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

[Morrus]

OK. If it isn't propaganda, please provide one case of homosexuality in medieval Europe that merely blended into the background and did not cause political or familial drama?

By definition you can’t. Don’t be silly now.

On the other hand, I can think of many heterosexual marriages which caused plenty of political or familial drama.

*cough*Henry VIII*cough*

 

[tombowings]

By definition you can’t. Don’t be silly now.

On the other hand, I can think of many heterosexual marriages which caused plenty of political or familial drama.

*cough*Henry VIII*cough*

Exactly, everything causes drama. Everything is a possible adventure/complication - so it's almost unrealistic to think that two gay glassblowers (get it?) wouldn't draw attention, or pair of bisexual alchemist wouldn't stir something up.

 

[tombowings]

So by the same token, would you say that you’re all for presenting heterosexuality in a positive light as long as it furthers the story in some way?

What do you mean, exactly? Do you mean showing how heterosexual marriage is somehow virtuous *barf*. Absolutely not. I might show how marrying for money and property, followed by murdering one's spouse could be temporarily advantageous, though, at least before it causes a permanent, generational blood feud between the two families.

I guess the one positive spin could be that heterosexual marriage bares the gift of children, which you may then work like personal slaves until they come of age and die or they murder you in your sleep.

 

[Morrus]

What do you mean, exactly?

I mean exactly whatever it was you meant, since I copy/pasted your text and replaced the word “homosexuality” with “heterosexuality”.

 

[Gradine]

Once again, you are misrepresent my argument in poor faith. Either we can have a discussion in which we refute each other's points, or we can agree to disagree, but I see no need for crass mockery of this sort.

No, this is an entirely fair point. You yourself admitted to including instances of rape in your adventures. How does this:

A: Square with you now consistently referring to it as a "children's game"
also
B: Please explain why the existence of LGBTQ people is inappropriate for children

Art is extraordinarily poor medium of exchanging viewpoints.

This is frankly the most ridiculous thing I've read in this thread so far, and that's saying something. Art basically exists for the explicit purpose of exchanging viewpoints. Yes, there are things lost in translation, and in personal interpretation, but that's also part of the beauty of art.

If you're producing something that could be considered "art", I'd consider it a prerequisite that you actually say something with it. Otherwise, it is at best something that is aesthetically pleasing or otherwise moderately enjoyable but ultimately meaningless. Empty pop cultural calories. Fortunately, this is also completely impossible, it's just far too easy to identify works of art or storytelling that closely align with the predominant viewpoint as "lacking a viewpoint". Because the predominant viewpoint is viewed as "neutral" or "normal". Which is very much a false narrative. See also:

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! ]

Now, I don't know that I'd go so far as to call D&D or modules art. I would call them (especially modules) an act of storytelling, which is explicitly the sharing of a viewpoint.

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

Says you, but I again point to the above quote. Erasing LGBTQ people from history, narratives, films, stories, games do not reflect and have never reflected reality. This erasure, purposeful or otherwise, had the effect of further isolating an already marginalized community. Inclusivity (which really boils down to reaffirming that certain groups of people exist and therefore deserve representation, and thus including their representation in works of art and popular culture) has had an extremely positive effect on these communities, which have been demanding representation and have shown a great deal of appreciation for what representation they have been receiving.

You claim to hold a moral authority and that you know what would make "both sides happy' but even in this thread that does not seem to reflect any kind of reality. You clearly do not have the authority to speak for what the LBGTQ community would prefer in this instance, and I would strongly encourage you to refrain from claiming it in the future, because you clearly don't understand or care about that community's preferences.

In practice, the only people who are vociferously against inclusivity and diverse representations are those who do not want to see those groups represented or normalized, or who otherwise see it as a threat to their own privileged position as sole owners of the "default" or "normal".

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

No, this is an entirely fair point. You yourself admitted to including instances of rape in your adventures. How does this:

A: Square with you now consistently referring to it as a "children's game"
also
B: Please explain why the existence of LGBTQ people is inappropriate for children



This is frankly the most ridiculous thing I've read in this thread so far, and that's saying something. Art basically exists for the explicit purpose of exchanging viewpoints. Yes, there are things lost in translation, and in personal interpretation, but that's also part of the beauty of art.

If you're producing something that could be considered "art", I'd consider it a prerequisite that you actually say something with it. Otherwise, it is at best something that is aesthetically pleasing or otherwise moderately enjoyable but ultimately meaningless. Empty pop cultural calories. Fortunately, this is also completely impossible, it's just far too easy to identify works of art or storytelling that closely align with the predominant viewpoint as "lacking a viewpoint". Because the predominant viewpoint is viewed as "neutral" or "normal". Which is very much a false narrative. See also:



Now, I don't know that I'd go so far as to call D&D or modules art. I would call them (especially modules) an act of storytelling, which is explicitly the sharing of a viewpoint.



Says you, but I again point to the above quote. Erasing LGBTQ people from history, narratives, films, stories, games do not reflect and have never reflected reality. This erasure, purposeful or otherwise, had the effect of further isolating an already marginalized community. Inclusivity (which really boils down to reaffirming that certain groups of people exist and therefore deserve representation, and thus including their representation in works of art and popular culture) has had an extremely positive effect on these communities, which have been demanding representation and have shown a great deal of appreciation for what representation they have been receiving.

You claim to hold a moral authority and that you know what would make "both sides happy' but even in this thread that does not seem to reflect any kind of reality. You clearly do not have the authority to speak for what the LBGTQ community would prefer in this instance, and I would strongly encourage you to refrain from claiming it in the future, because you clearly don't understand or care about that community's preferences.

Since we are talking about moral authorities you shouldn't speak like the LGBTQ community is one monolithic entity with a singular preference.

 

[Gradine]

Since we are talking about moral authorities you shouldn't speak like the LGBTQ community is one monolithic entity with a singular preference.

That is completely true and a fair point, and one that often gets lost in these kinds of discussions. It's not a controversial statement, however, to state that a majority of the LGBTQ community has been asking for stronger representation in popular culture and/or very appreciative of the representation they have received so far. I mean, Will & Grace of all fracking things is still relevant enough to be receiving a reboot for a reason, after all.

 

[tombowings]

No, this is an entirely fair point. You yourself admitted to including instances of rape in your adventures. How does this:

A: Square with you now consistently referring to it as a "children's game"
also
B: Please explain why the existence of LGBTQ people is inappropriate for children

OK. Let's try bolThe LGBTQ is not inappropriate for children. Propaganda is.

This is frankly the most ridiculous thing I've read in this thread so far, and that's saying something. Art basically exists for the explicit purpose of exchanging viewpoints. Yes, there are things lost in translation, and in personal interpretation, but that's also part of the beauty of art.

If you're producing something that could be considered "art", I'd consider it a prerequisite that you actually say something with it. Otherwise, it is at best something that is aesthetically pleasing or otherwise moderately enjoyable but ultimately meaningless. Empty pop cultural calories. Fortunately, this is also completely impossible, it's just far too easy to identify works of art or storytelling that closely align with the predominant viewpoint as "lacking a viewpoint". Because the predominant viewpoint is viewed as "neutral" or "normal". Which is very much a false narrative.

Now, I don't know that I'd go so far as to call D&D or modules art. I would call them (especially modules) an act of storytelling, which is explicitly the sharing of a viewpoint.

That's fair.

I still think the whole, "I show my fact, you show your facts, we each share each other's analysis of them, and together we decide whose analysis is better" is a much clearer, productive way to deal with ideological issues. But to each his own.

Erasing LGBTQ people from history, narratives, films, stories, games do not reflect and have never reflected reality. This erasure, purposeful or otherwise, had the effect of further isolating an already marginalized community. Inclusivity (which really boils down to reaffirming that certain groups of people exist and therefore deserve representation, and thus including their representation in works of art and popular culture) has had an extremely positive effect on these communities, which have been demanding representation and have shown a great deal of appreciation for what representation they have been receiving.

Agreed. Doesn't mean we need to do so with propagandist motivations, further's a specific agenda, or with the goal of being politically, though.

You claim to hold a moral authority and that you know what would make "both sides happy' but even in this thread that does not seem to reflect any kind of reality. You clearly do not have the authority to speak for what the LBGTQ community would prefer in this instance, and I would strongly encourage you to refrain from claiming it in the future, because you clearly don't understand or care about that community's preferences.

I have no intention to make anyone happy. It's a lost cause. Humans are incapable of prolonged happiness. Nor have I spoken on anyone behalf except my own (except maybe the Tower of London's to show just how awesome records they keep). My only argument is propaganda is poor form, let's not do it, and keep D&D apolitical.

In practice, the only people who are vociferously against inclusivity and diverse representations are those who do not want to see those groups represented or normalized, or who otherwise see it as a threat to their own privileged position as sole owners of the "default" or "normal".

I have never written in favor of not including the LGBT characters, including NPCs, out of publish adventurers. Thank you for creating alternative facts concerning my character and opinions.

 

[Ristamar]

Oh . It was most definitely a corporate PR statement.
You don't get the brands lead rules developer, giving an official interview, intentionally pointing this out & discussing how it's the going forward plan, without it being a corp. statement.

I agree that the message of inclusiveness in D&D, in general, has been a common theme and that their designers' views represent the company by proxy.

My point was that there had not been a specific, public facing LGBT marketing agenda from WotC, but I may be mistaken. The interviewer has a history of reporting on social issues in gaming, but Crawford did not seek out this press, AFAIK.

It's moot, anyway, as there's no evil in trying to attract new customers with genuinely positive PR.

 

[Trudy]

I'm a little confused -- hopefully someone can clear this up for me.

Are people arguing that including LGBT themes/characters is propaganda? If so, is including heterosexual themes/characters also propaganda? Please advise.