I’m excited to be running the game for my regular gaming group! I do have a question- could generic playbooks be issues in future supplements that remove “asexual” as an appearance description?
I legit know asexual people and I’m wondering what kind of description that is supposed to be, because it’s an orientation, and not really a specific type of look.
That is weird. Presumably they meant androgynous, in which case, they should say androgynous (or transgressive as appears in some of the core playbooks).
Which playbooks use asexual? I only have the core playbooks, and obviously those don’t use the word.
Jason D’Angelo The divine lists both Androgynous and Asexual as options.
Alfred Rudzki Hitchcock So it does! I missed that. I looked through a handful of playbooks before making my post, but I clearly should have been more thorough. Thanks for pointing that out!
I wonder if, given what the Divine is, it doesn’t mean that in a reproductive way, rather than as an orientation. As in the way that worms are asexual.
Lord only knows what that would look like, but that would be my starting assumption.
Jason D’Angelo No problem! It would help if all of the second edition playbooks were actually formatted the same. Chosen’s look is front bottom right, Crooked is back middle top, Initiate is back top left — finding anything is kind of a miracle 😛
As for asexual on the Divine, I figured it was intended in the biological sense, like lacking sex organs. I think it’s an Alan Rickman Dogma joke?
Having looked through the core playbooks in full now, that was the only asexual I saw. Are they elsewhere to? If so, that sinks my theory.
Alfred Rudzki Hitchcock Crossposting with you – it looks like we’re thinking in the same direction.
(Now I have to go watch Dogma – haven’t seen it yet.)
Honestly I don’t think the game is so dogmatic, if you have a player who whats to play an asexual whatever, write it in! Ditto if the group decides to kill an option .The playbooks are a great help to players by providing options, but something cosmetic the keeper and GM should be able to work it out. Set a game in the 1920s USA and “flapper” should be an option or “hippie” in 1960s California..but not in a game set in 1850s Arctic! Maybe angels in your universe look like pillars of flame or flying monkeys…
Well, it’s not about dogmatism, it’s about listing “asexual” as a “look.” Totally fair question.
Jason D’Angelo I just meant I really think its OK for the players and the group to define that or pass on the option. The ‘look” is intended to help play not hinder it.
Agreed, Jason.
Alfred Rudzki Hitchcock I do think your right the”asexual” in the the Divine playbook is a reference to Dogma.
Mark Tygart not just a reference to Dogma… it’s a bit of a nod to Good Omens as well, and old testament inhuman angels.
Michael Sands I vote with you on Good Omens, but Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) angels were “thought of as male” as jewish folklore of the period about angels seducing the daughters of men and creating giants is pretty well documented. Neat background for a MotW mystery like in the movie “Fallen”. Modern rabbinic jews generally regard angels as “manifestations of God’s will” so gender is merely cosmetic and Lucifer is a nonissue. Angels in this tradition have no “personality” of “free will”.
Mark Tygart yes, I was thinking of the angels appearing as wheels with eyes on the rim etc.
Crystal Corrigan as people have said, the divine look option is specifically for “this is a non-sexual inhuman being” rather than a reference to how an asexual human might look
Michael Sands You might be thinking of Supernatural as well. Castiel references a number of mystical Christian ideas about angels, even as he also manifests modern notions of tolerance. Although the show is clearly set in another universe…
Mark Tygart yes, I was also thinking of Castiel (no surprise there)
Michael Sands Always go with the classics!:)
So in this case we’re looking at asexual as a descriptor rather than an orientation. Androgynous and unknown are already descriptors in several playbooks (we have an unknown in my group). This would be a good point to consider for future releases though, for asexual identifying players I imagine it could be uncomfortable. As for good omens, Aziraphale’s “look” for example was “gayer than a tree full of monkeys on nitrous oxide”, which as an lgbt person I wouldn’t necessarily want to see in the books either. 🙂
Sam W yes, all the looks are descriptions only, not intended to force your hunter into any category (neither gender, orientation, or anything else).
This may not be that clear, as many can be seen as either, of course.
And for the future: I am not very comfortable with the gender/look options any more. The new hunters in More Weirdness still have the option line, to fit in with the existing hunters, but they’re rather more open (each has some suggestions and a blank to fill in your own if you prefer).