[ADMIN EDIT - Moved from Tales of the Arabian Nights forums]

On page ten of the rulebook there is a note:
You may only choose the Court option if your character is of the opposite gender of the person your encountered! (Not my exclamation)

Was that supposed to be a joke or a political statement? Or does the paragraph system breakdown?


EDIT: I read more of the rules and noticed that there is an "other" system in the text, the note seems utterly superfluous as far as reading goes.

Also, if continuity is argued, not only does the game make a conscious effort to empower women, but admits that this goes contrary to historical reference.

Fine, but choosing to not be similarly counter-source against other parts of heteronormativity is NOT the same thing as homophobia.

I would suggest it is neither a joke nor a political statement.

This should get an award for most pointless thread ever.

This kinda reminds me of Pinnochio's speech in SHREK 3 !



Okay...I can go along with that. But, if it is neither, the question remains: What is it? Some way to simplify the game system? Curious minds , and all that.

I feel sorry for Zev.

Presumably whoever was writing the rules thought that only allowing heterosexual "Courtship" actions "made sense", and simply didn't think about the heteronormative implications of that choice. Heteronormativity remains embedded in mainstream North American culture in much the same way that racism or anti-Semitism were mainstream in earlier years...most people in the dominant culture don't even think twice about assuming that heterosexuality is "normal".

Having not read the rules I may be a bit off base, but you also need to consider the time period; yes, homosexuality and practices have pretty much existed throughout history, yet "Courting" is a fairly formal ritual that is open to the community; at that time period, it would have been entirely unacceptable to openly court in that manner (again, I'm no historian, so if I'm wrong please correct me).

It could be any number of reasons, historically it does fit though.

Call me a pragmatist if you like, but hetronormativity is unlikely to cease being the norm for the foreseeable future. Not that there's anything wrong with that?

Like the OP seems to have realised, the rules statement is probably meant to disambiguate any "difficult" situations that may occur during the game's twists and turns.

/kgm (keeping LGBT issues in mind)

(OT: WRT my first statement though, I'll give Joe Haldeman an out for his excellent depiction of "state-encouraged homosex" in The Forever War. I guess we'll see about that.)

Staggering that this sort of blatant homophobophobia exists in this day and age.

Wait... is that fear of gay tramps or am I confusing it with homohobophobia ?

I think you're reading into it too much.

Maybe William should also do a critique of the offsprings rule in Blood Royale.

Actually, that rule rubbed me the wrong way too. People can point to historical fact as much as they like, but we're dealing with a fantasy world here... the rule struck me as unnecessary and jarring.
However...



I like this. Makes enough sense for me.

It does not matter if it fits historically. The designers carefully chose to bend gender representation, having written in stronger female roles:

"The one design liberty taken was in the portrayal of women in the game. The female was definitely the lesser sex in medieval Arabia..." (page 16)

And as for the "public" nature of courting... I am pretty sure the game uses a liberal definition of the term, given the multiple private situations that a given character is bound to run into.

When wargamers see a rule they don't agree with we make up a house rule. You can too.

Is the game "homophobic"? In the late Soviet Union they wouldn't put political prisoners in labor camps, they would put them in mental hospitals. Homophobic is a pseudo-medical term to characterize political opponents as mentally ill in a similar way.

So is Tales of the Arabian Nights homophobic? Is the game anti-gay in a political/pathological sense. No more than the Brady Bunch or Odd Couple are homophobic. They are a products of their times. In the future, gay marriage and gay TV shows will perhaps be common place. Then the 4th or 5th edition of Tales of the Arabian Nights will address this outstanding if minor issue. We are apparently on the 2nd edition right now. More will follow.

Homophobic though is a poor choice of word, loaded with unintended psyco-pathological implications. Better to just ask is Tales of the Arabian Nights anti-gay? And if it doesn't explicitly have the players beating up gay characters, it's obviously not anti-gay.

Nor is Age of Conan: The Strategy Board Game pro-family (Conan ravishes women from land to land). I have a family with a wife and two kids but I'm not going to demonstrate against the game. In fact, I look forward to playing it and ravishing a few of my own.

I'm quite surprised by this rule. The original edition is quite open about same-sex courting. There are results in the original book of tales that apply only to same-sex couples. The original rules even have a whole passage explaining the game's inclusion non-traditional cultural perspectives.

So yeah, what gives? Anyone want to blow it off now? It's a cut-and-dry, unmistakable change. But that won't stop the proud "anti-PC" folks from talking out of their asses having never played the game.

I certainly haven't played the game. I am not proudly anti-PC either. I believe gay people should have the right to have non-religious civil marriages. If various religious organizations want to include gay marriage in it's up to them. I am not a member of their organizations. I also believe gay people should be allowed to enter the country (technically still illegal), serve in the military (also illegal) and even advertise if they so wish (anyone can advertise in America if they desire).

But I still do not believe in characterizing people who are against gay marriage as -phobic, homophobic or any other phobic unless a Medical Doctor has made this prognosis. If a doctor has made this prognosis they deserve our understanding and sympathy not our derision.

I have the 1985 edition in front of me. I can find NO mention of same-sex courting - it's amazing what people think they can remember.
Under Skills & Effects(p.11) "Seduction: You may use this only against characters of the opposite sex." Also "Appearance: You may give characters of the opposite sex the 'Lovestruck' status, or characters of the same sex the 'Envious' status."
A quick glance through the Book of Tales shows specific, different options available if your character is female.

From A Note to Western Readers at the end of the rules:
"The one design liberty taken was in the portrayal of women in the game. The female was definitely the lesser sex in medieval Arabia. Further, it appears that three-quarters of the 'heroines' were busy seducing and betraying the nearest men; the virtuous others often had the distressing habit of dying to prove their essential goodness. We have represented the female characters in the game as the best, bravest and most fortunate of these heroines."

So, anyway, back to the original point - homophobia? what homophobia?

I've got it too. What now?

Look in the book of tales. There are plenty of same-sex courting encounters. Heck, half of them are indiscriminate. Even among the ones that specificially say "same sex," you'll find such juicy encounters as two women "enjoying a night of splendors."

It's amazing what some people can gloss over.

Man, this is getting ridiculous

LOL. that's hilarious.
I actually laughed out loud reading this.

Hilarious thread. Right up with "Jambo is racist because it features black people".

Basically, Jack's research into the past rules has undone the majority of your arguments here. Homophobia (the correct term, given the social climate and social understanding) seems to have been injected into the game since the first edition, meaning that there is a regress and that the "times" are not improving. Tolerance has been lost... And as for Conan, well there is no claim to pure historical accuracy in Arabian Nights... but I hope you enjoy ravishing *cough* raping *cough* your women...

I'm almost more offended by the people that find this thread "hilarious" or "pointless."
People are feeling marginalized or personally targeted by an odd, unnecessary editorial choice and they find it funny.

Let's not turn this into a thread about who is more offended than whom by other people's opinions.


There is no equivalent statement in the posted rules for the upcoming edition. Does this mean that the new version is actually less restrictive?


Jack has not cited enough material to prove his assertions. Two women "enjoying a night of splendors" is not exactly proof of a homosexual relationship. It could just as well refer to a fireworks display. Let's wait to see what the new Book of Tales contains before jumping to conclusions.