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

[tombowings]

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?

There is not propaganda in the characters, only in Mr. Crawford's rhetoric and desire to advance his ideology. In other words, there is no propaganda in the adventure, only the article.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Hey now. Christian lawyer here.

Sorry. I picked Christian partly because I am one, and I know some people find us offensive, and I didn't want to go easy on myself. I am not a lawyer but some of my best friends are. [He said, conscious of the irony.]

Didn't mean to pick on you with a double whammy.

 

[tombowings]

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.

Which is why I never accused WotC of propaganda until they started showing their desire to use their adventures to create societal change, as Mr. Crawford stated, as quoted in the mentioned article.

 

[WayneLigon]

There's the root of our disagreement, then. You think it's OK to use the game as an ideological arena. I just want to roll dice and make bad jokes in my own little world.

And I think you don't get the point that it's impossible to do that. Every communication you make with another person carries a freight of ideas. All mediums do the same thing. It is impossible for you NOT to make some sort of statements when you run a game; either through overt inclusion or overt exclusion, the statement will be made.

 

[Teemu]

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.

How is this applicable to the issue at hand? Minorities have had to battle tooth and nail for equality and recognition as valid human beings -- their visibility has always been political. You can't simply "show data" if the other side doesn't recognize the data in the first place. You consciously push for recognition, and that's how you can achieve normalization.

 

[Irda Ranger]

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.

Ha ha ha! No.

People change their beliefs (for better or worse) through regular contact with people who hold practice different norms. Whether to accept gays isn't a decision you can even make rationally, since there's no rational yardstick to use. (People have tried to use utilitarianism for that or applied things like the Golden Rule, but these methods fall apart if you follow them far enough) These sorts of changes happen because of empathy and humanization. I formally contend that Will & Grace did more for gay marriage than any formal debate on the topic.

 

[Quickleaf]

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:

NOT ALL IDEOLOGIES ARE EQUAL, AND IDEOLOGIES THAT PROMOTE DECENCY, RESPECT AND A SHARED HUMANITY WILL ALWAYS BE MORAL AND RIGHT, AND THOSE ACTIVELY WORK AGAINST THE RIGHT TO EXIST OR BE SEEN AS PART OF A SHARED HUMANITY WILL ALWAYS BE IMMORAL AND WRONG

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:
View attachment 87798

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.

Brilliant! Thanks for sharing the comic [MENTION=57112]Gradine[/MENTION]

 

[tombowings]

Please explain who Mr. Crawford is telling to go to back of the bus, and how he is doing so.

Everyone who disagrees with his ideology but still loves D&D and wants to support the game (just not the ideology Crawford presents). How would you like it if D&D came out and said, "we're no longer going to include images of blacks in our gamebooks."

You'd be torn. On the one hand, you love the game (as an apolitical object of fun and enjoyment) and would want to support the game. On the other hand, you hate the message. You have the option, now, of supporting both or neither. It's a simple choice to decide which one you'd support (it would be for me, too), but the thought experiment shows how media is not the correct, ethical tool to use when promoting an agenda.

 

[Lord Twig]

It seems in the world today that there is a greater inclusion of LGBTQ characters in all forms of entertainment. Movies, TV, books, songs, and RPGs. That's all good. However there has been some who argue (myself included for a while) that the inclusion is forced into the story and is not organic.

I now have a new theory. I think we are in a time of correction. The lack of LGBTQ characters has been an issue for so long that now we are seeing an over abundance of them. And yes, some times it is forced. But it is my belief that this is just a temporary phenomena. Kinda like the Blaxploitation of the 70s. Eventually we will get through all of this. There will be some good stories, some bad ones and everything in between. Then, hopefully, it will normalize and we will see LGBTQ characters that are just characters and are not there just to check off a box.

Now I wasn't able to read all of this very fast moving thread, but I find it interesting that no one has mentioned Dumbledore. He is interesting to me for a few reason. First, when I heard he was gay I thought it was great. I thought back and there was no point in any of the books that would contradict him being a gay character. Most likely because Rowling had already determined that Dumbledore was gay long beforehand.

The second thing that struck me was how irrelevant it was to the story that he was gay. Hence it made sense that it was never explicitly mentioned in the book. So okay, cool.

Finally I heard why Rowling decided to make Dumbledore gay. This bugged me a bit. I was perfectly happy with him being a gay man. Why wouldn't he be? But Rowling's reason for making him gay was because he was so close, personally, to Grindelwald, that she couldn't image him being any other way. And that is what bugged me. What? Strait men can't be close because they are strait?

But, eh. Who cares really? It bugged me, but not in any serious way. Rowling is not a strait man and can't honestly be expected to know how strait men really are. She can only write strait men as she perceives them to be, the same as any other author. And either way Dumbledore is a great character.

 

[billd91]

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.

But that's been shown to not work in general. Confirmation bias tends to rule when confronted with conflicting data. In fact, it seems to actually increase you devotion to your own position.

What tends to work better - pervasive presentation. There's been some interesting conjecture that the condition of women across parts of India has been improving through access to more western-produced television that depict women's status with more equality as normal.