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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't care what your gender identity is or if it matches your sex. I don't care if your character shares that. I know far too many people who cannot roleplay outside of a close match to their own experiences and personality.

What I care about is if you can roleplay.

So, my policy is this: People who don't like someone who is trans/gay/etc. can suck it up. People who don't like that a trans/gay/etc. character might be portrayed badly can suck it up. People who intentionally create a character just to insult another player can find a different group to play with.

Just remember: Equality doesn't mean you won't be treated like garbage. It means you're treated the same as everyone else. And, let's face it, humans have a nasty tendency of being near monsters in how they treat other people.

And that's why I rarely support any equality group. Most of them have no clue what equality actually is or why it's not necessarily a good thing.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think the general rule is that people who treat other people like garbage are considered jerks and other people will usually support you in opposing them... unless you're in a group those people don't care about. My experience of people seeking equality is that they usually have a much better idea of what equality is than the people who don't think it's a big deal.
 

I think the general rule is that people who treat other people like garbage are considered jerks and other people will usually support you in opposing them... unless you're in a group those people don't care about. My experience of people seeking equality is that they usually have a much better idea of what equality is than the people who don't think it's a big deal.

As sites such as Not Always Right show, being considered a jerk really isn't much of an incentive to stop being one or much of an incentive for large numbers of people not being jerks. And, sadly, laws typically protect jerks as well as those who are not jerks. Plus, there's a surprising number of laws and societal standards that actually punish you for opposing a jerk or treating them in the same way.

My experience of people seeking equality? They want to stop being treated like garbage. And, often, in their attempts to accomplish that they are not unwilling to treat each other like garbage. Take a look at the LGBT community, then ask the B and the T how they're often treated by the L and the G. You'll hear, in some cases, even worse descriptions of mistreatment than they get from the people who openly oppose the entire community. Gender equality is well known for its internal conflicts that verge on minor civil wars over what the standards of equality actually should be and whether or not someone is truly acting the part to help gender equality. And the civil rights movement has an even worse problem on its hands.

What many who are members of those groups don't realize is that these problems are not going to go away once they have equality. They also don't seem to realize that many of the programs they've come to rely on are dependent on inequality in order to even exist. Most scholarships for minorities, for example, only exist because the minorities are inequal; if equality is achieved, those go away. And, yes, that is exactly how it was intended when those scholarships were put in place. Some things that help members of the gender equality movement, such as child support, only exist because they represent inequality enshrined in law.

And, at the end of the day, most of these groups will be no better off than before. The class system that exists in societies is specifically designed to work against those who are not already wealthy... so most of these people are not going to ever gain true wealth without a severe restructuring of how capitalism works. And this isn't a new problem; Karl Marx is just the most famous of people to identify it. And since education is increasingly costly with decreasing return in America these days and that pattern shows no signs of changing any time soon... I think you can see where this is going and why it is many of these groups may end up worse off if they gain equality than they are without it.

Equality just means they are treated the same as those who hold the power as a group. Unfortunately, the people who hold power as a group are not actually equal to each other; they have massive levels of inequality and discrimination against each other as well. And because they have the majority of the power, there's no real reason for any true effort to help those that lose out. That's what the equality movements are asking to participate in.

Edit: This part didn't get copied and pasted to this post somehow. Pasting it below.

Now, how does the above relate to gamers? Simple... people bring this to the table as for why they want to play a character a certain way or disagree with how people play characters. The fights I'm talking about in the movements? I've had those at the table between members of the same group.

I went and did the research. I looked over the groups and such. Then I looked at who they wanted equality with and asked myself why they felt this was such of a problem that they needed to bring it to the table.

That's why my policy is to either suck it up and act like an adult, or GTFO. If the player across from you is playing a gay character, don't bring up your anti-gay propaganda as to why you want their character gone. If the player across from you is playing a character who acts like a bigot, don't bring up your equality movement propaganda as to why you want the player gone. If the player across from you is actually being a bigot, I won't hesitate to toss them.

But if you bring it up to me from either side, don't be surprised if I shoot you down. Because I know exactly where the argument will go if I allow it, and I won't hesitate to remind you that life is unfair and learning to accept that is part of growing up.
 
Last edited:

My experience of people seeking equality has been mostly radically different, although I absolutely concede the general issue of people being jerks to each other. (The crab bucket analogy does pretty well.) But for the most part, I think, people distinguish between "problems that will go away once we are not being actively harassed" and "problems that everyone has".
 

I dunno. I've seen a lot of equality groups that state the issue of being treated like garbage in any way will go away once they're not being actively harassed. And from what I've seen in cases where active harassment isn't present, even among those in power, that isn't even remotely close to accurate. I also think that line of thinking ultimately sabotages them. It leaves members getting increasingly agitated when they start gaining more equality, but end up finding that they're still treated like garbage at the end of the day. And then finding that when they complain to the group in power about it, they get no sympathy; after all, the group in power treats its own members badly, so a lot of them fail to see why another group is special for being treated that way.

Of course, it doesn't help that those who truly wield the power treat everyone badly in different ways. But, that's a nice divide-and-conquer strategy. Keeps the groups fighting because not only are they not equal to those in power, but they're not even equal to each other.

And when players bring the above baggage to the table, the fights can be even worse than most edition wars.

Want to know how my policy typically turns out at the table? I can't name a group I've had that didn't end with mostly LGBT characters. Yeah, the players complain about my rules on this issue at the start. And more than a few start an LGBT character just to spite me or test how committed I am to that stance. But none of them have any complaints by the time they leave.

Well, except for that time I ran my Rainbow Parade adventure. They were not expecting Colors Out of Space. I did warn them not to let the name influence expectations, but they still had valid complaints about the name.
 

True enough. When I say my games (group 2 & 3 anyway) are PG, I mean that NPC sexual orientation or spouse gender isn't brought up unless it is relevant to the storyline.

This has been repeated many times in this thread, but, I wonder how often it actually is brought up, at least obliquely, in the game. Take a published module, for example, that has a town detailed in it. Something like Hommlet, or Orlane, or whatever. Most of these mini-settings have dozens, if not over a hundred named NPC's listed in them. You get the family that owns the bakery, the weaver, the wood cutter, barkeep, etc. Many of these NPC's, assuming they're a certain age, will be in a marriage. They will have a wife/husband pairing listed. It's been this way in modules and setting books for a very long time.

Is anyone really going to get weirded out when, say, 1 in 10 (to pick a random amount) of pairings is homosexual? Maybe 1 in 20? Would that honestly bother anyone?

Because, AFAIK, that's what's being asked for here. Not that it has to be front and centre or even important to the plot of the adventure. Just that we add, maybe about 5% of the NPC's are in a homosexual relationship. Or, even if just 5% of the NPC's are LGBT. They don't even have to be in a relationship, but, if they aren't in a relationship, usually sexuality isn't mentioned at all, so, likely it would have to be limited to those NPC's who have a partner of some sort.

Would anyone actually be bothered by this? I just took a peek at Return to the temple of elemental Evil. Out of the 29 locations named in Hommlet, there are 6 locations with married folk. All are in straight relationships. Would it really kill anyone if 1 of those 6 locations had two moms or two dad's? Really?
 

This has been repeated many times in this thread, but, I wonder how often it actually is brought up, at least obliquely, in the game. Take a published module, for example, that has a town detailed in it. Something like Hommlet, or Orlane, or whatever. Most of these mini-settings have dozens, if not over a hundred named NPC's listed in them. You get the family that owns the bakery, the weaver, the wood cutter, barkeep, etc. Many of these NPC's, assuming they're a certain age, will be in a marriage. They will have a wife/husband pairing listed. It's been this way in modules and setting books for a very long time.

Is anyone really going to get weirded out when, say, 1 in 10 (to pick a random amount) of pairings is homosexual? Maybe 1 in 20? Would that honestly bother anyone?

Because, AFAIK, that's what's being asked for here. Not that it has to be front and centre or even important to the plot of the adventure. Just that we add, maybe about 5% of the NPC's are in a homosexual relationship. Or, even if just 5% of the NPC's are LGBT. They don't even have to be in a relationship, but, if they aren't in a relationship, usually sexuality isn't mentioned at all, so, likely it would have to be limited to those NPC's who have a partner of some sort.

Would anyone actually be bothered by this? I just took a peek at Return to the temple of elemental Evil. Out of the 29 locations named in Hommlet, there are 6 locations with married folk. All are in straight relationships. Would it really kill anyone if 1 of those 6 locations had two moms or two dad's? Really?
I don't always agree with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] but this time he's bang on: took the whole premise and argument in the thread and boiled it down to about 10 lines or so. Brilliant stuff!

Lan-"look at the bright side: at least RttToEE gives enough detail to tell you who lives where"-efan
 

An additional thought.

When 3e first came out, it was actually an issue that WOTC was using both third person gender pronouns in their books. Some class descriptions use he and some she. There was a fair hue and cry that WOTC was trying to force political correctness on gamers. How dare they use the game to forward their social agenda!! We don't need to include different gender pronouns in the game!! It's ridiculous!!!

But, guess what? It was a good idea. Slowly, over the past fifteen years, the gender gap in players has been shrinking. It's still an overwhelmingly male hobby, but, at least now we're not actively excluding half the human race from the books. Yeah, sure, there have been female PC images, Morgan Ironwolf for example. But, again, overwhelmingly, the images were male, the language rarely, if ever, even acknowledged that female gamers could exist.

How is this different? Why on earth would including a couple of lines possibly change your enjoyment of the hobby? Would Bob and Dave (well, I guess this is a fantasy setting, so Ba'hb and D'have) the weavers and their three adopted children radically alter your setting? The PHB class descriptions don't talk about sexuality at all - so, that's a wash, and they probably shouldn't - but, why would setting books and modules follow the same pattern? We already include the offspring of rape (half orcs), demonic offspring (tieflings), slavery, mass killing, and all sorts of other things, so, why is this different? Why is it okay for a module to have a necromancer to defile the dead and raise zombies to kill her enemies, but, it's off limits to mention that her partner is a female assassin?

No one would blink twice about a hetero NPC pairing of those same two characters. What possible problem is there if they are not hetero?
 

Why is it okay for a module to have a necromancer to defile the dead and raise zombies to kill her enemies, but, it's off limits to mention that her partner is a female assassin?

A lot of people would be offended because that pairing would be evil, and potentially sending the message that lesbianism is evil. Which, to be fair, has actually been used a lot in the past when it was the only depiction of lesbians in the entire work.
 

An additional thought.

How is this different? Why on earth would including a couple of lines possibly change your enjoyment of the hobby? Would Bob and Dave (well, I guess this is a fantasy setting, so Ba'hb and D'have) the weavers and their three adopted children radically alter your setting? The PHB class descriptions don't talk about sexuality at all - so, that's a wash, and they probably shouldn't - but, why would setting books and modules follow the same pattern? We already include the offspring of rape (half orcs), demonic offspring (tieflings), slavery, mass killing, and all sorts of other things, so, why is this different? Why is it okay for a module to have a necromancer to defile the dead and raise zombies to kill her enemies, but, it's off limits to mention that her partner is a female assassin?

No one would blink twice about a hetero NPC pairing of those same two characters. What possible problem is there if they are not hetero?

I'm seeing this kind of thing over and over again. There is a difference between including gender role in society or sexual orientation as themes in your campaign setting and treating those issues as non-issues. This is something we're seeing increasingly in other media and I think it would be a shame if it became an accepted norm in roleplaying games.

The reality of the matter is that gender role in society and sexual orientation are both subjects which are too complicated for any exploration on a forum like this to engage with meaningfully. However what you can do is bring these issues into your campaign, if you choose to, and explore them as you might the question of innate good and evil, or of familial responsibility, or 'honour'. If you and your players want a game world where sexual orientation and gender roles are complete non-issues, as they have become in a lot of mainstream popular media, that's fine, of course. But you're missing out on the unique opportunity which tabletop RPGs afford you to engage with those issues in a fantastical 'what if' scenario.

In short, Ba'hb and D'have's union would still have significant legal and social implications in almost place in the real world today, since the reality is that sexual orientation, gender roles and societies' attitudes to those things are complex and very important, so yes, since I try to create worlds for my players which force them to think about things that they see and hear in our world from a different perspective, it would radically altar my setting for Ba'hb and D'have to be married, more so in fact than it's radically altered Western civilization to legalize same sex marriage, because my campaign setting hasn't had an Enlightenment or a civil liberties movement.

I suppose what I object to about the trend towards 'treat it as though it's not even a thing' in modern popular culture is that it belies the hard and complex reality and the history behind these important social issues. RPGs have the potential to be better than that.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top