Will you make transsexual Elves canon in your games ?

[Sacrosanct]

Ok, a couple of things. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with nationality. If there are variances in %s, that’s because of how it was collected, not because it’s an accurate representation. In large populations, it’s probably going to be the same all over the world.

Secondly, the % matters not at all if a player had an LBGTQ PC who was looking for love. It’s a game. Pretend. If a player wanted to do that, I’d implement it in the game regardless of whatever % of real life people who happen to be LGBTQ

 

[Zardnaar]

Ok, a couple of things. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with nationality. If there are variances in %s, that’s because of how it was collected, not because it’s an accurate representation. In large populations, it’s probably going to be the same all over the world.

Secondly, the % matters not at all if a player had an LBGTQ PC who was looking for love. It’s a game. Pretend. If a player wanted to do that, I’d implement it in the game regardless of whatever % of real life people who happen to be LGBTQ

Well by now you probably have noticed I take a bit of a stimulationist approach to D&D. I tend towards a very sandbox type game (you can attempt anything you want).

A lot of basic assumptions about modern life (freedom of association, religious freedom, the right to a fair trial) do not exist in my worlds. You can play a monstrous race in my game but think Drizzt in Sojourn if you rock into some places as a Tiefling of Dragonborn they will literally see you as the spawn of Satan (or equivalent), or a monster and such a PC can easily face the death penalty or mob violence. In dark shadows vampires exist to basically eat you. IN some parts of the world a human more or lees may as well have slave tattooed on them and Elves are barely tolerated. Anything more exotic than a Gnome, Elf or Dwarf might have an interesting life.

My PCs usually tend to flee or set up their own nations where they can pass the law themselves or do what they want. I read a lot of history books and everyday life for most people was fine- as long as you conformed. Crusades, holy wars, inquisitions,slavery these are all part of my world. Its not a nice world by modern standards but that is kind of the point.

 

[BookBarbarian]

the % matters not at all if a player had an LBGTQ PC who was looking for love. It’s a game. Pretend. If a player wanted to do that, I’d implement it in the game regardless of whatever % of real life people who happen to be LGBTQ

Right?!

I mean, how many times in Fantasy or Sci Fi games has my character had a romance with a member of another species (including robots)? As often as Bioware, CDProjectRed, Bethesda, and any other game developer allowed it.

Having been indulged in my weirdness I see no reason not to to help someone else in their comparatively, scratch that completely, normal in game romance request.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Well by now you probably have noticed I take a bit of a stimulationist approach to D&D. I tend towards a very sandbox type game (you can attempt anything you want).

A lot of basic assumptions about modern life (freedom of association, religious freedom, the right to a fair trial) do not exist in my worlds. You can play a monstrous race in my game but think Drizzt in Sojourn if you rock into some places as a Tiefling of Dragonborn they will literally see you as the spawn of Satan (or equivalent), or a monster and such a PC can easily face the death penalty or mob violence. In dark shadows vampires exist to basically eat you. IN some parts of the world a human more or lees may as well have slave tattooed on them and Elves are barely tolerated. Anything more exotic than a Gnome, Elf or Dwarf might have an interesting life.

My PCs usually tend to flee or set up their own nations where they can pass the law themselves or do what they want. I read a lot of history books and everyday life for most people was fine- as long as you conformed. Crusades, holy wars, inquisitions,slavery these are all part of my world. Its not a nice world by modern standards but that is kind of the point.

As long as you and your players want to explore those concepts in your games that's great. Fantastic even.

These days I find it refreshing to be in a fantasy world, either through games or books typically, that doesn't rehash those tropes.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I might not have worded that as well as I could have. What I mean to say is that sex characteristics do not dictate the identity of someone who has them. Framing someone who is born with a penis but identifies more with women than with men and is a woman in their own self-image has a gender that is “opppsite” their sex implies that identifying as a man when you have a penis is “normal” and the “opposite” is by aberrant by contrast. But as sex characteristics do not dictate identity, it is clearly not abnormal for someone with a penis to identify with women and see themself as a woman. So that model is flawed. Rather, sex should be seen as one spectrum and gender as another, and any placement on either as a normal, natural thing. Most cultures, however, have an expectation that one’s place on the sex spectrum ought to dictate their place on the gender spectrum. And this creates conflict with people who do not meet that expectation.

I see the underlying problem as the equivocation between "normal"/"natural" in the descriptive sense and "normal"/"natural" in the evaluative sense. The jump from "is" to "ought". Statistically, one's place on the sex spectrum does dictate their place on the gender spectrum, to a high degree of correlation. But the correlation is not 100%, and there is no "ought" in that sentence. The correlation between "playing the lottery" and "losing the lottery" is also extremely high, but that doesn't mean we should shame and oppress lottery winners.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Let's not pretend that homophobia is the default reality even for "simulationist" games.

Lots of historical cultures were fine with it. Indeed, in many places in the Middle Ages, nobody cared who you took as a lover, as long as you were married to someone in order to produce an heir. And "gay/straight" often weren't seen as identities the way they are today. Who you slept with had no bearing on who you were.

Just as Middle Ages Europe was far less universally white than most modern portrayals suggest.

If you want to make your D&D cultures oppressive, you have that right. But saying it's oppressive because it's simulationist is inaccurate, because while that's true of some places, it's untrue of others. It's oppressive because you chose to make it so.

(That's not a moral judgment. There's some solid RPing and story potential to be found in oppressive cultures. But it is a choice the DM made.)

 

[Charlaquin]

I see the underlying problem as the equivocation between "normal"/"natural" in the descriptive sense and "normal"/"natural" in the evaluative sense. The jump from "is" to "ought". Statistically, one's place on the sex spectrum does dictate their place on the gender spectrum, to a high degree of correlation. But the correlation is not 100%, and there is no "ought" in that sentence. The correlation between "playing the lottery" and "losing the lottery" is also extremely high, but that doesn't mean we should shame and oppress lottery winners.

Yes, exactly.

 

[Charlaquin]

How would everyone deal with a PC who was LBQT and went looking for love?

I don't get a lot of players looking to roleplay romance, queer or otherwise. Probably because I tend to play with my irl friends, and roleplaying romantic scenes could get awkward for both parties. But, if one did want to, I'd try to accommodate.

In the USA 3.8% apparently identify as LBQT so in a somewhat liberal place a straight 5% of 1 in 20 chance an NPC might be receptive. In other parts of the world it would be functionally impossible to find anyone due to cultural norms that are oppressive?

Yeah, but also in the USA, 0% of the population can create fire out of nothing or turn invisible. Real-life demographics have no influence on what I allow in my D&D games.

I would let people RP whatever they wants but surgery or a magical equivalent would not be readily available. You would have to use magic to transition I suppose. Modern day liberal democratic norms and human rights would not exist.

Parts of my world you can and will get tortured and/or executed for being the wrong species or religion. I do not have a Kumbaya world where things like that happen in the evil lands. The default is kinda evil by modern standards but would more or less be the norm 500-1000 years ago.

This gets into "queer folk use gaming as an escape too" territory. Don't we have enough of these issues to deal with in real life without having to drag them into our fantasies too? I mean, there's a time and place for examining serious sociopolitical issues, but Friday nights with a couple of friends over enjoying a beer and throwing dice is not that place for me.

 

[Zardnaar]

Let's not pretend that homophobia is the default reality even for "simulationist" games.

Lots of historical cultures were fine with it. Indeed, in many places in the Middle Ages, nobody cared who you took as a lover, as long as you were married to someone in order to produce an heir. And "gay/straight" often weren't seen as identities the way they are today. Who you slept with had no bearing on who you were.

Just as Middle Ages Europe was far less universally white than most modern portrayals suggest.

If you want to make your D&D cultures oppressive, you have that right. But saying it's oppressive because it's simulationist is inaccurate, because while that's true of some places, it's untrue of others. It's oppressive because you chose to make it so.

(That's not a moral judgment. There's some solid RPing and story potential to be found in oppressive cultures. But it is a choice the DM made.)

My oppression as such is not universal. If you walk into Kriegsburg as an Elf they will be hostile to you, walk in as a Tiefling you are probably gonna get killed. In the free city of L'Trel no one cares to much but L'trel is being competed over by the Elven houses and the Knight of Vanya. PCs can pick a side or forement a revolution which is what they did in my last campaign. The Paladin of Apollo wanted to conquer Nithia (the Paladin was Thyatian) Thyatis= Rome, Nithia= Egypt BTW.


Yeah most places are crappy, if its a problem make the world a better place, a Paladin shattered the Elven Empire and killed their Empress on the field of battle. The nation of Solaria however has morphed into the Knights of Vanya a Theocratic monotheistic state.

Europe had minorities of course but it was not liberal in the modern sense,. In the 18th century perhaps 10 000 Africans live in London (UK population 5 million or so 1700), the Turks had the Turkish house in Venice which at one point had the only Orthodox church in western Europe outside the Orthodox lands. The Ottomans had the millet system where people tended to live in there own suburbs and Jews lived in ghettoes until the post Napoleonic era as Napoleon was the one who liberalised things in that regard.

There were no mosques in most parts of Europe (Sicily I think was the only place that had them IIRC outside of Muslim lands), no pagans, not much in the way of democracy and no universal suffrage (1 in 7 UK citizens could vote). As bad as Victorian England was by our standards at the time that was as liberal as Europe got. The 1st Indian restaurant opened in London in the 19th century before the 1st Fish and Chip shop IIRC. 99%+ of the UK was white. mass immigration from the colonies to Europe is a modern day (20th century) thing.

 

[Mouseferatu]

My oppression as such is not universal...

*nod*

I should have been clearer. I was using what you said as a jumping-off point for what I wanted to say, but I was addressing the common topics of "my setting is oppressive because realism" and "in-game oppression of real-world marginalized people" in general, not making a point about your setting in specific.