Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on these and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
We encourage you to be as honest as possible in letting us know how you feel about the game. The information and answers provided are anonymous, not shared with any third-party, and will not be used for purposes other than survey analysis.
Access the survey HERE!
Should LGBT+ characters actually be added to the game?
Hear me out:
Up to now we've only seen straight/cis characters taken by The Entity to either be corrupted by The Entity and/or tortured for all eternity. We have NEVER seen a confirmed LGBT+ character added. By adding an LGBT+ character they will actually change the established lore regarding The Entity!
The Entity will no longer be a queer ally punishing the straights and I dont know how I feel about this...
When the entity descends to yeet a cis-het I can no longer muse to myself "yaaass! Slay Queen!" and that alone, in my opinion, is detrimental to the game...
Serious note:
Pro to adding LGBT+: These threads can finally stop, inclusivity for those that would benefit from it, potential to draw larger crowd to keep the game alive for longer; Upsets homophobes, etc
Cons to adding LGBT+: Forced to see someone fabulous...?
Comments
-
I’m actually gonna be annoyed if the first representation we get is a legendary skin for Nancy to turn her into robin.
I feel like that wouldn’t go down well, with an lgbt person not even being their own person, just a gay nancy.
Wait gay nancy sounds kinda funny.
Gay nancy.
5 -
To be fabulous you don't need to be homosexual, simple as that.
Defining any character's sexuality in this game is not only pointless but also feeds the toxic part of the community, which seems to already bother a whole lot of people
5 -
Cons to adding LGBT+: Forced to see someone fabulous...?
It will definitely make me reevaluate my wardrobe, if I see someone who's too fabulous.
4 -
The issue is that they've defined opposite sex relationships. If no sexual relationships had been defined I feel more people would be willing to accept the possibility that any/everyone was LGBT+.
Where was your disapproval when they defined the opposite sex relationships?
By defining multiple opposite sex relationships they've actively excluded LGBT+ relationships.
If every character (20+) were white or white passing - would you see an issue?
4 -
(Body is one character too short)
5 -
Honestly you've raised a compelling argument and suddenly I feel myself turning homophobic with this knowledge. How dare the Entity be such a powerful ally; I've now decided to support Millie Bobby Brown.
(apparently the video got removed LMAO it was just someone saying "I quickly became homophobic. Hating on gay people just became a part of my lifestyle.")
Update: FOUND IT BITCHES
6 -
Yeah ok this actually made me laugh more than i probably should’ve.
2 -
I'm sorry what do you mean a real family needs 2 people of opposite sex, this isn't the 1800s honey.
Also, not in the lore?? Nurse has a husband, David has an ex-gf Felix has a gf and is expecting a child, Julie and Frank are a thing and their entire tome was just further solidifying that fact. Still nothing for the gays though.
Post edited by Rizzo on7 -
Quite simply to have a "real" family, you need at least 2 people of opposite gender who are willing and able to have a child.
You mean biological family. Adoption isn't fake, and a sense of family goes beyond mere biology.
Post edited by Rizzo on8 -
Your definitions are incorrect. That is 100% not the definition of a family.
3 -
Loved all your points :3
3 -
I've already replied to this but I have to reply again because this is making me viscerally angry.
If a man and a woman are together and one is sterile (for whatever medical reason) they are not a family? Even if they adopt or have surrogates?
What if a man and woman had been married and had kids but the woman needed a hysterectomy? Do they suddenly become un-familied?
If a same sex couple adopt or have a child via surrogate - do they not qualify as a family in your mind?
There are many different types of families in this world. Your definition of what a family is is narrow minded and just blatantly false.
5 -
Now i want to play as gay nancy
2 -
I don't think it's a good idea considered how much toxic this community is, i already know a guy that will camp tunnel every person that use the new survivor (if will be lgbt)
0 -
Does everything you say just come out of your ass or what?
5 -
Don't care, save the posts for when something important is announced Like perk details or the killer
0 -
I'm sorry who asked for your input?
If you don't care on the matter either way just remain quiet instead of bringing absolutely nothing of value to the proverbial table.
5 -
My point is it doesn't matter, it's just another person. All survivors are just skins and the only impact they have on the game is through perks.
0 -
Correction: it doesn't matter to you because you only care about gameplay not literally any other implication of LGBTQ+ rep on anything else.
5 -
Technically speaking, it's just being flamboyant.
You see, some people are under the impression that clothing needs to be devoid of all color or "fanciness". You can only wear white, gray, brown, black, and so on - "adult" (dull) colors. You can't put on a colorful scarf, you can't wear a t-shirt with a unicorn on it, and so on, because that's "childish" (or "gay", if you're a man). Men in particular have a lot of artificial clothing restrictions, at least when it comes to colors. Other people disagree with this stance and will put on a rainbow scarf with that unicorn t-shirt because they like those things.
Now, some people take it to the extreme and dress up like a walking fashion show. They are very flamboyant, but, thankfully, nobody's forced to stare at them if they don't want to.
3 -
It's another person to you. But to many other people they are more than that.
4 -
If you like the character, doesn't change the game. If you dislike the character, doesn't change the game. It's either a new addition to your play roster or not. That's just individual freedom and choice, but mainly it's just a game.
1 -
Again, it doesn't change gameplay so you don't care about it. Cool. Other people actually care about the lore dbd, and the implications behind it.
If you don't care about it and thinks it'll add nothing, congrats, your opinion brings nothing to the table. There will be no difference to having it in or out in your opinion, so I hope to see you supporting the cause because to some people it matters a great deal.
5 -
LOL. This is the ######### that should get you banned. It's a disgusting "opinion" that's literally homophobia. It's gross to see it on display so openly.
"You're not a real family if you aren't P-in-V sex!" LOL
2 -
Oh my, it appears that I have poked the toxic among us.
Biological family is the only true family, other people are always involved but that doesn't mean they're a part of it. If family is not defined by blood it effectively ceases to exist. There also needs to be a secondary boundary here though or all living beings could be considered family.
Oh David does have a mention of an ex in the tome, and nurse was married. I have pretty much ignored them so I guess you're right about that.
What is up with the legion is...well it doesn't seem like a serious relationship but absolutely could turn into that.
0 -
Nobody cares about your narrow minded idea of what constitutes a family. And thank god for that.
6 -
His opinion does bring something to the table. He just doesn't give a #########. That's it. Why do you bother?
1 -
As someone who doesn’t care about the game’s lore I’m all for an LGBT character!
4 -
I see Trashmaster is living up to their name with these bigoted views. 💀
6 -
Biological family is the only true family, other people are always involved but that doesn't mean they're a part of it. If family is not defined by blood it effectively ceases to exist. There also needs to be a secondary boundary here though or all living beings could be considered family.
No, it's not, and no, it doesn't. If family is defined in another way, then it simply becomes defined in another way. The notion that adoption is just as legitimate as giving birth doesn't mean that giving birth becomes illegitimate. You perceive it that way because you consider adoption to be illegitimate, but that's a "you" problem.
7 -
I bother cause I'm sad and desperately crave human contact regardless of who it's with or how annoyed it makes me
5 -
Clearly they need to stan loona cause I don't know what to do with them still here
1 -
Naturally my opinion is always correct
0 -
Well thats sad. Then you get a pass, bother all you want with meaningless things
1 -
Stan LOONA and remember...
2 -
Thanks I'm gonna celebrate
2 -
Stan LOONA and remember:
You should've ended me when you had the chance
(cause now us gays are far too strong for this #########)
1 -
You go at it
@Trashmaster you should try reading a little bit about philosophy, it won't do you no harm
Ideas, concepts, objects. The way we arrange things in our head and how we perceive them is way too complex to suit your vague definition of "family".
Think about where you stand and think about how you perceive things. Analyze whether they are right for you, and whether they would be right for you if you wouldn't stand where you are right now. Being comfortable and right is not the same thing. I don't think you would agree with your definition of family, if you were adopted or some #########. Also blood-bonds can suck as well, they don't mean #########. It is a nice exercise which might prove profitable for you, it could make you smarter, try it out!
4 -
Your opinion isnt automatically correct. You are entitled to have an opinion - but that doesn't make it correct.
2 -
You completely missed the irony there, opinions are never correct
0 -
I dont think it was missed. I think your comment was just lacking... Like the majority of your comments here have been...
1
![[Deleted User]](https://forums.bhvr.com/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
