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

Not open for further replies.


First Post
Ok, you like the message -- you support the normalization of queerness. How do you think that normalization is achieved, if not through "politicizing?" People have to make conscious efforts to add those minority characters, otherwise they will remain in the taboo section.

People change social norms through the battle of ideas:

I show you my data. You show me your data. I give you my analysis. You give me yours. We both walk away knowing more about both sides. It might even turn out we agree or can reach a compromise.

log in or register to remove this ad


First Post
Repeating it over and over and over again isn’t going to make you right.

We *understand* your argument. Repeating it over and over won’t make us suddenly see the light. We *disagree* with it.

Life is your podium. You don’t get to tell people to go to the back of the bus.

Which is exactly what I'm saying to Mr. Crawford.

Irda Ranger

First Post
One thing discussion keeps overlooking is that the propaganda point here is not actually, "people like me exist." It is normalization: "people like me exist and are no different from anybody else."
Yup. That's why this whole conversation has been so painful. Crawford wasn't being totally clear about what he was trying to normalize. He said "exist" but what he really meant "exist and is no big deal". The latter part is Tim Bowing's problem, since it seems to effect his suspension of disbelief over what a vaguely medieval fantasy pastiche should look like.

If Nazis don't bother you, try pedophiles, Christians, sociopaths, or lawyers.
Hey now. Christian lawyer here.

Let's keep propaganda out of gaming please.
Unfortunately, you can't. When you make a setting like Forgotten Realms, everything is an editorial choice. Both including and not including. Or including but also including negative consequences. They're all choices and they're completely unavoidable. And there's no choice WotC can make that will make everyone happy.

And let's keep Nazis out of gaming too, except as drow.
I'm actually okay with Nazis. They're objectively no worse than many of the other monsters in the game.


Not your screen monkey (he/him)
No. It's a great agenda - my opinion. But propaganda is not the right way to advance one's ideology - also my opinion.

Where exactly is the propaganda here? Were you being misled by the nature of the LGBT characters? Were they being portrayed in some kind of non-objective way to make them more attractive than other characters?


The Elephant in the Room (she/they)
Did this thread really just include a comparison between homosexuals and Nazis as if they were perfectly normal ideologies that are equally logical to either support or be against? This is most ridiculous false equivalence I've seen on this board, and that's really saying something.

And did [MENTION=56324]tombowings[/MENTION] really assert that he has no problems with homosexuals or Nazis, again amplifying this asinine and ludicrous false equivalence?

One of these groups wants to be treated with respect and decency. The other of these groups WANTS TO KILL THE OTHER GROUP AND MANY OTHERS and I should be having to make this point clear. So let me do so in larger, bolder words:


By the way, this includes the belief that homosexuality is "deviant", which is a backwards and toxic ideology that explicitly denies a group of human's dignity and that has gratefully been sliding deeper and deeper into the realm of unacceptable ideologies. Just like Nazism! So no, not all ideologies are to be treated with respect, and "tolerance" does not mean tolerating intolerance.

I'm just gonna put this here:

So yes, an article titled "Trying to make D&D less queer" is a problem while "Trying to make D&D more queer" is not only acceptable but great, because one is about amplifying representation and acceptance of our shared humanity, which is demonstrably good, and the other is about denying representation and the acceptance of our shared humanity, which is demonstrably bad.


1754, depending on what you constitute marriage legalization though some straight marriages weren't legal in the U.S. until 1967.
Kudos for answering the implied Extra Credit question!

For what colour of people? :p
Props to you, too!

edit: for the record, my marriage would always have been legal in both our home state & the state we reside in. However, it would have been illegal in California prior to, I believe 1947.
Last edited:

Irda Ranger

First Post
Using media to as a way to promote any ideology, whether I agree, disagree, or am unsure about: Wrong medium. Find a podium.
Dude, every editorial choice they make when making a campaign setting is "promoting an ideology" by this standard. Both having and not having homosexuals is a choice. Both having legal acceptance and legal persecution of homosexual activity in the campaign setting is a choice. There is no way to avoid making these choices, since even silence is a choice. You're really just saying you don't want the setting to vary from your own subjective defaults of what medieval fantasy should look like.


Well, that was fun
Staff member
Which is exactly what I'm saying to Mr. Crawford.

Jeremy Crawford isn’t trying to exclude portrayals heterosexual people who aren’t “important to the plot”. You want to exclude homosexual people who aren’t important to the plot.

You and Jeremy Crawford are not saying the same thing. You want to exclude people, he wants to include people. How is that hard to understand?

Repeating it over and over and over again isn’t going to make you right.

We *understand* your argument. Repeating it over and over won’t make us suddenly see the light. We *disagree* with it.

Life is your podium. You don’t get to tell people to go to the back of the bus.

Going by this thread, it kind of seems like you're the one telling tombowings to go to the back of the bus. You're bringing moral suasion to bear (including peer pressure, invoking "we" and the weight of the crowd, and your implicit authority as the owner of the Enworld web site) to try to get him to conform to your ideology (even though he already partially does), and then pretending like it's HIM trying to shut YOU up, which plainly isn't going to (and shouldn't) happen.

That seems kind of hypocritical honestly. All you really need to say is, "Well, I'm fine with propaganda that I agree with."

I'm not fine with hypocrisy but I support your right to be a hypocrite.

Not open for further replies.

An Advertisement