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

[Azzy]

I think you'll find the discussion in this thread is far broader than that and absolutely includes the treatment of minorities in homebrew games. If you don't want to join this broader discussion, that's up to you, but don't pretend that gives you license to play Topic Police for the rest of us.

Tetchy. You can have your "broader discussion", but what people do in their homebrew games is of no interest to me.

And if you want to talk about official WotC products: Dark Sun. The world of Athas is a hellhole. Very deliberately so. It in fact owes a lot to dark pulp fantasy settings -- like Howard's Stygia. In a land of endemic despotism, slavery, and even cannibalism, any institutions that are grounded in love and joy and freedom are going to stick out like a sore thumb. If same-sex marriage occurs, it's going to be because one of the sorcerer-kings needs the blood of newlyweds for some hideous ritual and has decided to be expedient about it, not because these savage cultures share any of the same values you and I do.

By that logic, normal marriage would also only exist because of "sorcerer-king... yadda-yadda". After all, "any institutions that are grounded in love and joy and freedom are going to stick out like a sore thumb". It's something you could make a case for, but it's also something not inherent to the setting, is unnecessary, and would doubtfully be pursued by WotC. Again, in your home games, you can do what you want.

 

[mrm1138]

And if you want to talk about official WotC products: Dark Sun. The world of Athas is a hellhole. Very deliberately so. It in fact owes a lot to dark pulp fantasy settings -- like Howard's Stygia. In a land of endemic despotism, slavery, and even cannibalism, any institutions that are grounded in love and joy and freedom are going to stick out like a sore thumb. If same-sex marriage occurs, it's going to be because one of the sorcerer-kings needs the blood of newlyweds for some hideous ritual and has decided to be expedient about it, not because these savage cultures share any of the same values you and I do.

I'm not sure citing Dark Sun is the best argument since it is the outlier among settings and not the norm. You can find a lot of similarities between Faerun, Krynn, Eberron, and Oerth/Greyhawk that none of those settings share with Athas. (And like you said, it's most likely going to mention marriage in general rather than single out same-sex marriage.)

I do agree that people should feel free to do whatever they want with their home campaigns, but to bring it back to the original topic, I also think that it's good of WotC to have inclusive language in their core books. A lot of people have questioned why the LGBT community has been singled out for this and not, say, people with disabilities. The one thing I will say is that, while people with disabilities do face a lot of adversity, they are not considered by large portions of the culture as being okay to hate. I don't see politicians attempting to pass laws to keep the disabled from getting married or adopting children, nor are people claiming they will refuse to serve disabled people at their businesses because of "religious freedom."

Anyway, you are definitely correct about what the 5e PHB has to say about half-orcs:

Whether united under the leadership of a mighty warlock or having fought to a standstill after years of conflict, orc and human tribes sometimes form alliances, joining forces into a larger horde to the terror of civilized lands nearby. When these alliances are sealed by marriages, half-orcs are born.

I mean, it's possible that these might not be the most loving of marriages, but there's something that I actually find kind of sweet about the idea of a human falling in love with an orc (and vice versa). I've never been one to truck with the idea that orcs and goblins are inherently evil, anyway.

 

[Mistwell]

Except that we are talking about fictional worlds and how we interact with them, so my point was 100% relevant to the discussion.

I didn't make use use the phrase "realistic facets of life". If you meant "fictional facets of life" you might have chosen that phrase instead?

That aside, art reflects life. In real life...

So you're doubling down on "fiction movies reflect reality".

No, they do not. They reflect an extremely amped up, exaggerated, intentionally hyperbolic fictional setting that has enough ring of reality to hopefully not take you completely out of the narrative. They portray things in a manner so that they hope you will THINK that's how you might react in such a crises - with no care for whether humans actually tend to react that way.

If you want to know how people react in crises, cite to footage of real people reacting to real crises. Do not pass off fiction written by a writer paid to write an exciting thrilling drama/sci-fi action-packed adventure flick as a good reflection of reality. In fact you cited specifically "Disaster Movies" and "Alien Invasion Movies" as your two examples - so we're in Michael Bay territory. Those are not relevant.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

By that logic, normal marriage would also only exist because of "sorcerer-king... yadda-yadda". After all, "any institutions that are grounded in love and joy and freedom are going to stick out like a sore thumb".

Pretty much, yeah. I really don't see the whole pattern of fall-in-love, pop-the-question, big-family-wedding, kids-and-dog-and-white-picket-fence playing out a lot in Athas. Marriage is mostly going to be political and exploitative. (Like it often was in the real world.)

It's something you could make a case for, but it's also something not inherent to the setting, is unnecessary, and would doubtfully be pursued by WotC.

They took the subject of slavery head-on and made it a huge part of the setting, but marriage inequality is out of the question?

---

I'm not sure citing Dark Sun is the best argument since it is the outlier among settings and not the norm. You can find a lot of similarities between Faerun, Krynn, Eberron, and Oerth/Greyhawk that none of those settings share with Athas. (And like you said, it's most likely going to mention marriage in general rather than single out same-sex marriage.)

Every setting is an outlier in its own way. (With the possible exception of Oerth/Faerûn.) That's sort of the point. There's no one right way to write a setting.

I do agree that people should feel free to do whatever they want with their home campaigns, but to bring it back to the original topic, I also think that it's good of WotC to have inclusive language in their core books.

Whether the in-universe culture is inclusive is a completely different question from whether the game is inclusive. In Dark Sun, as far as I'm concerned, it's practically expected that characters will start off as outright slaves, exploited and despised by the rest of society. The setting guide should say something to the effect of, "You can be absolutely any race, gender, orientation, et cetera. People may spit on you for what you are -- but that just makes it more satisfying when you punch their teeth in."

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

A lot of people have questioned why the LGBT community has been singled out for this and not, say, people with disabilities. The one thing I will say is that, while people with disabilities do face a lot of adversity, they are not considered by large portions of the culture as being okay to hate.

Fat people, however, are.

Should I be demanding more fat NPCs in D&D? Maybe, if I viewed being fat the way some people view being LGBT. But I have no desire to poison my own self-esteem that way, so no, I demand nothing.

 

[mrm1138]

Fat people, however, are.

Should I be demanding more fat NPCs in D&D? Maybe, if I viewed being fat the way some people view being LGBT. But I have no desire to poison my own self-esteem that way, so no, I demand nothing.

I notice you cut off the rest of my reply, so allow me to reiterate with the term "disabled" replaced by "overweight."

I don't see politicians attempting to pass laws to keep the [overweight] from getting married or adopting children, nor are people claiming they will refuse to serve [overweight] people at their businesses because of "religious freedom."

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

(Double post)

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I notice you cut off the rest of my reply, so allow me to reiterate with the term "disabled" replaced by "overweight."

1.) They may not cite religious freedom as a reason not to serve or hire fat people, but they refuse for other reasons. Try getting a Hollywood agent as a fat guy. Agents will refuse to work with you because fat people just aren't as good as skinny people for TV. Fat people make less money and have a tougher time getting promoted. That's actually much worse than someone refusing to take an art commission (cakes and wedding photos) because it affects your life, and you can't just go to someone else. Fat people are more hated on this score.

2.) It's considered socially acceptable to mock people for being fat. Not so for gays. Mocking fat people would make some people quietly uncomfortable and will make others laugh. Maybe a brave soul would tell you that you're being uncool. Mocking gay people on the other hand will (rightly) get you socially shunned. I say rightly not because of some special characteristic of gay people but because mocking people, of any kind, is wrong. Ideally fat people would have the same protection but they don't.

3.) Fat people face government discrimination too. Until recently it was legal to single them out for special fees for health insurance. That's no longer the case but some people in Washington are trying to roll that back. Furthermore, as mentioned above, fat people unlike gay people have zero employment protections.

How many famous and admired gay people can you name? Now how many famous and admired fat people can you name? Fat is more widely hated in America than gay, and skinny is idolized.

But I speak as a fool--it mattereth not who is more hated, because competing to see who can be the biggest victim is a great way to make yourself miserable. And that is why I didn't originally respond to your brief catalog of slights; the exact details of whom is hated how are not germane to the point I was making, which is not the same point you were trying to make.

 

[Hussar]

I think you'll find the discussion in this thread is far broader than that and absolutely includes the treatment of minorities in homebrew games. If you don't want to join this broader discussion, that's up to you, but don't pretend that gives you license to play Topic Police for the rest of us.

And if you want to talk about official WotC products: Dark Sun. The world of Athas is a hellhole. Very deliberately so. It in fact owes a lot to dark pulp fantasy settings -- like Howard's Stygia. In a land of endemic despotism, slavery, and even cannibalism, any institutions that are grounded in love and joy and freedom are going to stick out like a sore thumb. If same-sex marriage occurs, it's going to be because one of the sorcerer-kings needs the blood of newlyweds for some hideous ritual and has decided to be expedient about it, not because these savage cultures share any of the same values you and I do.

And, yet, i'm fairly confident that the institution of marriage does exist in Athas. There are probably married couple NPC's in the source books. I'm not sure, but, I'm pretty confident that's true. So, why would Athas possibly have any sort of taboo against same sex marriage?

 

[Hussar]

Fat people, however, are.

Should I be demanding more fat NPCs in D&D? Maybe, if I viewed being fat the way some people view being LGBT. But I have no desire to poison my own self-esteem that way, so no, I demand nothing.

I think you'll find, if you look at both the art and the description of NPC's, that overweight NPC's are hardly rare. Certainly not something that would stand out. Surf through the old Dungeon supplements that Paizo used to put out when they put their art supplements out and you'll see lots of overweight NPC's. Check out the WOTC archive http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/ag&page=2 and you'll see a few overweight portraits.

Again, there is a difference between "not a lot" and "none".