D&D General “‘Scantily Clad and Well Proportioned’: Sexism and Gender Stereotyping in the Gaming Worlds of TSR and Dungeons & Dragons.”

[Belgos]

It’s always worth analyzing the past, but we should be careful not to evaluate it purely through the lens of modern values. While this approach can highlight important insights, it risks oversimplifying contexts or judging them unfairly without considering the beliefs and circumstances of the time.

Written by Chris Danielson, the paper was presented at the Popular Culture Association national convention years ago and I just read it... and I find myself going "Yeah, that tracks.(emphasis mine)"

That said, I wonder if your current concerns also extend to modern D&D? Your phrasing, particularly the tense used, seems to imply dissatisfaction even with the current iteration of the game, which has made significant efforts to move away from outdated stereotypes. Could you clarify if your comments are solely retrospective or also aimed at the present state of the game?

 

[Pedantic]

I went through the core books from 1e to 5e and looked. Quite literally none of them mention sexual assault as how half-elves come into being.

What I did find was one sentence in one paragraph under half-elves in The Complete Book of Elves(2e) that said,

"Many half-elves are also the unhappy byproduct of war crimes, and they are feared to echo the circumstances of their conception."

Many is not most, though, and most of the half-elf write up spoke about couples and love between an elf and a human.

So we basically have Tanis from 1e and one sentence in one paragraph of a non-core 2e book.

I think you're still missing the point broadly here, but that particular discussion was about half-orcs.

 

[Maxperson]

I think you're still missing the point broadly here, but that particular discussion was about half-orcs.

It can be hard to follow the different discussions sometimes!

 

[I'm A Banana]

When men are being accused of sexism because they make art featuring scantily clad and well proportioned women or because they are buying such material, I think it’s fair to ask if women engaged in similar behavior will be treated the same.

But given this accusatory post you just made I don’t think we can have that discussion.

Of course they would be treated differently. It's a fundamentally different action. How could it be the same? These actions don't exist in some context-free vacuum. The current world isn't a gender-neutral place. It's a male-dominated place, and a woman's naked body isn't currently a neutral thing without meaning. If we ever somehow achieve a gender-neutral society and keep it thus for enough generations that true gender equality can be said to exist, perhaps then those actions would be the same. But, like, if someone did that today? In reality? Context.

That's kind of The Idea, Here. The problem isn't directly the art. The problem is the art in the context that it exists in. If you accurately point out that a dress is ill-fitting and you're a professional fashion designer at a runway show, you would be treated differently than if you accurately point out that a dress is ill-fitting and you're a groom standing at an altar and your bride is in front of you in that ill-fitting dress. Context helps determine meaning.

Sexism, in context, is related to social power.

Which is why for cis men like me, it's often useful to start with first acknowledging male social power, and how that's used (and has been used historically). That's the context we all exist in. And in that context, a woman making or buying that art is not the same as me making or buying that art. It does not make sense for those people to be treated the same.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah the idea of 'trans' being a background is a bit yikes imo. Replace 'trans' with 'gay' and it makes it pretty clear.

Anyone of any background can be trans.

Yeah. I don't see sexuality of any sort being a background. Heck, it's not even really part of your background insofar as your sexuality is part of who you are, and your background consists of your life experiences. So while sexuality isn't a part of your background, meaningful life events that revolve around your character's sexuality would be part of your background.

Of course 5e doesn't use background like that really. There's a small group of random background chart rolls in one of the splatbooks, but background in 5e is more of a profession than life background. I'm a scribe! I'm a soldier! I'm a hermit!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I've had two half-elf PCs made using 2024 rules; the first combined species features between the two species, like 50/50 from each species. The second is just using the full elf racial features, they just happen to be half-elven within the fiction.

Yeah, there's currently three ways to do it - your two, and playing a 2014 half-elf in an otherwise 2024 game. They all work!

 

[Pedantic]

Yeah. I don't see sexuality of any sort being a background. Heck, it's not even really part of your background insofar as your sexuality is part of who you are, and your background consists of your life experiences. So while sexuality isn't a part of your background, meaningful life events that revolve around your character's sexuality would be part of your background.

Of course 5e doesn't use background like that really. There's a small group of random background chart rolls in one of the splatbooks, but background in 5e is more of a profession than life background. I'm a scribe! I'm a soldier! I'm a hermit!

I don't know if you intended to imply this, but it's generally not okay to equate sexual orientation and transgender identity; they both fall under the broader queer umbrella, but are different things.

 

[Umbran]

Simply asking the question ...

Mod Note:
You realize that "simply asking the question..." is the main line of the sealion, right?

Maybe, in these threads, make your own points and support them with your own reasons, instead of playing question-games.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't know if you intended to imply this, but it's generally not okay to equate sexual orientation and transgender identity; they both fall under the broader queer umbrella, but are different things.

No offense was intended. I probably should have used gender instead of sexuality.

 

[niklinna]

I don't know if you intended to imply this, but it's generally not okay to equate sexual orientation and transgender identity; they both fall under the broader queer umbrella, but are different things.

Doesn't the term "sexuality" encompass all of that and more though? Although I will say it often seems like people use "sexuality" when the intended meaning is "sexual orientation". Maybe it's because the names for sexual orientations end in "-sexuality".