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

[Lanliss]

I think that LGBT inclusiveness does take a specific setting. Not to the degree where it will be one in a hundred settings, but it takes a setting that is generally able to accept differences. I do not see a problem with adding LGBT to the official publications, as long as it is done tastefully, as opposed to the general media representation of "O MAI GAAAWD, that shield does NOT match that helmet!" Which is pretty overblown as far as I have seen. That being said, you cannot really argue for people to include it in their personal settings, some of which have been built over decades. Those kinds of places would already have established accepted relationships, which may or may not be LGBT, depending on the choices of the creators of the world. Same argument as gnomes. They are generally accepted in settings, but there is no reason that a person cannot exclude them from their world. Once again, I do not have a problem with LGBT relationships, and would not mind their inclusion in the official books, and I am not arguing for complete exclusion.

I am simply reminding some that "They don't fit in my world" does not mean "I hate them". It can simply mean they have a decades old world that has already made a stand on the subject, and turned out against LGBT. All of this is entirely up to each table, or each DM, and WOTC making it standard in the official books would have no effect on most games, as I understand that a large number of people play in their own worlds.

Another side of the coin is those who assume any inclusion is the forcing of a political agenda, which I do not really get. "We, as a company accept that LGBT people exist, and deserve to play as well" does not read, to me, as forcing any agenda. It simply reads as a bid to include everyone, essentially giving players the largest number of base options possible. If that is a political agenda, do you also consider Christmas commercials the forcing of a political agenda? How about movie trailers? They could be used for such purposes, the same as D&D, but just like D&D I think this is reading a bit too much into it. It is simply informing some people, or a lot in the case of Christmas commercials, that there is something out there that accepts them.

To recap, because I just realized this is going to be a wall of text, I agree with LGBT inclusiveness, but do not agree that they will fit in every setting ever made. Those arguing against need to find a better argument against any inclusion at all than "but it doesn't fit in everything, so it should be in nothing". If I misread some of these posts, and no one is actually saying that, I apologize, and accept that I look stupid. If you think I am talking about you specifically, and fear I have misrepresented what you said, I apologize.

 

[MG.0]

I am against fey marriage. Marriage should be between two humans.

Wait...what are we talking about?

 

[Lanliss]

I am against fey marriage. Marriage should be between two humans.

Wait...what are we talking about?

Careful, it has gotten pretty heated here, and a joke may go sideways.

 

[Shasarak]

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

Or to look at it another way, if Half-elves are so accepted then why do they need to work so hard to have a diplomacy bonus?

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 is really only because the Half-Orc is standing next to the Half-Devil.

 

[CaptainGemini]

I am against fey marriage. Marriage should be between two humans.

Wait...what are we talking about?

Hot elf-on-tiefling action and why it should be encouraged.

 

[Hussar]

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.

But the argument is that LGBT depictions are "unrealistic" because of "history". Unacceptable because they are new and different is a different argument. But, the exclusion is being justified from a "realism" standpoint claiming that D&D is a "quasi-medieval" setting and something like same-sex marriage shouldn't be there because we didn't have same-sex marriage in medieval times. Where the argument falls apart is that we ignore all sorts of things that don't appear in history. D&D is far, far more egalitarian than the Middle Ages ever were. People complain about the "Cantina Scene" nature of D&D, but, such complaints largely fall on deaf ears.

IOW, if it's not a problem to have a D&D be modern sensibilities egalitarian, then it shouldn't be a problem for D&D to have modern sensibilities egalitarianism.

 

[Hussar]

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?

Depends on what you mean. There were significant issues with Moors in Spain, for example, long before there were "colonial powers". Never minding issues with religious minorities as well.

But, by and large, I do agree with you.

 

[CaptainGemini]

Is now a bad time to point out the growing body of evidence that the medieval ages may have been more egalitarian than the modern world?

The anachronism in A Knight's Tale with the woman blacksmith wasn't that she was a woman, but that people had a problem with it. As it turns out, there were apparently a lot of women blacksmiths. It was pretty common for widows of blacksmiths to be allowed to continue the trade, which they had been taught to handle how blacksmiths paid taxes (arrowheads). And that's just one example of what recent discoveries are saying we have wrong about the medieval era.

Now, personally, I'm going to toss women blacksmiths, women knights, and women military leaders in not because they existed (which they did), but because I want to. I don't care about historical accuracy, and don't see why anyone else should. It's a quasi-medieval world that fails at the "medieval" bit in too many ways to count, so why should I care about getting details right?

 

[Hussar]

/snip

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.

Fair enough. I was using married couples as an example, since they are the ones most likely to have their sexuality obvious in a game. It would be the easiest way to include LGBT examples in the game. One doesn't even need to make the couples married. The word "partner" works quite well.

---

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.

From the 1e PHB Racial Reactions table

Elves - Half Elves Goodwill
Humans - Half Elves Tolerated
(note, these are the best reactions you can get outside of preferred. And Half elves are at least Tolerated, if not engender good will from all races save dwarves and half orcs)

From the 3.5 SRD

Half Elves:

+2 racial bonus on Diplomacy and Gather Information checks.

From the 4e PHB

Half Elf:

Skill Bonuses: +2 Diplomacy, +2 Insight

From the 5e PHB

Excellent Ambassadors
May half elves learn at an early age to get along with everyone, defusing hostility and finding common ground... They often make excellent ambassadors and go-betweens.

Funnily enough, 5e is the first edition not to give half elves some sort of diplomacy bonus. Although they do get two free skills and the flavour of the race certainly indicates no major issues.

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.

While they don't come right out and say it, where do you think half orcs come from? Loving relationships with humans? Really? And, again, the fact that they can gain acceptance just proves my point.

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."

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Think of them not always as "Half-" races but as "Part-" races and you'll be closer to it; as it only makes sense that when Half- races start breeding with other full or half races quarter-races will result, leading later to eighth-races and so forth. In the game I don't bother breaking it down any further than eighths, but even doing that is way more realistic within the fantasy than just all-half-none. (and yes, we have stat adjusts for each 1/8 level of both Elf and Orc when crossed with Human)

As for their acceptance within the game world, that varies by region and culture - kinda like the real world. That said, the game world tends to be a bit more cosmopolitan (particularly in larger cities or major trade centres) than does ours, mostly because there's simply more races to potentially interact with.

Lanefan