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

[Yaarel]

They aren't harmful stereotypes, though. They're historical facts.

They are selective historical facts that seem to be omitting other historical facts.

Historically, groups that honored sexual minorities and gender minorities also existed. Even in the monotheistic traditions.

 

[Xeviat]

They aren't harmful sterotypes, though. They're historical facts that make sense within the context of the world I run. To do anything else would betray the world I've created.

Well it was hurtful to me. And I'm not terribly unique, so I assume it's hurtful to others. Maybe not everyone. Take that as you will.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tombowings]

To my mind, the issue is that LGBT acceptance has reached a point (at least within Western society) where the standards of discussion about the issue are moving from being a point of political contention to a point of simple moral truth, much like how we all share a belief that murder, violence, and violation of consent are wrong. You wouldn't say "It might be controversial to include the fact that Toril is round, because Flat Earthers might be offended", at least I would assume.

of course, even making the point that some things shouldn't be points of partisan difference is, in and of itself, a point of partisan difference in our current climate, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

You might be right. But why would Crawford need to make such a statement if that was the case? If it's already accepted why congratulate themselves for being politically correct.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Irda Ranger]

Quick, name three monotheists from recent movies.

Daredevil, Luke Cage, and Hellboy.

Admittedly, the Defenders isn't a movie but it's fresh on my mind.

Anyway, there are an awful lot of monotheists and atheists in the world, and if nothing else the Manichean paradigm is perfectly-suited to D&D adventuring, so if they're really trying to be inclusive we should at some point see the return of clerics as quasi-Christian "holy men" instead of poorly-rendered "polytheists" who are actually one-dimensional henotheists. Some days I'd even settle for seeing some genuine polytheism, just because I'm so sick of D&D henotheism! The diversity of human religious belief is far, far broader than what you see rendered in WotC-era D&D materials.

So I'm a practicing and devout Catholic, so I should be your intended audience here, but I can't feel this argument. The generic Cleric class suits the D&D game because different campaign settings have different cosmologies and theologies.

I recently ran Curse of Strahd and it was in an explicitly alt-Earth version of Romania, so all the Churches were Christian Churches (Eastern Orthodox, natch) not Morninglord Churches. And the one cleric PC in the game was a Dominican from Vienna. The game supports it just fine. It also supported having a Nature Cleric NPC who was an Odinist. Your problem is with the sameness of the Forgotten Realms/Greyhawk/Dragonlance settings, not the class rules.

 

[FrogReaver]

So his formerly secret desire for inclusiveness and representation is now "offensive" regardless of the successful tact and subtlety utilized in the products' execution because of a perceived agenda?

Ultimately, I'm not sure I understand why you're offended without wrapping around to my original point of contention. It feels like you're actively looking to take personal offense or take offense on behalf of a another group that, as far as I can tell, has not yet expressed any misgivings or asked for anyone to protest on their behalf.

I explained it. But if it makes you feel so justified then ignore my explanations and blame it on some personal fault of mine. Seems like the typical inclusiveness from your side.

 

[Jester David]

Once again, your misrepresenting my words. Of course there are countless example, but none taken casually. Nor was is casual when my brother came out. It was a family ordeal for the older generations, even in modern day America. The inclusion of "look, they're two gay blacksmiths and no one cares" is strange to say the least. If that's the setting WotC is going for, I'm fine with that. Merely creating and publishing that setting is not pushing an agenda. Saying, "Look at us. We're so inclusive and support diversity," is.

Similarly, having a setting in which homosexuality is prosecuted doesn't make me, the author homophobic. The NPCs in the setting are, sure, but it doesn't say anything about my own opinions. I include characters who eat cheese and sings of its splendor; that doesn't make the fact that I don't eat the stuff in real life any less true.

Why would a fantasy culture have the same hang ups to homosexuality as modern day America?
How people viewed homosexuality varied greatly throughout history, with varying degrees of acceptance and disapproval.

Plus, the game is escapist fantasy. Why not have the Forgotten Realms be accepting of varied sexuality? (This isn't even a new thing. Ed Greenwood always intended the Realms to be more tolerant than the real world.)

That all makes sense. I agree with all of it. But we're still speaking past each other.

Once again, include the LGBT community. That's fine. I have no problem with that. I just can't support Crawford's sentiment, "I wasn’t about to have this book go out and not acknowledge that people like me exist," not because of it's content (we support LGBT), but because of its implication that D&D is now a vehicle of political rhetoric, which is off-putting.

But, as has been said, it's WotC's decision, not mine. I'm just not interested in products that intentionally push a ideological agenda, even one I agree with (as it is in this case).

To Jeremy Crawford it's not political. To him it's his life.
Partisan politics don't enter into it. He just wants people that resemble him and his family in the books.

 

[Ancalagon]

That all makes sense. I agree with all of it. But we're still speaking past each other.

Once again, include the LGBT community. That's fine. I have no problem with that. I just can't support Crawford's sentiment, "I wasn’t about to have this book go out and not acknowledge that people like me exist," not because of it's content (we support LGBT), but because of its implication that D&D is now a vehicle of political rhetoric, which is off-putting.

But, as has been said, it's WotC's decision, not mine. I'm just not interested in products that intentionally push a ideological agenda, even one I agree with (as it is in this case).

He's not adding propaganda/ideology. He's REMOVING "lgbt people don't exist" propaganda. He's making it more real, more neutral.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using EN World mobile app

 

[FrogReaver]

He's not adding propaganda/ideology. He's REMOVING "lgbt people don't exist" propaganda. He's making it more real, more neutral.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using EN World mobile app

You still gotta add them for the right reasons...

Adding them to official campaigns just to add them in isn't adding them for the right reasons

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I think I say the same thing every time this kind of thing comes up. As long as I don't feel the books are more about fighting for social justice than good gaming I'm cool. I don't think in 30 years of gaming sexuality has ever been a focus though, so I'd just gloss over it for the most part anyway. The deepest we go into that is calling a high charisma NPC Hottie McHotness, or saying they are going wenching in town when I ask them what they are doing in downtime.