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

[Azzy]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say that "the buck stops here" or that it is "a bridge too far". What I did say in a previous post is that "The D&D game can accommodate a vast range of settings, from optimistic wish-fulfillment ones with modern progressive sexual mores through mythic-historical ones with less enlightened values to exotic and truly fantastical ones where the customs are just plain different. That's okay, and more than okay -- it's wonderful." Gay marriage doesn't make for a bad setting. What it does is make for a specific setting. D&D shouldn't assume it any more than D&D should assume any cultural institutions.

No, it doesn't make for a specific setting—it's something that can be in most any setting with minimal to no fuss. Also, D&D does already assume cultural institutions. Like women being more than property—and being capable of being independent and openly influential, whether as adventurers or rulers. Also, D&D assumes upward social mobility—where lowly commoners aren't limited to being serfs indentured to local lords, but may freely travel, become knights, or gain titles of nobility. All of the published D&D settings assumes that acceptance of different human ethnicities is the norm (with racists and supremacists—like the Scarlet Brotherhood in Greyhawk—being the exception).

Given all that, I'm just confused why same-sex marriage in D&D warrants such fuss. We've already passed the point where D&D assumes social & cultural anachronisms, and this is an issue that doesn't force any change to existing settings—the Dalelands of the Forgotten Realms don't noticeably change if we assume same-sex marriage is a-okay there. The village of Hommlet in the World of Greyhawk doesn't implode if we assume that Rufus and Berne get married and adopt children and still tithe to the Church of St. Cuthbert.

If you don't want it in your campaign setting, or parts of your campaign setting—that's all you. However, it's silly to pretend that if WotC occasionally includes some same-sex couples as NPCs in their books, that this somehow requires a specific setting or that it's more anachronistic than other assumptions that D&D makes. Personally, such an inclusion just seems like a non-issue.

 

[Hussar]

And just to dog pile here a bit. Dnd already assumes cross species marriage. And species equality. I've never heard of a setting where dwarves for example couldn't inherit property in non dwarves lands.

Heck, Phandelver allows non humans to lay land claims.

When you already have strayed that far from "history " claims of same sex marriage being out of place seem a bit ... Specific.

 

[Shasarak]

And just to dog pile here a bit. Dnd already assumes cross species marriage. And species equality. I've never heard of a setting where dwarves for example couldn't inherit property in non dwarves lands.

Heck, Phandelver allows non humans to lay land claims.

When you already have strayed that far from "history " claims of same sex marriage being out of place seem a bit ... Specific.

I was not aware that the "Half" races were universally accepted or treated equally especially with all the stories about them not being accepted or treated equally.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I was not aware that the "Half" races were universally accepted or treated equally especially with all the stories about them not being accepted or treated equally.

Half-elves are, at worst, given the cold shoulder and... well that's it as far as I can remember in any official DnD story. Tanis Half-Elven is also the only Half-Elf character I can think of off the top of my head. Half-orcs get it worse, but honestly? They aren't killed on sight, they can hold jobs or land, generally aren't slaves. That's a fairly accepting assumption for the base game. Same with Tieflings and anything else.

Of course there is a reason for that. Anybody picking characters would be put off if their Half-Orc fighter would be stoned to death in the first town if the human paladin didn't claim them as their property.

So the assumption is that player characters are accepted in most places, so that the players can have the most fun.

With that type of acceptance policy as a baseline...

 

[Hussar]

If half elves are so disliked then why the diplomacy bonuses? You'd think that an unacceptable race would have penalties.

Heck, in 5e even half orcs aren't particularly disliked.

Of course this ignores things like tieflings and assimar as well. There are a bucket full of half races in the game. And we have no problems depicting them.

But a same sex couple? Apparently that's too far from historical accuracy?

Even if half races do have a hard time, the point is that they appear in the game. Not that everything is flowers and lollipops for them.

I think Shasharak's post does miss an important point. It's not that every depiction of a same sex couple has to be 100% accepted by the setting. It's that there are depictions of same-sex couples in the game at all. Even if half-orcs get the stinky end of the stick, no one blinks twice when you have a half-orc in an adventure module. Despite the fact that that NPC is most likely the result of the rape of some woman, we don't even blink twice when there's a half orc in the bar. And that half-orc could be evil, or she could be a paladin. Again, no one thinks twice about it.

That's the way it should be with same sex and LGBT depictions in the game. No one should so much as bat an eye.

 

[billd91]

If half elves are so disliked then why the diplomacy bonuses? You'd think that an unacceptable race would have penalties.

Heck, in 5e even half orcs aren't particularly disliked.

Of course this ignores things like tieflings and assimar as well. There are a bucket full of half races in the game. And we have no problems depicting them.

But a same sex couple? Apparently that's too far from historical accuracy?

Even if half races do have a hard time, the point is that they appear in the game. Not that everything is flowers and lollipops for them.

I think Shasharak's post does miss an important point. It's not that every depiction of a same sex couple has to be 100% accepted by the setting. It's that there are depictions of same-sex couples in the game at all. Even if half-orcs get the stinky end of the stick, no one blinks twice when you have a half-orc in an adventure module. Despite the fact that that NPC is most likely the result of the rape of some woman, we don't even blink twice when there's a half orc in the bar. And that half-orc could be evil, or she could be a paladin. Again, no one thinks twice about it.

That's the way it should be with same sex and LGBT depictions in the game. No one should so much as bat an eye.

I agree that differing genders and LGBT of all sorts shouldn't cause a fuss since they harm nothing, but I think too many people rely on arguments that aren't really equivalent. It's like the "game has dragons, you don't need any realism" argument - just because one element is accepted, that doesn't mean others need to be nor that they are equivalent to many people. Half-breeds, for example, have been around a long time as a trope in literature and fantasy in general - though more often the half-breed referred to a person from two cultures or ethnicities and often fulfill a particular narrative role as a result. Devil or demon spawn have also been around a long time in legends and myths. So these have been pretty easy to blend in to the fantasy gaming world.

What I'm trying to say mainly is that people have boundaries of what they will accept and what they won't. Accepting one thing but not another doesn't necessarily make them hypocrites nor are they applying double-standards. They may be applying standards we think are bad and unnecessary, but I think arguments that because one thing is acceptable something else should be are not very helpful.

 

[CaptainGemini]

If half elves are so disliked then why the diplomacy bonuses? You'd think that an unacceptable race would have penalties.

Heck, in 5e even half orcs aren't particularly disliked.

Of course this ignores things like tieflings and assimar as well. There are a bucket full of half races in the game. And we have no problems depicting them.

But a same sex couple? Apparently that's too far from historical accuracy?

Even if half races do have a hard time, the point is that they appear in the game. Not that everything is flowers and lollipops for them.

I think Shasharak's post does miss an important point. It's not that every depiction of a same sex couple has to be 100% accepted by the setting. It's that there are depictions of same-sex couples in the game at all. Even if half-orcs get the stinky end of the stick, no one blinks twice when you have a half-orc in an adventure module. Despite the fact that that NPC is most likely the result of the rape of some woman, we don't even blink twice when there's a half orc in the bar. And that half-orc could be evil, or she could be a paladin. Again, no one thinks twice about it.

That's the way it should be with same sex and LGBT depictions in the game. No one should so much as bat an eye.

The idea of discriminating against someone purely based only on their descent is relatively recent for the most part; it's well known by historians that there were people of African descent in Northern Europe centuries before the colonial powers decided to invade Africa, and that people really didn't have a problem with them. Intermarriage between races really wasn't even as much of a deal, outside of certain groups that tended to be jerks, for much of the world until much later. Issues with travel were one of the biggest obstacles to it, so it generally didn't happen much simply because people had enough problems just trading with each other.

On the other hand, opposition to homosexual marriage is pretty friggin' ancient and was quite widespread. You had a few cultures that did allow it, but they were incredibly rare.

So, yeah, someone having no problem with another person of mixed race but having a problem with two guys marrying is historically accurate. But, then, if we also want to go historically accurate, we should keep in mind that firearms predate plate armor. In fact, firearms and an ongoing minor ice age might be why plate armor exists in the first place. Even today, plate armor can be highly effective against a lot of guns; that's part of why pieces of it saw limited use up through World War 1.

But, then, when has DnD ever been about being historically accurate?

 

[Salamandyr]

Forgive me if someone else already pointed this out, but I most definitely think this qualifies:

View attachment 71252

And this especially does:

View attachment 71253

If those were representative, instead of the best of an anemic lot, I'd agree with you.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Like women being more than property—and being capable of being independent and openly influential, whether as adventurers or rulers. Also, D&D assumes upward social mobility—where lowly commoners aren't limited to being serfs indentured to local lords, but may freely travel, become knights, or gain titles of nobility. All of the published D&D settings assumes that acceptance of different human ethnicities is the norm (with racists and supremacists—like the Scarlet Brotherhood in Greyhawk—being the exception).

As I discussed with SuperZero upthread, women are capable of being independent and openly influential regardless of their legal status. Just because the law says women are property doesn't mean the reality of life agrees. The same goes for commoners and foreigners. The game doesn't assume they're of equal social status. Nor does it assume that they're of inferior status, nor that men or nobles or specific ethnicities are of superior status. When I say the game does not make cultural assumptions, I mean exactly that: a theocratic matriarchy is just as valid as an egalitarian democracy is just as valid as a male-dominated aristocracy. One thing the game does assume is that the PCs are extraordinary individuals -- the sorts of people who, if sexism or racism or classism were against them, would be smashing through it into positions of power and influence anyway. At no point are the setting's cultural norms, whatever they may be, understood to restrict the players' options for their characters.

We've already passed the point where D&D assumes social & cultural anachronisms, and this is an issue that doesn't force any change to existing settings—the Dalelands of the Forgotten Realms don't noticeably change if we assume same-sex marriage is a-okay there. The village of Hommlet in the World of Greyhawk doesn't implode if we assume that Rufus and Berne get married and adopt children and still tithe to the Church of St. Cuthbert.

Of course it wouldn't. But it would be a bit strange in the court of King Arthur, or among the superstitious and cruel Set-worshipers of Stygia. Diverse settings, diverse assumptions.

However, it's silly to pretend that if WotC occasionally includes some same-sex couples as NPCs in their books, that this somehow requires a specific setting or that it's more anachronistic than other assumptions that D&D makes.

Again, please don't put words in my mouth. Not when this whole branch of the conversation was prompted by my noting the distinction between same-sex couples and same-sex married couples.

---

If half elves are so disliked then why the diplomacy bonuses? You'd think that an unacceptable race would have penalties.

The game rules don't assume that they're either liked or disliked. A Charisma bonus represents innate ability, not social standing, because your character's Charisma doesn't change as you go from place to place.

Heck, in 5e even half orcs aren't particularly disliked.

This seems like an awfully slanted reading of the half-orc entry, which goes out of its way to note that "Each half-orc finds a way to gain acceptance from those who hate orcs". Like I noted above: if the prejudice is there, PCs can smash through it.

But a same sex couple? Apparently that's too far from historical accuracy?

I think Shasharak's post does miss an important point. It's not that every depiction of a same sex couple has to be 100% accepted by the setting. It's that there are depictions of same-sex couples in the game at all. Even if half-orcs get the stinky end of the stick, no one blinks twice when you have a half-orc in an adventure module. Despite the fact that that NPC is most likely the result of the rape of some woman, we don't even blink twice when there's a half orc in the bar. And that half-orc could be evil, or she could be a paladin. Again, no one thinks twice about it.

That's the way it should be with same sex and LGBT depictions in the game. No one should so much as bat an eye.

I agree entirely. I believe my exact words were, "Same-sex relationships are universal in all human populations" and "The Genevieve example could happen in any setting."

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I guess it's gotta be a hard life when you are constantly on-guard from the activities of some nefarious Political Agenda that wants to take your beloved hobby and PUSH GAY SEX on all its players. I know if I thought there was something like that out there, I'd be quite worried about it much of the time when WotC puts out a new book or whatever. Of course, that bogeyman political agenda is no more real than the dragons we slay on a weekly basis. But imaginary political agendas are easier to fight against than social change.

Do you really not see the irony here, snarking about an imaginary person?