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

[thallantyr]

Except that it does appear to be the case, much to the lament of certain schools of sociology. The notion that somehow, in the absence of any empirical evidence to show it, that sexuality is a product of social interactions is a throwback to a century or more ago.

That's not actually what I said, nor would I ever argue that. I said that sexuality is a social and cultural construct, by which I mean that we create categories such as hetero- and homosexual and then try to fit people into each neat box, and that therefore this doesn't work for cultures without such concepts. For example, in Rome, deviant sexual behaviour was explained by a myth that Prometheus got drunk one evening while shaping humans out of clay, and accidentally attached male genitals to women and vice versa, creating the cinaedus, the effeminate man who desired to be penetrated, and the tribas, the masculine woman who desired to penetrate. These are emphatically not synonyms for gay and lesbian, and writing about the tribas in particular emphasises that she penetrates both girls and boys, as well as her masculine love of athletics and drinking. To the Romans, sexuality as separate concept did not exist, it was inherently part of gender. The male was active and dominant, the female passive; who they had sex with was not what defined them.

 

[billd91]

Because heterosexuality is the standard.

That is not cruel, or exclusionary, or homophobic. It's a simple statistical fact.

It is not the standard. That implies that anything else is sub-standard. Heterosexuality is the majority.

 

[Dire Bare]

I think some folks are conflating two different aspects of the whole nature vs nurture debate . . .

1) Homosexual behavior is normal, and it is natural. We have scientific evidence of this not only in the human species, but in many other species. In humans, the base of sexual attraction is genetics, it is a inherent part of who we are, hetero or homo.

2) However, gender and sexuality, like all aspects of human behavior, is a complex mix of genetics, epigenetics, cultural mores, and individual personality. How a person's base gender and sexual attractions are expressed is highly influenced by culture and upbringing. Thus, the ancient Greeks who put a premium on the male identity, but separated that from sexual attraction and behavior.

Heterosexuality truly is the "norm", most folks identify with their birth gender and are attracted to those of the opposite gender. This is a good thing, as it allows us to dominate ecosystems and overpopulate the planet, affecting global climate change . . . . . wait, sorry, I'm drifting . . . . anyway, it allows us to continue as a species.

This does not mean, however, that homosexuality or transgenderism is unnatural, aberrant, and wrong. It's just not the norm. In fact, there are theories that homosexual behavior is a natural response to overpopulation, which we are certainly experiencing as a species (not sure how widely accepted that is within the relevant scientific communities).

In the United States (and elsewhere in the world), we pride ourselves on majority rule with minority protections, that all people have certain inalienable rights to freedom and the pursuit of happiness and all of that . . . except when we don't. We too often let fear drive us to discriminate and deny rights to those who are different, whether it's because they have different skin color, different religious beliefs, or different gender orientations. Sometimes the discrimination is obvious, like when we pass laws actively discriminating against minorities (like gay people being legally barred from getting married), often times the discrimination is more subtle, like non-hetero folks not seeing themselves being represented in entertainment media (movies, books, roleplaying games).

I applaud WotC for taking the progressive stance against this subtle discrimination, and it draws me in tighter as a loyal customer. I'm also positive that the small blurb that has created this mammoth thread has also driven some folks away from D&D (at least, the official stuff) who are too uncomfortable making allowances for those who are different. But I think that WotC has come down on the right side of history on this one, and will see more gains than losses in both fan goodwill and long-term profits and sustainability of the brand.

 

[Gnarl45]

I will grant you that D&D worlds are written to be more accessible than a truly medieval Europe-like world would be, and that they are written from a modern point of view with modern sensibilities - but I will also respond that such should be absolutely obvious given than no D&D worlds were designed by the medieval European peoples that they would have to be in order for that not to be the case; and that not having absolutely perfect representation of feudalism is not the same thing as not having feudalism at all, and acting like the game developers need not only design a game that plays well and evokes intended themes (which D&D does) but also need to perfectly simulate medieval Europe or be declared as having "0%" in common with medieval Europe makes a person seem like a pompous equine.

It's just that bad. I'm not going to spend hours writing down a history book in the forums. If you're interested about learning why, go to the library! Also do a background check on the historian before reading his book. Many of them are politicaly baised or fiction writters. Your safest bet is to discard the work of any 19th century historian and the work of 20th century historians until then 1990s. Also stay away from the History channel. It's entertaining but most of it is fiction.

I still don't understand why you're upset about what I said though. D&D worlds have elves, dragons, and magic to begin with... They're fictional.

As to how much substance D&D worlds have, I find the most accurate answer there is that they have exactly as much substance as they are given by the people playing them - and if they are "plaster and paint" it is because that is entirely the result of self-sabotage.

I agree with this. D&D fans that care about giving their game world historical substance do it. WoTC has nothing to do about it though. TSR only did a slightly better job at it.

 

[ddaley]

It's just that bad. I'm not going to spend hours writing down a history book in the forums. If you're interested about learning why, go to the library! Also do a background check on the historian before reading his book. Many of them are politicaly baised or fiction writters. Your safest bet is to discard the work of any 19th century historian and the work of 20th century historians until then 1990s. Also stay away from the History channel. It's entertaining but most of it is fiction.

I still don't understand why you're upset about what I said though. D&D worlds have elves, dragons, and magic to begin with... They're fictional.



I agree with this. D&D fans that care about giving their game world historical substance do it. WoTC has nothing to do about it though. TSR only did a slightly better job at it.

I am no historian, nor do I want to be. But, in an effort to get more of an idea of what life in the middle ages was like, I bought this book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1454909056

It is interesting. I am not sure if it is super accurate. But, in all honesty, that isn't critical. It gave me ideas to use in campaigns that I run.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

It is not the standard. That implies that anything else is sub-standard. Heterosexuality is the majority.

"Bog standard" and "substandard" aren't acronyms. "Standard" can have normative connotations but it doesn't have to.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Maybe I'm just a history nerd but there are many things that suggest D&D worlds have very little in common with medieval Europe. For example, if a book author accidently talks about the laws of Cormyr, then the feudalism of Cormyr isn't the one from medieval Europe. When a game designer creates a prestige class that is both a knight and a commoner, you know it's not a knight from medieval Europe. When homosexuals aren't burnt as heritics, you're not in medieval Europe. Etc.

Please remember that there was no one "medieval Europe". It was a variety of different cultures all of which were evolving over the course of a millennium of history. And my advisor in college, a professor of medieval studies, went so far as to say that "feudalism" never existed, the closest society to it being Normandy under William -- a mere corner of France for a mere couple of decades.

Bearing that in mind, the attitudes towards and penalties for homosexual behavior in the Middle Ages varied widely. The Roman Inquisition was not empowered to prosecute men for "sodomy" until 1451, just four years before the fall of Constantinople and forty years before the voyage of Columbus (the two traditional dates for the "end of the Middle Ages"). I'm not aware of any condemned homosexuals being burnt before that date. Like witch hunts and pogroms, this persecution frequently associated with the Middle Ages is actually more a product of the Early Modern period. Now, homosexuality was considered a sin, of course, but there were tons of sins and you didn't necessarily merit the stake for committing them. Consequences for being convicted of homosexuality ranged from excommunication to penance to counseling. And there's evidence to suggest that, in some times and places, the authorities more or less didn't care. In censuses and tax rolls you can find entries of two unrelated men living together. Gay couples or just roommates? We can't really be sure, but either way nobody in power seems to have blinked at that domestic arrangement.

 

[MostlyDm]

It is not the standard. That implies that anything else is sub-standard. Heterosexuality is the majority.

Uh... what? No, it implies anything else is nonstandard.

As I said before, that's not a value judgement.

To use a less emotionally-charged example: most PC manufacturers use a standard power interface, so that power cables are interchangeable. Many monitors use it too. You probably have some in your house. But some manufacturers, particularly laptops and Apple computers, deviate from that standard. These are nonstandard power cables. They aren't substandard power cables. They don't do a worse job at powering their machines. In fact, they're typically specialized to do the job better, since laptop design wants a slim chassis and the standard power cable is a big fat beast.

But if someone says "hey, my PC won't turn on, I think it's the power cable. Could you grab me one from stock and bring it over?" it would not be unreasonable to start by bringing a standard power cable. If it turned out you were wrong, there's no logical reason to consider that an insult to the type of power cable that was actually needed.

The fact that heterosexuality is the standard is not bad, or exclusionary, or mean, or insulting, or any of those things. Some people might be any or all of those things on this topic, because it is a contentious topic. Some people might say that Apple is a bunch of jerks for using lightning cables to charge their phones instead of (the standard) micro-USB. Because Apple also happens to be a contentious subject. But the facts on the ground... one is standard, one is not... they aren't biased. Facts don't have a dog in that fight. They are what they are.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

hey, my PC won't turn on

Pun of the Day Award goes to MostlyDm.

 

[Gnarl45]

Please remember that there was no one "medieval Europe". It was a variety of different cultures all of which were evolving over the course of a millennium of history. And my advisor in college, a professor of medieval studies, went so far as to say that "feudalism" never existed, the closest society to it being Normandy under William -- a mere corner of France for a mere couple of decades.

Your professor is correct. Historians don't all agree on what feudalism is. I was under the impression that most of them agree that the political institutions of Europe from the fall of the Carolingian Empire at the end of the 9th century to the 13th century was feudalism.

You're also right to point out that Europe is a continent and that the Middle Ages cover 1000 years of history. It doesn't really make sense to compare 15th century France to 5th century Poland. They have very little in common.

D&D worlds are just closer to what you find in early 16th century France. I don't think it's inaccurate to say they don't have anything medieval no matter how you look at them.

Bearing that in mind, the attitudes towards and penalties for homosexual behavior in the Middle Ages varied widely. The Roman Inquisition was not empowered to prosecute men for "sodomy" until 1451, just four years before the fall of Constantinople and forty years before the voyage of Columbus (the two traditional dates for the "end of the Middle Ages"). I'm not aware of any condemned homosexuals being burnt before that date. Like witch hunts and pogroms, this persecution frequently associated with the Middle Ages is actually more a product of the Early Modern period. Now, homosexuality was considered a sin, of course, but there were tons of sins and you didn't necessarily merit the stake for committing them. Consequences for being convicted of homosexuality ranged from excommunication to penance to counseling. And there's evidence to suggest that, in some times and places, the authorities more or less didn't care. In censuses and tax rolls you can find entries of two unrelated men living together. Gay couples or just roommates? We can't really be sure, but either way nobody in power seems to have blinked at that domestic arrangement.

I didn't know the burning only started in the second half of the Middle Ages. I unfortunately won’t have access to a proper library for a while (I live in Peru and my Spanish is mediocre) so I won't be able to verify what you say. I’ll have to trust you and Wikipedia until then.