D&D 5E 5e's new gender policy - is it attracting new players?

[Eric V]

--I don't think there's anything more destructive to human welfare in the long term than giving up on married mothers and fathers--

Just out of curiosity, where do you see that happening?

 

[billd91]

I get where you're coming from in the modern day.

I would like point out that Greek homosexuality definitely had a pedophile element to it. Or I would say hebephile element. Greek historical documents clearly show that Greek armies often took women and boys. Not men, but boys. It is very clear on this subject.

I'd also like to point out that our current standards of age of consent are modern as well. The kinds of homosexual activity you'd see in Sparta with the mentorship relationship between the adult and the youth or with other situations wouldn't have had the same pedophile stigma as they would now and probably shouldn't be judged as such either.

 

[Jester David]

As a DM I would not be comfortable role-playing gay male romance or sex. I'm not going to be forced to role-play that with anyone. I'm heterosexual. I feel comfortable role-playing attraction to females, that's why I can role-play female homosexuality. I no more expect someone to force me to role-play male homosexual sex than I expect a male homosexual to role-play female-male or female-female sex. The same goes for transgender sexual material. Just not going to be forced into something I'm not comfortable with. No one should be forced into an uncomfortable role-play situation in a game.

As far as the game being more inclusive, I'm all for it. People should be able to play what they want. I didn't see any problem with Pathfinder including homosexual NPCs. Given I don't focus on sexuality in my games, I role-played them like a regular heterosexual couple without going into the deep details. It is the deep details I'm not comfortable with and in general I don't pursue sexuality and romance in my games on more than a surface level. I guess you could say a PG-13 TV level. That's about as far as I'm going to take it.

There's sex and then there's sexuality. Not all sex involves just sex acts. People make sex and gender roles part of their game all the time, but having all the NPCs in positions of authority be men (captain of the guard, the mayor, the head of the business council, the guildmaster, leader of the thieves, head of the church, etc). And most people aren't shy to include heterosexual partnerships (queens for the king, wives, girlfriends). Even though you don't see the king and queen having sex in the game, their heteronormativity is a part of the game.

Which can make some people very uncomfortable, feel unwelcome, or reinforce their view of themselves as an outsider. That even a fantasy world set in a made-up place doesn't accommodate them.

This is the oddest thread I've seen in a while. I don't see why this was ever an issue. Sexuality of any kind was mostly avoided in RPGs save by DMs and players comfortable with that type of role-play. No one should be forced into that type of role-playing, DM or otherwise.

...
Why would someone try to force overt sexuality on a DM or player group? That would be insulting whether it was homosexual or heterosexual.

No one is forcing anyone to do anything. Not really.

Or is this just a matter of a player being able to write up a background where they have a homosexual partner and not experiencing discrimination? I don't have a problem with that myself. I'd just shrug and say ok. I might even have some fun with it using a few gay stereotypes I've seen on TV like a gay man with a flamboyant nagging husband or boyfriend because it would be funny to have some guy giving him a hard time for things like his clothes and hygiene. "Oh Herbert, you're all covered in blood. I'm so tired of you adventuring all the time. Always out traipsing about in some cave and you come home stinking like orc dung. I'm not going to have anything to do with you until you clean up. So foul." If there is some particularly attractive male in the group, having the husband be jealous would be hilarious. "Are you sleeping with that barbarian? Are you cheating on me, Herbert?" Have the boyfriend go off in a huff. That would be funny role-playing.

Pretty much. It's encouraging people to play the sex or the gender they want and confirming that you do not need to play your own sex/gender/orientation. That's pretty much all it says (along with some examples). It's as dramatic as text saying you don't need to play someone who is as intelligent as you or matches your body type.

 

[Gnarl45]

So you didn't at all read the post you were quoting, then.
That's about the opposite of what I said. A lot of characters can exist without ever having their orientation mentioned or implied. It is absolutely false that it never happens. They don't have to be straight every time it is mentioned.

You said that LGTB should be included. Since there's nothing that can distinguish a LGTB from the rest of the population, you have to assume that some of the NPCs you have encountered are gay or transsexuals. They've always been included.

Better idea of a setting where homosexuality isn't taboo: Don't make homophobia a major setting element. All I have to do is not include something. That's it.
Homosexuality isn't an alien thing. Just... don't exclude.

None of the game worlds are homophobic.

And don't think you don't just because you don't know about it. For some strange reason they don't always want to tell everyone.

I don't understand your sentence.

 

[the Jester]

Not exactly stepping out on a ledge there are you? This is not in anyway controversial or interesting. I have had plenty of players play female characters that identify as male. They have little trouble imagining a female going after another female romantically.

You want to do something interesting, play a male homosexual.

So wait, are you asserting that only playing male homosexuals counts as "gender diversity" or something? Sorry it isn't "controversial or interesting" enough for you, but I don't make my characters to please others or even to explore gender diversity per se; I make them to be interesting and fun characters to play. The rest is just icing on the cake. It's not my fault if you don't like the flavor.

 

[MostlyDm]

I can't believe how this has taken such an ugly turn. No, that's a lie, I guess I knew it would.

Which part is the ugly turn?

As far as I can tell, one guy posted a pretty out-there comment that I could easily see described as "ugly"... Which everyone ignored. Mod noticed it several pages later and told the guy to knock it off... Maybe unneeded since he hadn't come back, but that's fine.

A few people had some interesting thoughts about what the mod had said, and raised some civil points. They've been cautioned that even civil disagreement with anything a mod says, even if they aren't questioning the mod action, is technically against the rules. Presumably they will stop doing that now.

Nobody was hurt, nobody really flew off the handle, it seems like that went pretty okay.

The rest of the thread has been a series of civil discussions of the issue. Is something in there what you saw as "ugly"? What part? Seemed like a free exchange of differing views to me... That's how you change people's minds on this stuff anyway. Discuss the issue calmly, and persuade them with rational discussion.

 

[MostlyDm]

For my part, I have seen a great deal of ends justifying the means, and justifications for authoritarian rules, to squelch speech people disagree with lately. The term "liberalism," which I am not using politically in this context to refer to a "side" of the political scale or political party, used to mean something different on speech topics. It used to mean that the best answer to speech we don't like is speech we do like. That the marketplace of ideas is the only solution ever needed for speech we don't like, because the best opinions naturally rise to the top. The goal therefore is to simply respond, to inform and persuade as best we can, without ever trying to pressure others to not speak, or to deny forums for them to voice their opinion, or to defame or belittle or dehumanize the speaker instead of responding to the content of their speech, or to ever say or imply that dissent itself is unwelcome or a problem.

Which is why I keep asking what people propose we do about "stubborn insistence" that we disagree with? What do we do about "active resistance" that we disagree with? If the answer is simply, "We try to persuade people that our view is the better view" I am totally cool with that. But if the answer is "We metaphorically steam roll over them because the rightness of our views justifies putting all pressure we can on them to not continue to resist our objectively correct views or to reduce the means available to them to voice that resistance," then I disagree with that approach and think it is in the long term worse for society than the wrongheaded views being squelched to begin with.

For what it's worth, I understood where you were trying to go with your questions. I share your concerns, and I was curious to see how people answered as well. I think this is a really important aspect of this sort of discussion.

The most common reason that I see "social justice warrior" used pejoratively is when the so-called SJW takes the opposing side from you on this very issue, something like: dissent must be squelched/criminalized in order to right the injustices the minority faces.

I think that's a very bad road to go down. But I can handle any amount of disagreement.

 

[SuperZero]

Don't you think it might be a little bit foolhardy to begin a conversation with a complete stranger on this note? You never know which two Medieval European languages (three if you count Latin) they might have wasted their college years studying.

No? Even if you are one of the few, the point that "essentially nobody knows anything about the Middle Ages" is still true.
We've all been exposed to quite a lot of vaguely-Medieval-themed things, which isn't quite the same.

As do the myths and legends of the period.

They exist in myths and legends today. That's rather different from one living next door.
"The guards might believe in goblins, elves, and wizards" is quite different from "One of the guards is a goblin, they fought elves yesterday, and they work for a wizard."

This is the oddest thread I've seen in a while. I don't see why this was ever an issue. Sexuality of any kind was mostly avoided in RPGs save by DMs and players comfortable with that type of role-play. No one should be forced into that type of role-playing, DM or otherwise.

It's not actually that odd.
Sure, a number of people have popped in to say that they don't want to roleplay overt sexuality as though that was related to the topic, but that kind of thing happens whenever gay people are mentioned. You get used to it.

Or is this just a matter of a player being able to write up a background where they have a homosexual partner and not experiencing discrimination? I don't have a problem with that myself. I'd just shrug and say ok. I might even have some fun with it using a few gay stereotypes I've seen on TV...

Tip: If the concern is that a person is afraid of experiencing discrimination, "I saw some stereotypes on TV!" is not the solution.

So "Stand by me" has a problem and should be remedied? Or "Das Boot"?

Not familiar with them. Did the writers forget about women? If so, that's an obvious problem yes. If not... well, that's what I said was a problem so I don't know why you're asking me.

You said that LGTB should be included. Since there's nothing that can distinguish a LGTB from the rest of the population, you have to assume that some of the NPCs you have encountered are gay or transsexuals. They've always been included.

And I say, again, the thing I said in the first place that you're supposedly responding to:
Characters can very often be described without mentioning anything about orientation. This is fine. Good, even. However, it is not always the case. When "NPC's spouse" and "NPC 1 has a thing for NPC 2" and "those two are married" and "the NPC is a sucker for a pretty face and is easier to influence by human, elf, or half-elf women" do come up, not every single one of them need be straight.

None of the game worlds are homophobic.

I'm not the one trying to come up with "alternate models" where LGBT people can exist.

I don't understand your sentence.

..did you look at what I was responding to?
LGBT people are an invisible minority. Don't assume we're not there.
(Not that I've never seen straight people discussing gay people like we're a hypothetical even when they know we're there; that was fun!)

The rest of the thread has been a series of civil discussions of the issue. Is something in there what you saw as "ugly"? What part? Seemed like a free exchange of differing views to me... That's how you change people's minds on this stuff anyway. Discuss the issue calmly, and persuade them with rational discussion.

Treating the presence of a minority group, no matter how polite people think they are, as an "issue" may not come off as so "civil" to the people who are members of those groups.

 

[seebs]

I doubt it. People will always be who they are, and writing "be respectful" somewhere won't change that. If so, there would never be flame wars on forums...

It actually has a significant impact on the community, because it sets an expectation. People who would be inclined to be abusive towards other people over sexuality tend to feel they wouldn't really enjoy the community, people who are used to getting harassed at social things tend to feel like they'd be more welcome. It has a noticeable effect on what people think the community is expected to be like.

FWIW, about half of my gaming group is trans, and we've all been long-term gamers, but I've definitely noticed a shift in the overall tone of the D&D community over the ages, and I am all for it.

 

[seebs]

I'd give my life for my belief in the abiding value of paired femininity and masculinity--I don't think there's anything more destructive to human welfare in the long term than giving up on married mothers and fathers--but if JesterCanuck declines to take that life I'm not going to complain. Tolerance is better than persecution.

The institution of marriage used to be much stronger than it is now, but the primary attack on it actually consists of trying to replace the creation of enduring family bonds with an animal husbandry permit. Marriage was, for most of human history, much more than a procreation license. The last ten or twenty years of trying to redefine it to be about nothing but "one man, one woman" has been infinitely more destructive to it than anything else that's going on.

... and this is really off-topic, so I think I'll drop this now.