D&D 5E Dragonborn inter-species breeding?

[Shasarak]

You thought that barmaids were in the game so that PCs could capture them and then mate with them?

In polite company you might say that you are going "Carousing"!

Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more.

 

[evilbob]

I can't draw on history to talk about history?

I was saying you can't justify a sexist argument about a D&D game with "history" when it also has non-historical things like magic and dragons. In this case, D&D isn't "like history" - it's fantasy. And fantasy doesn't have anything to justify sexist arguments.

I'll just put you on ignore.

Whatever you need to do, man.

 

[Riley37]

In polite company you might say that you are going "Carousing"!

Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more.

Ah, well, I interpret carousing as consensual. That consent might involve economic incentives, perhaps, but not violence nor the threat of violence. If the barmaid smiles whenever she remembers that night, just as the PC does, then we're on compatible pages.

I'm more worried about the versions in which the barmaid (or the kobold) flinches at the memories of pain and fear. If that's not the version you're promoting, then carry on with your winks and nudges!

 

[Riley37]

No. It's not. As soon as someone says "magic" or "dragons" (the latter being the title of the game) they lose all ability to draw on history to justify literally anything they're talking about.

Whoah.

If you're against the specific tactic in which people assert that restrictive gender roles in actual history, are therefore a justification of imposing equally-restrictive or MORE-restrictive gender roles on D&D, or related games, then sure, so am I. History tends to include exceptions to those roles, such as Joan of Arc. A game designer who is *less willing to compromise than France was* probably has some kind of personal motivation dominating their game design. (There's a certain game designer making a big deal about how he'll include orcs and trolls in a gladiator game, but NO WOMEN.)

That's not the same thing as categorically refusing to consider anything from history ever. When a party is trudging along the road, ON THEIR WAY TO ASSAULT A GORRAM DRAGON'S LAIR, I still base their travel rate on the historical info about horses and wagons and people in armor walking along Roman-designed roads.

Invoking BUT HISTORY! as an excuse for sexism in D&D, is a flimsy excuse. That's one thing. I'm not sure that's what Shidaku is doing. There's also starting with the historical Middle Ages, and adding magic, and using that as a setting. That's not necessarily sexist. Especially considering the well-documented egalitarianism of the Dragonborn.

 

[Sunseeker]

Invoking BUT HISTORY! as an excuse for sexism in D&D, is a flimsy excuse. That's one thing. I'm not sure that's what Shidaku is doing. There's also starting with the historical Middle Ages, and adding magic, and using that as a setting. That's not necessarily sexist. Especially considering the well-documented egalitarianism of the Dragonborn.

I wasn't. I was saying that it's not unusual for aspects of medieval history to appear in a game based loosely off medieval fantasy. I don't think that's an unreasonable position to take. It's why I don't like being reduced to sound bytes, people who tend to do that miss the point, as evilbob did. I am still staunchly against what the player described by the OP wants to do and even if rape happens in my game it is explicitly a bad thing and never happens to a player or by a player.

 

[GameOgre]

You know what you never see? People arguing over the merits of including castration in their D&D games. Somehow it doesn't come up despite it's real world history .

Now myself I don't think it belongs in my D&D games but for those of you that do want such real world historical things in your D&D games, perhaps you should include it along with the other distasteful activities mentioned in this thread?

 

[evilbob]

If you're against the specific tactic in which people assert that restrictive gender roles in actual history, are therefore a justification of imposing equally-restrictive or MORE-restrictive gender roles on D&D, or related games, then sure, so am I.

That's basically what I'm saying.

That's not the same thing as categorically refusing to consider anything from history ever.

Considering history is fine. Saying roads worked like middle age roads is fine. Using historical sexism to justify sexism in a fantasy game is not fine. Sorry I was a bit hyperbolic but I really can't stand that "justification" for sexism. (Although I guess if you want to be super pedantic I would also argue that just because they had Roman-style roads in the middle ages doesn't mean you can say they HAVE to have Roman-style roads in your fantasy game, because: fantasy. They could have asphalt and it's just as valid and you can't say it's not valid.)

 

[Riley37]

You know what you never see? People arguing over the merits of including castration in their D&D games. Somehow it doesn't come up despite it's real world history .

Now myself I don't think it belongs in my D&D games but for those of you that do want such real world historical things in your D&D games, perhaps you should include it along with the other distasteful activities mentioned in this thread?

Most people never see it in TRPG. I have, once, on fairly reasonable grounds, it could have happened to a PC, but the DM said "we're not going there".

Mark Twain's novel "Conneticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" spends a chapter on slavery in King Arthur's day, because Twain was an abolitionist. Yet another touchy topic which rarely comes to the attention of the Nine Walkers or TRPG PCs.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I would also add that if there is a group out there where people have consented that sexual assault is acceptable as a thing that can happen in the fictional world that plays out at their table, for the love of god keep it off-screen. Being pressed to RP one of those scenes is one of the most traumatic experiences I have ever been through. Even people who think they can handle all manner of evil stuff happening in game very likely do not realize what they are getting themselves into with such a scene.

I don't think rape is uniquely bad though--there are LOTS of evil things that you wouldn't want to inflict onscreen. I've been thinking about this lately because on the one hand, if the bad guys don't actually do evil things, why should PCs think it's okay to kill them? And on the other hand, I have no desire whatsoever to befoul my mind with the mentality needed to run monsters and NPCs committing atrocities. It's just not worth it.

I haven't resolved the tension (let the PCs find hints and scarred victims but never witness anything? Censor descriptions with bleeps?) but it certainly gives me sympathy for Gygax's alignment system. It may have been invented to solve similar problems. "Yes, the orc's heart is blackest evil, let's not discuss the details. Just kill it already, and the world will be a better place."

 

[Sunseeker]

You know what you never see? People arguing over the merits of including castration in their D&D games. Somehow it doesn't come up despite it's real world history .

Now myself I don't think it belongs in my D&D games but for those of you that do want such real world historical things in your D&D games, perhaps you should include it along with the other distasteful activities mentioned in this thread?

If it has a place, it may come up. Castration served a lot of purposes. Sure, it wasn't tasteful, but it was generally less horrible than most of the things that happened in the middle ages.

Your whole post is nothing more than an attempt to shut down the conversation, but with the way forums work, every post extends the conversation, so you are actively countering the intent of your post.