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

[Mistwell]

"This should be avoided" does not in any way imply "This should be illegal."

But maybe I shouldn't have to have the same arguments all the time.

And I was not talking about legal. When I said, "have seen a great deal of ends justifying the means, and justifications for authoritarian rules, to squelch speech people disagree with lately. " By "authoritarian rules" I don't mean law and legal rules, I mean rules in any kind of setting. Private rules. To clarify, I will break down that list of things I mentioned and make it even clearer the kinds of things I am talking about:

1) The best answer to speech we don't like is speech we do like.
2) 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.
3) The goal therefore is to simply respond, to inform and persuade as best we can.
4) Don't try to pressure others to not speak. [This is not legal pressure, it's any pressure. Don't try to scare others into not voicing opinions you dislike by making examples of people for instance with an overwhelming force of people metaphorically dogpiling them]
5) Don't try to deny forums for them to voice their opinion [forums in this context does not mean legal forums, it means any forum, like this one right here]
6) Don't defame [not in the legal sense, in the ordinary sense of that word] or belittle or dehumanize the speaker instead of responding to the content of their speech
7) Don't say or imply that dissent itself is unwelcome or a problem.

None of these are rules of law or talking about what should or should not be legal. The bottom line is if someone holds a position you find repugnant the answer to that is to respond. To attempt to inform and/or persuade (them and others) that your view is better.

You don't need to avoid their opinion, and you shouldn't - that way lays an echo chamber where you only expose yourself to the ideas of those you already agree with. You don't need to make it easier for others to avoid their opinion either. Hearing dissent, even repugnant dissent, is a healthy part of life. It's part of having an open mind. It's part of what diversity really means - not an exposure to people who look different or sound different than us, but to ideas that are different than ours. Particularly ideas we might disagree with.

Though really Brendan O'Neill says it better than I can.

 

[ddaley]

So you eliminate all married couples? Everyone reproduces asexually or is only "friends"? Everyone looks like Barbie or Ken down the front?

I generally find that discussing the sexual orientation of NPCs is not relevant to the story. Do I need to discuss that the merchant, who is male, happens to have a live in boy friend? These things just don't seem to come up unless you force them into the adventure. How would this fit into Out of the Abyss? How would you make sexual orientation relevant to the story? I mean, if it is important to you, you could probably make one of the NPCs gay and add it into the story. I just fail to see how it is a significant part of the story or necessary to discuss during a game session.

 

[Orlax]

And I was not talking about legal. When I said, "have seen a great deal of ends justifying the means, and justifications for authoritarian rules, to squelch speech people disagree with lately. " By "authoritarian rules" I don't mean law and legal rules, I mean rules in any kind of setting. Private rules. To clarify, I will break down that list of things I mentioned and make it even clearer the kinds of things I am talking about:

1) The best answer to speech we don't like is speech we do like.
2) 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.
3) The goal therefore is to simply respond, to inform and persuade as best we can.
4) Don't try to pressure others to not speak. [This is not legal pressure, it's any pressure. Don't try to scare others into not voicing opinions you dislike by making examples of people for instance with an overwhelming force of people metaphorically dogpiling them]
5) Don't try to deny forums for them to voice their opinion [forums in this context does not mean legal forums, it means any forum, like this one right here]
6) Don't defame [not in the legal sense, in the ordinary sense of that word] or belittle or dehumanize the speaker instead of responding to the content of their speech
7) Don't say or imply that dissent itself is unwelcome or a problem.

None of these are rules of law or talking about what should or should not be legal. The bottom line is if someone holds a position you find repugnant the answer to that is to respond. To attempt to inform and/or persuade (them and others) that your view is better.

You don't need to avoid their opinion, and you shouldn't - that way lays an echo chamber where you only expose yourself to the ideas of those you already agree with. You don't need to make it easier for others to avoid their opinion either. Hearing dissent, even repugnant dissent, is a healthy part of life. It's part of having an open mind. It's part of what diversity really means - not an exposure to people who look different or sound different than us, but to ideas that are different than ours. Particularly ideas we might disagree with.

Your number two is just flat wrong. The best opinions don't naturally rise to the top in all situations. Mainly because the interpretation of the best opinion is subjective. That's why apartheids happen, because sometimes in the larger region the interpretation of the best idea is abhorrently terrible.

It's entirely fine for a private place (which this forum technically is) to curtail what people are saying in it. Yeah people are allowed to have terrible opinions. In no way is someone obligated to let those people use their private space as a soap box and amplifier for things they don't want amplified.

Those terrible people can go make their own terrible spaces to say terrible things, and I'm going to read it, and then I'm going to take it back to my space pick it apart and defame the terrible things they are saying and explain why it is terrible to whoever will listen. Hopefully I can dissuade at least the people that listen to me.

 

[billd91]

I generally find that discussing the sexual orientation of NPCs is not relevant to the story. Do I need to discuss that the merchant, who is male, happens to have a live in boy friend? These things just don't seem to come up unless you force them into the adventure. How would this fit into Out of the Abyss? How would you make sexual orientation relevant to the story? I mean, if it is important to you, you could probably make one of the NPCs gay and add it into the story. I just fail to see how it is a significant part of the story or necessary to discuss during a game session.

Depends on the sort of adventuring you're doing. Lots of relatively stable NPCs in a home base or city? Relationships and families come up. Several APs by Paizo support this kind of play - Council of Thieves, Skull and Shackles, Hell's Rebels, Curse of the Crimson Throne, Wrath of the Righteous, ...

 

[Mouseferatu]

I generally find that discussing the sexual orientation of NPCs is not relevant to the story. Do I need to discuss that the merchant, who is male, happens to have a live in boy friend? These things just don't seem to come up unless you force them into the adventure.

I mean this question in all sincerity.

Do you truly never have NPCs who are married or an "on-screen" couple? Never a king and queen together? Never a husband and wife pair who own a tavern? Never a story involving a young nobleman paying court to a noblewoman? Never an old couple on the edge of town?

 

[Orlax]

I generally find that discussing the sexual orientation of NPCs is not relevant to the story. Do I need to discuss that the merchant, who is male, happens to have a live in boy friend? These things just don't seem to come up unless you force them into the adventure. How would this fit into Out of the Abyss? How would you make sexual orientation relevant to the story? I mean, if it is important to you, you could probably make one of the NPCs gay and add it into the story. I just fail to see how it is a significant part of the story or necessary to discuss during a game session.

Generally I'd toss it in as a non main point. Have an NPC who's homosexual and then have their significant other become relevant. Don't put a big arrow on the gay thing, insert the detail of getting from one npc to the other then keep walking right past it. Heck startup quests of save my husband/wife or save our child are regular occurrences. Just make the one asking the adventurers to save their husband a dude, or make the one asking them to save their wife a woman, or make it two guys asking the party to save their kid. Insert the romantic relationship in a place where the romantic relationship would be and then make it a homosexual relationship. Specifically don't make a big deal out of it. Work to normalize it as a thing within the setting without making the plot revolve around it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

1) The best answer to speech we don't like is speech we do like.
2) 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.
3) The goal therefore is to simply respond, to inform and persuade as best we can.
4) Don't try to pressure others to not speak. [This is not legal pressure, it's any pressure. Don't try to scare others into not voicing opinions you dislike by making examples of people for instance with an overwhelming force of people metaphorically dogpiling them]
5) Don't try to deny forums for them to voice their opinion [forums in this context does not mean legal forums, it means any forum, like this one right here]
6) Don't defame [not in the legal sense, in the ordinary sense of that word] or belittle or dehumanize the speaker instead of responding to the content of their speech
7) Don't say or imply that dissent itself is unwelcome or a problem.

None of these are rules of law or talking about what should or should not be legal. The bottom line is if someone holds a position you find repugnant the answer to that is to respond. To attempt to inform and/or persuade (them and others) that your view is better.

You don't need to avoid their opinion, and you shouldn't - that way lays an echo chamber where you only expose yourself to the ideas of those you already agree with. You don't need to make it easier for others to avoid their opinion either. Hearing dissent, even repugnant dissent, is a healthy part of life. It's part of having an open mind. It's part of what diversity really means - not an exposure to people who look different or sound different than us, but to ideas that are different than ours. Particularly ideas we might disagree with.

This is only true when there is a truly equal power dynamic (not just legally, socially) - when everyone feels equally safe, equally heard, and equally respected. That power dynamic doesn't exist in reality, so in reality, this is pretty impractical advice for actual behavior. In reality, where differing levels of social power exist, it is the responsibility of the socially powerful to create a safe space to be challenged. So in reality, applying this usually just looks like the powerful getting their way, since it fails to address that nuance of human interaction.

Presuming that social power dynamics don't have much to say in the matter is understandable for someone from a majority group - they have the luxury of not having to think about those power dynamics on the regular. But it's a flawed presumption, and it imagines a world that simply isn't realistic.

 

[SuperZero]

Mistwell, your list forbids posting your list, since in doing so you are violating most of the points.


And hey, why is the rule "Don't be a jerkface" so terrible because someone is daring to impose rules, but you can give me this list of rules? I did not agree to them. And you're not doing a very good job of persuading.

 

[Orlax]

This is only true when there is a truly equal power dynamic (not just legally, socially) - when everyone feels equally safe, equally heard, and equally respected. That power dynamic doesn't exist in reality, so in reality, this is pretty impractical advice for actual behavior. In reality, where differing levels of social power exist, it is the responsibility of the socially powerful to create a safe space to be challenged. So in reality, applying this usually just looks like the powerful getting their way, since it fails to address that nuance of human interaction.

Presuming that social power dynamics don't have much to say in the matter is understandable for someone from a majority group - they have the luxury of not having to think about those power dynamics on the regular. But it's a flawed presumption, and it imagines a world that simply isn't realistic.

Well said.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I feel like transgender identity is a modern thing, and not really a good fit for the kind of fantasy games that people tend to associate with D&D. .

That first part is factually incorrect. There are examples of transgender ppl, gender fluidity, ect throughout history, in many cultures.
And it's not about focusing on social issues or current event issues. It's about including ppl in what should be an inclusive hobby and game.