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

[LordEntrails]

I don't care if you wrote it. It's been implied. You even started a whole whine thread to complain about this board's lack of "openness" towards your opinion which something something being silenced or other alt-white talking point garbage.

Here you go flat out lying again.

 

[Morrus]

So, are you a bigot or a racist or what? Because obviously you come across as a hypocrite.

Oh oh! Here comes the butthurt brigade!

Your victim complex brings joy to my otherwise lightless and dark soul.

You know what rule we had long, long before these inclusiveness rules?

The ones about namecalling. If that's what the conversation's devolved to, best just move along.

 

[Sunseeker]

Edit, ninjaed by mod. I'mma chill out now.

 

[MechaPilot]

Is this a problem?

I'll come back to this at the end.

I mean it could indicate some inner motivation or thought process, bias, etc. It can also simple mean that their are too many details in a campaign for a DM to not leave out details that are generally unimportant until confronted with something by a player.

I mean, the fictional gay dwarven smith from earlier, does he have brothers or sisters? When is his birthday? Who were his parents? We're they married? There are thousands of details that a DM can't (and shouldn't) figure out or think about until presented with a need to do so.

Or maybe this should be the new NPC Stat block:

Bathan Flintstone
Medium humanoid (dwarf), neutral good
Sexuality: Homosexual, long term monogamous
Parents: Heterosexual, long term monogamous
Children: None
Birthday:
...

I agree with you that there are a lot of things DMs don't, and really shouldn't, concern themselves with because they are rather trivial to writing adventures or preparing for the running of the game. Now, every DM also knows that players have a habit of doing things you don't always expect, and sometimes those things make otherwise irrelevant facts about NPCs (or even parts of the world the DM hasn't fully fleshed-out yet) suddenly relevant.

Is this a problem?

Yes, it is.

If, as many contend, the sexuality of an NPC is of entirely no import then there should be no pause by the DM. The DM could opt to roll for it. The DM could, based on other character facts, make a decision one way or the other. Or, the DM could, if the sexuality of most NPCs is truly meaningless, just let it be whatever would facilitate the interaction between the PC and the NPC, regardless of whether than means heterosexual or homosexual.

 

[FrogReaver]

No. I have no desire to include you.

Well at least you finally said it. Props for that.

Not one person here has come out against anyone being Gay. But you see there is a difference between being Gay and telling the whole world about it. If you can't understand that some people are uncomfortable with the part where you tell the whole world but don't actually mind that you are gay then you are missing a huge segment of the population.

Maybe that's hypocritical that they feel that way. Maybe that's wrong on some level but I'm confident that if it is then it will get sorted out eventually. But you sure as heck don't win them over by purposefully doing what makes them uncomfortable just because you can.

 

[Sunseeker]

Or, the DM could, if the sexuality of most NPCs is truly meaningless, just let it be whatever would facilitate the interaction between the PC and the NPC, regardless of whether than means heterosexual or homosexual.

It's unfortunate how much flak BioWare got when they made player-sexual characters. I thought it was awesome. For characters who weren't defined by their sexuality (and lets face it, some people are) having them swing towards the player was probably one of the most enjoyable elements I've ever had in a video game.

 

[Sunseeker]

Well at least you finally said it. Props for that.

Not one person here has come out against anyone being Gay. But you see there is a difference between being Gay and telling the whole world about it. If you can't understand that some people are uncomfortable with the part where you tell the whole world but don't actually mind that you are gay then you are missing a huge segment of the population.

Maybe that's hypocritical that they feel that way. Maybe that's wrong on some level but I'm confident that if it is then it will get sorted out eventually. But you sure as heck don't win them over by purposefully doing what makes them uncomfortable just because you can.

Homosexuals shouldn't have to live their lives worrying about what makes other people comfortable. It's 20-freaking-17. We should be past this argument, no, wait in fact we are past this argument.

 

[Caliban]

People are on edge and feel threatened. There may be an urge to take a stand, when they can, where they can.

Yep, the classic 'be gay all you wan't but don't stick it in my face'.

Which is really 'your existence is revolting to me, so keep hiding so I can avoid dealing with my feelings'.

...shrouded behind the most disingenuous nitpicking about 'propaganda', 'freedom', and the like.

It's utterly transparent.

I'm a little confused, I don't see how your statement follows from mine.

I'm not sure if you think that was what I was trying to say, or if my comment was simply a convenient starting point for your own.

 

[Yunru]

Homosexuals shouldn't have to live their lives worrying about what makes other people comfortable. It's 20-freaking-17. We should be past this argument, no, wait in fact we are past this argument.

You're right: homosexuals don't have to worry about what makes other people comfortable. All people do.

Not sure if it's intentional but you heavily imply "homosexuals should be excempt from common decency" with the quoted post.

 

[Ganymede81]

Right, which comes from it's source material: Dracula.

Are you implying that things like this are OK when they echo some familiarity with popular culture or some other aspect of the real world?

I mean, I won't disagree with you, but wouldn't this line of reasoning about source material apply to both Dracula AND Lestat?

What part about it is "shoving this heterosexuality all over our faces"?

Are you unfamiliar with the adventure? You don't even need to read ten pages to see this character relationship described with the following words: "love," "courtship," and "consort." Now I realize that this is an all-ages forum and that not all of the forum goers have had the talk, but this is pretty clearly a reference to carnal attraction.

At which point do associate it with "male/female" rather than "predator/prey"?

It's not like you're stopping him because she's a woman, after all. You're stopping him because she's an unwilling victim.

Do you mean: at what point does it go from "Character A likes Character B" and become an adventure hook that leads to some good questing?

I trust WOTC to handle that on their end. Hell, one of the ways to resolve the danger of Argynvostholt in CoS is to get two gay revenants to rediscover their love for one another, which involves sneaking a gigantic dragon skull out of a haunted castle and hauling it cross-country while being harried by ambushes.

Now that's some mighty fine questing!