although what i said earlier) they could just say that at least one survivor is LGBTQ+ and i would be fine with that i never said they had to make the character with something LGBTQ+ being in their backstory just on a dev stream answer if any of them are LGBTQ+ and say who is and it can be added to the DBD wiki. i liked the idea someone said earlier of a killer who went mad because of being abused because they were LGBTQ+ as a teenager and did some terrible thing and was never able to get back at the bully's so the entity took them. the killer could be from say the 1980's, 1990's, early 2000's when the LGBTQ+ community wasnt really tolerated and people were abused for being different. this would not effect anyone's quality of life but even then i just want to be represented somehow in a game i love and play all the time. they could even say the current survivors are not LGBTQ+ but some other survivors somewhere could be or just that they dont know who is LGBTQ+ if there are any currently and let the lore managers look into the games lore a little and see if it could be added.
this poster has plenty of people supporting their desire to talk about queer characters being in the game.
Since I knew that that statement is bullshit, I had a look at every single comment in this thread again and noted down if the people who posted them were pro OP, contra OP or either undecided or had an "off-topic" comment.
Excluding OP, there are only 4 people so far who support OP's request for an LGBTQ character to be added to the game.
9 people were undecided or didn't contribute to that question.
But a big fat majority of 15 people are against adding an LGBTQ character for the sake of having one. That's almost 4 times as many as are for adding one. Of at least 3 of those people, I know that they are gay or bisexual themselves.
Stop talking crap and don't call 4 people "plenty".
I take offense to using tool as a derogatory term, thank you. My people should not have to endure this abuse.
Not really.
Thabk you!
Facts
@DocOctober If they do decide to add a character of a varying sexuality, I would much rather them be a fitting addition, rather than a token addition. So, if you haven't already, you can add me to the people that are against adding one for the sake of having one.
I take my example from the show Buffy the Vampire Slayer to compare the introduction of 2 characters, both female lovers of Willow, one of Buffy's friends. The first was Tara. She was casually introduced into the show, and she slowly became a big part of it. She fit well with the dynamics of the show (sadly, she was killed off). Compared to the second, Kennedy. She just seemed like the show "had" to replace Tara quickly, and her introduction felt forced. Quite frankly, she was rather annoying, and somewhat brought the quality of the show down when she became part of it. The ending was enjoyable, but I think it would have been better without her.
I would much rather have DBD have a Tara-like introduction as opposed to a Kennedy-like introduction.
There is a big queer community that enjoys dead by daylight, just because they didn’t all postndoesnt mean there aren’t people whom
Read these threads and play the game. There are plenty who support this.
You claim that many people support this, but the actual, verifiable evidence shows that almost four times as many people oppose this. Your imagined support just isn't coming through in real support.
PS: Just because they're queer doesn't mean they want this. As @DocOctober pointed out, at least 1/5 of those who oppose this are bisexual or homosexual themselves. Don't presume to know what we want just because we're not heterosexual.
This is something I (and non-homophobes) can get behind. Like Ellen Ripley in Alien and Sarah Connor in Terminator, characters who aren't straight white men are good when they're good characters created in a vacuum (without concern for those irrelevant details) who also happen to be women or LGBT or black or whatever.
I really don't understand this need to have something like this defined i really don't, and before we go any further, yes i am a bisexual female, so i don't consider my view to be biased in any way shape or form. The LGBTQ society have been pushing for acceptance for a long time, its slowly been happening and gained great momentum over the years which is awesome. But guess what, with acceptance eventually comes the mundane, the normal. Aside from the hardcore objectors that scream 'Nope!' it's become a normal enough part of society that nobody cares if you are gay, bi, trans and so on.
Personally i think that is a way healthier state of mind than applying some stigma to it. As for asking for 'someone' in this games roster to be labelled as LGBTQ, i just don't agree, it is not an important piece of information and it certainly has no bearing on the game itself, especially when the characters are pretty much interchangeable with everybody being able to learn everyone else's perks.
Lastly, and I'm going to try and say this as nicely as possible because i try to be a decent person and i do not know you enough to dislike you.....You are not a mod, you do not get to decide who is and isn't allowed to reply to a post you put up on a public forum. Anybody who puts up a post in any forum has to understand that in doing so, there are going to be opposing opinions. You are asking about a subject that many people have differing views on, and people are allowed to have those views as much as you are allowed yours.
Disagreeing with you is not derailing the thread or bullying you, and if you feel that way, the simplest reaction is to flag the post that offends you, just be aware flagging is not a guarantee that the post will be removed. Being the author of a thread does not give you the right to moderate it beyond requesting it be closed if you think it has gone too far awry. A mod will decide what is and is not appropriate here, not you.
Like our orientation, our opinions are perfectly balanced, as all things should be.
I doubt my first post really conveyed my feelings regarding the inclusion of gay characters in general, but this pretty aptly describes it. My fear with any gay character is that it'll just be a token addition; a checklist, as I'd sorta described it. Such characters are always shallow and awful. When such things are done well, they're extremely minor aspects of the character, not the defining trait. Minor enough that, if you only have four or five paragraphs to describe the character, their sexuality doesn't come up. Just like real people; those whose identities are defined by their relationships just aren't that interesting of people, and often pretty insufferable to be around.
I feel like the people claiming that it "simply doesn't matter" are being slightly disingenuous. I am highly skeptical that those standing by this would be as eager to play dead by daylight if the survivors to choose from were all black women. Can you imagine how ridiculous and silly that would be? Yet, we could use the exact same arguments repeated here to deny the inclusion of anyone different.
To the other point that was raised, that sexuality "isn't something that people should care about", or something that should even come up, visibility is a part of that normalization process. Familiarity breeds fondness, and the more people come into contact with diverse characters in the media they consume, the more used to it them they become. For example, TV shows like Will & Grace were massive steps forward in changing public opinion of gay people.
So really, the question is, why not include LGBTQ characters? Because it isn't "necessary"? Lots of things aren't necessary. What a stupid argument. Playing dead by daylight isn't necessary. My consumption of a whole pot of coffee every morning isn't necessary. Me posting on this forum isn't necessary. We do things or want things not always out of necessity, but emotional appreciation. If the inclusion of LGBTQ characters would be appreciated by many, but it "doesn't matter" to you, then why would you deny them for any other reason other than to be a dick? You can't say "no" because it "doesn't matter" That's attempting to argue a negative and be neutral at the same time and that's just not how good argumentation works.
thats what i tried to tell them but they are going of strictly of the people who have seen this or replied to it
we all should have opinions i agree but when you say someones opinion is wrong and everything they say is wrong then you shouldnt deserve the right to express an opinion
Nobody in this thread has said anything of the sort, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.
well what do you think people do when they say im wrong and they shouldnt add a LGBTQ+ survivor with no facts or anything to back it and thats fine but when you constantly reply to someone about it then thats what i mean because there are a few examples of this in the thread
OMG Really???? your so right im sorry for the way i acted and i would like to apologize by being your slave. do you accept DADDY!!!!
I know they just say you're wrong about this particular subject, because that's literally what they've been typing. You're imagining you're reading people saying you're wrong about everything ever instead of reading what's actually being said.
they are still saying im wrong on the subject what is the difference?
The difference is they're not saying the things you're imagining they are saying. If you were to actually read what is being said and reply only to the things that were said, you'd see that too.
they are saying im wrong. i reply and tell them literally what they are saying is the exact opposite of what i said like with the myers guy most of his posts was hims literally saying the opposite of what i was. i would say something and he would say no he wasnt that i was.
A few things, since the forum ate my last post. If a moderator can find and approve the last post that I made which randomly went into the queue, that would be appreciated.
A) I feel like the people claiming that it "isn't necessary" are being somewhat disingenuous. If the roster of dead by daylight survivors were only black women, I am highly skeptical the majority of you claiming this would be as encouraged to play the game versus if you had the ability to choose a character that looked like or was more similar to you. The exact same arguments repeated here could be used against the inclusion of anyone else.
C) Many things aren't necessary or don't matter. It isn't necessary for me to play dead by daylight, drink coffee, go for long walks, or sleep with five pillows. I do them anyways because they make me happy. Our desires and wants aren't usually determined by necessity but by emotional appreciation. If the inclusion of LGBTQ characters would be emotionally appreciated by a decent amount of the player base, why would you deny them, if not simply to be a dick?
D) You can't argue "No" because "It doesn't matter" That's arguing a negative and neutral stance at the same time.
thank you
People are allowed to disagree with you because they are allowed their opinion.
Does this mean that they are right and you are wrong...no. But every time you state that they are not entitled to an opinion because they disagree with you...well you loose a little bit of credibility. Argue your point if you must, you have a right to do that like anybody else here. But once again you do not have the right to decide if someone can post or not simply because they are debating your position.
I've seen a couple of replies here that argue against my point . Do i agree with them....no, but i respect their right to disagree with me and I'm not going to cry BULLY because someone referenced my post in one that disputes my argument.
I do not believe i am utterly and unquestionably right because my opinion doesn't match yours, perhaps the devs will disagree with me and actually give you what you want, who knows. But i and everyone else on the forum DO have the right to express their opinion.
I actually think @Wahara has some very interesting points, they have not convinced me that the game really needs a defined sexual orientation, but they have certainly given me food for thought, whereas your response so far is to lash out at the people who do not agree with you.
I originaly didn't want to say anything because I really don't give a ######### but...
Last time they looked at how much each survivor where played, claudette was the most played charater, representing more than 50% of the game played, yes it was a long time ago, but I can pretty much assure you that 1+ year ago the demographic that was playing the game wasn't made out of 50%+ black woman.
If the majority of player can play a character that is nothing like them why can't you?
You're phrasing your point as evidence that people don't care about characters they can relate to, but the more likely explanation that such a large percentage of players used Claudette isn't because people don't care about characters that they can relate to as you seem to imply, but because Claudette starts out with extremely useful perks and the fact that possessing dark skin more easily allows you to slip away from the killer.
Your final point contains an assumption I don't understand. This isn't about what certain players can't do, it's about what we want to do. Obviously, all of us can play characters nothing like us. God of war is a great game, and boy let me tell you I am not remotely similar to a stoic war deity with rock hard abs. It's about what we want.
I want to be able to play as a gay character. Why the hell not?
And you are playing as a gay character, as far as you know. Just because the devs haven't said they're LGBT doesn't mean they're not LGBT. I said it in my first comment in this thread: just assume they're whatever orientation you are and be done with it.
Ok, how do you want it to be introduced then?
Would you feel good if they take a character and just put a check mark and say this one is gay?
I don't know about you but I would personnaly find that insulting.
If not how would you introduce it?
Knowing that the lore of the character are basicly used to justify perk what perk should a gay character have?
I understood what you said the first time, but you haven't articulated what threat the explicit inclusion of a sexual orientation would present to the game.
I have previously argued that it has the capability of adding depth and intrigue to characters, whereas you seem to be under the impression that it would do harm, or take away from the game some how. Okay, I'll bite, but you gotta give me something to work with.
@Dragonredking
Well, no, not a checkmark. I would find that equally insulting. Many of the survivors have serious and dark undertones for their back stories, and being queer could easily play into that. For a survivor, what if we had someone that still struggled to come to terms with their sexuality and was bullied for being perceived as feminine?
You could have a perk called "Perseverance" - your experience enduring and weathering through abuse has shaped you to be courageous and stoic in the face danger. You are unaffected by perks like distressing and skill check zones are increased 10% within the killer's terror radius.
There was also my idea earlier in the thread in regards to a gay killer. Imagine a gay killer who's background involves religious trauma. Do you remember the mother from Stephen King's Carrie? Something that terrifying and horrible. His first love could have been found out by his parents, who ended up making him watch a forced exorcism that resulted in his death. His parents eventually brainwash him into believing that what happened was the lord's will and that he could still be spared if he repented.
Years of suppressing and rationalizing his lovers murder finally result in a psychotic break once his father, who is the pastor of a small church, convinces his congregation of a doomsday prophecy, and that to be spared from the horrible fate that was about to be unleashed upon the world, the solution was suicide, to be cleansed by God's holy fire. The doors are barricaded by the ushers and the building is torched with everyone inside. Our killer manages to escape, but develops the urge to kill. In men, he sees the hatred of his father and in women he sees the willing complacency and silence of his mother.
He would carry a jug of gasoline in one hand that he could splash on people from a distance and in the other hand carry a blow torch. When his terror radius came near, you would hear the blow torch flicker on and off while he hums the tune to "He's got the whole world in his hands."
How's that?
I mean, it's not an insurmountable task to write LGBTQ characters with depth.
I think it's irrelevant to the lore and the characters, the same way it's irrelevant in real life unless you want to know if you can date and/or have sex with someone. I also think it's usually done as a token inclusion, and those always suck.
Of course not. Just write a character with depth and tack on the LGBT thing afterward. However, you and I both know that's not how things are done.
The video game industrie and hollywood don't seem to agree with that lol.
Like I said I'm not against them adding a LGBT character or anything for that matter, but I can pretty much assure you that they are very likely to just take the check mark aproche to it.
Like pretty much every video game, movie and even book end up taking.
It would only be irrelevant if you wrote it as irrelevant. The example I wrote for you very clearly interweaves the character's sexuality with his back story and what he became.
The notion that a person's immutable characteristics don't influence their personal development and life experiences is silly. To say it's innately irrelevant? I'm sorry for taking off the kid gloves here a bit but that's just ignorant.
Further, "tokenization" is kind of an irrational boogeyman and the complaints I see from others about it are nearly always unfounded. Points to the recent star wars movies If a character who is a minority is poorly written, that is a completely unrelated issue from their identity. They're simply poorly written, and that's it. Nothing about their identity would make them innately more difficult to flesh out.
What I think you mean to say is that you don't want characters which rely on stereotypes. Which I agree, that's harmful, happens often, and hurts more than it helps. However, characters can be both stereotypical and layered at the same time, they're not mutually exclusive things. It is also somewhat defeatist to give up on media representation of other groups of people out of fear it may be done wrong.
Let me rephrase: it's irrelevant to the current characters' lore.
Tokenization is a real phenomenon wherein a character is created to fill an imagined quota and ends up being a bunch of stereotypes cobbled together because the focus of the character is on their sexuality/religion/race.
As I said It hardly affect the lore of the game. In my opinion it's better to leave it to the imagination so if you want a character to be gay, straight, etc. then you can choose to think that way. Also if you can't represent a group of people in a meaningful way it's just better to leave it out. It doesn't make BHVR look any better if they just slap a gay tag on a character.
You want to relate to a character by them being gay. How can I then relate to that character if I'm straight? If they can't implement the sexual orientation of a character in a meaningful way then why should they?
You haven't brought up any facts to back it up, either. Because this is an entirely subjective discussion.
If it's done right. If it's shoved in your face, it's just obnoxious and drives people away from wanting to associate. Your killer suggestion a few posts ago isn't too bad in that regard, actually, and Killers tend to have a lot more backstory to them than Survivors, so it doesn't eat up space. Still a tad arbitrary, but if the psycho parents must have a motivation, any other choice would be similarly trivial.
Although, I do wanna mention that your same point of normalization means that particular story contributes to the normalization of demonizing religion, something media's already been doing for some time. :P Normalization can be used for good or ill.
I feel like people have begun to stop seriously engaging with me. The goal posts have been moved all over the damn place. First, I went up against the idea that the request for LGBTQ characters implies an irrational fixation with gender or unnecessary identity politics. Then, I go up against the idea that it "doesn't matter" Then, I go up against the notion a character's identity cannot inform their lore. Now, the argument is but it's too likely to end up portrayed in a damaging manner so we shouldn't try.
Nah. I ain't play'n this game of whack-a-mole. You dears have fun.
"Your killer suggestion a few posts ago isn't too bad in that regard, actually"
Though, I will take the ego boost on my way out. Thanks.
The goal post hasn't been moved. There are simply many arguments against adding characters with specific traits.
Sorry for mentioning concerns as they arise. I should know better.
so when the men said women didnt need the right to vote did they just say yeah its irrelvant yes they did until they fought for it. when african americans wanted freedom from being slaves did they just sit down, no they fought and got thier freedom in the civil war. so if there was no black person in this game it would be weird right? yes it would. if there was no women in this game it would be weird right? yes. my arguement is that they should add a LGBTQ+ character not to check off a list but because people are requesting it.
Thank you!
Slavery=/=A Video Game
Women Rights=/=A Video Game
Those are some horrible anologies to your "argument" don't compare REAL events for FICTIONAL ones.
Dude! READ WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING! There isn't a ARGUMENT BECAUSE THIS ISNT A DEBATE as there no need for a LGBTQ type concept for characters! Again WRITE FANFIC about it don't try to tell everyone they are "Bullying" you or we are derailing because we are sharing objective opinions.
My mom just got married to her long time girlfriend and she would not care about this trivial concept you want "enforced" because people "demand" for it.