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

[MostlyDm]

I've said it a few times already Jester Canuck, but I'll say it more explicitly:

I'm not opposed to LGBT people appearing in fiction. Or in games. Or whatever. I have zero problem with that.

I'm just opposed to specific instances that strike me as shoehorning, forcing, etc. Nobody pushed people to make that show... it was a project chosen by people who were passionate about it. The thing I think is stupid is complaining that a piece of fiction is insufficiently inclusive... creating fiction that is inclusive is fine.

Insofar as the PHB is just being inclusive, I don't mind, that's fine. Insofar as I think it's trying to push other people into being inclusive in their works of fiction (campaigns), I think that's manipulative and wrong.

 

[Jester David]

Yes. And? Are you saying that dissent from your world view that X is a problem and needs to be addressed with actions to make things more equal and inclusive is to be labelled as a problem? And if so, how do you address that problem of people dissenting from your world view on that? Are actions to limit the methods available for those dissenters to voice their "wrong" views justified?

You know what, I'll say it.
Yes, it's a problem.

I'm not always right. I'm wrong a lot. And not everything I believe is something I'd say is absolutely right, and I've changed my views on a lot of things over my lifetime. The vast majority of dissent from my worldview isn't a problem because life is subjective.

But when it comes down to my world view that encouraging people to be viewed as people, that we need to encourage inclusivity and discourage hate, that we need to work towards proportional representation of the glorious diversity of humanity in our fiction then, yes, people who dissent with that view are kinda a problem.
I have no problems saying that.

If people don't want to participate, then that's their choice. Because the issue is really about choice, which is lacking for so many who don't have the option. People who don't agree are fully welcome into the community as well, and can just ignore the 0.078% of the PHB that deals with gender. They can run their games however they want. And if they they don't wish to participate, there's still a lot of media for them to engage in. (Like almost all of it.)

But I'm not going to apologize for wanting as many people as possible to feel welcome in this hobby, to join in playing this game I love, and to feel accepted. Because Odin knows I didn't feel accepted in the larger world and this community accepted me, and I am damn well going to pay it forward.

 

[Mistwell]

You know what, I'll say it.
Yes, it's a problem.

I'm not always right. I'm wrong a lot. And not everything I believe is something I'd say is absolutely right, and I've changed my views on a lot of things over my lifetime. The vast majority of dissent from my worldview isn't a problem because life is subjective.

But when it comes down to my world view that encouraging people to be viewed as people, that we need to encourage inclusivity and discourage hate, that we need to work towards proportional representation of the glorious diversity of humanity in our fiction then, yes, people who dissent with that view are kinda a problem.
I have no problems saying that.

If people don't want to participate, then that's their choice. Because the issue is really about choice, which is lacking for so many who don't have the option. People who don't agree are fully welcome into the community as well, and can just ignore the 0.078% of the PHB that deals with gender. They can run their games however they want. And if they they don't wish to participate, there's still a lot of media for them to engage in. (Like almost all of it.)

But I'm not going to apologize for wanting as many people as possible to feel welcome in this hobby, to join in playing this game I love, and to feel accepted. Because Odin knows I didn't feel accepted in the larger world and this community accepted me, and I am damn well going to pay it forward.

That's all cool and fine, but it doesn't address my question really. You're saying as long as people stay silent about it (decide to not participate) you're OK with that. But what about those who choose to voice their dissent rather than simply decline to participate quietly? What do you do about the dissent, is my question. You view the dissent itself as a problem - OK, then generally speaking when there is a problem you try to solve it. So what is your plan to solve this problem of dissent?

 

[SuperZero]

... Okay? I never suggested that was an ideal.

You called the basic benign inclusion of people who aren't "shoehorning." That is certainly suggesting that their exclusion is ideal, despite clearly being shoehorning.

No, you keep talking to me like I'm not a member of the LGBT community. I'm assuming it's because I disagree with you? That's the thing.

It has nothing to do with disagreement, no. It might have to do with the suggestion that the inclusion of a GLBT character is "damaging to fiction." I notice you didn't answer my question about that, btw.

These are all a bunch of things that have nothing to do with what I'm saying, and presume I'm both straight and male.

There is one line that made that presumption, I confess that's true; I can't help but notice you haven't stated that I'm wrong, though. All of it's a response to what you said, though. And it's what you've been arguing with.

Nope, not where I am going with this at all. Care to answer my question?

What question? This question?

So people who disagree with you ("Argue that such things are unnecessary") are a "problem" in your book? IE dissent is labelled as a problem?

No, the person who you asked this question, who is not me, did not say anything at all remotely resembling that. What he actually said was that saying you don't think a solution is necessary then impeding said solution without a reason is a problem.
And even if he did say that, "dissent is labelled as a problem" would be an extremely disingenuous way to describe it.

"Disagreements" come in rather a large variety of scales. And frankly, I've seen plenty of people use words like "disagreement" to describe their bad behavior in a really weird (but, as stated, strangely common) attempt to get out of criticism.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

That's all cool and fine and how I in general feel, but it doesn't address my question really. What do you do about the dissent, is my question. You view the dissent itself as a problem - OK, then generally speaking when there is a problem you try to solve it. So what is your plan to solve this problem of dissent?

Didn't he say he plans to just tolerate it, doing nothing but trying to be a positive model? That seems like a valid approach to me.

That's what I got out of his "it's all about choice" statement.

It has nothing to do with disagreement, no. It might have to do with the suggestion that the inclusion of a GLBT character is "damaging to fiction." I notice you didn't answer my question about that, btw.

Maybe because you were misquoting him. He never said anything of the kind. He said that inclusion for the sake of inclusion qua inclusion is harmful to fiction. Analogy: I could love pie and yet think that it's harmful to fiction for authors to listen to complaints that "there isn't enough pie in your book/adventure module", and to specifically include pie to assuage those complaints and be more pie-inclusive. (I could also think that it's an awesome spur to creativity to have to think up novel ways of including pie every time. Sometimes constraints spur creativity.) (My actual opinion is slightly closer to the former opinion but I'd be willing to give the pie thing a shot once or twice.)

Basically what MostlyDm said is that using fiction as a platform for preaching is anvilicious and leads to bad fiction. I happen to agree with that statement. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Anvilicious

 

[Mistwell]

Didn't he say he plans to just tolerate it, doing nothing but trying to be a positive model? That seems like a valid approach to me.

That's what I got out of his "it's all about choice" statement.

No he said those who decline to participate he will ignore. He seems to think active dissent, rather than passive non-participation, is a problem.

 

[Jester David]

Insofar as the PHB is just being inclusive, I don't mind, that's fine. Insofar as I think it's trying to push other people into being inclusive in their works of fiction (campaigns), I think that's manipulative and wrong.

I just want to actually copy the PHB text for review here:

You can play a male or female character without gaining any special benefits or hindrances. Think about how your character does or does not conform to the broader culture's expectations of sex, gender, and sexual behavior. For example, a male drow cleric defies the traditional gender divisions of drow society, which could be a reason for your character to leave that society and come to the surface.
You don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender. The elf god Corellon Larethian is often seen as androgynous or hermaphroditic, for example, and some elves in the multiverse are made in Corellon's image. You could also play a female character who presents herself as a man, a man who feels trapped in a female body, or a bearded female dwarf who hates being mistaken for a male. Likewise, your character's sexual orientation is for you to decide.​

That's it. That's the full and complete text of what the PHB has to say on gender. It's a little less than half of a half-page column in a 320-page book. As I reference above, it is 0.078% of the book. Or if you want to get into the Basic Rules, it's 0.219% of that document.
It's an insignificant amount of text.

It doesn't say characters have to be accepted. In fact, one of the examples is of discrimination. Most of it is just your standard "think of what character you want to play" with a tiny rule clarification that sex doesn't impact the mechanics.

I'll copy it again without the examples:

You can play a male or female character without gaining any special benefits or hindrances. Think about how your character does or does not conform to the broader culture's expectations of sex, gender, and sexual behavior. You don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender. Likewise, your character's sexual orientation is for you to decide.​

That's it. That's what the fuss is about. With over 170-posts, this thread alone is probably 200-400x larger than the entire PHB reference.


The problem isn't what the text says, what's actually in the PHB, it's the preconceived notions and biases we're all bringing to the reading. Heck, that whole (example-less) passage is barely more than two tweets.

 

[Lwaxy]

DnD is a game of epic heroism. DnD doesn't stand for Diddling 'n Dice. There is no high heroism as you shout in the faces of parents and their children when they shop for groceries to push your political agenda. There will be no Affirmative Action to ensure you gain +1 Metaphysically Oppressed Bonus because you're a Post-Op Pansexual Eskimo. There will be no speech codes to penalize Demons and Devils for being Politically Incorrect. The losers who want to sit around and imaginary diddle with dice are completely and utterly fringe, and really need to invent their own game because DnD isn't for everyone.

These postmodern delusions of "equality" have no place in DnD either. There is no "equality" in DnD. FFS we have classes and levels. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence should be able to figure out that a 1st level character is NOT "equal" to a 5th level character. You want equality? Then YOU go fight the dragon! Take your 1st Level, low-Strength havin' butt to the cave and you fight the dragon. Your strength is not equal to mine. Your hit points are not equal to mine. The dragon will kill you because you're weak. All of that kumbaya bull crap needs to die in a fireball because it has no place in DnD.

My roommate and DM for years was a gay pedophile. He was obviously not allowed in any game store or near schools. Interestingly enough his homosexuality was never the focus for ANY of our games, not a single one. Meanwhile, pedophilia is being pushed by the Culture of Critique as a norm, with pedophiles calling the rest of humanity "monsters" in articles published by the MSM. The only thing worse than a pedophile is a Social Justice Warrior who makes every perversion their moral imperative. And that's precisely what this thread is about. It's about taking something that is a fringe element of any society and pushing it into the forefront of a game that isn't about social issues and soup kitchens.When you play DnD you find the threat and you kill it. Then you take all of their property and you're a hero. That's DnD!

Homosexuality has absolutely nothing to do with pedophilia, nor is it a "fringe" thing. Neither is it ok to call anyone a loser who does not agree to your view of how the game is supposed to be.

Just don't go there.

 

[Jester David]

But what about those who choose to voice their dissent rather than simply decline to participate quietly? What do you do about the dissent, is my question. You view the dissent itself as a problem - OK, then generally speaking when there is a problem you try to solve it. So what is your plan to solve this problem of dissent?

Pretty much my standard operating procedure for any dissent: argue.
I'm going to argue until I have to forcibly remove myself from the keyboard. I'm going to write my little heart out in the hopes that something I say will make a difference, because that's all I can do in this world. Maybe I'll change an opinion, maybe I won't.
And, eventually, this thread will die and I'll move onto arguing with them about something else that is infinitely less important and almost trivial. Likely warlords with my track record.

And I'm going to praise people who are making a positive example, and call out attempts to improve representation. Like the instigating PHB sub-subsection of the PHB. It done good, I wanna defend.

That, and I'm going to do my best to raise my son to be tolerant and accepting and loving. Because, really, that's how we make the world a better place: we raise our kids to do better than us.

 

[MostlyDm]

Thanks, Hemlock. That's a succinct summary of what I was trying to say.