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

[Morrus]

As I said in my thought experiment above, whether you'd support the game or not is a simple choice. Of course you would give up supporting it. I would to. But it shows how the use of media as a vehicle of a specific ideology is problematic. You like the game. You want to support the game, but not you can't because of its agenda. It's uncomfortable.

As I've said, right message, wrong medium.

EN World is not the right place for your propaganda. Please choose a more suitable venue.

 

[Sir Brennen]

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.

No, I wouldn't be torn. I'd quickly move on to another game to play.

Your example is something is of something which would clearly meant to exclude a particular segment of gamers and their supporters. It is morally unjust. It is in no way equivalant to an inclusive statement, which is a moral good.

Did you have a problem when WotC declared in the past they planned on including more diverse character portraits? Or to reduce objectifying the female form? Were these "agendas" you found offensive?

Also, what platform would be a "correct, ethical tool" to promote an "agenda", if not "media"? Media covers about any platform I could think of to discuss such matters.

To say "you can include gay characters in an adventure, just don't tell me why you did it" sounds like a repressive "don't ask, don't tell" line of reasoning to me.

As has been stated, authors have reasons for doing things, and they talk about them all the time. To reduce a particular motivation to abstracts of "propaganda" and "agenda" completely misses the point that this is a real person who wants himself and others like him to feel included in a hobby he loves.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Exactly the same as I did before: that propaganda has no place in roleplaying. The argument is irrelevant. It does matter if I agree with it or not. The right place in the right place; the right time is the right time, but promoting one's agenda through a roleplaying game book certainly isn't it.

Okay, let's quantify this.

If D&D should be a trailing indicator of social change, and not part of the vanguard, what percentage of social approval does an given issue need to reach to not be propaganda?

Like, if D&D had existed since the 19th century, in which year could (the American edition of) D&D have included black or Chinese heroes without it being propaganda?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I don’t like the way you are using EN World for your propaganda. Wrong tool. Please use a different one.

How does that feel?

It feels passive aggressive, because it's not written in "mod voice", but it's written with the tone of someone threatening moderator action if he's not pleased with the response.

There's a reason why visually distinguishing moderator comments from regular discussion is a best practice on Internet forums.

 

[Lord Twig]

Exactly the same as I did before: that propaganda has no place in roleplaying. The argument is irrelevant. It does matter if I agree with it or not. The right place in the right place; the right time is the right time, but promoting one's agenda through a roleplaying game book certainly isn't it.

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.

 

[MechaPilot]

Well, based on the article, it says that they have a legal status which is recognized by the local community as a form of marriage. That implies a high (and anachronous) level of acceptance.

Where does the article say that? I see it says married, but people do have weddings and marry without the blessings of religious officials or the force of law behind them; this is especially true when people love and want to marry someone who they cannot marry legally or with the blessings of a religious institution.

Also, do the adventures in question say that? It's fairly easy for people writing articles to not do all the research they should, and the presentation in the adventures that actually gets into the hands of DMs and players is what matters because it's what people are going to see and use during play (assuming they don't modify the adventure).

But if so, then normalization is present, and it constitutes propaganda.

Do we agree on that?

Possibly.

If normalization is present does it constitute propaganda? If you mean propaganda in the common parlance of intending to elevate or denigrate, then no, most definitely not.

If you mean propaganda according to the definition of "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view," then it depends on several factors:

1) Normalization could be an intended part of the campaign setting, in which case you then have to distinguish is it an artistic choice or is it politically motivated.

2) Normalization could be something that, even if originally unintended by the setting creator, makes sense in the context of the setting. Unlike the real world, I can't cite any major world religions in FR who decry homosexuality as wicked or sinful. In the absence of that influence, normalization is tremendously logical.

3) Does the viewer consider "homosexuals exist and are no more inherently good or bad than heterosexuals are" to be a political cause or political point of view? If so, then such a person would consider normalization propaganda instead of a basic fact that represents our shared human identity, and the potential that all people have within them to do good (or evil), regardless of their race, sex, sexuality, age, nation of origin, etc.

 

[Satyrn]

To break that habbit needs a contious decision.

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

 

[hawkeyefan]

As I said in my thought experiment above, whether you'd support the game or not is a simple choice. Of course you would give up supporting it. I would to. But it shows how the use of media as a vehicle of a specific ideology is problematic. You like the game. You want to support the game, but not you can't because of its agenda. It's uncomfortable.

As I've said, right message, wrong medium.

Um, no. Like I said, I would not be torn. I would not want to support the game under those circumstances. No conflict, nothing uncomfortable. An easy choice.

There is no such thing as the wrong medium for a message.

 

[Morrus]

D&D Promises to Make the Game More Queer

It feels passive aggressive, because it's not written in "mod voice", but it's written with the tone of someone threatening moderator action if he's not pleased with the response.

There's a reason why visually distinguishing moderator comments from regular discussion is a best practice on Internet forums.

We use red text for moderator comments. Hope that helps!

 

[MechaPilot]

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.

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.