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

[Hussar]

Wait. When did the Magic judge become the bigot in this story?

I doubt the judge acted on his own. Likely someone complained. Should the judge have just ignored it? Really? That's the answer people think is the right one? We should just ignore bigotry and it will go away on its own?

 

[Tia Nadiezja]

Not my place to answer, but in the spirit of laughter, there are still games of chaste knights, who blush when their lover tosses their handkerchief and would say it is scandalous to hold hands. Or perhaps a lover who is far away and pined for every night for they are a continent and a sacred duty away. Perhaps they are merely a lowly peasant, seeking to gain wealth and nobility to make themselves worthy of a far-away noble or royal to whom they have pledged their undying love and devotion.

Or, you know, there are goblins in the mines that need killing. Go kill them and we'll give you money so you can buy armor and go kill those gnolls in the woods so we can give you money for horse so you can ride out to the city and kill those other guys, only discover the true culprit is a dragon that needs killing. [emoji14]

Yes. But the thing is? I can't imagine having RPed for any length of time and not played all these basic spectra of sexual and romantic behavior, or at least having people at the same table as me do so.

Chaste courtly love one campaign, lover in every port the next. We just hunt goblins for money, then hippie Creation angel commune, then deep exploration of a political issue through Birthright's odd ruleset, then I play a character whose concept is "female Romeo" and another player is a necromancer who raises hellhounds because people suck and together we fight crime.

Gaming, for me, is in part about variety of experience.

And the judge got named a bigot because bigots deflect accusations of bigotry by calling accusations of bigotry bigotry.

 

[IlluminatedSeraph]

Not my place to answer, but in the spirit of laughter, there are still games of chaste knights, who blush when their lover tosses their handkerchief and would say it is scandalous to hold hands. Or perhaps a lover who is far away and pined for every night for they are a continent and a sacred duty away. Perhaps they are merely a lowly peasant, seeking to gain wealth and nobility to make themselves worthy of a far-away noble or royal to whom they have pledged their undying love and devotion.

Or, you know, there are goblins in the mines that need killing. Go kill them and we'll give you money so you can buy armor and go kill those gnolls in the woods so we can give you money for horse so you can ride out to the city and kill those other guys, only discover the true culprit is a dragon that needs killing.

On the topic of chaste knights, I played a wonderful character with another PC built around that exact conceptual framework. It actually played even better since both characters were women - the longing looks and the carefully restrained politeness had a lovely edge. And one of my semi-permanent players (who I happen to be married to) did a wonderful chaste-until-marriage paladin caught between her love for her betrothed, the city's prince, and her hand-trembling desire for the party's priestess of Tiamat. So, you know, that sort of thing works just as well either way.

EDIT: Not, obviously, in the same game. A table can only handle so much UST.

 

[Umbran]

Folks,

We've let this one spin for a while, but now it is time to stop.

The thread is about *GENDER POLICY AND GAMING*

Not traditional marriage. Not colonialism. Not racism in general. GENDER POLICY AND GAMING.

Keep it to that topic from this point on, please. Yes, that restricts the discussion. If you want to discuss things more generally, go to the Off Topic forum and start a Politics or Religion thread there.

We expect you to keep close to the topic from this point forward. Thanks.

 

[Lanliss]

Ok then, back to the core topic I guess. I had a feeling something like this would be rolling around soon, as it was getting pretty heated(and dangerously close to religion AND politics talk).

For me the core question of "Should it be there?" Is followed by another question. Does it hurt anyone?

We have already gone over things earlier in the thread talking about how active exclusion is painful for people, and passive exclusion by simply not mentioning them could be worse as, instead of simply saying to go away, you are treated as though you do not exist at all. Or maybe I saw those things in a different thread somewhere...

There are certain religions who, each for their own reasons, frown upon homosexuality. However, does the inclusion of LGBT in the game community ACTUALLY hurt them, the same way that exclusion can hurt the other party? I do not think so, but I may be wrong.

So, for me, the answer is very easy, as it is a choice between "Hurt no-one" and "hurt someone". I would choose to hurt no one every time, IRL anyway.

 

[seebs]

The working standard for public games really should be, across the board, "Make no issue about it" in either direction.

I think the tourney judge in question went way too far, and his delay constitutes plenty of evidence of malice and intent to embarrass. Which is a violation of Wizards' guidelines.

At most, he should have been asked to change the shirt or turn it inside out (and I object to even that)... but the Tournament Judge both (1) waited until it was too late to correct before play (forcing a forfeiture) and (2) aimed for a public shaming response. It's highly likely that it was also a directly religious shirt (every such shirt I've seen has scriptural citations or religious emblems).

I don't think whether it's religious or not has any relevance, as it is not a tenet of the religion to be a pushy jerk about it in tournaments.

If we accept the "make no issue about it" thing, the guy wearing the shirt was clearly completely out of bounds, and as such it was fair to exclude them from the community; they violated community bounds in a clearly intentional and premeditated way.

But I am not comfortable with that standard to begin with, because it turns out that if I look male and mention having a husband, some people will conclude that I am "making an issue of it", even though they'd never notice if someone who looked male mentioned having a wife. Since merely existing and acting completely normally in a non-confrontational way is "making an issue of it" to many people, I don't think that standard is viable.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I don't think whether it's religious or not has any relevance, as it is not a tenet of the religion to be a pushy jerk about it in tournaments.

At least in the U.S., religion is a protected class under the Civil Rights Act, and most western nations have comparable laws. This means it's riskier for an event organizer to make that call than it would be if the shirt were secular. If I were in their shoes, I'd tread carefully, because a civil rights lawsuit is not going to make my job any easier even if I'm confident it will ultimately be thrown out.

So yeah, on this pragmatic level if nothing else, I'd consider the religious aspect relevant. Doesn't mean I'm compelled to bow to it, but I can't dismiss it either.

 

[seebs]

At least in the U.S., religion is a protected class under the Civil Rights Act, and most western nations have comparable laws. This means it's riskier for an event organizer to make that call than it would be if the shirt were secular. If I were in their shoes, I'd tread carefully, because a civil rights lawsuit is not going to make my job any easier even if I'm confident it will ultimately be thrown out.

So yeah, on this pragmatic level if nothing else, I'd consider the religious aspect relevant. Doesn't mean I'm compelled to bow to it, but I can't dismiss it either.

If I have a religious belief that I need to kill certain people, I can't do it just because religion is a protected class. You're welcome to have an event have policies that prohibit disruptive behaviors, such as wearing shirts that have slogans that are intended to disrupt or offend people, even if those slogans have some relationship to someone's religion. Religious belief and practice aren't affected by that.

To bring this vaguely back to the topic: Consider the arguments we'd be having if this had been the first edition to explicitly state that your character's religion doesn't have to be the same as the player's religion.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

If I have a religious belief that I need to kill certain people, I can't do it just because religion is a protected class. You're welcome to have an event have policies that prohibit disruptive behaviors, such as wearing shirts that have slogans that are intended to disrupt or offend people, even if those slogans have some relationship to someone's religion. Religious belief and practice aren't affected by that.

Sure. What I'm saying is that the question of whether or not that shirt qualifies for that exception may end up being argued by lawyers in a courtroom, which is a life experience I'd imagine most event organizers wish to avoid.

To bring this vaguely back to the topic: Consider the arguments we'd be having if this had been the first edition to explicitly state that your character's religion doesn't have to be the same as the player's religion.

Haha, yeah.

 

[seebs]

Sure. What I'm saying is that the question of whether or not that shirt qualifies for that exception may end up being argued by lawyers in a courtroom, which is a life experience I'd imagine most event organizers wish to avoid.

True, although I suspect it helps if they just make the policy ignore the question. I think. I am not a lawyer.

But yeah, I've definitely seen people try to use religious protection in all kinds of crazy ways. I generally consider it dishonest. In particular, you'll note that you see a lot of people who talk a lot about religious freedom allowing them to discriminate, but those people are usually arguing against religious freedom when a different church with different beliefs wants to perform marriages between the "wrong" people.

(I know of a church that started doing marriage ceremonies without regard for gender in 1986. Guess whose right to religious expression was never defended by the people now trying to use that excuse?)