D&D 5E D&D Promises to Make the Game More Queer

[Ristamar]

I explained it. But if it makes you feel so justified then ignore my explanations and blame it on some personal fault of mine. Seems like the typical inclusiveness from your side.

My apologies. My intent wasn't to offend. It was a genuine question, though your retort sounds acutely political (e.g. "your side").

I'd still be curious to hear a more nuanced explanation. If not, I'll drop the conversation since we seem to be at an impasse.

You still gotta add them for the right reasons...

EDIT: Though here is another point of curiosity: who do you deem as worthy of being the judge of what are the right and wrong reasons?

 

[ccs]

As for presenting homosexuality is a positive light, I'm all for it, as long as it furthers the story in some way. The PCs having the choice to stop two gay blacksmiths from being burnt on the stake and dealing with the repercussions of their actions or inaction could be interesting. Preventing a grove of druidic terrorists, who see homosexuality as an act against laws of nature, from hunting down and murdering homosexuals could be, too.

Personally I think painting my bathroom sounds like a better adventure, but if you think this would entertain your group more power to you.

 

[Aldarc]

And it would be nice to have D&D acknowledge polytheism too. Instead of some stupid boring fantasy priest who worships Vecna and calls on Vecna for healing and calls on Vecna for smiting and calls on Vecna for divination, how about a priest who calls on Apollo for healing and calls on Zeus for smiting and calls on Athena for divination? Y'know, like an actual polytheist might actually do if he lived back in ancient Greece? The number of people who are being properly represented by WotC's current religious tropes is approximately zero.

It has, so your last sentence is verifiably untrue. See, for one example, Eberron and its handling of the Twelve and the Dark Six. Eberron even includes other faiths and religions that make sense in the context of D&D's fantastical assumptions, such as the Church of the Silver Flame, the Blood of Vol, the Path of Light, the Undying Court, etc.

Anyway, there are an awful lot of monotheists and atheists in the world, and if nothing else the Manichean paradigm is perfectly-suited to D&D adventuring, so if they're really trying to be inclusive we should at some point see the return of clerics as quasi-Christian "holy men" instead of poorly-rendered "polytheists" who are actually one-dimensional henotheists. Some days I'd even settle for seeing some genuine polytheism, just because I'm so sick of D&D henotheism! The diversity of human religious belief is far, far broader than what you see rendered in WotC-era D&D materials.

Indeed, and that right there may be why we don't see it as prevalently in D&D. I doubt that it stems from an intent to avoid offense, but, rather, its sheer ideological prevalance has stripped away the "fantasy" of it. It is neither conventionally fantastical to our imaginations nor our sense of otherworldly escapism because we live in that world where this ideology is so mundanely prevalent in our Euro-American culture.

 

[Ancalagon]

You still gotta add them for the right reasons...

Adding them to official campaigns just to add them in isn't adding them for the right reasons

But what *is* the right reason?

I'll share a parallel experience. I realized 3-4 years ago that I was creating my games like Tolkien: not that the background was extensively researched (although it was) but that almost every character were men.

I didn't do this on purpose or contiously. But there it was! This wasn't right. The general population is about 50/50 men vs women. Did every noble, sorcerer, merchant, sage, captain of the guards etc have to be men? Hell no. So my writing was unrealistic and kind of sexist.

So now I make a contious effort to semi randomly make some of my NPCs women. Is this being "politically correct "... or realistic?

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using EN World mobile app

 

[Yaarel]

The generic Cleric class suits the D&D game because different campaign settings have different cosmologies and theologies.

I wish that was true!

I yearn for the day to come when my own eyes can see the Cleric class description explicitly supports a diversity of theologies, including full on abstract monotheism − heh, and a diversity of cosmologies, excluding the Great Wheel of idolatry.

 

[TwoSix]

You might be right. But why would Crawford need to make such a statement if that was the case? If it's already accepted why congratulate themselves for being politically correct.

Well, like I said in my second paragraph, believing some things should be beyond partisanship isn't universally accepted.

I mean, I understand your point that you think D&D should be apolitical. (I don't really agree, but let's go with it for now.) But there's no such thing as a universal consensus. Every point that we accept as "common knowledge" is disputed by someone, and most likely a whole group of someones. (See "flat earthers", as I referenced.) Right now, there's a lot of partisan capital being expended on whether to define certain concepts as "true" or "in contention". LGBT acceptance is one of them. Fundamentally, if you believe that something should be considered "true" and not "in contention", you can't not include it because you'd be capitulating to the opposing view.

 

[Sir Brennen]

If including queer characters without a specific story purpose goes against the "standard source material", aka Medieval Europe, so do:

• any faith apart from Christianity
• female characters of influence without very good backstory reasons
• female priests
• ignoring slavery as a common-place practice (feudal serfdom)
• ignoring ability score modifiers based on sex

This list is not exhaustive.

Indeed, as we have to also bring up the oft-belabored but valid point... elves. You're playing a game with elves and dragons and flumphs. But a same-sex couple strains some people's credulity?

Really?

 

[Irda Ranger]

I wish that was true!

I yearn for the day to come when my own eyes can see the Cleric class description explicitly supports a diversity of theologies, including full on abstract monotheism − heh, and a diversity of cosmologies, excluding the Great Wheel of idolatry.

How does it lock in the Great Wheel now? Speaking of the 5E class, there's no reason that the cleric Domains couldn't just be different Orders within the same monotheistic religion.
Franciscans: Nature domain
Thomists: Arcana domain
Jesuits: Knowledge domain (or maybe Trickery, heh heh heh)
Dominicans: Life domain
Templars: War domain

 

[Jester David]

I don't get it.

1. How is purposefully creating a gay NPC just for the sake of having a gay NPC supposed to be anything but offensive? I'm surprised gays don't see it that way as well. It's almost like saying y'all are so unimportant to the story that we have to go out of our way to work you into it.

Because all acts of writing the book are purposeful.
You don't just slip on the keyboard and create an NPC. They don't just materialize on the page. It's a deliberate act. As is making him married, which is another conscious decision. Martial status could be left vague, but saying "husband" has purpose and intent.

Homosexuality enters into the equation because most gaming material is still written by white men. The insitinct is just to use the male pronoun and describe people according your default. I write people like me: white cis males in heterosexual relationships. Any variance from that is deliberate, because I know the world isn't entirely people like me. I have to consciously vary from what I consider the norm.
That can be someone who is gay (unlike me) or extroverted (not like me) or racist (not like me) or Machiavellian (not like me) or dark skinned (not like me) of a colossal jury douche bag (hopefully not like me...).

Each is a conscious decision, so the world isn't populated by cyphers and author proxies.

2. Most heterosexual people dont play d&d for anything to do with sexual identity. If sexuality comes up it's typically background noise or because the group finds the fictional situation amusing. That's the disconnect we have with purposefully forcing sexuality or sexual identity into the story. Because of that many of us find the act of forcing anything like that into the game as offensive

"Most heterosexual people don't..." Statements like that aren't particularly useful. I don't think I'd comfortable saying anything that's effectively "90% of people don't..." or "90% of D&D gamer's don't..."

Sexual identity comes up in my games a fair amount. I try to have people of colour, different ethnicities, and sexual preference. Just because it's doesn't come up in your games, do not equate that with "the norm".

But this is irrelevant. The point of adding homosexuals to the game isn't for the straight people. It's for gay people. It's for the people like Jeremy Crawford and Wes Schneider who were young gay men reading game books and seeing someone like them in the game they loved. It was the sign they were accepted and welcome. It was a symbol of how everyone is welcome in gaming.

 

[tombowings]

Well, like I said in my second paragraph, believing some things should be beyond partisanship isn't universally accepted.

I mean, I understand your point that you think D&D should be apolitical. (I don't really agree, but let's go with it for now.) But there's no such thing as a universal consensus. Every point that we accept as "common knowledge" is disputed by someone, and most likely a whole group of someones. (See "flat earthers", as I referenced.) Right now, there's a lot of partisan capital being expended on whether to define certain concepts as "true" or "in contention". LGBT acceptance is one of them. Fundamentally, if you believe that something should be considered "true" and not "in contention", you can't not include it because you'd be capitulating to the opposing view.

Yeah. Politics has become even more extreme in the five years since I left the US. It drove my crazy in university, which is one of the reasons I now advocate in favor of apolitical entertainment and decided to leave the US after graduation. Now instead of arguing about the use of pronoun and gendered bathrooms, I get to discuss the ideas of bride napping; female circumcision; honor killings; bride price; the role of women in the family; business, and politics; and blood sacrifice. For me, the second set of discussions is much more rewarding, especially when we're actually able to make decent progress with the youth.