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

[tombowings]

I understand this argument, intellectually, but here's the flipside of the argument that you seem to be consistently ignoring: there is no such thing as something which is apolitical.

For reference, there was (thankfully not considerable, but still existant) backlash when the PHB came out because it had black people in it, or because of that statement on gender and sexuality. There were a lot more voices of support, but there was also backlash. Had the PHB not included any images of POC? That would have assuredly provoked a response as well, both against and in support.

The incontrovertible fact, and one that you have been consistently ignoring throughout this thread, is that refusing to take a side is still taking a side. The status quo is a side, and choosing to maintain it promotes, whether you want it to or not, an ideological standpoint. There is no neutrality on the issue of more diverse representation.

What you're arguing for is for Mr. Crawford to have not revealed his reasoning for more diverse representation (which you have insisted multiple times you are in favor of), but that means you've both a) taken a side and b) are asking for media content creators to either let their work speak for themselves or else to be intellectually dishonest, but given the politicized nature of, well, everything in this day and age, is increasingly more a matter of having to do both.

But where you are most demonstrably wrong is that media is a perfectly correct and ethical tool to use when promoting an ideological agenda, and media has been used for betterment of society for centuries, if not millenia. History classes would teach us about Uncle Tom's Cabin or The Jungle. Hell, most of our oldest surviving media (in the form of the Odyssey and other ancient Greek stories and plays) promoted an ideological stance, and that's carried through our most celebrated historical authors, from Shakespeare to Voltaire to the Chinese Four Books & Five Classics to Twain to Buck to Huxley to Bradbury to this very day. The only "apolitical" media is media that exclusively reinforces the dominant narrative of the age and place, and I hate to break to you, but that's as political as anything attempting to upset those narratives.

"Are asking for media content creators to either let their work speak for themselves" is a good idea. And while nothing can be truly apolitical, I would argue to say that there is a vast difference between D&D and The Jungle. D&D is a game you play to escape from the real world. You would only read a book like The Jungle if you were interested in the ideas is presents. Personally, I want as little overlap between real world politics in my free time as possible.

As I've said before:

Keep the gay characters.

Get rid of the intention to change society through a game.

If you want to change society, you can grab your facts, I'l grab mine, we can both analyze them and present our views, then we both walk home knowing a little bit more about both sides of the issue.

 

[tombowings]

Okay. I understand where you are coming from. And I think a great many others also now understand. But it is not just Black and White. Either all propaganda is okay or no propaganda is okay. In the real world there are shades of grey.

So some "propaganda" is fine, even in kid shows, and some is not. So when G.I. Joe says "racism is bad!" That is propaganda, but it is appropriate propaganda for a kids show. Whereas "Always use a condom!" would not be appropriate for a show aimed at kids.

In this case, in my opinion, including gay characters in D&D, whether it is "propaganda" or not, is appropriate.

The characters are not propaganda if there is no intent to push an agenda. The intent to push an agenda is the problem I find. Not the characters.

 

[Morrus]

"Are asking for media content creators to either let their work speak for themselves" is a good idea. And while nothing can be truly apolitical, I would argue to say that there is a vast difference between D&D and The Jungle. D&D is a game you play to escape from the real world. You would only read a book like The Jungle if you were interested in the ideas is presents. Personally, I want as little overlap between real world politics in my free time as possible.

As I've said before:

Keep the gay characters.

Get rid of the intention to change society through a game.

If you want to change society, you can grab your facts, I'l grab mine, we can both analyze them and present our views, then we both walk home knowing a little bit more about both sides of the issue.

EN World is not a suitable medium for your propaganda.

 

[Nagol]

Fair, but having something only appear as anomalous also carries some moral weight, in the sense that the standard reaction to something being "different" is that "different is bad". Just by making something seem more prevalent you're implicitly changing its characterization.

Yeah, that's why the typical inclusion arc is "show the aspect as appropriate to current cultural norms" followed by "show the aspect as entirely unappealing" followed by "show the aspect as entirely appealing in a condescending way" followed by "assign the aspect seemingly at random when it doesn't matter otherwise".

 

[Ancalagon]

Mite eye formerly request that ewe make a conscious effort to spell this word wright?

NEVAR!!!

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using EN World mobile app

 

[tombowings]

People don't change because they compared data. People are not that cold and logical.

People change, or become more inclined towards change, because they are personally affected by something. That something can be knowing a kind and giving person who is of a group they thought was immoral, or it can be a change in presentation from a thing being always presented as immoral and/or deviant to being just another way for people to live.

As I said, we have a long way to come as a species with regards to reason, logic, and understanding. I will, however, not advocate for the use of the wrong tools for the right reasons.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The characters are not propaganda if there is no intent to push an agenda. The intent to push an agenda is the problem I find. Not the characters.

So creators should not consider anything that may be considered thought provoking or controversial or edgy in what they do? They should not use metaphor or allegory or include any social commentary in any way?

Or is this restriction limited to RPGs for some reason? If so, why? What makes an RPG such a poor vehicle for conveying thoughts as compared to a novel or a movie, or any other medium?

Edited to add: What makes an RPG the wrong tool for the job? To run with your analogy.

 

[Warpiglet]

I always have, and always will speak on moral issues. If that bothers you, that’s on you. I won’t stop doing it. It’s called integrity.

I stand by what I said. I prefer fantasy that in many falls back on bodies of fiction informing the game genre. This does not preclude diversity of course, and I was clear about it.

But to pretend that I am playing this game to advance a cause is not genuine. It would be a lack of integrity to suggest otherwise.

If by integrity you are referring to wholeness and consistency, note that I merely said I preferred not to stray too far from some fantasy fiction conventions. If that offends you, that is on you.

I do not feel the need for my fantasy to be a vehicle of promoting modern real-world causes. If I did, I would take up collections at every gaming session to feed hungry children or to help with my local animal rescue.

Come to think of it, neither of these are a bad ideas. But I surely would not question someone's integrity for playing football, video games or D&D without political motivations and social change in mind. To do otherwise is absurd.

 

[Ristamar]

If you want to change society, you can grab your facts, I'l grab mine, we can both analyze them and present our views, then we both walk home knowing a little bit more about both sides of the issue.

That sounds both charming and hopelessly naive. If you happen to find a practical way to make social media disappear, though, I'm totally on board.

 

[Gradine]

"Are asking for media content creators to either let their work speak for themselves" is a good idea. And while nothing can be truly apolitical, I would argue to say that there is a vast difference between D&D and The Jungle. D&D is a game you play to escape from the real world. You would only read a book like The Jungle if you were interested in the ideas is presents. Personally, I want as little overlap between real world politics in my free time as possible.

If that were true, The Jungle wouldn't have actually created huge social and political change in the US, which it demonstrably did. In actuality, the true message and ideas in The Jungle were about socialism, which most people at the time didn't agree with (which is why those ideas didn't catch fire), it certainly had an impact on working conditions and consumer protection where there was little concern for either before.

And as I alluded to, we are increasingly living in a day and age where letting your media content speak for itself requires a certain degree of intellectual dishonesty. The Death of the Author is dead. People want to know why you made the choices you made, whether you put much thought into those choices or not. You get to either answer those questions or figure out how to live like JD Salinger.

If you want to change society, you can grab your facts, I'l grab mine, we can both analyze them and present our views, then we both walk home knowing a little bit more about both sides of the issue.

This is not how change has ever happened, and it is unlikely how change will ever happen, especially when it is a debate about the relative humanity and rights of a group of people. Did you read The Oatmeal comic on The Backfire Effect? You should really read The Oatmeal comic on The Backfire Effect.

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe

When we are talking about people's lives, their ability to be free from discrimination and persecution and treated with respect and dignity, it is actually oppressive to insist they wait until the other side is willing to listen to their well-reasoned arguments about their actual humanity. It is demeaning and offensive to decry the actual positive benefits of shows like Ellen or Will and Grace in creating positive social change because it didn't come in a form you find intellectually stimulating enough.