Patch 5.4 patch notes
Virtual Realms feature revealed
The Proving Grounds are coming
The latest patch 5.4 newsThe Queue: Homosexual characters in WoW
by Adam Holisky 
Mar 10th 2011 at 11:00AM
Welcome back to The Queue, the daily Q&A column in which the WoW Insider team answers your questions about the World of Warcraft.
Area 52 was always one of my favorite cities. I lament the loss of it as a place I'd often visit. WoW needs more goblin and gnome cities! Who's with me?
Anyone?
Anyone?
D asked:
Why aren't there any homosexual characters in WoW?
While I don't know of any openly homosexual characters in WoW whose sexuality is part of a quest or a even semi-major plot line, I don't think that means there are no homosexuals in the World of Warcraft. Sexuality in general just isn't that big of a plot point in the Warcraft universe. Of course you have the typical progeny storylines found in most fantasy novels, but the sexuality there is not the issue in any way -- the offspring is the issue.
I asked this on my personal Twitter account last night, and Kazefiend was the first to link me Sentinel Sweetspring's dialog, which could indicate her orientation. That's really the best direct evidence I could find of any homosexual characters.
There are other characters whose sexuality could be speculated about, but I'd rather keep this discussion at the same level as I do in real life: rumors are just that -- rumors, and not worth a dime. Budd, despite what some may say, does not give evidence of being a homosexual character.
I'm interested to know what the collective knowledge of the WoW community is here. There might be some guy or girl deep in the Warcraft lore that I'm missing, and I'm happy to update The Queue with such facts.
(I have the banhammer ready if people are going to be immature, so don't be. This is a good and legitimate question that deserves an answer with further community input.)
Christopher asked:
At the start of Cataclysm, it was said that healers would be the new bottleneck for things like 5 mans, especially pugs, with the increased focus on mana management. Did the healer shortage ever eclipse the persistent tanking shortage, or are tanks still the bottleneck?
There's definitively a healer shortage, but it's not reached the level of a tank shortage. Healers still have a queue in the random dungeon finder, whereas tanks still get into a group instantly. In general, the shortage isn't as bad as it was back in December, but it's still quite evident.
Nuno asked:
Where's Ghostcrawler? Did someone tame him for good.
While we don't know officially, we understand that he's just doing the occasional blog post now and is no longer actively posting on the forums (although I know nearly every designer reads them). As you might suspect, I have some opinions on this and may (or may not) make a post of it sometime in the future.
Have questions about the World of Warcraft? The WoW Insider crew is here with The Queue, our daily Q&A column. Leave your questions in the comments, and we'll do our best to answer 'em!
Filed under: The Queue
Reader Comments (Page 27 of 27)
BigBadBear Mar 11th 2011 3:52AM
Gays dont have to be effeminate and dressed stylish/colored/flamboyant/whatever (though I agree that Theralion is super gay). Im gay and big n butch
I always got a gay wibe from Thrall anyway,
vprunic Mar 11th 2011 5:56AM
Anyway, I do think that Blizzard is very homophobic. I remember having a char called Gaynome and I got a suspension of the account-which is really silly
lilywillylover Mar 11th 2011 7:32AM
@Ruth
Then you must be a sheltered or an in-denial bigot. Name me one group that's as universally hated and reviled by multiple religious and ethnic groups as homosexuals.
In the U.S. over 50% of the population doesn't believe that homosexuals should have equal rights. In the Middle East, most Middle Eastern countries, being gay is punishable by death. It's much maligned in Africa and a huge portion of Asia.
Even in Europe, there's still pockets of homophobia.
So it's not hyperbole when the majority of the world thinks you're dirt. So before you open your mouth about being "logical" maybe do some research first?
jlpknights82 Mar 11th 2011 8:38AM
I've always enjoyed the Thassarian and Koltira questlines as seen from a more romantic angle. They are sort of starcrossed lovers, really. And in the newer quests, in Andorhol, Koltira is punished for his relationship (be it friendship or more) with Thassarian and taken to Undercity to taught a lesson. There are disturbing shades there of the theories some hold that homosexuals can be "reprogrammed," and it paints Sylvanas in a terrible light either way.
Amaxe Mar 11th 2011 8:40AM
I think WoW Insider tends to lack prudence when it comes to their controversial questions as many people tend to use them to support an agenda or to bash an agenda. As the conversation goes on, we tend to see the activists of one side making use of the comment ranking system to suppress the other side and comments on both sides become extreme.
When it comes to the issue of homosexual characters, there are several stances which Blizzard could take (It's pre-coffee for me, so there may be some I am overlooking):
1) Total neutrality. Blizzard makes no allusions to the sexual orientation of any characters. Any alleged sexual orientation is in the mind of the players.
2) Neutrality on existence: Sexual orientation portrayed, but neither with sympathy or hostility, leaving it to the player to decide.
3) Sympathy: Homosexual orientation portrayed in a positive sense, with or without hostility to those who think homosexual acts are wrong.
4) Antipathy: Homosexual orientation portrayed in a negative sense with or without hostility to those who think homosexual acts are acceptable.
It's clear Blizzard does not take the attitude of #4. In light of Sentinel Sweetspring, it seems clear that Blizzard does not take the attitude of #1 either. This leaves either #2 or #3 as options.
Blizzard does not seem to take an aggressive #3 attitude. It may **tend** towards #3 in practice (Would they tolerate recruitment activities of openly heterosexual guilds for example?) but this may be merely seeking to avoid controversy (Damned if you do, damned if you don't).
So I am inclined to think that, regardless of whatever the thoughts of the game designers personally. they have tended towards #2 as policy in portrayal of characters.
There is a potential problem with choosing #2 instead of #1 however, and that is the fact that people are divided on the morality of homosexual acts and this division becomes rather polarizing when it is brought into a game. Those who see homosexual acts as acceptable use it as a rallying point, and those who see them as wrong can do so as well.
The problem is, homosexual acts and tendencies are a controversial topic where a large percentage of the population do hold views on whether they are morally acceptable or morally unacceptable.
Unfortunately, we can see the results of this. At the time of this writing, there seems to be much vitriol directed at those who believe homosexual acts are wrong and have posted their views stating so. The latter seem to have their posts downranked and get labeled as intolerant. Ironically, several of those making accusations of intolerance strike me as rather... intolerant.
Now, do I have views on the morality of homosexual acts? I do. Will I post them here? I will not. I come to WoW Insider to learn more about the game, not to see people argue on topics which should be addressed elsewhere.
To end this overlong post I will suggest WoW Insider be more aware in the future of posting such topics without stricter and more evenhanded moderation of the topic. The question was about what characters may exist in WoW. The responses are already passing into judgmentalism, and ostracizing one particular viewpoint.
/Waits for downranking.
Nagaina Mar 11th 2011 11:11AM
Well put, but for one thing:
I do not believe those who are oppressed are obligated in any way to "tolerate" those who would oppress them.
Amaxe Mar 11th 2011 12:08PM
@Nagaina
Then this brings up the whole sticky issue of "What makes Position (A) right and Position (B) wrong?" Without reasoning why one should hold (A) and not (B) it merely allows those to hold the opposite view to turn things back against you and accuse you of imposing your views on **them**.
If there is no moral right and wrong, then there is nothing good about "tolerance" and nothing bad about "intolerance"
It also begs the question that all people opposed to treating homosexual tendencies as morally acceptable want to "oppress." For example, One can oppose Marxism without wanting to ship those professing Marxist views to re-education camps.
This indicates a confusion between what one holds and what one advocates based on a position one holds.
Nagaina Mar 11th 2011 3:41PM
@ Amaxe
It's actually very simple.
The request for equal treatment is not an imposition or an oppression to anyone who is not a bigot. It's that easy. It's that simple. And if your argument against something is based on irrationality, no matter what the allegedly superior source of your argument, no one needs to put up with your ass. Period. This is not an intellectual debate about abstractions. It's about real discrimination that effects the real lives of really real people every day all over the globe.
Now, there are many wonderful people out there who do many wonderful things who don't want to think of themselves as bigots but you know what? If you hate or fear someone, or want to deny them their equal rights under the law, or want to see representations of them erased from public spaces -- including video games -- where they have every right to be because you're freaked out over the kind of sex they have or the gender of the people they choose to love romantically, then guess what? You are not a wonderful person. You have permitted hate and fear to poison you against others and *no one should put up with you.* And, yes, I know there are a lot of people out there who will argue that they neither hate nor fear homosexuals or bisexuals or transsexuals but find their "lifestyle" distasteful. *Wanting leave to discriminate without repercussion for your attitude over anything as weaksauce as "lifestyle differences" does not do your argument any favors.* Not only should anyone refuse to put up with such individuals, they should refuse to put up with them through the medium of constant and relentless public mockery.
Generic "you" here, Amaxe, and this is not intended as a personal attack against you in particular. I am, however, immensely weary of attempts to turn what is ultimately an argument about justice into an argument about morality, which does not pertain.
Amaxe Mar 11th 2011 11:24PM
So if I understand your post, it isn't really "tolerance" you are after, but rather you are advocating a certain position which you consider right and believe all should hold, and denouncing another position which you consider wrong, and nobody should hold. However, such a view sounds just like what you attribute to your opponents.
That being the case, it falls to you to demonstrate why your case is "right" and why those who disagree with you are "wrong" (whether willfully or not). Merely denouncing the views of those you disagree with (which seem to be a straw man to me) do not automatically make your views correct... or theirs wrong.
Like it or not, justice is an issue of morality. It is moral to treat people justly and immoral to treat them unjustly. Otherwise the terms become meaningless, with what one likes being called "justice" and what one does not like being called "injustice."
Remember, if it is wrong to treat people unjustly, it makes a statement of morality about the principle of justice (otherwise, why be just or unjust?).
When one looks at it this way, the point I made to you still stands: "If there is no moral right and wrong, then there is nothing good about 'tolerance' and nothing bad about 'intolerance'" -- just replace the words "tolerance" and "intolerance" with "justice" and injustice." All your response has done is shift the terms without shifting the point of my reply.
Now, unfortunately your reply comes with the assumption that your view is right, without establishing that it **is** right. However, those who disagree with you also assume their own position is right.
Stating intolerance as the motive of their own beliefs (notice how "their" seems less accusatory than "your" by the way) is merely an ad hominem. Labeling those who hold it as intolerant before letting them express their views is known as "poisoning the well."
Such actions do not establish your views as being correct. So again, regardless of whether you want to use "moral-immoral," "just-unjust," "true-false," "right-wrong," or any other dichotomy, what makes Position [A] to be positive and Position [B] negative other than "because I said so"?
teencreep Mar 12th 2011 1:51PM
@Nagaina
Thank you so much for your eloquent words. I agree, ten thousand fold! ♥
Dreadmist Mar 11th 2011 9:34AM
You so eloquently said what I was thinking. Very well put.
Tirrimas Mar 11th 2011 1:50PM
Blizzard treads a pretty fine line with the homosexuality issue. They have to maintain their Teen rating in WoW, and unfortunately, homosexuality is one of those hot buttons to the folks who rate games.
What approaches can they safely use? Over-the-top caricatures? Low-key innuendo?
What we're dealing with, in-game, has a lot to do with procreation, and the issues that arise when the life cycle is tampered with. Issues with royal succession, half-breeds, abominations (Twilight dragons) abound.
How people interact sexually is better left to the individual player, I think. Who's to say that Felika (Org trade goods vendor) doesn't have a committed relationship with Korla (Hunter trainer)? (I kind of like that idea, actually.)
Let's not forget the quest givers that flirt with the player, regardless of toon gender.
http://www.wowhead.com/npc=44818
I'm not saying Blizz' approach is right or wrong. I'm just saying they have a lot they have to consider when deciding what to include and what not to include.
Twilytgardnaery Mar 11th 2011 2:53PM
@Maribel - better memory than me! I had totally forgotten that, and it goes all the more to my point that they're probably a couple.
larryburchett2007 Mar 12th 2011 2:09AM
1st off let me say im a stepfather of a openly gay son and, daughter and, i love them very much and, would not trade them for the world...that being said i object to this thread...whats the need for something like this on a wow game site??? many of the players of wow are kids why push the homo debate here....dont we here this enough everywhere else...its like kids now days think its cool to be gay and, where it like a badge of honor when in reality some are probably not gay....but, go with the flow of the crowd because this is all they here everywhere tv-radio-forums-etc....the point is this is supose to be wow insider not homo insider...this topic was done in poor taste and, class imo....sorry to anyone this might offend but, this is my opinion on this...
Oznoz Mar 13th 2011 3:35PM
I think Blizzard handles this fairly well. I haven't seen any examples of homophobia in the game (except from players, of course). There's no reason there should have to have a large number of very flamboyant, obvious gays in the game. The sexuality of many characters is not explored, and because of that, who's to say they're not openly gay? Who's to say if you could ask NPCs questions they wouldn't tell you that? The general statistic is that 8% of people are homosexual, so it would make sense for there to not be that many gays in WoW. And I'm sure at least 8% of lore characters' sexualities are not discussed. I have no problem with any kind of gay characters, as I myself am gay, but I don't see why it should have to be a major characteristic of a character. Just as I would introduce myself as a metalhead, a WoW nerd, and an American before I would tell you I'm gay, I don't see any reason for the homosexuals of Azeroth to have to make that known to everyone without being asked.
Jake Mar 13th 2011 7:39PM
Because this game has elves, not fairies?