D&D 5E D&D Promises to Make the Game More Queer

[Wepwawet]

(...snip...)
Stormdale

In my game I have a disabled girl on a power chair (she rolls her dice with her mouth, I did suggest a phone app, but she said she wanted the real thing).

She asked if her character (a non-binary half-elf assassin) could be disabled. At first I was very surprised and wondered why would she want that. But then I realized that like herself, it should be possible for a fantasy character to be disabled and still highly effective.

So I made the character's legs broken and disabled (loads of experiments on their body long ago), but they found a ritual to create a mind link with an animal. They're now riding a spider and loving it!

 

[tombowings]

Blatantly pushing an antigay agenda is problematic on several levels.

Dude. I am pro LGBT marriage in every sense of the word and campaigning in support of it for over 15 years. Message =/= delivery system.

 

[Ancalagon]

Putting propaganda in children's game is the right thing to do? OK. That makes sense.

Now, Just so I don't have to rehash this again *sigh*...

Propaganda: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.

According to the article presented in the OP, Crawford said “I wasn’t about to have this book go out and not acknowledge that people like me exist." There are two parts of the quote:

1. "I wasn’t about to have this book go out and not acknowledge..."
2. "...people like me exist."

There is nothing wrong with part 2. It's not propagandist at all. It's factual. The LGBT community exists. Personally, I see no reason why we all shouldn't embrace that community. My problem is with part 1, which shows an intent to present a certain world view.

Now, as I have stated before, the inclusion of "people like [him]" (which is a terrible way to phrase his motivation), could be handled well and make sense within the context of the source material and the adventure, but the way Crawford states his intentions is unsettling. They point at a political or at least an ideological motivation, which makes the inclusion of the LGBT a propagandist advance.

Now, part of professional career is to promote democratic values and tolerance in the developing world - so don't go saying I'm some kind of bigot, because I'm not. All I'm saying is that there is a place for political discussions, but placing ideological propaganda in a children's game is not the right way to go about it. Whether or not I agree with the message of this particular piece of propaganda is irreverent. D&D is not the right coliseum for the battle of ideas to take place, in my opinion, and I will continue to advocate that very simple, reasonable position.

Gay and lesbian people exist. This is a fact. *Not* having them represented is misleading. It is a propaganda that they do not exist. You can't conclude that not including them is the neutral default and including them is propaganda!

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using EN World mobile app

 

[Yaarel]

In the premodern worlds, men had sex with men, just like they do today and just like they did in prehistoric times. Often, the issue is, they did not marry each other. The institution of marriage evolved as an orderly way to transfer property to the next generation. Men were assumed to have sex with whoever they wanted. The institution of marriage defined which children had a right to inherit from the father.

In many cultures, if two men got ‘married’, by definition, it meant that one of them was identifying as the feminine gender. In other words, premodern marriage evidences transgenderism, not homosexuality.

In modern worlds, marriage tends to be more egalitarian, where the man and the woman have equal rights. Thus the possibility of two men marrying each other as men, is somewhat of a novelty.

 

[Ristamar]

1. How is purposefully creating a gay NPC just for the sake of having a gay NPC supposed to be anything but offensive? I'm surprised gays don't see it that way as well. It's almost like saying y'all are so unimportant to the story that we have to go out of our way to work you into it.

As opposed to saying "the dearth of your representation is so unimportant that we won't go out of our way to work you into it"...?

Of course, as is the case with anything, context and nuance are important. Regardless, if one is actively looking to take offense as to make their own statement, no amount of principled sincerity or goodwill will ever appease.

 

[tombowings]

Gay and lesbian people exist. This is a fact. *Not* having them represented is misleading. It is a propaganda that they do not exist. You can't conclude that not including them is the neutral default and including them is propaganda!

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using EN World mobile app

Please point out anywhere in this discussion where I say the LGBT community should be excluded, not represented, or villainized. I have said nothing of the sort. I have made two and only two points over and over, which very few people have combated:

1. Casual inclusion of LGBT does not it the source material of medieval Europe. It was stated that most people have moved away from a medieval backdrop for their D&D campaigns, so I stopped arguing this point.

2. Crawford statement that he "wasn’t about to have this book go out and not acknowledge that people like me exist" shows that D&D is now pushing propaganda for an ideological agenda. No one had yet to show how this statement is not propagandist, and therefore I haven't dropped this line of thought (yet).

Both of these are factual statements people seem to be upset by (for some reason) and have misrepresentation in future posts, which has led to a useless 13-page internet battle over nothing.

 

[tombowings]

In the premodern worlds, men had sex with men, just like they do today and just like they did in prehistoric times. Often, the issue is, they did not marry each other. The institution of marriage evolved as an orderly way to transfer property to the next generation. Men were assumed to have sex with whoever they wanted. The institution of marriage defined which children had a right to inherit from the father.

In many cultures, if two men got ‘married’, by definition, it meant that one of them was identifying as the feminine gender. In other words, premodern marriage evidences transgenderism, not homosexuality.

In modern worlds, marriage tends to be more egalitarian, where the man and the woman have equal rights. Thus the possibility of two men marrying each other as men, is somewhat of a novelty.

What does this have to do with anything. No one here is arguing against any of this.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Yaarel]

Please point out anywhere in this discussion where I say the LGBT community should be excluded, not represented, or villainized.

I dunno. The impression I got from your examples was that gay characters could only be in D&D if they are demon worshiping villains or else socially rejected as criminals.

The tone seemed hateful to me, at least.

 

[FrogReaver]

As opposed to saying "the dearth of your representation is so unimportant that we won't go out of our way to work you into it"...?

There is an option number 3. Some NPC's will be more interesting and memorable and fun if they are gay than if they are not. D&D is about fun first and foremost. Make those NPC's gay and don't go around claiming you are "making dnd more queer" and both sides will be appeased.