D&D 5E Should the next edition of D&D promote more equality?

[S'mon]

Is this correct: your preference is that anything different from what you expect has an explanation?

My preference is not to argue about it!

 

[jonesy]

But this is a core rulebook. Not a setting.

I wish I could exp you for that, but it says I have to spread it around first. Smartest thing said all thread.

Of course the core books should promote equality. How else are they going support all the settings equally?

 

[Mournblade94]

Honestly these threads pop up a lot. I really don't care much, but the art should also keep the market in mind.

Peter David should be commended for representing more gay characters in the marvel universe. At the same time I say this I dropped X factor after several issues of shatterstar and rictor kissing each other and discussing their relationships. I am not interested in the romances of the gay characters in the least.

I don't demand they don't include them, but I don't want to read about it. So I don't buy the material.

I would find artwork of males with make consorts jarring. I would probably avoid it. YES YES I know it is not politically correct, I know other people like it and need to feel included. That is fine. If I find the images distasteful I will not buy the product simple as that.

I know the problems with it: Cheesecake picturesof female character in the books and I will generally buy it. Too many Beefcake and I am not buying it.

If the cheesecake was eliminated it wouldn't bother me in the least. If they keep it, that's an added bonus.

inclusiveness is a laudable goal, but I am not going to support a product BECAUSE it is inclusive. It just doesn't matter to me.

 

[TanithT]

I would find artwork of males with make consorts jarring. I would probably avoid it. YES YES I know it is not politically correct, I know other people like it and need to feel included. That is fine. If I find the images distasteful I will not buy the product simple as that.

This is exactly how I feel about cheesecake. I find it jarring and disturbing, and it sends the message that this product is not for people of my gender and orientation. So I don't buy it.

 

[Obryn]

I don't think the core rules (or artwork) need to address sexuality at all. I don't think D&D is about romance. That goes for both hetero- and homosexuality.

Settings are a different beast, where marriages and romance will be important. But given that this is a baseline rule book, it needs none of it.

I'm in favor of including neither beefcake nor cheesecake art.

-O

 

[jonesy]

Equality is about a lot more than just sexuality though, which seems to be what people are getting hung up about.

For example, a picture of an authority figure who just happens to belong to a minority, without any mention of there being a minority. A group of soldiers of different ethnicities and genders, without anyone wearing a humiliating version of the uniform. Poses that are realistic instead of blatantly sexual (or only blatantly sexual for one gender). And so on and so on. I'm not even saying make them non-sexual. Just stop embarrassing your customer base.

 

[bogmad]

Equality is about a lot more than just sexuality though, which seems to be what people are getting hung up about.

For example, a picture of an authority figure who just happens to belong to a minority, without any mention of there being a minority. A group of soldiers of different ethnicities and genders, without anyone wearing a humiliating version of the uniform. Poses that are realistic instead of blatantly sexual (or only blatantly sexual for one gender). And so on and so on. I'm not even saying make them non-sexual. Just stop embarrassing your customer base.

What about a disciplined crowd of completely male soldiers in the city guard (of different ethnicities, sure) with a strong female adventurer strolling by, giving them a dismissive look? Is that diverse, embarrassing to the customer base, or just more reflective of the society that we all live in?

I'm not opposed to having female soldiers by any means. I'm just playing devil's advocate to the "that's PC pandering and not indicative of how the world works!" position.

 

[jonesy]

What about a disciplined crowd of completely male soldiers in the city guard (of different ethnicities, sure) with a strong female adventurer strolling by, giving them a dismissive look? Is that diverse, embarrassing to the customer base, or just more reflective of the society that we all live in?

I.. don't know, because I have no idea how that example relates to what is being talked about. What kind of society are you talking about? Where adventurers scoff at soldiers? What does that have to do with equality?

 

[bogmad]

I.. don't know, because I have no idea how that example relates to what is being talked about. What kind of society are you talking about? Where adventurers scoff at soldiers? What does that have to do with equality?

Instead of a "Politically correct" ratio of 1 woman to 1 man in the city guard. You're depicting a society with men in their standard militaristic gender roles, next to a strong woman showing that while most soldiers may be men, it doesn't mean that women are somehow only suited for getting married and siring children.

 

[jonesy]

Instead of a "Politically correct" ratio of 1 woman to 1 man in the city guard. You're depicting a society with men in their standard militaristic gender roles, next to a strong woman showing that while most soldiers may be men, it doesn't mean that women are somehow only suited for getting married and siring children.

I didn't say anything about ratios or societies. I was talking about uniforms.