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

[FrogReaver]

If there can be heterosexual characters without the game "focus[ing] on the sex," why can't there be LGBTQ characters without the game "focus[ing] on the sex"?

That gay people are ordinary people who do the same things that other people do is a point that FrogReaver and you, evidently, fail to understand; their lives "don't focus on the sex." If these characters' orientation is nothing more than a footnote, then, guess what, WotC has succeeded in creating characters who are not token characters, not identified exclusively by their "deviant" [Hemlock's hideous word] romantic interests. There have always been heterosexual characters in D&D, yet have you ever taken the time to complain, "That rake's love of a barmaid is only a footnote to his character"?

I'm guessing not, and, again, the reason it seems like a normal character trait that doesn't need to be emphasized and centralized is that heterosexuality and its expression are regularly treated--normalized--in culture and society. There is no reason that LGBTQ affections and romances should seem less normal, except that their general absence in culture has made them seem so. In reality, they are no less ordinary than heterosexuality, only less common.



How? How did I do that? By addressing FrogReaver's generalization about heterosexuals being uncomfortable with open affection between gays? Explain what the hell you are talking about if you are going to spew this kind of diarrhea.

Just to remind everyone of the point.

1. Homosexual character in D&D is fine.
2. Homesexuals are fine.
3. Adding a homosexual character to D&D just to have one or "to make sure that not another book went out without having someone like me in it" is not fine.

There's a fine line there. It is a line of motive. A line of what is called putting it in peoples faces.

Apparently from what I'm reading here it is an outright strategy for social change that is being pushed. It's not enough for me to say gay's exist and I'm fine with that. Instead I must be okay with everything they do. And to top it off the strategy to get me there is to purposefully put it in my face so it becomes common enough and then to keep on doing that until I think it's normal.

 

[FrogReaver]

"Your ability to show minimal levels of affection to your partner in a public place is subordinate to my comfort with seeing it" is absolutely marginalizing a person by making something truly fundamental, love and the expression of same, subject to your desire not to see it. You might as well say a person listening to music at a reasonable volume in public has to clear it by you first because you might not like their taste in music.

Weird. I dislike bothering others with my music. I tend not to play anything I like around people that may find it offensive. I tend to think of that as a respect thing too.

 

[Sunseeker]

"Your ability to show minimal levels of affection to your partner in a public place is subordinate to my comfort with seeing it" is absolutely marginalizing a person by making something truly fundamental, love and the expression of same, subject to your desire not to see it. You might as well say a person listening to music at a reasonable volume in public has to clear it by you first because you might not like their taste in music.

As much as I understand the desire to see the good in everyone, to educate everyone, to hope that people will come around to the reasonable, level-headed, tolerant side of society.

Some people like froggy there just aren't worth it.

 

[FrogReaver]

How? How did I do that? By addressing FrogReaver's generalization about heterosexuals being uncomfortable with open affection between gays? Explain what the hell you are talking about if you are going to spew this kind of diarrhea.

Do you think many if not most heterosexuals aren't uncomfortable with open affection between gays?

 

[Yunru]

If there can be heterosexual characters without the game "focus[ing] on the sex," why can't there be LGBTQ characters without the game "focus[ing] on the sex"?

That gay people are ordinary people who do the same things that other people do is a point that FrogReaver and you, evidently, fail to understand; their lives "don't focus on the sex." If these characters' orientation is nothing more than a footnote, then, guess what, WotC has succeeded in creating characters who are not token characters, not identified exclusively by their "deviant" [Hemlock's hideous word] romantic interests. There have always been heterosexual characters in D&D, yet have you ever taken the time to complain, "That rake's love of a barmaid is only a footnote to his character"?

Watch yourself. You paint with too wide a brush. If you bothered reading I already addressed your point. I was going to repeat myself for you, until you needlessly degenerated into insults.

So no, you want your answer, go find it.

 

[MechaPilot]

Weird. I dislike bothering others with my music. I tend not to play anything I like around people that may find it offensive. I tend to think of that as a respect thing too.

That's why I said "at a reasonable volume." Reasonable volume, is being respectful of others while also being allowed to exercise your personal freedoms. Reasonable volume is also basically the musical equivalent of public displays of affection are okay regardless of sexuality involved as long as they're tasteful and not over the top.

 

[Morrus]

Do you think many if not most heterosexuals aren't uncomfortable with open affection between gays?

What cares if they are? I mean, really? Tough. That just highlights the problem and *increases* the need for representation.

 

[Morrus]

This thread is essentially a dozen people telling one guy he’s wrong, and that guy adamantly digging his heels in. The thread may be done.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World

 

[Yunru]

If there can be heterosexual characters without the game "focus[ing] on the sex," why can't there be LGBTQ characters without the game "focus[ing] on the sex"?

That gay people are ordinary people who do the same things that other people do is a point that FrogReaver and you, evidently, fail to understand; their lives "don't focus on the sex." If these characters' orientation is nothing more than a footnote, then, guess what, WotC has succeeded in creating characters who are not token characters, not identified exclusively by their "deviant" [Hemlock's hideous word] romantic interests. There have always been heterosexual characters in D&D, yet have you ever taken the time to complain, "That rake's love of a barmaid is only a footnote to his character"?

Watch yourself. You paint with too wide a brush. If you bothered reading I already addressed your point. I was going to repeat myself for you, until you needlessly degenerated into insults.

So no, you want your answer, go find it.

Edit: I must be getting soft.

It's a footnote. Footnotes don't have enough social impact.

As for that "diarrhoea" you don't see how:

Yes, the difference there is that the heteros are bigots, while the gay people are not.

Isn't bigoted?

Edit 2: Let's break it down further.
Why can't there be LGBT? There can and are. About 95% of all characters in DnD have no defined orientation.

Would I complain about the love for bar maids being a footnote? Of course not, it wouldn't be a footnote if I did.

 

[guachi]

Only to you. The rest of us could manage to hold this conversation perfectly fine without hearing all about your heterosexuality and your maleness. Shouldn't you keep that sort of thing to yourself?

I know MechaPilot is gay. Shouldn't she be keeping her gayness and femaleness to herself? Or do you only call out straight people who announce their straightness?