Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="doctorhook" data-source="post: 6327663" data-attributes="member: 58401">The modern and progressive part of this isn't Corellon's androgyneity, it's the fact and manner that WotC decided to draw attention to it.By itself, Corellon's androgyneity merely represents androgynous figures of mythology and the ambiguous sexual nature of elves in contemporary fantasy fiction. By presenting it in the &quot;sex&quot; section of 5E character creation, it presents a clear and upfront precedent for androgynous characters in D&amp;D. Rather than ignoring the question of sexually ambiguity, 5E's character creation process takes the more courageous route of explicitly noting that heroic characters can be any degree of sex- and gender-nonconformist without game penalty.Experienced D&amp;Ders will note how profoundly unnecessary to gameplay this discussion is. Players have always been creating whatever sorts of characters they like, and few players have needed to reference the rules regarding sex and gender. On that topic, my copy of the 3.5E Player's Handbook reads, &quot;Your character can be either male or female,&quot; and my 4E Player's Handbook only says, &quot;Male or female?&quot; in a section about character appearance. For 5E, WotC obviously opted to err on the side of explicit inclusion, and my opinion is that that's a good thing.Nothing can guarantee to stop stupid people from arguing on the internet or around a dinner table. WotC has headed-off some uncomfortable discussions by giving clear guidelines for what's acceptable in D&amp;D, but it's still up to DMs and players whether or not to follow them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="doctorhook, post: 6327663, member: 58401"] The modern and progressive part of this isn't Corellon's androgyneity, it's the fact and manner that WotC decided to draw attention to it. By itself, Corellon's androgyneity merely represents androgynous figures of mythology and the ambiguous sexual nature of elves in contemporary fantasy fiction. By presenting it in the "sex" section of 5E character creation, it presents a clear and upfront precedent for androgynous characters in D&D. Rather than ignoring the question of sexually ambiguity, 5E's character creation process takes the more courageous route of explicitly noting that heroic characters can be any degree of sex- and gender-nonconformist without game penalty. Experienced D&Ders will note how profoundly unnecessary to gameplay this discussion is. Players have always been creating whatever sorts of characters they like, and few players have needed to reference the rules regarding sex and gender. On that topic, my copy of the 3.5E Player's Handbook reads, "Your character can be either male or female," and my 4E Player's Handbook only says, "Male or female?" in a section about character appearance. For 5E, WotC obviously opted to err on the side of explicit inclusion, and my opinion is that that's a good thing. Nothing can guarantee to stop stupid people from arguing on the internet or around a dinner table. WotC has headed-off some uncomfortable discussions by giving clear guidelines for what's acceptable in D&D, but it's still up to DMs and players whether or not to follow them. [/QUOTE]

Verification