D&D 5E 5e's new gender policy - is it attracting new players?

[Hussar]

Go and prove it. Male upper body strength is much higher than female.

Even account noting for mass? Is a 150 pound man that much stronger in upper body strength than a similar mass woman? I'd also point out that women tend to have pretty strong legs and not so bad endurance.

Weapon fighting is not simply upper body strength.

 

[Sadras]

Wow, this thread has evolved. Interesting debates going on. Personally I hope this thread doesn't get closed by the mods due its 'touchy' subject and instead just gets moved to the appropriate category within the forums.

 

[IlluminatedSeraph]

[MENTION=5834]Celtavian[/MENTION]

I've been doing my best to ignore this thread all day, both because the argument you just decided to extend having with me IS derailing to the main topic and because it's my day off. I think you've made very clear what your position is and your biases are, and if you're comfortable with the moral vacuum of "everyone else did something sort of like it on some scale at some time, so it's okay" that you're articulating, suit yourself. But kindly don't try to characterize my education and what I do or do not credit.

Put as simply as I can, you are arguing the historical equivalent of the flat earth theory - by trying to oversimplify and equalize the actions of cultures you don't care about except as props for your vision of 'the West' as a 'winning team,' you're distorting the actual historical impact of European conquest in the interests of an agenda that says the fruits of victory go to the strong and what was done to get them wasn't that bad anyway. It doesn't hold up to inspection. Period.

What I find hilarious about this argument, by the way, is that when I'm discussing colonialism I usually find myself being the person articulating that it wasn't an unalloyed evil - that a lot of the world today has benefits to show for European empire as well as the obvious costs. But the understood backdrop to those conversations is that those empires were damaging to both those they asserted rule over and the people claiming to do the ruling, and if you need any further discussion on that point, I suggest you take it up with Kipling - about as thorough an Empire man as ever lived, and yet his work is full of the quiet, aching cost of the business for everyone involved.

I'm not going to engage further with you on this, because this isn't the forum for it and because I can't imagine you're interested in a serious conversation (if I'm wrong about that, you can send me a PM or whatever). I'm just going to leave this where I left my previous post - there simply isn't a serious argument for your position that takes the facts into account and doesn't completely dispense with the idea of morality altogether, and any moderately serious person who's investigated the matter should know that.

 

[IlluminatedSeraph]

Moving back to the main point of the thread, does anyone have any further points to make about gender/sexuality in D&D roleplaying games and the impact (or lack thereof) of WotC taking an in-text inclusive stance toward characters who may not fit the conventional pattern for either of those categories?

More specifically, by way of prompting:

1) Has anyone actually had a transgender, intersex or genderqueer character (regardless of whether the player was or was not) in their game? How did you approach the concept in your story? Case studies of respectful, dramatically interesting stories are especially welcome.

2) Has anyone done anything respectful and interesting with the idea of transgender, intersex or genderqueer people in their setting design that they'd like to share?

 

[MostlyDm]

There is no good faith argument that what the Europeans did was unique. They did what every major powerful culture was doing to a much larger scale due to being the first to be able to project their power over long distances due to their ability and willingness to traverse the ocean to do so. European colonialism is not uniquely nasty. You're just one those folks who likely has a liberal education and refuses to acknowledge that other cultures were engaged in similar disgusting or worse behavior on a smaller scale.

Genocide was not something the Europeans invented. Colonizing wasn't either. Europeans didn't invent slavery. They invented very few of the atrocities they committed. They were the most successful at projecting power worldwide. I don't feel an ounce of guilt over it. The world was going to be colonized by someone. I'm ok being part of the winning team.

Folks like you that take history and paint it as you do like to make the cultures the Europeans conquered seem like kindly, organized, peaceful cultures that the Europeans just happened upon and ruined. They weren't doing anything wrong or troublesome or wouldn't have in the future. Of course, everyone was organizing in a peaceful, friendly manner, then those bad guy Europeans showed up and ruined the party without any real opposition. None of those other places had armies or warriors or slavery or any of the vile evils the Europeans brought, oh, of course not.

That tiresome line of thought has been pushed by European scholars for ages. They completely ignore the racism, bigotry, maltreatment and similar behaviors in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. They don't bring up that the Incas and Aztecs were both warrior empires that expanded by crushing and enslaving smaller tribes and engaged in human sacrifice. They don't bring up the tribal genocides and enslavement that was occurring in Africa prior to the European's arrival. They don't bring up that there were African kings that captured and sold their own people to European slavers to build their wealth viewing the opposing tribes their kingdom defeated as lessers. Then their the complexity of Asia. The Japanese domination and enslavement of the Koreans. As well as the well known racist views of the Korean, Japanese, and Chinese that view themselves as the greatest people in the world.

It's one thing to seek to change things you consider bad. To judge people of the past by standards no one was living by is bad historical analysis aimed at pursuing an agenda. Europeans were no worse than any other group. They were merely more successful conquerors and did it in a wider scope. They engaged in no behaviors that were not already occurring. Very few people realize the Europeans enslaved Africans because Africans already had a slave trade and were trading people amongst themselves. They offered slaves in trade when the Europeans arrived. The Europeans found a use for slaves in their colonies and continued to trade with Africans. Not this whole myth where they took them themselves as it perpetuated in the modern day to make it seem like the Europeans targeted the African because of their racial views. The racial views came later as a justification for slavery. The initial reason slaves were taken was because African kings traded them to obtain things from the Europeans that arrived on their continent. This was an acceptable form of trading.

Of course the conquered are pissed. Who wouldn't be if they got hammered. I'll never be part of the feel bad for being successful group of people of European ancestry that want to see their ancestors as bad people for successfully expanding their influence. It isn't like Europe wasn't invaded time and time again by Mongols, Moors, and the fighting between the various European powers that divided up Europe prior to them projecting power over the seas. Being successful conquerors is not wrong. It was part of what people were doing in ancient times. I still fail to see why modern historian to ignore the atrocities committed by other cultures and nations because the Europeans make such easy targets due to their success.

It's even more ridiculous than you indicate here. Not only were the vast majority of Western atrocities not remotely atrocious by the standards of the time, but in many cases Western values were substantially better, more moral, and more enlightened than their contemporaries. That's *why* they were so successful and still dominate today. The slave trade was commonplace and not remotely abhorrent in the 18th century, but basing a country on the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights was unprecedented.

Progress isn't inevitable. Spitting on the societies that have made some of the best moral and intellectual progress in human history because they were imperfect is incredibly shortsighted, at best.

 

[Sadras]

Easier yet, change only the word "husband's" to "partner's". That way it's all left more open-ended so anyone can read into it whatever she or he wants to read into it. (could do the same for the first one too, but the presence of daughters kind of implies hetero either now or at some point in the past)

Lan-"in D&D where death can be temporary the marriage vow 'till death do us part' doesn't quite work the same as in reality"-efan

Honestly the word "partner" is horrible, what are they in a business relationship? Spouse is much more indicative of the nature of the relationship and still gender neutral.

Honestly, I don't approve of going with "spouse" or "partner" or other gender-neutral terms in cases like this. We've had decades of assumed heteronormativity. If we're going to be inclusive, we need at least occasional instances of specific examples that fall outside those parameters, not merely situations that could.

Whichever word you choose to use, at least I think we agree that using some word is better than none.

This right here.

If WotC is going to be inclusiveness, it has to be inclusive. Not just allow us to add inclusive ideas with our interpretation of vague terminology in the modules - actually be inclusive.

Especially with AL modules. AL doesn't allow editing of modules, so that whole stack of people mentioned in the Expeditions quote above are wired into the module as straight.

I think the word "spouse" would generally be bad, unless they intentionally want the spouse's gender kept hidden in-game. As in, perhaps the Prince escaped from his inheritance and married another man, and this enraged his father and now he doesn't really want it brought up. Then, he could mention his husband as a "spouse" in-game. Or if the character is of the type that believes that gender doesn't matter, which would also be valid. But the DM would still have to know.

Other than that, if the character is going to talk about a significant other, they'll probably mention the gender at some point, and if WotC strives to be more inclusive, having explicit same-sex partners is the way to go. In the end, if a particular DM is homophobic, they can change it themselves.

Okay say WOTC goes with this suggestion:
Are the PC-obsessed equality-police roleplaying community going to statistically analyse the number of masculine/feminine/transgender/homosexuals/heterosexuals/physically or mentally handicapped/colour-skinned/religious/atheist/height-challenged/not-slimmed...etc NPCs referred to in the adventure paths and modules and compare this to a perceived acceptable reality/medium? Are we ever going to be satisfied?

 

[Shemeska]

Moving back to the main point of the thread, does anyone have any further points to make about gender/sexuality in D&D roleplaying games and the impact (or lack thereof) of WotC taking an in-text inclusive stance toward characters who may not fit the conventional pattern for either of those categories?

More specifically, by way of prompting:

1) Has anyone actually had a transgender, intersex or genderqueer character (regardless of whether the player was or was not) in their game? How did you approach the concept in your story? Case studies of respectful, dramatically interesting stories are especially welcome.

2) Has anyone done anything respectful and interesting with the idea of transgender, intersex or genderqueer people in their setting design that they'd like to share?

My current PC is MtF (mind you, she's a bit of a corner case because she was born with a male body, was MtF, and ended up magically shifted to a female body as a result of an deal with an artifact that also as a price it effectively rewrote reality to erase her existence from collective memory and then devoured virtually every memory she had of her past except for her knowledge of what she'd done and why she'd done so). It's part of her backstory, but hasn't actually come up at the table with the other PCs. It might not ever.

The same character was also an NPC in a game I ran, and the same situation with her backstory. One player guessed what was going on based on some very subtle hints a year into the campaign, but most of the other PCs assumed she was cis female as a default assumption.

 

[Tia Nadiezja]

Moving back to the main point of the thread, does anyone have any further points to make about gender/sexuality in D&D roleplaying games and the impact (or lack thereof) of WotC taking an in-text inclusive stance toward characters who may not fit the conventional pattern for either of those categories?

More specifically, by way of prompting:

1) Has anyone actually had a transgender, intersex or genderqueer character (regardless of whether the player was or was not) in their game? How did you approach the concept in your story? Case studies of respectful, dramatically interesting stories are especially welcome.

2) Has anyone done anything respectful and interesting with the idea of transgender, intersex or genderqueer people in their setting design that they'd like to share?

Should I talk about giants now? I'm going to talk about giants now.

So... my current D&D campaign is set in a world that's a mashup of Mystara and Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved (I wanted to catch hints of the various things D&D has been and inspired, and if you ask me you can't bring up the d20 boom without bringing up Arcana Evolved, because it was by far the best work of that era). The Giants of the Diamond Throne are a colonizing world power (because, hey, the discussion of colonialism IS topical in a game where the visual tropes include sail!), the people of the Known World the natives of the land being settled. The games have thus far been from the viewpoint of the people of the Known World.

But the giants aren't evil - in many ways, they are more enlightened than the people of the Known World. One of the ways I emphasize this is through their approach to gender identity and family relationships.

Aegis (the giantish language) has no gendered pronouns. Every giant, at birth, is given a gender-neutral single-syllable childhood name. They have no family name at this time, and children with the same name are given descriptive nicknames as their personalities are revealed, often based on something they are frequently seen doing (such as Running-Tu or Reading-Qun). When a giant reaches the age of maturity, they undergo a ritual in which they learn their Truename, which is kept secret - revealing someone else's Truename is a capital crime in the Diamond Throne. They also choose two new names - a family name (usually that of their parents, though not always) and a (gendered) common name. It is when a giant reveals their chosen name to you, and not when you see their secondary sex characteristics, that you learn their gender.

Li-Coreon is the most notable giant in the Known World - a direct voice and agent of the One Who Sits on the Throne. His family name is Li, which was actually his childhood name (his relationship with his parents was not exactly friendly), and his common name is Coreon.

 

[Tia Nadiezja]

Okay say WOTC goes with this suggestion:
Are the PC-obsessed equality-police roleplaying community going to statistically analyse the number of masculine/feminine/transgender/homosexuals/heterosexuals/physically or mentally handicapped/colour-skinned/religious/atheist/height-challenged/not-slimmed...etc NPCs referred to in the adventure paths and modules and compare this to a perceived acceptable reality/medium? Are we ever going to be satisfied?

Should we? Should we ever be satisfied with our growth as individuals and as a subculture? Or should we always aim to do better, to be better?

I know which of those I prefer.

 

[Lanefan]

1) Has anyone actually had a transgender, intersex or genderqueer character (regardless of whether the player was or was not) in their game? How did you approach the concept in your story? Case studies of respectful, dramatically interesting stories are especially welcome.

Intentionally? No. Unintentionally? Devices and effects that change gender have shown up numerous times during my various campaigns; the variety of reactions both by characters and players has been interesting.

First, there's players who are cool with this and players who - well, aren't, and will move mountains to get the original gender restored somehow no matter what the character might think. No problem; means of changing back are usually available somehow, if one looks. But here I know I'd rather have the player step back and look through the character's eyes, and respond as the character would (which might be with the same revulsion, which is fair enough if that's how the character really would see it).

I've had players who I know are cool with it play a character as not cool at all with it, as that's how the character would react based on its established persona - again, this is fine. Example: one character in my current campaign, played by someone* who plays quite well characters of all genders and preferences, went from female to male and - based on her established character - hated every minute of it. The change was permanent (kind of wish-level stuff, long story), but an associate had a reusable cloak of gender change which could "overwrite" the change and make him her again. However, the cloak effect was dispellable and, as the character was a shape-changing Nature Cleric, also wore off on any shape-shift. So, every time Cassandra became Kassandros off he went to visit his chum with the cloak to get changed back to Cassandra. Later, he-she went to considerable length and no small expense to get the original change undone at the quasi-divine level; and so far this seems to have worked.

And I've had players/characters adopt a new gender and run with it; sometimes changing the sexual preference of the character to go along with the change (e.g. straight male becomes straight female), sometimes not (e.g. straight male becomes lesbian female). This choice I leave completely up to the player. There's a retired character in my current game who started out as male, got changed to female partway through her career, and both player and character ran with it - she's still female today. That said, I've no idea what this character's sexual preferences might be as either gender; it never really came up during her run of play. I should ask her player sometime; I still see him in the game I play in.

* - this player's current characters are a lesbian (I think) Dwarf, an androgynous bio-female bisexual Elf, and a straight (I think) female Aphrodite Cleric who happily gives the gifts of the Goddess wherever she goes. Woefully-unlucky Cassandra is now a long-term captive (or worse) of Mind Flayers.

Lan-"yes, this game can and sometimes will be cruel to its characters"-efan