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

[Morrus]

Would you disagree if you didn't like the message?

Well, now we drill down to the problem. Do you not like the message, [MENTION=56324]tombowings[/MENTION]? It would have helped if you'd just led with that.

 

[Ristamar]

I defined my use of the word propaganda several times. To be clear, here it is (and yes, I'm using a sterile meaning of it because a more appropriate term hasn't come to my head yet):

Propaganda: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.

I assume the "misleading" portion doesn't apply here, but everyone is biased. Not sure how you can avoid that in any form of media or entertainment.

I have to agree with [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION]. If Jeremy's small acknowledgement meets your standard for concern, I'm not sure how you make it through any given day without having a panic attack.

 

[tombowings]

I assume you meant "irrelevant" and not "irreverent."

Yeah, I'm getting tired trying to keep up with so many trains of thought at the same time. My ability to notice what words I'm use to find grammatical errors in my writing has been reduced to 0.

It is not irrelevant. You specifically said this:

You also admitted that homosexuals exist.

If homosexuals exist (as you admitted), and if there is no doctrine that states homosexuals must be presented in a specific light, for good or ill, in WotC's adventures (and there doesn't appear to be), then homosexuality becomes just another character trait like height, weight, race, sex, eye/hair/skin color, etc. When a character's homosexuality is treated as just another character trait and does not inherently paint them in a good (or bad) light, what and where is the "political cause or point of view" to make the inclusion of gay characters propaganda? How is it any more propagandist than the plethora of straight couples who are included without a second thought? Or the greedy merchants? Or the horrors committed by zealous cultists?

As I've said.

Adding gays = good.
Adding gays to advance an ideology (even one I agree with) = bad.

My opinion of Crawford boils down to this: right message, wrong medium.

 

[tombowings]

I assume the "misleading" portion doesn't apply here, but everyone is biased. Not sure how you can avoid that in any form of media or entertainment.

I have to agree with @lowkey13. If Jeremy's small acknowledgement meets your standard for concern, I'm not sure how you make it through any given day without having a panic attack.

Because I mentioned this as a throw away comment and have spent the last 20 pages having to explain myself. Oh, the wonders of the internet.

 

[tombowings]

Well, now we drill down to the problem. Do you not like the message, [MENTION=56324]tombowings[/MENTION]? It would have helped if you'd just led with that.

Actually, I like and support the message. Next?

 

[Caliban]

Now the discussion ends. We agree to disagree. And we leave it.

Fair enough. (but I'm still more right...)

 

[Miladoon]

Tolkien wrote:

The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world.

Eowyn is amazing. Shieldmaiden. Lich King slayer. The leader of her people. Mother. Her action on the Pellinor Fields was essential to the plot. No man could kill the Lich King. Only a woman. Her story rides in the saddle between two eras of women's political movements. Had I a notion to play a female in D&D, I find her character appealing. Badass even. An icon for both straight gals and lesbians.

How does including homosexuality references for the sake of saying there are homosexuals in the world, increase my gaming fun or compel me to play a gay adventurer?

DM:"You just slew Alfhahm the Great. And by the way, he was gay."
DM:"You just slew Alfhahm the Great. And by the way, he was straight."

Apparently one needs to be mentioned and the other one does not.

Anyways, when stocking my fantasy world, I let the dice decide not WoTC.

Questions and confusions: Going through published modules and making changes has been a thing for as long as I have been gaming. If there is a queer reference and I line through it and make it unQueer, is that offensive? Would the players even know?

Likewise, I could write through a module I have and make unQueer, Queer.

Crawford's mandate bothers me at an authority level. Like a power/corruption thing.

 

[Morrus]

Um...When have I ever said I was against including anyone? Please stop with the blatant misrepresentation of my views.

It's quite hard to represent your views. They seem to shift.

Please state clearly what you think about the inclusion of gay characters in D&D products.

Also please state clearly, in the same post, what you think about the inclusion of straight characters in D&D products.

Then we'll be clear and won't make the mistake of misrepresenting you.

 

[MechaPilot]

Yeah, I'm getting tired trying to keep up with so many trains of thought at the same time. My ability to notice what words I'm use to find grammatical errors in my writing has been reduced to 0.



As I've said.

Adding gays = good.
Adding gays to advance an ideology (even one I agree with) = bad.

My opinion of Crawford boils down to this: right message, wrong medium.

"We exist" =/= an ideology. It's a fact. A fact you admitted. Representing a fact in the game world when it's not required to have a specific spin put on it is not propaganda anymore than including gravity, aging, or the need to eat and drink to survive.

 

[Morrus]

Actually, I like and support the message. Next?

Then why are you objecting to it?