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

[Morrus]

If they are interested in sales they will appeal to the market. The market wants what it wants.

Maybe they aren’t only interested in sales. Doing the right thing is hard sometimes.

 

[schnee]

Exactly. Correct message, wrong medium. It's as simple as that.

Nope, any medium is the right medium. It's a simple as that.

 

[Caliban]

I said nothing as to the portrayal of these NPCs - because it is irreverent. I am discussing Crawford's statements not the NPCs. As I have said dozens of times, I have no argument against the inclusion of NPCs, only the motivation behind their origin as professed by Crawford.

You've made your opinion clear. And it has been made clear that many people disagree with your opinion.

I personally don't have a problem with Crawford's statements.

So...now what?

 

[tombowings]

So ... just so I can understand this correctly.

If D&D had traditionally had a dearth of black characters.

And D&D had a black designer.

You would have no problem with black NPCs in a module.

But if that designer said, "Hey, I wasn't going to send out another book with no black characters, because it's important for all of the black designers and gamers in the company that we're represented in our games (with the necessary corollary this this is true of the players as well)" ... That's the bridge you want to die on?

Speaking of small points ...

Once again, no problem with black characters. No problem with gay characters. The problem lies in the sentence, "I wasn't going to send out another book with no..." Once again, minor point. I honestly regret starting this discussion because it makes all sides of the issue look ridiculous for even arguing about this.

Conversation thus far.

Tombowings: uho;thupoera;jeiso;gj

Someone: Tombowings says...
Tombowings: No, actually I said...

Someone: Tombowings says...
Tombowings: No, actually I said...

Someone: Tombowings says...
Tombowings: No, actually I said...

Someone: Tombowings says...
Tombowings: No, actually I said...

Someone: Tombowings says...
Tombowings: No, actually I said...

Someone: Tombowings says...
Tombowings: No, actually I said...

Someone: Tombowings says...
Tombowings: No, actually I said...

...5 billion years later the sun expands, engulfs the Earth, and we all die.

 

[Morrus]

Thanks for your moral pronouncements. Thanks for letting me know that if I must have certain preferences or I am "wrong."

Where have I heard that before?

I always have, and always will speak on moral issues. If that bothers you, that’s on you. I won’t stop doing it. It’s called integrity.

 

[tombowings]

You've made your opinion clear. And it has been made clear that many people disagree with your opinion.

I personally don't have a problem with Crawford's statements.

So...now what?

Now the discussion ends. We agree to disagree. And we leave it.

 

[tombowings]

Nope, any medium is the right medium. It's a simple as that.

Would you disagree if you didn't like the message?

 

[Quickleaf]

That rainbow dragon kicks ass! Way to represent on D&D's inclusivity, Jeremy Crawford!

 

[MechaPilot]

I said nothing as to the portrayal of these NPCs - because it is irreverent. I am discussing Crawford's statements not the NPCs. As I have said dozens of times, I have no argument against the inclusion of NPCs, only the motivation behind their origin as professed by Crawford.

I assume you meant "irrelevant" and not "irreverent."

It is not irrelevant. You specifically said this:

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

You also admitted that homosexuals exist.

If homosexuals exist (as you admitted), and if there is no doctrine that states homosexuals must be presented in a specific light, for good or ill, in WotC's adventures (and there doesn't appear to be), then homosexuality becomes just another character trait like height, weight, race, sex, eye/hair/skin color, etc. When a character's homosexuality is treated as just another character trait and does not inherently paint them in a good (or bad) light, what and where is the "political cause or point of view" to make the inclusion of gay characters propaganda? How is it any more propagandist than the plethora of straight couples who are included without a second thought? Or the greedy merchants? Or the horrors committed by zealous cultists?

 

[tombowings]

I'm not America. I also don't hold seminars on bride napping. But I can say with 100% certidude that I am not slightly bothered by game designers including gay characters in their adventures. I'm sorry that you think that's an agenda, but get used to it. This is the world. We include everybody, and if we're don't, we try to.

Um...When have I ever said I was against including anyone? Please stop with the blatant misrepresentation of my views.