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

[tombowings]

No, it’s *not* simple enough. The world doesn’t work like that.

If I include a heterosexual couple (or a thousand heterosexual couples, or make the King and Queen heterosexual) in my game am I pushing an ideological point? Who decides if I am?

And... even then. Even then. *Even then*. What’s wrong with making that point in my book, film, comic, book?

No. But if you tell a new source that you included the NPC in order to further your ideological agenda, like what happened in this case, it doesn't leave much to the imagination.

 

[Trudy]

If one of the designers tells a reporter that he included the gay dude in order to make a point. The only reason I have any problem with these NPCs inclusion is because Crawford went up and told every he included them in order to push an ideological agenda. Otherwise, I would give him and everyone else at WotC the benefit of the doubt.

I'm genuinely trying to understand you, so if any of these questions seems stupid, please know I'm being earnest when I ask them.

Why does intent matter here? Is there a problem because he's talking about it? How would you be able to determine if a character was created to make an ideological statement if a designer didn't explicitly say they were doing so to be more inclusive / offer greater LGBT representation?

I create queer characters when I play DnD because there's a lack of them; it's not the only thought I have when creating the character -- being queer is just one small part of this character. I'm generally not trying to make an ideological statement when I play LGBT characters, so I guess I'm having a hard time imagining that WotC is doing the same.

 

[Lylandra]

If one of the designers tells a reporter that he included the gay dude in order to make a point. The only reason I have any problem with these NPCs inclusion is because Crawford went up and told every he included them in order to push an ideological agenda. Otherwise, I would give him and everyone else at WotC the benefit of the doubt.

I thought he made that gay couple because he wanted to include/ see himself and his husband and their nephew in a module? Because that's his normalcy?

I don't think anyone wants to make every NPC, or even a majority gay. Just to show that they can exist and will exist in official modules as the assumed audience is much more diverse right now.

(Now, you *could* make gay characters the majority in your setting and let an interesting background story evolve from the question why this is the case...)

 

[tombowings]

How magnanimous of you. I’m sure they were waiting with baited breath.

Not really. I only just discovered the issue when I woke up this morning.

 

[BookBarbarian]

http://kotaku.com/dungeons-dragons-promises-to-make-the-game-more-queer-1798401117

This is some really good news for me. My gaming group is very diverse. I couldn't imagine trying to get some of my friends to play the game back in 2001 when I started, when a lot of gamer culture felt like a boys club. This is a game about being whoever you want to be. If your group is up to it and mature, it's an opportunity for some exploration. It's nice to see NPCs in the game like yourself, and to have the PHB call out that your character can be whoever they are.

Color me impressed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Neat! I always liked how the player's in various Geek & Sundry rpg shows come from diverse backgrounds (at least as far as i can tell).

 

[Caliban]

No. But if you tell a new source that you included the NPC in order to further your ideological agenda, like what happened in this case, it doesn't leave much to the imagination.

So you were fine with it at first, but now you have learned that the gay NPC's were not just randomly included, you are retroactively offended?

 

[Gradine]

I'm going to try to organize this is a semi-coherent manner, but there's a lot to cover here.

I have never written in favor of not including the LGBT characters, including NPCs, out of publish adventurers. Thank you for creating alternative facts concerning my character and opinions.

If that's true then you are not who I am referring to in that statement and it therefore does not apply to you at all. Since I was quoting someone else there I think that was obvious, though there have been mischaracterizations of your arguments so I guess you can understand why you might be have been defensive about it. That said, I think there's a logical leap in your argument that is causing some of that misunderstanding, so let me see if I get this correct (and I'll not up front this may sound glib, but I'm honestly trying to understand your argument here):

I: You are not actually against inclusivity in D&D at all.
II: The author of the modules says explicitly that inclusivity (and specifically being able to see families like his own and people like him) was his reasoning
III: You are against then... what he said? The way he said it?

It's step III that's the part that's confusing people, or at least me I guess. "I like what you did but not why you say you did it" is an odd argument to make, or at least one that elevates ideology over humanity, which in spite of your disstate for US politics is a pretty distinctly American viewpoint to take. It's also flawed in other ways, but I'll get to that.

Edit: The flurry of posts between this one and when I was writing this one helped to clarify your stance, which at least makes a bit more sense, but is also still flawed; again, see further down in this post.

I still think the whole, "I show my fact, you show your facts, we each share each other's analysis of them, and together we decide whose analysis is better" is a much clearer, productive way to deal with ideological issues. But to each his own.

That's a very nice sentiment. Sadly, it breaks down in situations where one side's ideology is "we exist, and we demand respect and to be treated as human beings" and the other side's ideology is "you don't deserve respect or be treated as human beings, and frankly we're not in agreement as to whether you even deserve to exist." If one side is refusing to respect or recognize the humanity of a whole group of people, they're not really going to listen to what that group has to say or have a respectful debate about "facts" that they can easily to dismiss. To say nothing of the fact that people whose ideology is steeped in the erasure or lack of humanity of another group of people is not an ideology that any decent human being should treat with respect or as a legitimate opinion worthy of our time and consideration.

As an aside, if claim to be neutral in this debate, everyone is well aware of which side you have, in fact, chosen.

Even if we ignore those fundamental truths you've still got to account for the backfire effect, which has been getting some attention lately, I suspect because of that Adam Ruins Everything clip that's been making the rounds (The Oatmeal has a better breakdown of it that they released a while back but I've also seen making the rounds recently as well). Which states that people with deeply held ideological beliefs actually dig in and get more defensive when presented with facts that contradict those beliefs.

So again, it's a really nice sentiment, but it's frankly not in any way practical. It also reminds of another quote that's been making the rounds, this from Martin Luther King Jr., on white moderates. The main takeaway is that even if you agree with a movement's goals, your disagreement with their "methods" often represents a stronger roadblock and more consternation than outright hatred and bigotry, but that's honestly a can of worms for another day.

OK. Let's try bolThe LGBTQ is not inappropriate for children. Propaganda is.

Fair enough, but this I think demonstrates what is really the central flaw with your otherwise reasonable distaste for what you call "propaganda" is that what we're talking about here isn't actually propaganda. Or at least it should not be considered as such. It's true that politics being what they are in the US since, let's be honest, the 90's (and has only gotten steadily worse from there) have become extreme and distasteful in a lot of ways and from a lot of different angles, sides and viewpoints. I don't think anyone can dispute that. And in fact, you can look into say, the history of how our nation and its political organizations have reacted to calls for civil rights for African Americans at basically, any point in our history, and you'll see people's humanity being boiled down the same partisan political bickering.

I also understand this is not unique to American politics, but we do tend to take it to ridiculous and often quite stupid extremes, which is something of our national forte. See about a decade ago, when Fox News tried to make lightbulbs a partisan and political debate. I still have to headdesk when I think of that.

Anyway, here's the ugly truth. People demanding to be treated with respect and common decency and humanity is not and should not ever be treated as political or as propaganda. That is a fundamental truth, and if you cannot agree with that we cannot find common ground, but know that disagreeing with this is not a thing I feel obligated to respect as "just a different viewpoint" because it is actively harmful and toxic to a great number of people, many of whom I personally care very deeply about. The sad fact that one side of the argument (reminder: the side that is against respect and common humanity for marginalized groups) regularly insists such calls are political to the point where mainstream political thought tends to agree with that assessment does not make it any less so.

"I would like to see families that look like mine represented in [X]..." is not a political statement or propaganda, no matter how its been phrased or worded, but simply another call for the acknowledgement of existence and humanity. Which is not political or propaganda.

 

[tombowings]

I'm genuinely trying to understand you, so if any of these questions seems stupid, please know I'm being earnest when I ask them.

Why does intent matter here? Is there a problem because he's talking about it? How would you be able to determine if a character was created to make an ideological statement if a designer didn't explicitly say they were doing so to be more inclusive / offer greater LGBT representation?

I create queer characters when I play DnD because there's a lack of them; it's not the only thought I have when creating the character -- being queer is just one small part of this character. I'm generally not trying to make an ideological statement when I play LGBT characters, so I guess I'm having a hard time imagining that WotC is doing the same.

If he didn't make the statement, I wouldn't know he was pushing an agenda and therefore we wouldn't be having this conversation.

First, what you do at your home game, if none of my business. If you brought an LGBT character to table at my home game, I would love to see the faces of the other players at my table who it would made completely uncomfortable. Other than that, I'd be cool with it. If you brought it to the game I run at a local private school, I'd make you OK it with the other players and make everyone swear not to tell any of the teachers or the school director, because they would probably fire me for allowing you to play it (although they would probably fire me anyway if they knew I was playing board games with students on the premises).

 

[tombowings]

So you were fine with it at first, but now you have learned that the gay NPC's were not just randomly included, you are retroactively offended?

Offended no. Concerned, yes.

 

[tombowings]

I thought he made that gay couple because he wanted to include/ see himself and his husband and their nephew in a module? Because that's his normalcy?

I don't think anyone wants to make every NPC, or even a majority gay. Just to show that they can exist and will exist in official modules as the assumed audience is much more diverse right now.

(Now, you *could* make gay characters the majority in your setting and let an interesting background story evolve from the question why this is the case...)

Honestly, that would be an interesting setting. I would totally play that.