D&D 5E What happened to the Hermaphrodites???

[abirdcall]

True.
I can't recall any rules that say, "if your character is male then you get -this ability- ; if not, you don't". Replace "male" with "female" or "hermaphroditic" or any other term, and the example is still valid.

It really doesn't matter what sex or gender your character is.

D&D IS COMPLETELY INCLUSIVE.

(Your character's attributes might matter when it comes to Interpersonal Interaction - IRL or inside the story - but that's something the gamers must deal with, not something the game must deal with.)

It is inclusive unless it isn't.

If there is going to be a section in book on the character's gender, that section should be inclusive. It shouldn't dictate the character's gender or sexuality. 5e doesn't and that's great.

 

[Dualazi]

Self-inflicted censorship?

you say that like it isn't a thing that happens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-censorship So, yeah, they might be. That's the rub though, we don't know what the intent of this change was because it wasn't broadcast, it was simply there in one edition of print and absent the next. If this is due to wizards desiring to re-invent corellon's mythos, then I have no issue. If it was done to cater to the sensibilities of the outside influences, then I do oppose it. I suspect it'll remain a hypothetical though, as I doubt wizards is going to drop an official statement on the matter.

It sounds to me like you are trying to impose your own vision of artistic integrity on the Wizards developers. But they are the artists here. If they get to do what they want then there is no grounds for complaint.

As long as this is something they want and not something they are being compelled to do.

Also, I hope the irony isn't lost on you that you are saying what changes should or should not be able to be made to their book.

See my above post. I potentially object to changes based on the reasoning for the change. If they're capitulating to outside forces (real or imagined) in designing their product then artistic integrity has already been compromised, and opposing that change doesn't put me on the same front as the initial pressuring group.

WotC isn't being censored by anybody. They choose themselves how to artistically express themselves. That's the exact opposite of censorship. What you perceive it to be isn't really material here.

While you are correct that my perception isn't of any real importance at large, you yourself can follow the link above and see that self-censorship need not result from a specific individual or cause to still be censorship. As I have to repeat a dozen times it seems, if this is this genuine artistic vision and this is how they prefer their product, then it's a non-issue. If their vision has been compromised due to their belief that it will be perceived in a negative light, then their vision has been infringed upon and they made changes they otherwise would not have. At the end of the day, this debate for me is centered mostly on intent, which is obviously hard to determine short of an official statement.

You're describing a paradoxical, zero-sum situation where, no matter what WOTC chose to do, WOTC buckled under the pressure of one group or another. It's nonsensical. Personally, I think your claims of boosting "artistic integrity" and avoiding "self inflicted censorship" (!?) are pretext.

Edit: Ok, so maybe I should have read the intervening pages of posts before replying, as, in the interim, this pretext has been completely abandoned by some of the posters.

This isn't true in the slightest, though. Maybe I've been woefully inarticulate in describing my position, but it just comes down to intent. If wizards likes this version better and thinks it's where they want to take the franchise, then no problem. If not, then I object to their work being imposed upon.

Also, care to clarify what you mean by my objections being pretext? I genuinely oppose censorship of any sort and if you're implying that I only do so due to political orientation then let me say that nothing is further from the truth. I didn't care when it was included and I'm not troubled by it exclusion, predicated on the assumption that said changes were deliberate and unaffected by outside pressures.

 

[Morrus]

Before you insult people you should at least do a minimum of research.
Yes I was wrong it was a shirt and not a necktie and I edited the original post.

I have no interest in whatever shirt or necktie you are talking about. That has nothing to do with this conversation.

You vastly underestimate (or actively ignore) the amount of public controversy the feminist or LGBT community can create when they make out a target no matter how minor it is (Tim Hunt being the prime example).

Nobody denies the possibility that such things might happen. Just that in this case it did not happen.

It's not Eastern Germany. It's not Tim Hunt. Stop making ridiculous comparisons to real things. WotC changed a word. Got it? WotC changed a word in their own book.

Yes based on WotC tweet this was likely not the reason here

Well, yes. That was the point all along.

but by now this is more about your denial that this can happen than what WotC did.

I have no idea what that means. You have now accepted you're wrong but you're still arguing? About... something? What's wrong, dude? How can we help you? You're mad about something, but even you don't seem to know what it is. If you don't know, I don't think we're likely to know.

 

[jaelis]

you say that like it isn't a thing that happens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-censorship

I see that my statement came across poorly. If you believe that the developers changed their text because they were afraid that they might be assaulted, or doxxed, or suffer some other concrete harm, then indeed they would have self censored. That is a thing that can happen, yes. But it very clearly did not happen in this case since (a) the developers have talked about their reasoning and (b) they did use the word and they were not assaulted or doxxed.

On the other hand, if they decided to change the word because they did not want to offend people, then that is not self-censorship and it does not make sense to call it that. That is just them saying what they wanted to say. And based on the same evidence as above, that is what happened. It seemed to me that this scenario is what we were discussing at the time. If you were really referring to the possibility that they were under threat, then I misinterpreted your remark but you were wrong in a different way.

 

[cmad1977]

I see discussing with you over this issue is pointless.

That isn't his fault.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ganymede81]

This isn't true in the slightest, though. Maybe I've been woefully inarticulate in describing my position, but it just comes down to intent. If wizards likes this version better and thinks it's where they want to take the franchise, then no problem. If not, then I object to their work being imposed upon.

Yet again, this weirdly formalist argument of yours is flimsy. It is little more than sticking to your guns for its own sake.

It also relies on the implausible fantasy that there is some qabal of people out there that forced WOTC to make this change. It is like saying, "I would staunchly oppose the Illuminati using their tech-assassins to mind-control WOTC staff into deleting the phrase "hermaphroditic features.'" I mean, I agree that that scenario would be bad, but it is still fantasy.

I genuinely oppose censorship of any sort

This simply isn't censorship, though. WOTC listened to feedback and adapted to it; that's a far cry from the suppression of ideas that censorship entails.

WOTC realized that, in a foreward intended to demonstrate the GLBT inclusiveness of D&D, using a hermaphrodite to appeal to a diverse intersex population is pretty reductive. They acted accordingly. Case closed. There isn't even an inherent problem in describing Corellon as hermaphrodic in other parts of the book or in other supplements; literally the only issue was its place in a very specific paragraph.

Thinking otherwise is a flight of fancy.

Also, care to clarify what you mean by my objections being pretext?

You're thinking the stuff Derren's actually posting, but you're not posting it.

It's possible I'm jumping to conclusions. Though, with how badly this thread has gone off the rails, I do not hold out much hope.

 

[Dualazi]

I see that my statement came across poorly. If you believe that the developers changed their text because they were afraid that they might be assaulted, or doxxed, or suffer some other concrete harm, then indeed they would have self censored. That is a thing that can happen, yes. But it very clearly did not happen in this case since (a) the developers have talked about their reasoning and (b) they did use the word and they were not assaulted or doxxed.

Not meaning to offend here, but did you even bother to read the opening segments of the wiki article? There is absolutely no requirement that they (the company or staff) need to be at risk for “concrete harm” to engage in self-censorship. As per that same article, the other groups need not actually be in opposition, merely perceived to be.

On the other hand, if they decided to change the word because they did not want to offend people, then that is not self-censorship and it does not make sense to call it that.

To quote the article directly: "Self-censorship can also occur in order to conform to the expectations of the market. For example, the editor of a periodical may consciously or unconsciously avoid topics that will anger advertisers, customers, or the owners in order to protect her or his livelihood either directly (i.e., fear of losing his job) or indirectly (e.g., a belief that a book will be more profitable if it does not contain offensive material). This phenomenon is referred to as soft censorship."

So I apologize, evidently I should have called it 'soft censorship'. Either way, it remains censorship by another name.

It also relies on the implausible fantasy that there is some qabal of people out there that forced WOTC to make this change. It is like saying, "I would staunchly oppose the Illuminati using their tech-assassins to mind-control WOTC staff into deleting the phrase "hermaphroditic features.'" I mean, I agree that that scenario would be bad, but it is still fantasy.

No it doesn't. At most it relies on WotC believing such cabal exists and making changes based on their perceived (from the viewpoint of WotC) opposition to the inclusion. It's also a ridiculously hyperbolic analogy and not really a good representation of the scenario nor my opinions on it.

This simply isn't censorship, though. WOTC listened to feedback and adapted to it; that's a far cry from the suppression of ideas that censorship entails.

See above quote in my response to jaelis

WOTC realized that, in a foreward intended to demonstrate the GLBT inclusiveness of D&D, using a hermaphrodite to appeal to a diverse intersex population is pretty reductive.

Are you one of said illuminati mind-readers, or did I miss a tweet or statement from wizards in the interim of this discussion? Because if not, your assertions are hypothetical.

You're thinking the stuff Derren's actually posting, but you're not posting it.

So you ARE one of their mind readers. Very clever, I'm on to you. In all seriousness this comes very close to a personal attack and I'll thank you to stick to the arguments I present and not try and ascribe whatever motivations or politics you think would motivate them.

It's possible I'm jumping to conclusions. Though, with how badly this thread has gone off the rails, I do not hold out much hope.

I am also surprised by the sharp turn it took, but it seems to mirror how a lot of attempts at discourse go these days.

 

[jaelis]

So I apologize, evidently I should have called it 'soft censorship'. Either way, it remains censorship by another name.

Fair enough. I don't personally believe that this 'soft censorship' is a moral issue, it is just another word for good salesmanship. Or more generally, being a pleasant person.

 

[Ganymede81]

Ugh is three characters, right?

 

[happyhermit]

Fair enough. I don't personally believe that this 'soft censorship' is a moral issue, it is just another word for good salesmanship. Or more generally, being a pleasant person.

I could be wrong but I doubt you would consider something that describes a writer not covering an oil spill or a political scandal, or editing parts of it because it might reflect badly on someone to be "just another word for good salesmanship or being a pleasant person. Or people who have in the past (and still) been afraid to talk or write about their homosexuality because of how it might affect their careers. Or...