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

[tombowings]

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

In that case, I would say I have no intention to use D&D to promote anything. It is a game and nothing inside of it should be taken seriously, at least at my table.

 

[Caliban]

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.

Yup. Everyone knows this is a fantasy game created for and by straight white men. Expanding that fantasy to include any other sexuality is obviously part of a long term strategy to turn us gay.

Except for lesbians. Those are OK as long as they are NPC's.

 

[tombowings]

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.

I've explained it three times. If you're interested, look up one of those posts. But no, I'm not arguing LGBT themes/characters is propaganda. I'm arguing the statement Crawford made and motivation behind it were propagandist. I have no issue with LGBT themes/characters, but would prefer if the game refrained from supporting specific ideologies. Essentially, there's a different between "we included a gay dude," and "we included a gay dude to make a point." The first is cool. The second is not.

 

[tombowings]

Yup. Everyone knows this is a fantasy game created for and by straight white men. Expanding that fantasy to include any other sexuality is obviously part of a long term strategy to turn us gay.

Except for lesbians. Those are OK as long as they are NPC's.

Please provide a quote where I said I have any problem with including LGBT characters. I have been explaining my point dozens of times and continue to be misrepresented and my opinions interpreted in poor faith.

Let's spell it out:

Gay characters/NPCs/whatever: Good
Using game to push ideological points (regardless of what that point is): Bad.

Simple enough?

 

[Warpiglet]

I want a D&D game that has some echoes of medieval Europe and more specifically looks like the fantasy I have enjoyed in the past in many respects. I am not into robots and magical trains. Its no less silly than my magic hammers, but I am not into the imagery.

I do not want social justice issues or any other cause to be heavy handed to the point that I lose the vibe I am looking for. In the current case, I do not think WOTC has jumped the shark.

Some people want to play with whole parties of LGBT characters and have many protagonists with this orientation. That is cool. Its just not evocative of the fantasy tropes and worlds interested in. As long as that is not the default assumption, the game can handle it.

So for me, if WOTC handles it well, there are room for a wide array of characters while still maintaining knights in shining armor, castles or if you prefer, Conan and Elric. If every other character is gay, you have created something new and with a different flavor. Not everyone is looking for that. Some people are. Since I am uninterested in real world politics in my games, this would be a distraction. I do not however think that a gay character is going to bring down an entire adventure path.

There was an earlier suggestion that assuming heterosexuality was odd. So why would heterosexual beings be the assumed majority in many campaigns? The same reason most of us do not assume every other character in sword and sorcery settings are transgendered. Lets not be ridiculous.

If WOTC allows for diversity of characters without totally crushing existing archetypes that many people look for they will appeal to changing views and younger players (i.e. grow the market) while not alienating many existing customers.

If you want to do something that departs that is fine, just don't be shocked when some people want more familiar things. In my own campaign world, the ruler of each duchy is a female of some superior quality. This could include wisdom, combat prowess, beauty, or spiritual purity/power.

I did this for something novel as some portions of my world map to convention. I want a sense of difference and wonder for the players. Its not a political statement. However, I am not surprised if male rulers/kings predominate in another setting. Its imagery that resonates with tales we have heard.

Lastly, I trust the D&D brand as of now. I do not care about their politics but I do want them to grow the brand and recruit more players. If inclusiveness helps do so, they will do it. I believe they are savvy enough to do that without making it a constant political statement.

If as others have said the focus moves from good gaming to good campaigning, they will make less money from me. The three core books are an outstanding springboard for many homebrewed adventures. I am assuming they will keep making money from me, however.

 

[Caliban]

Please provide a quote where I said I have any problem with including LGBT characters. I have been explaining my point dozens of times and continue to be misrepresented and my opinions interpreted in poor faith.

Let's spell it out:

Gay characters/NPCs/whatever: Good
Using game to push ideological points (regardless of what that point is): Bad.

Simple enough?

Yup. It's only OK to include LGBT characters if they do it in a way that YOU find acceptable.

If only they had thought to consult you first, this travesty of justice could have been prevented. Sad.

 

[Trudy]

I've explained it three times. If you're interested, look up one of those posts. But no, I'm not arguing LGBT themes/characters is propaganda. I'm arguing the statement Crawford made and motivation behind it were propagandist. I have no issue with LGBT themes/characters, but would prefer if the game refrained from supporting specific ideologies. Essentially, there's a different between "we included a gay dude," and "we included a gay dude to make a point." The first is cool. The second is not.

How do you determine whether or not a gay dude was included to make a point?

 

[Morrus]

In that case, I would say I have no intention to use D&D to promote anything. It is a game and nothing inside of it should be taken seriously, at least at my table.

So you wouldn’t mention any heterosexual couples in your game, as that promotes heterosexuality?

 

[tombowings]

Yup. It's only OK to include LGBT characters if they do it in a way that YOU find acceptable.

If only they had thought to consult you first, this travesty of justice could have been prevented. Sad.

That would make sense, except Crawford came out and said that he included those NPCs in order to push his ideology. Otherwise, I would have assumed WotC did it because they thought it made sense for the story. I have no opinion concerning the NPCs, only the motivation behind including them.

 

[tombowings]

So you wouldn’t mention any heterosexual couples in your game, as that promotes heterosexuality?

No. That would be equally ridiculous.