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

[MechaPilot]

Thanks, so I'm now awaiting an apology from you rushing to his defense when I jumped on him for the other guy not being able to respond. Something you now admit he shouldn't have posted here and thus I was right to remind him that what he was doing wasn't cool because the other guy couldn't respond.

I didn't rush to his defense; I was pointing out there are other, non-public, avenues for them to continue their discussion. Something you could have done without "jumping on" anyone, had you chosen to do so. Maybe the conversation has gotten you a little more heated than you'd intended to allow. I'm not saying you're a bad person for pointing out that the reply was in bad form, but I'm not going to pretend that the way you did it wasn't adversarial and self-righteous, as evidenced by phrasing like "patting yourself on the back."

 

[MechaPilot]

That's actually a very good solid and coherent thought on the subject. You really need to teach the others how to express themselves better

You are differentiating between intolerance based on content of character and intolerance based on based on things external to the content of someones character!

That's a very good starting point for a discussion.

Thank you.

And, to reiterate, I do agree with your sentiment that replying to a poster who can't (or feels they can't) reply publicly is bad form. I merely take issue with the (perhaps unintentionally) aggressive manner in which you expressed that sentiment.

 

[Libramarian]

I have no problem with the depiction of gay characters in D&D, but I'd prefer if they were a bit more realistic. Gay relationships are far more likely to be non-monogamous, so it's a bit odd when gays seems always to show up as these very devoted, idyllic traditional couples. I guess that's the part that feels like propaganda to me.

I wouldn't mind the occasional NPC who is revealed to be gay not when the party meets his husband of twenty years, but when they catch him cruising the bathhouse for a hookup or something like that.

 

[FrogReaver]

I didn't rush to his defense; I was pointing out there are other, non-public, avenues for them to continue their discussion. Something you could have done without "jumping on" anyone, had you chosen to do so. Maybe the conversation has gotten you a little more heated than you'd intended to allow. I'm not saying you're a bad person for pointing out that the reply was in bad form, but I'm not going to pretend that the way you did it wasn't adversarial and self-righteous, as evidenced by phrasing like "patting yourself on the back."

I think it's just my posting style. Take years of being on religious forums as a minority opinion and you tend to come across a little adversarial and self righteous. Definetely not the first time I've heard my behavior described in such light.

 

[Mallus]

Now it's your turn.

I'm game!

Now imagine reading that the Author comments:

"I wasn’t about to have this book go out and not acknowledge that people like me exist"
“all of our new adventures contain jews"
"It’s important to many of us personally in the company for the series to acknowledge our existence"

How does that read to you?

It reads... fine. An artist wants to tell stories about their people. Our at least 'with' their people. A people that had faced discrimination and could appear in media so long as they didn't acknowledge their identity. Not terribly surprising or objectionable.

Was this a trick question?

 

[Ancalagon]

On the other hand, I was a bit surprised that the entirety of the "gay people existing is against my politics" side was just one person. That's progress!

... who said that? It wasn't [MENTION=56324]tombowings[/MENTION] at the very least (who's once again opinion I don't agree with but has been misrepresented numerous times in this thread)

And yes, even if a single person did take that position... it's progress.

 

[Yaarel]

Yep. We don't think its right to mug a mugger just cause they mugged us.

So why is it right to be intolerant of someone just because they are intolerant of you?

I mean, the job of a police officer is to mug the muggers.

When people become intolerant. Prison.

 

[Sunseeker]

Does this thread need to be 50 pages? Is there something to be gained? Are we going to make a breakthrough on homosexual inclusivity in gaming?

No? Nothing to gain here?

Why this forum has a "no politics" rule and allows these threads to be open to discussion to begin with baffles me.

 

[Hriston]

Telling someone why you think they are wrong when they can't reply on the matter is basically congratulating yourself. I mean good job Hriston, you told they guy who can't respond just how it is!

You don't seem to be having any trouble responding. I don't know why he's any different. It isn't like he's been banned or anything. I'd be interested in his response if he has one, but not if it's a repetition of what he has already said post after post because that would mean he hadn't bothered to read my response to him. Primarily, I posted what I did because I had something to say and hadn't seen that anyone had said it quite the way I wanted to, not because I wanted to get into an argument.

 

[Ristamar]

Who makes the subjective call of what's good and what's bad?

Society. And each individual in society. And when the two of those come into conflict due to religion, politics, family, or friends, one must examine their own moral compass and determine where their loyalties and values truly align.

FWIW, I didn't find the use of the now banned terminology to be radically offensive. The comparison of any hypothetical discomfort caused by their perceived deviancy relative to the likes of Nazis or pedophiles or the KKK is much more egregious, IMO, but that's just my own moral compass speaking. YMMV.