So, I got my EK yesterday. One adventure (set in the Forgotten Realms) involves two homosexual gnome 'kings' who are married to each other and co-rule in tandem, only one has gone mad and imprisoned the other.
Wondering if I can/should try to make this work, or ignore it. Making them brothers might make more sense. OTOH I have had gay male NPC relationships in my FR before, but only for humans, and I presented it as tolerated not socially sanctioned. I suppose I could go with Gnomes Are Into That Kinda Thing... but I'd like it make some kind of sense. I guess neither could be a hereditary monarch - they'd have to be elected together?
No knowledge of the EK, but if I took a stab at it, I'd consider the fact that they're lovers could explain why they co-ruled in the first place as, under normal circumstances, they'd have tried to oust each other. Since they were lovers, though, they ruled together, until things went south. It wouldn't matter if it was socially acceptable, since, as rulers, they could ignore convention, or they could simply rule that this is okay. Not knowing how sexuality is dealt with in the FR, I have no context to determine what the society at large would think, much less the specific Gnomish kingdom.
So they outsourced Essentials to Paizo huh? :rolleyes:
As for how to handle it?
Lots of ways really. You know your group and what they will and wont put up with.
Some personal thoughts on some twists to this sordid tale.
1: One of the dwarves was originally female and has been changed by ye ol Girdle of Femininity/Masculinity.
2: One of them is not male. Surface people can not tell male and female dwarves apart. Or better. Both are really female! :cool:
3: One of them is not male and is pretending. Is she smitten with the other? Is she hiding from an enemy in plain sight? and so on.
4: Some ancient curse can only be broken if two kings sit on the throne.
5: The diabolocal demon thingy Oziap laid the vile "Curse of Woke!" on the hapless dwarves! :eek:
Quote from: cranebump;1102868No knowledge of the EK, but if I took a stab at it, I'd consider the fact that they're lovers could explain why they co-ruled in the first place as, under normal circumstances, they'd have tried to oust each other. Since they were lovers, though, they ruled together, until things went south. It wouldn't matter if it was socially acceptable, since, as rulers, they could ignore convention, or they could simply rule that this is okay. Not knowing how sexuality is dealt with in the FR, I have no context to determine what the society at large would think, much less the specific Gnomish kingdom.
So they could have been rivals for the crown who fell in love then ruled together (until one went mad). It will feel weird to the players I think, but that's not necessarily a bad thing since Gnomes are basically Fey. :D
Quote from: Omega;1102875So they outsourced Essentials to Paizo huh? :rolleyes:
It does look like a bit of Performative Wokeness, but I think I can probably make it work.
Some good ideas, thanks Omega. I like the subversion of one gnome being secretly female - perhaps discovering that drove the other one mad?! :D
My players will be everything from a grizzled ex-Army Sergeant, to typical London student types. No radical SJWs or social conservatives AFAIK.
So, just so I have this straight (heh), WotC released an adventure where large numbers of mostly heterosexual players (being 97% of the population) will be playing in sessions where the default PC response is going to be ganging up to beat a gay man to death?
I think the Woke has actually reached Plaid.
Quote from: Chris24601;1102888So, just so I have this straight (heh), WotC released an adventure where large numbers of mostly heterosexual players (being 97% of the population) will be playing in sessions where the default PC response is going to be ganging up to beat a gay man to death?
A Gay Gnome, to be Gnorrect.
Quote from: S'mon;1102890A Gay Gnome, to be Gnorrect.
With mental health issues, apparently.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1102895With mental health issues, apparently.
Guys, I think this adventure is a different kind of woke...
Quote from: S'mon;1102858So, I got my EK yesterday. One adventure (set in the Forgotten Realms) involves two homosexual gnome 'kings' who are married to each other and co-rule in tandem, only one has gone mad and imprisoned the other.
Wondering if I can/should try to make this work, or ignore it. Making them brothers might make more sense. OTOH I have had gay male NPC relationships in my FR before, but only for humans, and I presented it as tolerated not socially sanctioned. I suppose I could go with Gnomes Are Into That Kinda Thing... but I'd like it make some kind of sense. I guess neither could be a hereditary monarch - they'd have to be elected together?
That the gnomes are gay isn't where I think there will be a problem with this module, it is the reasoning behind why one went mad. As it is presented (and no, I haven't had my coffee yet, so I may be misinterpreting), it seems that even gay gnomes in a stable married relationship are prone to going crazy.
Quote from: jeff37923;1102901That the gnomes are gay isn't where I think there will be a problem with this module, it is the reasoning behind why one went mad. As it is presented (and no, I haven't had my coffee yet, so I may be misinterpreting), it seems that even gay gnomes in a stable married relationship are prone to going crazy.
Well, as has been said before, people should marry who they want. We all have the right to be equally miserable.:-) (that would be marriage #1 for me--marriage #2 is perfect)
I think this is dead on, as sexuality isn't an issue. What matters is the effect of the relationship on the scenario, and how it drove/drives the current situation. I assume, non-mad partner would like mad-partner made whole again without harming him? That's the thing that matters. To make the rulers gay, with no bearing on the module's specifics, would be a rather weak gesture. In any case, it shouldn't make much difference, unless there is a taboo against homesexuality, and the PCs involvement in it becomes an issue, as they get associated with "immorality." In that case, they sort of "strike a blow for justice," which, to some of the PCs (the NG/CG ones maybe?), might be a motivation to get involved. I think there are ways that the same sex relationship would become an interesting social subplot. For example, if there's a PC whose beliefs are antithetical to homosexuality, but they choose to get involved due to a greater harm caused by not addressing the situation, then you get some interesting roleplay out of that (if the players are into the RP aspect). Maybe a LG Cleric finds out there's more shades of grey than they initially believed. Things like that.
On the other hand, maybe no one bats an eye at it, and it's just another adventure, which is fine, too (and easier to run, I would think).
Just means more revision work for those of us who don't incorporate modern values (and by 'modern' I mean values from the last 200 years) in our fantasy RPGs. In my worlds, nobles marry to have children and carry on the family lineage. They also treat their children as pawns, and probably beat them too. Because that's the way brutal societies governed by tradition and vicious competition work. Love or sexual preference doesn't enter into it.
Are my fantasy RPG worlds hostile to modern sensibilities around gender and sex? Yep. They're hostile to all sorts of things that we believe today - that's one of the things that makes them dramatic, exotic, and perilous. I wouldn't want to spend 15 minutes in my settings.
Just when I think the D & D 5E Essentials Kit appears to be a great introductory product for the hobby; I discover that once again, you are invited to eat a bowl of frosted homo flakes for breakfast.
Why does WOTC feel the need to stuff this crap into their products? Are they secretly trying to out-Paizo, Paizo?
Quote from: Razor 007;1102920Just when I think the D & D 5E Essentials Kit appears to be a great introductory product for the hobby; I discover that once again, you are invited to eat a bowl of frosted homo flakes for breakfast.
Why does WOTC feel the need to stuff this crap into their products? Are they secretly trying to out-Paizo, Paizo?
My own slightly paranoid theory? If you don't approve of LGBTQ+ sexual acts, they don't want you playing the game.
Quote from: Razor 007;1102920Just when I think the D & D 5E Essentials Kit appears to be a great introductory product for the hobby; I discover that once again, you are invited to eat a bowl of frosted homo flakes for breakfast.
Why does WOTC feel the need to stuff this crap into their products? Are they secretly trying to out-Paizo, Paizo?
Awhile back Jeremy Crawford made it clear that he's pushing his LGBQT agenda into every D&D product WotC puts out.
That was around the same time I stopped purchasing WotC products, and focused instaed on agenda-less OSR products.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1102927My own slightly paranoid theory? If you don't approve of LGBTQ+ sexual acts, they don't want you playing the game.
I feel like they really don't care what we think, provided we're buying their product. They might also feel that a more inclusive approach opens up a wider (younger) audience. They sort of need that to perpetuate the hobby. If they're pandering to a certain audience, and the audience is paying for it because they like it, then that's what they'll do. But really, I wouldn't know their rationale. I haven't bought any 5E materials yet, outside spell cards (which continue to gather dust to this day). I'm not avoiding 5E due to their stance on inclusivity, though. I just prefer other games. I think they're better served just producing a good, strong game, rather than making any political statements beyond the fact that the company does not discriminate, but it's not my company to run, so...
I don't really see what the big deal is about having a gay couple or whatever in a game. They're not driving it down your throat, right? It's just part of the game. How is it different than them being elves or something?
It doesn't make sense to say it wasn't historically that way because this is Forgotten Realms, not Medieval Europe. It's already high fantasy af.
And if you don't like it in your game just say they're brothers, like was suggested.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1102927My own slightly paranoid theory? If you don't approve of LGBTQ+ sexual acts, they don't want you playing the game.
I'm pretty sure they would be happy to confirm your theory. Soon as I heard "D&D is For Everyone" I knew what
that meant. :D
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1102927My own slightly paranoid theory? If you don't approve of LGBTQ+ sexual acts, they don't want you playing the game.
Yeah, it's starting to look like the major RPG companies are quickly forging a path in that direction.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1102927My own slightly paranoid theory? If you don't approve of LGBTQ+ sexual acts, they don't want you playing the game.
Grow the fuck up.
I don't care that they are homosexual. I don't like the idea of co-kings. IMO, one should be king and the other his consort or have some similar title because its a monarchy. I also don't particularly care for gnomes or the Forgotten Realms, so those parts matter grate on me far more than the male/male relationship.
To me, this acting like homosexuality never existed in history before now is silly.
Lots of kings and queens were gay (or bisexual). They still married the opposite sex because the point was to have children, uniting political dynasties. This actually gave rise to a lot of court politics, and male kings would often take male lovers and give them more and more power/wealth, which pissed off the rest of the country.
Quote from: JeremyR;1102961To me, this acting like homosexuality never existed in history before now is silly.
Lots of kings and queens were gay (or bisexual). They still married the opposite sex because the point was to have children, uniting political dynasties. This actually gave rise to a lot of court politics, and male kings would often take male lovers and give them more and more power/wealth, which pissed off the rest of the country.
Yeah, it would be nice to see a realistic plot like that some time.
WotC's agenda is crystal clear. If you want to support their cram-politics-in-gaming "woke" agenda, continue to give WotC your money, your time and your effort.
If you don't support their agenda, there are 100s of other RPGs to play.
The 5e Starter Set is damn near perfect so of course WOTC is going to change it.
Quote from: Razor 007;1102920Just when I think the D & D 5E Essentials Kit appears to be a great introductory product for the hobby; I discover that once again, you are invited to eat a bowl of frosted homo flakes for breakfast.
Why does WOTC feel the need to stuff this crap into their products? Are they secretly trying to out-Paizo, Paizo?
Yeah man, its a big secret. Dont tell anyone.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3814[/ATTACH]
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1102937I don't really see what the big deal is about having a gay couple or whatever in a game. They're not driving it down your throat, right? It's just part of the game. How is it different than them being elves or something?
As with most SJW nonsense. The problem isnt the fact that there is a gay couple in a book. It is the fact that it is in the book to push an agenda.
Nobody would really care most likely if it were just there because the designer thought it was interesting or fit the situation.
Its like back in the 80s and 90s the push to have handicapped people in various shows where they really do not quite work. But are there because it was it was mandated to be politically correct.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1102937I don't really see what the big deal is about having a gay couple or whatever in a game. They're not driving it down your throat, right? It's just part of the game. How is it different than them being elves or something?
It doesn't make sense to say it wasn't historically that way because this is Forgotten Realms, not Medieval Europe. It's already high fantasy af.
And if you don't like it in your game just say they're brothers, like was suggested.
I agree.
And even if you think it is Medieval Europe, well in Medieval Europe divorce was not allowed. Until a king decided it was, and a religion split over it, and civil war ensued. Which seems...perfectly in line with this scenario if you wanted it to be.
Quote from: Piestrio;1102979The 5e Starter Set is damn near perfect so of course WOTC is going to change it.
This isn't the starter set. Different thing.
Quote from: Piestrio;1102979The 5e Starter Set is damn near perfect so of course WOTC is going to change it.
I've been thinking of buying the Essentials box. Is the Starter Set better?
Quote from: S'mon;1102858So, I got my EK yesterday. One adventure (set in the Forgotten Realms) involves two homosexual gnome 'kings' who are married to each other and co-rule in tandem, only one has gone mad and imprisoned the other.
Wondering if I can/should try to make this work, or ignore it. Making them brothers might make more sense. OTOH I have had gay male NPC relationships in my FR before, but only for humans, and I presented it as tolerated not socially sanctioned. I suppose I could go with Gnomes Are Into That Kinda Thing... but I'd like it make some kind of sense. I guess neither could be a hereditary monarch - they'd have to be elected together?
Maybe they were getting along fine until Monarch A's advisor (or maybe mother) got him to plan a marriage because he had to produce an heir and this drove Monarch B around the bend.
Quote from: Aglondir;1102990I've been thinking of buying the Essentials box. Is the Starter Set better?
Lots and lots of solid reviews have been awarded to the Starter Set Adventure. It's a pretty solid level 1-5 adventure, featuring the Core 4 Classes. It comes with 5 pregen characters, and some blank character sheets. It includes a basic rules guide too; and a very basic set of cheap, lightweight dice. No miniatures, or pawns. Pretty much a Theater of the Mind game set.
Quote from: Aglondir;1102990I've been thinking of buying the Essentials box. Is the Starter Set better?
From all I've seen the starter is more holistic and pretty good. Essentials is the sequel. Kind of like Basic and Expert? But not? I plan to hunt for it at Target tomorrow.
Quote from: Razor 007;1102993Lots and lots of solid reviews have been awarded to the Starter Set Adventure. It's a pretty solid level 1-5 adventure, featuring the Core 4 Classes. It comes with 5 pregen characters, and some blank character sheets. It includes a basic rules guide too; and a very basic set of cheap, lightweight dice. No miniatures, or pawns. Pretty much a Theater of the Mind game set.
I was disappointed in the 5E Starter Set. It's not particularly bad, but they have great possible material. It should really be a showcase of great stuff, and I felt it was only OK. It's a boxed set, but there are no components other than dice and character sheets. They didn't even provide any play aids -- like having separate sheets for maps or monster stats.
EDITED TO ADD: I don't know about the Essentials Kit. Other than this background bit in an adventure, how is it?
Quote from: Aglondir;1102990I've been thinking of buying the Essentials box. Is the Starter Set better?
Comparing the two I'd say the EK is better - it has full character generation rules in a 64 page book very reminiscent of Moldvay Basic. Unlike the SS it has enough magic items for a full campaign, and I think a greater variety of monsters. It has 128 pages - 64 + 64 - compared to SS 32 +64; and it has a bunch of nice cards for combat, initiative, conditions etc. Also very nice double sided poster map of the Phandalin region in 5 mile hexes.
Edit: Both have dice. The SS has pregens; the EK has printed blank PC sheets.
I think overall the best thing is to use both together as a single sandbox campaign. However unike the SS the EK has enough material to run a completely different campaign.
The EK also has a DM screen and more dice.
I suppose one good question is; will this be your first introduction to D & D 5E?
If so, the extra doodads in the Essentials Kit may prove to be tempting. More dice, a thin flimsy DM screen, and 5 PC classes; as opposed to fewer dice, no DM screen, and 4 PC classes in the Starter Set.
Quote from: Morblot;1103011The EK also has a DM screen and more dice.
Oh yeah! I have packed the very nice screen in my GM's pack for 5e Red Hand of Doom today. It solves my problem with trying to find Conditions at the back of the PHB etc. Sadly it does not have the weapon & armour listings but it does have lodging, and the fiddly high jump rule I always forget.
It's a bit flimsy for keeping up on the table, but I won't be using it that way much anyway.
Quote from: Razor 007;1103013I suppose one good question is; will this be your first introduction to D & D 5E?
If so, the extra doodads in the Essentials Kit may prove to be tempting. More dice, a thin flimsy DM screen, and 5 PC classes; as opposed to fewer dice, no DM screen, and 4 PC classes in the Starter Set.
I'd say brand new newbies may be better off with the SS pregens, but the EK is much better for long term play. Ideally get both. If you can afford only one get the EK; if you have GM'd before get the EK.
I admit, I have continued to spend money on D & D 5E; to get the things I like in the current edition.
But I'm not going to blindly spend money on D & D, as though I owe it to WOTC. I will buy what I like, and pass on what I don't like. It's no different than shopping for groceries. I don't have to buy what I don't like.
Quote from: jhkim;1103007EDITED TO ADD: I don't know about the Essentials Kit. Other than this background bit in an adventure, how is it?
The adventure looks a lot like the one in the SS, maybe a bit better presentation.
Everything else is great; the rule book & accessories are great. The cards are too flimsy - edges ripped when I separated them - but look very useful and come with a fold-out cardboard box to store them. The Sidekicks rules & sample Sidekick NPCs look a lot of fun for smaller groups. Albeit the art on their handout cards does make them look like whey-faced 2019 Seattle-ites; reminiscent of mid '90s TSR art where the NPCs all look like corn-fed Lake Geneva-ites.
So far my impression is the EK is just as fantastic as I hoped, Gay Gnomes or Gnot.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1102937I don't really see what the big deal is about having a gay couple or whatever in a game. They're not driving it down your throat, right? It's just part of the game. How is it different than them being elves or something?
It doesn't make sense to say it wasn't historically that way because this is Forgotten Realms, not Medieval Europe. It's already high fantasy af.
And if you don't like it in your game just say they're brothers, like was suggested.
I think it would be more interesting to reflect some pseudo-historical context. Nobility was hereditary (and iirc FR has this element as well), so two gay kings would be essentially a termination of the bloodline, potentially, with the need for heirs to come from close relatives. The two kings could have marriages of convenience while secretly seeking their actual relationship with one another, embroiling estranged an unhappy wives and "required by tradition and station" children caught in the mix. So much more interesting to add these elements in, reflecting what likely has happened in the historical past, but in a reasonably safer fantasy realm for exploration of the story ideas.
Someone might have written a quest idea involving two "rulers" and leave the details to the individual DMs, but maybe that's not inclusive enough for 2019.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1102937I don't really see what the big deal is about having a gay couple or whatever in a game. They're not driving it down your throat, right? It's just part of the game. How is it different than them being elves or something?
It doesn't make sense to say it wasn't historically that way because this is Forgotten Realms, not Medieval Europe. It's already high fantasy af.
And if you don't like it in your game just say they're brothers, like was suggested.
Gamers vary in how high they want their fantasy. Personally, I despise the Forgotten Realms setting and change any adventure set there. I know the modern tastes tend towards 21st century middle-class North American social norms with magic-tech, swords, and superpowers. I prefer a game more grounded in medieval norms - basically Game of Thrones but much more weird and dangerous.
To me, social values and conventions are a product of environment, just as technology is. Putting 21st century social values in a technologically pre-modern game world feels as out of place to me as including smart-phones, Uber, and Skip the Dishes. It destroys any illusion that this is a genuine and coherent setting.
Quote from: JeremyR;1102961To me, this acting like homosexuality never existed in history before now is silly.
Lots of kings and queens were gay (or bisexual). They still married the opposite sex because the point was to have children, uniting political dynasties. This actually gave rise to a lot of court politics, and male kings would often take male lovers and give them more and more power/wealth, which pissed off the rest of the country.
Certainly not what I'm doing. Everything you say is true. But pretending that a king in a hereditary feudal system could openly defy the convention of having children - and would want to put his dynasty at risk by not producing an heir - is what's silly. Or at least so incongruous that I'll change it for my game. Not because
"ew, there's gayness in this adventure," but because
"wtf, that doesn't make any sense."
There were some threads in this forum before dealing with presentism. Basically running a D&D setting as if it was a modern-day renaissance fair. To which I tend to say "boo", but it's not that hard to adjust to your own table. If I was running the adventure I'd just make one of the rulers female unless there's a reason why they absolutely both have to be male. I believe there have been a few times when a queen has ruled co-equally to some degree with her king. They both can have secret lovers on the side of whatever gender they like if you want, and it wouldn't be presentism.
Now that I think about it I'm going to guess (I haven't read the material) that one of the kings is really a "trans king", but since the progressive line would be "trans kings are kings" WOTC just labeled them both as just kings. Presentism to the nth degree.
Quote from: Haffrung;1103021Certainly not what I'm doing. Everything you say is true. But pretending that a king in a hereditary feudal system could openly defy the convention of having children - and would want to put his dynasty at risk by not producing an heir - is what's silly. Or at least so incongruous that I'll change it for my game. Not because "ew, there's gayness in this adventure," but because "wtf, that doesn't make any sense."
Yeah, my own setting is decidedly post-post-apocalyptic where 99% of the population of a "modern" magitech world died in a Catalclysm and another 90% of those died of famine and disease in the immediate aftermath. Populations of millions were reduced to thousands and tech basically went back to the early Iron Age (it would have been stone age, but fire magic and the ready availability of salvageable steel from the ruins prevented that).
200 years later and small realms with populations in the tens of thousands surrounded by a hundred miles of monster-haunted ruin-filled wilderness are the norm. You can sleep with whoever you want on the side and no one particularly cares (beyond the usual gossip), but if you're not married and making babies you're seen as endangering the future of civilization for your selfish pleasure.
In the pre-modern world, your children were your social security/retirement plan. If you didn't have family to support you once you were too frail to work you were dead in pretty short order.
I'm not giving WotC any of my money, but I am curious... is there ANY mention of a succession plan involving the gay co-kings? Because if they don't have something in place I can't imagine them ruling for long without some sort of coup due to their endangering the security of the realm by not having legitimate heirs. I mean, lack of an heir was a huge cause for concern even when it was a heterosexual king & queen failing to produce, but the co-kings don't even have the caveat of "they're trying" to appease those concerned. It's quite literally "we don't care if the kingdom goes to crap after we're dead."
Since the general advice here when there is a request for more gay relationships is to add them yourself if you need them, the reverse applies for this adventure. Tweaked because the rulers are a gay couple? Change it. I have no fascination with making my FR games realistic and there is plenty of evidence of rulers in actual medieval Europe being homosexual or bisexual. Maybe they had a wife for political or bloodline purposes, but not because they wanted them as a bed partner. Not much of a stretch for gnomes who live a very long time to have a gay ruling couple.
Quote from: camazotz;1103018I think it would be more interesting to reflect some pseudo-historical context. Nobility was hereditary (and iirc FR has this element as well), so two gay kings would be essentially a termination of the bloodline, potentially, with the need for heirs to come from close relatives. The two kings could have marriages of convenience while secretly seeking their actual relationship with one another, embroiling estranged an unhappy wives and "required by tradition and station" children caught in the mix. So much more interesting to add these elements in, reflecting what likely has happened in the historical past, but in a reasonably safer fantasy realm for exploration of the story ideas.
This would make for an interesting adventure setting all by itself. Imagine the convoluted plots and court intrigue that could be generated from two gay kings (or queens) who are married but must produce heirs in order to continue the dynasty. I'd love to GM or be a Player in that.
Quote from: Chris24601;1103034In the pre-modern world, your children were your social security/retirement plan. If you didn't have family to support you once you were too frail to work you were dead in pretty short order.
I'm not giving WotC any of my money, but I am curious... is there ANY mention of a succession plan involving the gay co-kings? Because if they don't have something in place I can't imagine them ruling for long without some sort of coup due to their endangering the security of the realm by not having legitimate heirs. I mean, lack of an heir was a huge cause for concern even when it was a heterosexual king & queen failing to produce, but the co-kings don't even have the caveat of "they're trying" to appease those concerned. It's quite literally "we don't care if the kingdom goes to crap after we're dead."
^^This^^
Ruling dynasties must consider more than "It's good to be the King" when they rule, they must also consider what happens to the nation after they die. For those rulers who only consider their own times and not the future of the realm, they are likely to be dethroned by their own court who has more of an interest in keeping the realm secure for future generations.
About the only way I could see the gay kings angle going is if it was Elder/Junior sort of arrangement where the Elder King picks his Junior King/Lover and then when the Elder King dies, the Junior becomes the Elder and picks a new Junior.
But that still isn't remotely like the modern notion of "gay marriage." Its more akin some extreme take on the Athenian/Spartan "pederasty as preparation for manhood" situation and they'd still have to have wives on the side even if the gay lovers angle were the important one in terms of succession (because propagation of the species/retirement plan is always going to be a thing) and the entire culture would probably incorporate aspects of this into its foundations (i.e. the military engages in it to promote unit bonding and it'd probably be part of many master/apprentice relationships in general).
Frankly, if it were incorporated in a fashion that would actually jive with the needs of pre-modern civilization this would probably just be labeled as a curiosity/local color; its the fact that very likely NO thought at all was given to anything other than "look how woke we are" and so falls apart into a situation where the completely ignored logical consequences are probably a more interesting campaign setting (one laden with intrigues and very likely civil war) than the adventure could ever hope to be.
Plus, I stand by my original statement that default murderhobo procedure will see the insane tyrant gay gnome impaled on the end of a PC's spear nine times out of ten. PCs as a rule don't go about trying to give therapy and marriage counseling to evil tyrants who've locked their more benevolent spouse in a tower somewhere. Similarly, having mercy on the evil tyrant because they're insane makes no more sense than having mercy on them for having a goatee, faceless minions and a preference for black capes. Insane tyrant is a trope where the default trope response is "throw them down the inevitable chasm they've included in their architecture."
Its like the author expects the PCs to automatically behave like the other type of PC and engage in sympathetic hugging it out with the tyrant because they have approved minority status instead of doing the sensible thing of putting his head on a pike and leaving the benevolent spouse in charge.
Quote from: S'mon;1102858So, I got my EK yesterday. One adventure (set in the Forgotten Realms) involves two homosexual gnome 'kings' who are married to each other and co-rule in tandem, only one has gone mad and imprisoned the other.
Holy fucking shit, Batman! The very first portrayal of gay characters in an RPG, and one is a villian! Don't WOTC know that gay people are oppressed? We don't need to be making gay characters antagnoists, and encouraging violence against gays. Put an orange goblin in the game, call him "King Drumph", and make it so he's the evil co-king who put the heroic gay gnome in prison so he could Make the Kingdom Great Again. And he can only be defeated by having gay gnomes butt-fuck each other. Then we'll all get some Starbucks and talk about Climate Justice.
Quote from: Chris24601;1103041About the only way I could see the gay kings angle going is if it was Elder/Junior sort of arrangement where the Elder King picks his Junior King/Lover and then when the Elder King dies, the Junior becomes the Elder and picks a new Junior.
That approach would require a knowledge of history on the part of WOTC. I suspect they lack that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrarchy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diarchy
If you want real world reference material on the madness of kings you're spoiled for choice.
Caligula, so they say, wanted to marry a horse.
Quote from: mightybrain;1103045If you want real world reference material on the madness of kings you're spoiled for choice.
Caligula, so they say, wanted to marry a horse.
It was a very beautiful horse.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1103043Holy fucking shit, Batman! The very first portrayal of gay characters in an RPG, and one is a villian! Don't WOTC know that gay people are oppressed? We don't need to be making gay characters antagnoists, and encouraging violence against gays. Put an orange goblin in the game, call him "King Drumph", and make it so he's the evil co-king who put the heroic gay gnome in prison so he could Make the Kingdom Great Again. And he can only be defeated by having gay gnomes butt-fuck each other. Then we'll all get some Starbucks and talk about Climate Justice.
The orange goblin is an interesting idea, though, if we want the symbolic analogue to be more accurate, I feel goblins are too intelligent, ordered, and savvy as a stand-in. Perhaps an orange ear seeker? :-)
Quote from: camazotz;1103018I think it would be more interesting to reflect some pseudo-historical context. Nobility was hereditary (and iirc FR has this element as well), so two gay kings would be essentially a termination of the bloodline, potentially, with the need for heirs to come from close relatives. The two kings could have marriages of convenience while secretly seeking their actual relationship with one another, embroiling estranged an unhappy wives and "required by tradition and station" children caught in the mix. So much more interesting to add these elements in, reflecting what likely has happened in the historical past, but in a reasonably safer fantasy realm for exploration of the story ideas.
With everything else we accept as being possible in a fantasy world of magic, I could easily grok a magic urn that accepts seed from both kings and then acts as a womb for their child.
Quote from: cranebump;1103055Perhaps an orange ear seeker? :-)
Wouldn't that better represent his Twitter account? :D
Quote from: cranebump;1103055The orange goblin is an interesting idea, though, if we want the symbolic analogue to be more accurate, I feel goblins are too intelligent, ordered, and savvy as a stand-in. Perhaps an orange ear seeker? :-)
What are you, a fucking Nazi? Go back to oppressing women.
King Drumpf is a goblin alright, but he's got a huge chunk of his brain missing. So this brain damage make him more stupid than anything. He's the stupidest!
Quote from: S'mon;1103010Comparing the two I'd say the EK is better - it has full character generation rules in a 64 page book very reminiscent of Moldvay Basic. Unlike the SS it has enough magic items for a full campaign, and I think a greater variety of monsters. It has 128 pages - 64 + 64 - compared to SS 32 +64; and it has a bunch of nice cards for combat, initiative, conditions etc. Also very nice double sided poster map of the Phandalin region in 5 mile hexes.
Edit: Both have dice. The SS has pregens; the EK has printed blank PC sheets.
I think overall the best thing is to use both together as a single sandbox campaign. However unike the SS the EK has enough material to run a completely different campaign.
That actually sounds pretty good compared to the starter. I think too the Starter assumed the players would have access to the Basic PDFs.
Could not get out today to look for Essentials but plan to tomorrow.
Quote from: S'mon;1103010Comparing the two I'd say the EK is better - it has full character generation rules in a 64 page book very reminiscent of Moldvay Basic. Unlike the SS it has enough magic items for a full campaign, and I think a greater variety of monsters. It has 128 pages - 64 + 64 - compared to SS 32 +64; and it has a bunch of nice cards for combat, initiative, conditions etc. Also very nice double sided poster map of the Phandalin region in 5 mile hexes.
Edit: Both have dice. The SS has pregens; the EK has printed blank PC sheets.
I think overall the best thing is to use both together as a single sandbox campaign. However unike the SS the EK has enough material to run a completely different campaign.
Thanks for the summary. I think I'll go with EK.
Quote from: S'mon;1103010Comparing the two I'd say the EK is better - it has full character generation rules in a 64 page book very reminiscent of Moldvay Basic. Unlike the SS it has enough magic items for a full campaign, and I think a greater variety of monsters. It has 128 pages - 64 + 64 - compared to SS 32 +64; and it has a bunch of nice cards for combat, initiative, conditions etc. Also very nice double sided poster map of the Phandalin region in 5 mile hexes.
Edit: Both have dice. The SS has pregens; the EK has printed blank PC sheets.
I think overall the best thing is to use both together as a single sandbox campaign. However unike the SS the EK has enough material to run a completely different campaign.
Quote from: jhkimEDITED TO ADD: I don't know about the Essentials Kit. Other than this background bit in an adventure, how is it?
Quote from: S'mon;1103017The adventure looks a lot like the one in the SS, maybe a bit better presentation.
Everything else is great; the rule book & accessories are great. The cards are too flimsy - edges ripped when I separated them - but look very useful and come with a fold-out cardboard box to store them. The Sidekicks rules & sample Sidekick NPCs look a lot of fun for smaller groups. Albeit the art on their handout cards does make them look like whey-faced 2019 Seattle-ites; reminiscent of mid '90s TSR art where the NPCs all look like corn-fed Lake Geneva-ites.
So far my impression is the EK is just as fantastic as I hoped, Gay Gnomes or Gnot.
Thanks. That's good to hear after disappointment with the Starter Set. What's the point of a boxed set with no usable components?
I agree there's always been a tendency for D&D to reflect modern-day sensibilities and mores (like Lake Geneva and Seattle), which goes past the illustrations. Still, background details are pretty easily personalized by the GM.
Quote from: jhkim;1103232Thanks. That's good to hear after disappointment with the Starter Set. What's the point of a boxed set with no usable components?
I like the GM screen a lot - personally I prefer an easily packed light screen to a big heavy one.
Basically the EK gives you a complete D&D game for levels 1-6, everything you need to play indefinitely*, plus a nice sample campaign setting & adventure. I don't really see how it could be much better, assuming you don't mind the lack of miniatures stuff like battlemats & pawns/pogs.
*You could even play it E6 with just the included material if you gave PCs a +2 stat bump (max 20) instead of a level-up after 6th. The monster palette might become a bit limited eventually.
As far as the gnay gnomes go, well my likely players will mostly be Gen X (from grognards to newbies) age 40-52, so I think I'm going to get my own back on dour humourless Millennial LGBTQI Seattle games designers, & go with an outrageously camp Larry Grayson/Kenneth Williams "British 1970s TV" Vibe - Shut That Door (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWoUzqdVcoM)! :p
Ok. Made it out to Target while on a shopping trip elsewhere and they had it in stock as hoped.
Got it home and opened her up...
And I have to say I am very pleasantly surprise. Very much so.
Whats in the box?
First off, a full spread of dice! Not the half assed partial set in the starter of one each + a extra percentile. Mine are transparent red. It actually comes with more than the standard array. 4 d6s, 2 d10s, and 2d20s, plus a d4, d8, and d12.
Next was the adventure book. 48 pages of various adventures and 14 more pages of monsters and NPCs. At least one new monster, a spirit beast. Map key on the back cover. A good variety of adventures and there is indeed a pair of married male gnome kings. More on that at the end.
Next was this weird folded thing. Looked like a McDonalds french fry holder... It is in fact as I suspected... a folded up card box. As what follows are several sheets of uncut cards. They are though perforated for separation. Theres cards for initiative, status effects, Sidekickss, magic items, quests, and 3 quick ref cards for combat.. 9 sheets in total, 9 cards each so 81 cards. Good cardstock too.
Next is a map of the Sword Coast with hex grid. The map states the hexes are 5 miles each. The area is not all of the sword coast. Just the lands stretching from the Mere of Dead Men up to about where Neverwinter is. The back of the map is the town of Phandalin.
Next is the rulebook. 64 pages of basic D&D pared down as it only takes the characters to level 6. Races are Human, Elf, Dwarf, and halfling. Classes are Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue, and oddly enough, Bard. Looks like the same basic backgrounds as in Basic as well. After that is the game rules, how advantage/disadvantage works, skills, general gameplay, environment, combat.
Then it gets into equipment. Followed by a few magic items. Even some new common ones from Xanithar. After that are spells, which is fairly short considering the level limit.
Lastly is something new. Rules for Sidekicks. These are NPCs, people or creatures, that tag along with your character and are divided into 3 sorts. Expert, a sort of jack of all trades as the book states it, spellcaster, could be healer or mage, and lastly Warrior, your all general combat types. And then some really really basic rules to take them to level 6. A bit more is explained on them in the Adventure book which doubles as a mini DMG. Sidekicks function alot like retainers did in BX and AD&D and are meant to bolster a party short on players.
Next in the box is a DM screen. Not badly done and I like the panorama on the front.
And finally a bunch of double sided character sheets.
And finally+1 is a flyer advertising D&D product and on the back are some codes for D&D Beyond.
Now regards the Gnome Kings... Honestly I have to ask... "What was the point of this?" it seems to have just been tossed in out of the blue and has ZERO impact on the adventure and ZERO explanation. One of them has indeed flipped out. But for good reason actually. But really them being both male is totally meaningless for the adventure. Its like the Vistani who has a "daughter" who is apparently really a boy, in Curse of Strahd. It is pretty much totally meaningless.
Considering the Rulebook does not have the same line on gender as the PHB does. It just notes that characters can be any gender and it has no real bearing on gameplay. Allmost makes you wonder if someone mandated a toning down of the SJW bits? Probably not. But one can fantasize.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diarchy:
QuoteCorule is one of the oldest forms of government. Historical examples include the Pandyan dynasty of Tamilakam, Sparta's joint kingdom, the Roman Republic's consuls, Carthage's Judges, and several ancient Polynesian societies. Systems of inheritance that often led to corule in Germanic and Dacian monarchies may be included as well, as may the dual occupants of the ranks of the Inca Empire. Modern examples of diarchies are Andorra, whose princes are the President of France and the Bishop of Urgell in Catalonia; San Marino, whose republic is led by two Captains Regent; and Eswatini, where sovereignty rests jointly in the king and his mother.
Thinking about the Consuls there's *so much potential*.
I got the EK, but from what I heard it's more like a loose collection of location scenarios than an adventure, per se, and thus will be harder to run for a new GM than the Starter Set. I still need to read the EK and see for myself.
Quote from: jhkim;1103232I agree there's always been a tendency for D&D to reflect modern-day sensibilities and mores (like Lake Geneva and Seattle), which goes past the illustrations. Still, background details are pretty easily personalized by the GM.
I'd suggest
highly localized sensibilities rather than modern-day. I'm confident the vast majority of D&D players don't give a shit about representation of gay or transgendered characters in their adventures.
We don't live in a world where half of society that thinks representation of trans-gendered characters in pop culture is a vital moral issue, while the other half of society are bigots who can't stand the idea of transgendered people. Those two camps are maybe 10 per cent of the population each. Most of us, the 80 per cent, have no strong feelings either way and just wish the culture warriors would leave their politics at the door when we want to enjoy D&D, Star Wars, etc.
WotC and Paizo do this stuff because in the very small, very homogenous social milieu they live and work in, there's a powerful social imperative to express a particular ideology. The D&D market of 2019 as a whole doesn't subscribe to that ideology and couldn't give a fuck if it's represented in their game books.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1103278I got the EK, but from what I heard it's more like a loose collection of location scenarios than an adventure, per se, and thus will be harder to run for a new GM than the Starter Set. I still need to read the EK and see for myself.
From what I understand, the adventures and encounters are presented as discrete quests, complete with quest cards. That may be different from the traditional linear narrative, but I don't know why it would necessarily be harder to run.
Quote from: Haffrung;1103283From what I understand, the adventures and encounters are presented as discrete quests, complete with quest cards. That may be different from the traditional linear narrative, but I don't know why it would necessarily be harder to run.
I actually really like this kind of adventure format. The players can engage or avoid specific encounters as they wish, and it gives the GM a lot of flexibility in how they structure the content.
I usually run at like random encounters, but each encounter is fleshed out to at least a page of details.
I think its the inherent meaninglessness of it that tweaks people the wrong way. It seems to exist purely for meta-game political purposes. It doesn't establish anything unique or interesting about the gnome culture and leads to a number of "Okay, wait, so how does..." questions that aren't answered. It assumes an entirely "current year" concept of marriage and links it to an ancient legal system without any apparent thought about how this would actually work in practice. It's more the political and cultural naivete that grates, rather than the sexuality. The frustrating thing is, as this thread clearly demonstrates, there are several solutions that don't stink of social engineering. It just takes a little creative thought.
The gnomes could be co-ruling kings, as ancient Rome had for a period of time. Their relationship could be entirely non-sexual and the issue kept purely political, for gaming with younger players.
Or, for a more mature group: the idea of a serial male-male "dynasty" of older/younger ruler-lovers is interesting and solves the problem. It introduces a weird dynamic to this particular gnome culture and increases, rather than decreases, the strangeness of the setting.
One could be the king, a committed "bachelor" with a very well respected high born "companion" who has now disappeared. The family of the companion would certainly want to know what happened, and everyone knows what's really going on, but everyone also hopes that they king will get married and produce an heir at some point. Solving one problem could lead the PCs to being involved in helping the gnomes solve their larger political issues.
Quote from: Brendan;1103289I think its the inherent meaninglessness of it that tweaks people the wrong way. It seems to exist purely for meta-game political purposes. It doesn't establish anything unique or interesting about the gnome culture and leads to a number of "Okay, wait, so how does..." questions that aren't answered. It assumes an entirely "current year" concept of marriage and links it to an ancient legal system without any apparent thought about how this would actually work in practice. It's more the political and cultural naivete that grates, rather than the sexuality. The frustrating thing is, as this thread clearly demonstrates, there are several solutions that don't stink of social engineering. It just takes a little creative thought.
The gnomes could be co-ruling kings, as ancient Rome had for a period of time. Their relationship could be entirely non-sexual and the issue kept purely political, for gaming with younger players.
Or, for a more mature group: the idea of a serial male-male "dynasty" of older/younger ruler-lovers is interesting and solves the problem. It introduces a weird dynamic to this particular gnome culture and increases, rather than decreases, the strangeness of the setting.
One could be the king, a committed "bachelor" with a very well respected high born "companion" who has now disappeared. The family of the companion would certainly want to know what happened, and everyone knows what's really going on, but everyone also hopes that they king will get married and produce an heir at some point. Solving one problem could lead the PCs to being involved in helping the gnomes solve their larger political issues.
Assuming WOTC wanted to create an interesting adventure, and not just say "He gay, pls clap." :)
Quote from: Brendan;1103289I think its the inherent meaninglessness of it that tweaks people the wrong way. It seems to exist purely for meta-game political purposes. It doesn't establish anything unique or interesting about the gnome culture and leads to a number of "Okay, wait, so how does..." questions that aren't answered. It assumes an entirely "current year" concept of marriage and links it to an ancient legal system without any apparent thought about how this would actually work in practice. It's more the political and cultural naivete that grates, rather than the sexuality.
Yeah, that was certainly my reaction - eyerolling at the "pls clap" as Ratman put it. The author doesn't seem to have any concept of what a monarch is or why this looks odd.
Quote from: Brendan;1103289The gnomes could be co-ruling kings, as ancient Rome had for a period of time. Their relationship could be entirely non-sexual and the issue kept purely political, for gaming with younger players.
You know this opinion is considered hate speech?
"Kids can handle the idea of married straight couples without knowing what sex is, but gay couple are inherently perverted and not suitable for children"
That isn't the kind of thing that only SJWs have a problem with. That kind of opinion goes right up there with "they shouldn't be allowed to marry" or "they should keep their gross love life a secret"
It's anti-gay. Just admit that you aren't comfortable with gay people in general and that this has little to do with how it was depicted here for you.
/rant
Just had to nit-pick someone who tipped their hand too much.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1103296You know this opinion is considered hate speech?
I seriously thought you were being sarcastic - and I live in a country where we just had the buses banks & supermarkets covered in rainbow flags for over a month! I guess 'hate' is an ever-broadening concept.
Quote from: S'mon;1102858gnome 'kings' who are married to each other and co-rule in tandem
I guess they think a woman/queen would have been unsuitable to rule alongside a man. Bigots.
Gnomes are a fantastic race (in the fantasy sense) and aren't clearly based on a single real-world culture. Most fantasy races have been cobbled together by throwing fantastic (as in, wildly strange) things on them and seeing what sticks.
The 'fact' that Drow are dark-skinned elves living below ground dealing with a form of radiation that magically makes their stuff work (and that it breaks down when taken to the surface) while worshiping a Spider-Goddess, living in a matriarchy and that they have strict divisions of classes by gender is all because people thought 'this would be pretty cool' and going from there.
Explaining why at least some gnomes have male-male co-rule isn't really the first step to building an interesting fantasy culture. You can start with 'here's this thing' and then try to build to a plausible explanation for why that's a thing. In thirty years maybe we'll all forget that there used to be a time when Gnomes didn't have dual-rulers and just accept that it was always that way based on what 'catches the imagination on fire'. Or maybe this is the last we'll hear of it, and we'll be stuck with TinkerGnomes forever.
Quote from: S'mon;1103300I seriously thought you were being sarcastic - and I live in a country where we just had the buses banks & supermarkets covered in rainbow flags for over a month! I guess 'hate' is an ever-broadening concept.
It's the difference between tolerance and acceptance.
People shouldn't act like it's a particular portrayal is the problem when they just think homosexuality is inherently perverted and unacceptable.
Not trying to defend this particular portrayal, but I think most of 5e is trite though. Who am I to really judge if this was tackled correctly.
Aside: I feel like if I'm ever in the position to manage young writers for a project, I'll have to clarify that LGBT status does not make a character interesting. If the story would be boring with straight people, then it's a boring story.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1103307It's the difference between tolerance and acceptance.
I'm sitting on my hands here, waiting for Brendan to reply himself. I think you put a lot of words in his mouth with your reply, and were pretty quick to pull out the "Hate speech" card.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1103296You know this opinion is considered hate speech?
"Kids can handle the idea of married straight couples without knowing what sex is, but gay couple are inherently perverted and not suitable for children"
That isn't the kind of thing that only SJWs have a problem with. That kind of opinion goes right up there with "they shouldn't be allowed to marry" or "they should keep their gross love life a secret"
It's anti-gay. Just admit that you aren't comfortable with gay people in general and that this has little to do with how it was depicted here for you.
/rant
Just had to nit-pick someone who tipped their hand too much.
I'm currently DMing for my 12 year old son. I will not present him with a male-on-male gnomish romance, kingly or not.
The european fairy [:-) !] tales I love, and which inspire me in my gaming pursuits, do not openly depict gay relationships. I'm not quite sure what to make of that, but I won't change this imaginary and intimate landscape of mine to suit the taste of a Seattle cunt whith a political and social agenda to grind.
I told my son that people can fall in love with all kinds of people - male with female (the vast majority), male with male and female with female - and that it's okay, there's nothing wrong with that.
Having written that, I fully admit it's highly probable my ideal society does not mesh with that of the author of the male gnome-on-gnome romance. Hell, I don't even subscribe to the notion of an ideal society :-p, which probably makes me a Nazi in the eye of the cuntish activist who wrote the scenario we're talking about. Fuck him (or her), if that's the case.
This tale of gay gnomes tries to establish as normal - in the sense of bland, banal - an openly gay love affair between two kings of yore. There's nothing normal in that, at least to my eyes. The norms of any pre-XXIst century society - or of any Western medieval society, which informs at least a little on my D&D sessions - would not allow it. Heck, I don't even know of ANY male king alive TODAY who is happily married with a male spouse, masturbatory woke fantasy notwithstanding !
So to summarize: gay marriage is still in the minority in today's society. Without hating on gays, that state of affairs suits me just fine. And I won't preach in insidious ways to my son - or relay preachy prose - during our D&D sessions to change his mind about the status of marriage in today's society.
To those who think my rant constitutes hate speech, and who would be inclined to "nitpick," it, I dare say, with tough but loving affection : fuck you very much !
Quote from: Rhedyn;1103296You know this opinion is considered hate speech?
"Kids can handle the idea of married straight couples without knowing what sex is, but gay couple are inherently perverted and not suitable for children"
That isn't the kind of thing that only SJWs have a problem with. That kind of opinion goes right up there with "they shouldn't be allowed to marry" or "they should keep their gross love life a secret"
It's anti-gay. Just admit that you aren't comfortable with gay people in general and that this has little to do with how it was depicted here for you.
/rant
Just had to nit-pick someone who tipped their hand too much.
So I wrote a very long response to this that my browser 'ate' when I tried to submit it. I don't have the patience to reproduce the whole thing, so I'll stick to the main points.
One, you have no idea who I am, who my friends are, or what I think. Fuck you and you owe me an apology.
Two, you seem to have completely ignored that I presented options (several put forward by other commentators here) that explicitly embraced the gay gnomes aspect of the adventure, and made it MORE central to the plot, not less. Only one of the options I presented ignored the issue of gay marriage all together. This isn't just for parents of young children, who may not want to "go there" with them just yet, but also for young teenage boys playing with other teenage boys (you know, D&Ds main demographic) who may find it distracts from their game. That is the key difference between your position and my position. It isn't that you think gay marriage is okay, while I do not. I am, in fact, pro gay marriage and have been since I was old enough to consider the question (sometime in the late 80s to early 90s). The difference is that you want to put your political agenda first and I want to put the game first.
One man's hate speech, is another man's poetry.
Quote from: Razor 007;1103317One man's hate speech, is another man's poetry.
Ware, nor of good nor ill, what aim hath act?
Without its climax, death, what savour hath
Life? an impeccable machine, exact
He paces an inane and pointless path
To glut brute appetites, his sole content
How tedious were he fit to comprehend
Himself! More, this our noble element
Of fire in nature, love in spirit, unkenned
Life hath no spring, no axle, and no end.
His body a bloody-ruby radiant
With noble passion, sun-souled Lucifer
Swept through the dawn colossal, swift aslant
On Eden's imbecile perimeter.
He blessed nonentity with every curse
And spiced with sorrow the dull soul of sense,
Breathed life into the sterile universe,
With Love and Knowledge drove out innocence
The Key of Joy is disobedience.
- Aleister Crowley
Man I was not planning to buy the Essentials kit before this thread...but I think this thread convinced me to buy it. Not for married gnomes (I don't even know if I'd use that) but for all the stuff in the adventure. I am considering starting a D&D club and my daughter's middle school and this sounds like it wouldn't be a bad set for that (again, probably without the gay gnomes - not the kind of waves I want to start with parents).
Quote from: Brendan;1103318Ware, nor of good nor ill, what aim hath act?
Without its climax, death, what savour hath
Life? an impeccable machine, exact
He paces an inane and pointless path
To glut brute appetites, his sole content
How tedious were he fit to comprehend
Himself! More, this our noble element
Of fire in nature, love in spirit, unkenned
Life hath no spring, no axle, and no end.
His body a bloody-ruby radiant
With noble passion, sun-souled Lucifer
Swept through the dawn colossal, swift aslant
On Eden's imbecile perimeter.
He blessed nonentity with every curse
And spiced with sorrow the dull soul of sense,
Breathed life into the sterile universe,
With Love and Knowledge drove out innocence
The Key of Joy is disobedience.
- Aleister Crowley
"Mr. Crowley......what went on in your head? Aw Mr. Crowley.........did you talk to the dead? Your life story to me, seems so tragic; with the thrill of it all. You fooled all the people with magic. Yeah you waited on Satan's call..."
An absolutely killer song!!!
Quote from: Rhedyn;1103307It's the difference between tolerance and acceptance.
Are you saying tolerance = hate? :confused:
Quote from: Brendan;1103313So I wrote a very long response to this that my browser 'ate' when I tried to submit it. I don't have the patience to reproduce the whole thing, so I'll stick to the main points.
One, you have no idea who I am, who my friends are, or what I think. Fuck you and you owe me an apology.
Two, you seem to have completely ignored that I presented options (several put forward by other commentators here) that explicitly embraced the gay gnomes aspect of the adventure, and made it MORE central to the plot, not less. Only one of the options I presented ignored the issue of gay marriage all together. This isn't just for parents of young children, who may not want to "go there" with them just yet, but also for young teenage boys playing with other teenage boys (you know, D&Ds main demographic) who may find it distracts from their game. That is the key difference between your position and my position. It isn't that you think gay marriage is okay, while I do not. I am, in fact, pro gay marriage and have been since I was old enough to consider the question (sometime in the late 80s to early 90s). The difference is that you want to put your political agenda first and I want to put the game first.
Ooo touched a nerve.
No I'm not going to apologize. One thing this forum let's you do is call people out on their bullshit.
It's one thing to think this was a poorly done portrayal or maybe not wanting to upset parents at a school group (after all you don't control how other people raise their kids). It's another to imply that people in gay relationships are inappropriate for children.
Maybe you need to check yourself and what you really think about them. You may be very tolerant, but that isn't the same thing as accepting, which kind of colors your review of this particular aspect of this product.
There are a lot of people here who don't like sloppy writing. There are people here who just don't like gay people. And then there are people here who think tolerating gay people means you like them but find their inclusion in anything a detraction from the media.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1103062With everything else we accept as being possible in a fantasy world of magic, I could easily grok a magic urn that accepts seed from both kings and then acts as a womb for their child.
Where's the fetus going to gestate? Are they going to put it in a box?
Oh, you just did that one....
Quote from: S'mon;1103324Are you saying tolerance = hate? :confused:
It is! But it's the socially acceptable form of hate that doesn't really hurt anyone except SJWs.
Where you have to be careful is when something that was tolerated slips into being something accepted. It's getting to that point that letting slip that you merely tolerate gay people could be bad for you.
For D&D product reviews, I'm unsurprised that the inclusion of gay gnomes is seen as only a negative by people who only tolerate gay people. Doesn't really help me or anyone else determine if it was well written. Based on other reviews in this thread it seems to have been handled poorly.
Ask yourself, when was the last time you had to tolerate something you found pleasant or didn't bother you at all?
Quote from: Rhedyn;1103329It is! But it's the socially acceptable form of hate that doesn't really hurt anyone except SJWs.
I agree that one 'tolerates' things one at least somewhat dislikes. Like Locke arguing for Tolerance for Catholics. But dislike =/= hate. People don't generally willingly tolerate things they really hate.
I think Tolerance is a fine Classical Liberal value. We shouldn't ban things just because we dislike them. Nor should we Tolerate the truly reprehensible. But there are grey areas too. That's why I Tolerate Islamic headscarves, but I think full burqas should be banned in public. But I will Tolerate them while they are legal. So I guess it's a gradient.
Just because something is legal, or possible, or allowed; doesn't mean that it's normal. You can crawl around in your front yard and eat dirt, if you like; but that doesn't mean that it's normal to do so.
If 95% of the population does x, and the other 5% does y; the 5% doing y are abnormal, by default.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1103325Ooo touched a nerve.
No I'm not going to apologize. One thing this forum let's you do is call people out on their bullshit.
It's one thing to think this was a poorly done portrayal or maybe not wanting to upset parents at a school group (after all you don't control how other people raise their kids). It's another to imply that people in gay relationships are inappropriate for children.
Maybe you need to check yourself and what you really think about them. You may be very tolerant, but that isn't the same thing as accepting, which kind of colors your review of this particular aspect of this product.
There are a lot of people here who don't like sloppy writing. There are people here who just don't like gay people. And then there are people here who think tolerating gay people means you like them but find their inclusion in anything a detraction from the media.
So we're going to double down on this, are we? Sigh. Okay, here we go. Don't say I didn't warn you.
You'll please note that my comment about the maturity of the group was in relation to the idea of a pederastic Gnome "dynasty" of older to younger gay kings, not to the idea of "gay marriage" in general, which I felt didn't make sense in the setting for purely political reasons.
This option wasn't even originally mine, but that of another poster. I just thought it was an interesting idea and worth amplifying (weird thing for a homophobe to do, don't you think?). Although - again - this particular angle would require some sensitivity to handle well and therefore might not be appropriate for all groups. If this relatively mild suggestion is just BEYOND THE PALE homophobia to you, then YOU have problems and are projecting your own internal drama on me.
While outside the scope of this forum, I have been slighted here, so I'll tell you a little about me:
One of my oldest and very best (male) friends has been with the same, much older, man for more than a decade. He is by no means my only gay friend, but he is one of my very best friends. I know his whole family and he knows mine. His boyfriend is a famous fashion photographer, whose name I will not be mentioning here, but if you've seen a picture of the Rolling Stones, in any given year, there's a better than average chance that he shot the pictures. If you ever watch Drag Race with RuPaul he's a regular. My friend, while a decent semi-professional photographer with published credit, is a rock star computer geek / hacker and helped me learn to code. He was one of the groomsman at my wedding. We've done drugs together, climbed mountains together, drank I don't know many whiskeys together. Smoked A LOT of dope together. Yes, we've also rolled dice together. He's like a brother to me and I would take a bullet for him.
I realize that you can't collaborate this, so here's something you can. Years ago, right after I left film school, I took two weeks off of work to help a friend produce a gay romantic comedy. I am officially credited for it on IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3834433/ Do a lot of homophobies volunteer, without pay, to work on gay films, for struggling gay writer/directors, with primarily gay casts?
Lastly, but perhaps the most interesting. I spent 13 years in Aleister Crowley's OTO in Southern California. Not only was Crowley bisexual, at the very least, but the organization has a very strong gay and trans membership. It also tends to be very "free" bordering on libertine. I've been at parties where a gay orgy in the next room is "just another Sunday" and Kenneth Anger stops in for tea... with his boyfriend... in short shorts and tanker boots. I've sat in a hot tub next to a gay friend WHILE he was getting head. Don't worry about me junior, I had a girl on my lap at the time. I've had deep drunken philosophical conversations with a MtF trans person, while naked at a bonfire. You think I'm not "accepting"? Bitch, get on my level.
Quote from: S'mon;1103331I agree that one 'tolerates' things one at least somewhat dislikes. Like Locke arguing for Tolerance for Catholics. But dislike =/= hate. People don't generally willingly tolerate things they really hate.
I think Tolerance is a fine Classical Liberal value. We shouldn't ban things just because we dislike them. Nor should we Tolerate the truly reprehensible. But there are grey areas too. That's why I Tolerate Islamic headscarves, but I think full burqas should be banned in public. But I will Tolerate them while they are legal. So I guess it's a gradient.
Whether or not it is hate is an argument about word definitions. I'm tying the two together because for some things they get you in equal trouble. Like imagine if you were advocating removing people with different skin tones from an RPG supplement as an option for younger groups. Don't say that at work.
Quote from: Razor 007;1103333Just because something is legal, or possible, or allowed; doesn't mean that it's normal. You can crawl around in your front yard and eat dirt, if you like; but that doesn't mean that it's normal to do so.
If 95% of the population does x, and the other 5% does y; the 5% doing y are abnormal, by default.
5% is a pretty big number. I forget what perfectly normal is for biological conditions. The last health analytics seminar I set in speculated that we were on track for 2/3rds of Americans having type 2 diabetes by 2050. Perfectly normal does not mean it is good either.
Quote from: Razor 007;1103333Just because something is legal, or possible, or allowed; doesn't mean that it's normal. You can crawl around in your front yard and eat dirt, if you like; but that doesn't mean that it's normal to do so.
If 95% of the population does x, and the other 5% does y; the 5% doing y are abnormal, by default.
What percentage of the population would you guess plays RPGs?
Quote from: Brendan;1103336His boyfriend is a famous fashion photographer, whose name I will not be mentioning here, but if you've seen a picture of the Rolling Stones, in any given year, there's a better than average chance that he shot the pictures.
Funny, a gay friend of mine did celebrity house furnishing for a living (he's retired now), and he says the Rolling Stones were his best customers! He once (only a few years ago) got drunk at a party one of them hosted, and received a £6000 bill for the damage he caused to the furnishings - the same stuff he'd installed... I was gobsmacked, but he said that was nothing compared to the money he made off them! :)
Quote from: Brendan;1103336So we're going to double down on this, are we? Sigh. Okay, here we go. Don't say I didn't warn you.
You'll please note that my comment about the maturity of the group was in relation to the idea of a pederastic Gnome "dynasty" of older to younger gay kings, not to the idea of "gay marriage" in general, which I felt didn't make sense in the setting for purely political reasons.
This option wasn't even originally mine, but that of another poster. I just thought it was an interesting idea and worth amplifying (weird thing for a homophobe to do, don't you think?). Although - again - this particular angle would require some sensitivity to handle well and therefore might not be appropriate for all groups. If this relatively mild suggestion is just BEYOND THE PALE homophobia to you, then YOU have problems and are projecting your own internal drama on me.
While outside the scope of this forum, I have been slighted here, so I'll tell you a little about me:
One of my oldest and very best (male) friends has been with the same, much older, man for more than a decade. He is by no means my only gay friend, but he is one of my very best friends. I know his whole family and he knows mine. His boyfriend is a famous fashion photographer, whose name I will not be mentioning here, but if you've seen a picture of the Rolling Stones, in any given year, there's a better than average chance that he shot the pictures. If you ever watch Drag Race with RuPaul he's a regular. My friend, while a decent semi-professional photographer with published credit, is a rock star computer geek / hacker and helped me learn to code. He was one of the groomsman at my wedding. We've done drugs together, climbed mountains together, drank I don't know many whiskeys together. Smoked A LOT of dope together. Yes, we've also rolled dice together. He's like a brother to me and I would take a bullet for him.
I realize that you can't collaborate this, so here's something you can. Years ago, right after I left film school, I took two weeks off of work to help a friend produce a gay romantic comedy. I am officially credited for it on IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3834433/ Do a lot of homophobies volunteer, without pay, to work on gay films, for struggling gay writer/directors, with primarily gay casts?
Lastly, but perhaps the most interesting. I spent 13 years in Aleister Crowley's OTO in Southern California. Not only was Crowley bisexual, at the very least, but the organization has a very strong gay and trans membership. It also tends to be very "free" bordering on libertine. I've been at parties where a gay orgy in the next room is "just another Sunday" and Kenneth Anger stops in for tea... with his boyfriend... in short shorts and tanker boots. I've sat in a hot tub next to a gay friend WHILE he was getting head. Don't worry about me junior, I had a girl on my lap at the time. I've had deep drunken philosophical conversations with a MtF trans person, while naked at a bonfire. You think I'm not "accepting"? Bitch, get on my level.
This is like that Navy Seal post but for being pro-gay.
Look dude, if you didn't mean that gay kings are inappropriate for young groups, then fine, but that is what I quoted.
"The gnomes could be co-ruling kings, as ancient Rome had for a period of time. Their relationship could be entirely non-sexual and the issue kept purely political, for gaming with younger players."
Who makes the relationship of straight couples explicitly non-sexual for younger players?
Quote from: Rhedyn;1103337Whether or not it is hate is an argument about word definitions.
Indeed. I am aware that some people* would say "I advocate for tolerance of homosexuals" is anti-homosexual hate speech; I was wondering what you thought.
*bad people.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1103340Look dude, if you didn't mean that gay kings are inappropriate for young groups, then fine, but that is what I quoted.
"The gnomes could be co-ruling kings, as ancient Rome had for a period of time. Their relationship could be entirely non-sexual and the issue kept purely political, for gaming with younger players."
Who makes the relationship of straight couples explicitly non-sexual for younger players?
Maybe I missed something, but I haven't heard anything inappropriate about the plotline for younger players. I pretty regularly run games for younger players at conventions, so I try to keep an eye on things. I try to avoid defined romantic interests for the PCs, leaving those ambiguous or optional. But it's fine for NPCs to be married or otherwise in a relationship. I remember many years ago the awkwardness of running a Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG where with the pregenerated characters, a pre-teen player was set up in a romantic plotline with a much older player. Since then, I've tried to be more careful. But avoiding romantic relationships even among NPCs seems hugely overboard.
As for the cultural attitudes, my reading has been that cultural practices marriage and succession are almost always absent from D&D modules. I've sometimes speculated about how the heck government works in the Village of Hommlet, for example, but it's left undefined.
Quote from: Razor 007;1103333Just because something is legal, or possible, or allowed; doesn't mean that it's normal. You can crawl around in your front yard and eat dirt, if you like; but that doesn't mean that it's normal to do so.
If 95% of the population does x, and the other 5% does y; the 5% doing y are abnormal, by default.
I don't think this follows. Most hobbies (to take the theme of this message board and every single person posting here) involve under 5% of the population. That doesn't make it "abnormal" to enjoy a hobby.
I also don't think "crawl around in your front yard and eat dirt" is 1 in 20 people.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1103340This is like that Navy Seal post but for being pro-gay.
Look dude, if you didn't mean that gay kings are inappropriate for young groups, then fine, but that is what I quoted.
"The gnomes could be co-ruling kings, as ancient Rome had for a period of time. Their relationship could be entirely non-sexual and the issue kept purely political, for gaming with younger players."
Who makes the relationship of straight couples explicitly non-sexual for younger players?
So if I don't defend myself I'm a bigot, and if I do defend myself with actual facts about my life I'm a "former Navy SEAL"? You know what, that's fine. You believe whatever you want about me. Back to D&D.
The next thing I said was:
"Or, for a more mature group: the idea of a serial male-male "dynasty" of older/younger ruler-lovers is interesting and solves the problem."
So what is "the problem"? The problem is how to understand the "two married gnay gnome kinings" (Sorry got gnarried away). It's uninteresting for young kids, awkward or titillating for most teenagers, and politically unclear for adults. It's not that I find it "inappropriate". It's just jarring to those of us who imagine the D&D world as something other than 2019 urban America. It implies all these other social factors and then ignores them. Marriage during the era of monarchy has very different connotations than marriage does today. Rather than just throw it out there with no thought beyond "performative wokeness" the better thing to do seems to be to either A) ignore it completely and not get into the details of their relationship, or B) develop it further for world-building / plot making potential. Which of these approaches is preferred, and the degree to which one wants to dig into it, depends on the group. A big factor in that decision making process is going to be group maturity level, but it isn't just about age.
Unlike straight royal marriage, gay royal marriage HAS to be made explicit in game. A king-queen pairing is archetypal. When presented with a king and a queen, no one has to say "Oh and they're married." A king-king pairing isn't. Saying "There are two kings," does not immediately imply a married unit. Even a king with a husband doesn't necessarily mean the husband is ALSO an equal King. It's uncertain territory in human history so we don't have a model. Some groups are going to roll with this better than others.
For example, if I were running a D&D game for my girls and Dave Rubin's kids, having two married gnome kings is probably fine and might serve as an interesting "hook" since one of the group of kids has two dads. (Disclaimer: I don't actually know Dave Rubin.. yet). If on the other hand, I were running an open all-ages game at a convention or meetup, or for my kids with friends from their school whose parents I didn't know, I would probably omit any reference to their relationship status. It's not my place to force that conversation. For an adult group I would probably go with one of the more interesting story options. It seems a wasted opportunity to not mine the situation for its full dramatic potential.
Quote from: jhkim;1103344I pretty regularly run games for younger players at conventions, so I try to keep an eye on things. I try to avoid defined romantic interests for the PCs, leaving those ambiguous or optional.
According to Rhedyn, this impulse makes you a closet homophobe and you need to examine your biases.
Quote from: S'mon;1103339Funny, a gay friend of mine did celebrity house furnishing for a living (he's retired now), and he says the Rolling Stones were his best customers! He once (only a few years ago) got drunk at a party one of them hosted, and received a £6000 bill for the damage he caused to the furnishings - the same stuff he'd installed... I was gobsmacked, but he said that was nothing compared to the money he made off them! :)
I've heard stories about their touring setup. Levels of wealth undreamed of by the kings of yore, gay gnomes or straight ;)
Quote from: Brendan;1103354I've heard stories about their touring setup. Levels of wealth undreamed of by the kings of yore, gay gnomes or straight ;)
Ooo I've always wondered what their riders look like from their glory days compared to today!
On Topic - Gay Gnome Kings. I don't care. The whole thing sounds pandery due to the fact that it's not "campaign material" and instead "adventure material".
It doesn't sound like it's trying to set up some campaign conceit for long-term play. Which means it's there as some kind of token-toss to the usual suspects.
Make it matter or leave it out, says I.
Quote from: Haffrung;1103338What percentage of the population would you guess plays RPGs?
I never said that RPG players are normal. I am one myself, regardless.
Quote from: tenbones;1103357Ooo I've always wondered what their riders look like from their glory days compared to today!
On Topic - Gay Gnome Kings. I don't care. The whole thing sounds pandery due to the fact that it's not "campaign material" and instead "adventure material".
It doesn't sound like it's trying to set up some campaign conceit for long-term play. Which means it's there as some kind of token-toss to the usual suspects.
Make it matter or leave it out, says I.
I'm not sure about the riders, but from what I've heard backstage it's less hookers and blow, and more mountains of sushi and arcane health treatments. Like, what, you DON'T travel with your own phlebotomist? But then, who does your oxygen-rich blood transfusions?
Quote from: Brendan;1103352For example, if I were running a D&D game for my girls and Dave Rubin's kids, having two married gnome kings is probably fine and might serve as an interesting "hook" since one of the group of kids has two dads. (Disclaimer: I don't actually know Dave Rubin.. yet). If on the other hand, I were running an open all-ages game at a convention or meetup, or for my kids with friends from their school whose parents I didn't know, I would probably omit any reference to their relationship status. It's not my place to force that conversation. For an adult group I would probably go with one of the more interesting story options. It seems a wasted opportunity to not mine the situation for its full dramatic potential.
That's very different than:
"The gnomes could be co-ruling kings, as ancient Rome had for a period of time. Their relationship could be entirely non-sexual and the issue kept purely political, for gaming with younger players."
That quote isn't about being worried about easily triggered conservative parents. Unless you thought you only run those kinds of games at cons. Then sure yeah.
Quote from: Brendan;1103353According to Rhedyn, this impulse makes you a closet homophobe and you need to examine your biases.
(This where you laugh your ass off) I didn't say that.
Personally, I've only had a problem with your logic and the contradiction in what you are saying. I am far too apathetic about homosexuality to care about your's or anyone's opinion unless you were harassing someone I know. You assumed I am a liberal. I am not, I am a philosopher, which is academic speak for asshole.
If you have Gay Gnome Kings does that mean they are Queens?
I'll show myself out. :p
Quote from: Brendan;1103359For example, if I were running a D&D game for my girls and Dave Rubin's kids, having two married gnome kings is probably fine and might serve as an interesting "hook"...If on the other hand, I were running an open all-ages game at a convention or meetup, or for my kids with friends from their school whose parents I didn't know, I would probably omit any reference to their relationship status.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1103362That's very different than:
"The gnomes could be co-ruling kings, as ancient Rome had for a period of time. Their relationship could be entirely non-sexual and the issue kept purely political, for gaming with younger players."
Not really. It's more nuanced, but not substantially different. I provided an example of when one might want to omit the details of the gnomes' relationship in gaming with kids, and when one might not. I didn't go into this level of detail in my original post because I didn't think it was necessary.
Quote from: jhkim;1103344I pretty regularly run games for younger players at conventions, so I try to keep an eye on things. I try to avoid defined romantic interests for the PCs, leaving those ambiguous or optional.
Quote from: Brendan;1103353According to Rhedyn, this impulse makes you a closet homophobe and you need to examine your biases.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1103362(This where you laugh your ass off) I didn't say that.
Correct, you did not, but it is functionally the same as the option that seems to have you all bothered. Either its reasonable to avoid / gloss over the realities of adult romantic relationships in games with children, or it isn't. If it's wrong for me to suggest it, and implies some hidden sinister impulse on my part, it is also wrong for jhkim and equally suspect. If it is okay for jhkim to want to avoid these issues in games with younger children, it is also okay for me to suggest that some gamers might want to avoid these issues in games with younger children.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1103362Personally, I've only had a problem with your logic and the contradiction in what you are saying.
I gave three options, one of which I said might be more appropriate for less mature gaming groups. At no point did I say one was necessary or required. You may not like my position but that isn't a logic issue. I'm not even sure HOW I could have logically contradicted myself, let alone where.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1103362I am far too apathetic about homosexuality to care about your's or anyone's opinion unless you were harassing someone I know.
Really?
Quote from: Rhedyn;1103296You know this opinion is considered hate speech?
... Just admit that you aren't comfortable with gay people in general and that this has little to do with how it was depicted here for you.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1103325Ooo touched a nerve.
No I'm not going to apologize. One thing this forum let's you do is call people out on their bullshit.
It's one thing to think this was a poorly done portrayal or maybe not wanting to upset parents at a school group (after all you don't control how other people raise their kids). It's another to imply that people in gay relationships are inappropriate for children.
Maybe you need to check yourself and what you really think about them. You may be very tolerant, but that isn't the same thing as accepting, which kind of colors your review of this particular aspect of this product.
There are a lot of people here who don't like sloppy writing. There are people here who just don't like gay people. And then there are people here who think tolerating gay people means you like them but find their inclusion in anything a detraction from the media.
Yes, clearly apathetic.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1103362You assumed I am a liberal. I am not, I am a philosopher, which is academic speak for asshole.
Are you an academic? That would explain a lot about the structure of this argument. Unfortunately, it means you're probably doomed.
Quote from: Shasarak;1103368If you have Gay Gnome Kings does that mean they are Queens?
I'll show myself out. :p
I asked my a-fore mentioned gay friend, let's call him "J", how he would deal with the Gay Gnome Gnings. This is his response (copy/pasted verbatim)
Quote from: Jas faggots are generally emotional bitches who are starving themselves, so you take king #1 out on a shopping spree and buy him chocolate cake, then fat shame him which keeps him busy while the others go out and explain to the emprisoned queer king that many other less fortunate people are also in prison and he needs to accept his gnome privilege and quit whining
I have no further comment.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1103278I got the EK, but from what I heard it's more like a loose collection of location scenarios than an adventure, per se, and thus will be harder to run for a new GM than the Starter Set. I still need to read the EK and see for myself.
That is how it felt at a glance. That may be because it is more a freeform approach than a linear one. I'll look at it more closely soon.
Quote from: Brendan;1103372Correct, you did not, but it is functionally the same as the option that seems to have you all bothered. Either its reasonable to avoid / gloss over the realities of adult romantic relationships in games with children, or it isn't. If it's wrong for me to suggest it, and implies some hidden sinister impulse on my part, it is also wrong for jhkim and equally suspect. If it is okay for jhkim to want to avoid these issues in games with younger children, it is also okay for me to suggest that some gamers might want to avoid these issues in games with younger children.
You specified gay gnomes "The gnomes could be co-ruling kings, as ancient Rome had for a period of time. Their relationship could be entirely non-sexual and the issue kept purely political, for gaming with younger players."
You have also clearly stated that it is not a problem for King and Queen to have an implied relationship for younger players.
I am pointing out how you do not lump those relationships together. If you want to clarify that you do and you meant that it would interesting and more appropriate for young players if "The gnomes could be a co-ruling King and Queen, as ancient Rome had for a period of time with their two consuls. Their relationship could be entirely non-sexual and the issue kept purely political, for gaming with younger players.", then fine. You are then treating the relationships as the same.
Quote from: Brendan;1103372Correct, you did not, but it is functionally the same as the option that seems to have you all bothered. Either its reasonable to avoid / gloss over the realities of adult romantic relationships in games with children, or it isn't. If it's wrong for me to suggest it, and implies some hidden sinister impulse on my part, it is also wrong for jhkim and equally suspect. If it is okay for jhkim to want to avoid these issues in games with younger children, it is also okay for me to suggest that some gamers might want to avoid these issues in games with younger children.
There is a huge difference between
(a) pre-casting young players into romantic storylines with other players
(b) simply mentioning a romantic relationship between two NPCs
Yes, I avoid (a) with younger players. From experience, it can be awkward for both players. But (b) strikes me as insane. This isn't a preschool -- if a kid can play RPGs, they're old enough to have stuff like killing, or two people being married, or being mean to someone else. A kid-friendly game doesn't mean being more sanitized than a Disney cartoon.
Quote from: Shasarak;1103368If you have Gay Gnome Kings does that mean they are Queens?
I'll show myself out. :p
(https://www.science-a2z.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/20744/01-39.jpg)
Quote from: Mistwell;1103384(https://www.science-a2z.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/20744/01-39.jpg)
Proof that Bard is the best character class.
I said that the King and Queen did not REQUIRE explanation, whereas two married co-Kings is unusual and therefore does.
I am not trying to "treat them the same", because they're not. One is a well established cultural and mythological institution, exists in every recorded human culture, and is based on the biological fact of human reproduction and the political need to establish clear lines of inheritance. The other is a relatively modern phenomenon, based on a very recent emotional/psychological view of marriage, and grows largely from the need to stabilize human relations after a sexual revolution less than two generations old.
This doesn't mean that gay married couples shouldn't be wished success and happiness and welcomed into public life. They absolutely should. It doesn't mean that you absolutely CAN'T have gay characters in your RPGs, whether with adults or children. It's your game. Do what you want.
What it does mean is that if you find it odd to re-cast sleeping beauty as a twink when telling bed-time stories to your six year old, and politely decline to do so, that doesn't make you a fucking bigot.
Quote from: Omega;1103376That is how it felt at a glance. That may be because it is more a freeform approach than a linear one. I'll look at it more closely soon.
hey mAcular heres what the adventure book does.
There is a sort of "Help Wanted" board and initially there are 3 starting quests. One to a dwarven excavation, one to escort a priestess back to town, and one for the aformentioned gnomes.
After you do 2 of these jobs then 3 follow-up quests appear.
Once you have done 2 of those then 3 more follow-up quests appear.
So it is a cross between free ranging and and quest sites.
But there are also a few places that are not on the quest roster that PCs can come across via exploration, maps, NPCs they meet, or rumours they hear.
Quote from: Brendan;1103387What it does mean is that if you find it odd to re-cast sleeping beauty as a twink when telling bed-time stories to your six year old, and politely decline to do so, that doesn't make you a fucking bigot.
What if Sleeping Beauty was always a dude of slender build? Would you have altered the bed-time story then?
Heck why are you against reading that kind of bed-time story to a 6 year old? What if it was an entirely new story that was excellently written?
*assuming parents of said child are not the easily triggered kind that Reeee like the Russian government when the word 'gay' is said around children. If you are once again hiding behind the intolerance of other people, then that is logically consistent.
Quote from: jeff37923;1103065Wouldn't that better represent his Twitter account? :D
Man, that is so dead on.:-)
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1103067What are you, a fucking Nazi? Go back to oppressing women.
King Drumpf is a goblin alright, but he's got a huge chunk of his brain missing. So this brain damage make him more stupid than anything. He's the stupidest!
Isn't that what I implied? (I'm lost on the Nazi comment, though).
Quote from: cranebump;1103397Isn't that what I implied? (I'm lost on the Nazi comment, though).
I'm the one virtue signaling here! Get your own thread!
Quote from: jeff37923;1103385Proof that Bard is the best character class.
Bard or Champion?
Quote from: Brendan;1103387I said that the King and Queen did not REQUIRE explanation, whereas two married co-Kings is unusual and therefore does.
I am not trying to "treat them the same", because they're not. One is a well established cultural and mythological institution, exists in every recorded human culture, and is based on the biological fact of human reproduction and the political need to establish clear lines of inheritance. The other is a relatively modern phenomenon, based on a very recent emotional/psychological view of marriage, and grows largely from the need to stabilize human relations after a sexual revolution less than two generations old.
So you're saying that there shouldn't be anything *unusual* in a fantasy game for kids?!? I mean, it's a frickin fantasy game. I've had all sorts of unusual stuff in my games for kids. Run your games however you want, but I don't see that something being unusual -- or even unique -- is a reason to keep it away from kids.
Quote from: Brendan;1103387This doesn't mean that gay married couples shouldn't be wished success and happiness and welcomed into public life. They absolutely should. It doesn't mean that you absolutely CAN'T have gay characters in your RPGs, whether with adults or children. It's your game. Do what you want.
What it does mean is that if you find it odd to re-cast sleeping beauty as a twink when telling bed-time stories to your six year old, and politely decline to do so, that doesn't make you a fucking bigot.
Sure, everyone can run games the way they like. But we can compare notes and ask questions -- that's why this is a discussion site. If someone says that sleeping beauty should be re-cast for kids -- I think it's reasonable to ask why. Conversely, if someone says that married kings should be re-cast for kids, I think it's reasonable to ask why.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1103399I'm the one virtue signaling here! Get your own thread!
Hey, it's my thread, and I'm more anti-virtue-signalling!
Gnay Gnomes?! Won't Somebody Think of the Children?!
Quote from: Rhedyn;1103296You know this opinion is considered hate speech?
"Hate speech" is a bullshit term used by weaklings scared of free speech.
Quote from: S'mon;1103342I am aware that some people* would say "I advocate for tolerance of homosexuals" is anti-homosexual hate speech;
And those people are doing more harm to the homosexual community than the Westboro idiots could ever dream.
Society works when people tolerate each other. Nobody needs to like anybody, but everybody needs to respect each other's freedom.
Society gets fucked when people are told to "accept" others or else. That's just begging for a backlash.
I don't know. I also used to hate speech when I was at school.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1103431And those people are doing more harm to the homosexual community than the Westboro idiots could ever dream.
Society works when people tolerate each other. Nobody needs to like anybody, but everybody needs to respect each other's freedom.
Society gets fucked when people are told to "accept" others or else. That's just begging for a backlash.
You can't argue with the self-loathing activist (i.e. the radical 10% of a group), particularly when egged on by politicians who rely on division and strife to hold power. They inevitably wreck it for the other 90% of that group who just want tolerance and to go about their lives.
The ultimate problem is that because the never happy are never happy, they keep pushing and pushing in the hope that something external to themselves will finally fill the hole. But to do that they have to tell a larger and larger group of people that their own beliefs are intolerable... that they are hate speech.
Anything past tolerance is demanding the oppression of other's beliefs and freedoms (technically so does requiring tolerance, but that's such a small percentage of extremists who want them burned at the stake or put in asylums that society is okay with their beliefs being labeled intolerable).
The harder it's pushed, the larger the percentage of people are being oppressed in the name of making an ever smaller minority happy. Force Christians to bake cakes for gay weddings. Enforce fines and prison time for publically expressing Christian beliefs. Demand that men who say they're women be allowed into the women's restroom with your daughter. Take away your kids if you refuse to give your six-year old life-altering drugs and mutilating their genitalia because they say they're a girl one time?
At a certain point the amount of oppression on the 99% exceeds what they'll tolerate and life becomes very bad for the 1% and couple more percentage points in close enough proximity to be labeled complicit.
I feel worst for my gay friend in a committed relationship who just is trying to live life and doesn't even bring it up unless it's actually relevant (just as I... or most normal people... don't bring up what happens in our bedrooms). It's gonna suck for him when the never happy finally push the general public into a backlash (and once TPTB decide they're no longer a useful tool for dividing society).
This is the one and only GENERAL WARNING: Keep it on-topic to the subject within the RPG hobby.
Anyone posting anything that I consider off-topic broader political posting after this will be kicked off the thread.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1103340This is like that Navy Seal post but for being pro-gay.
Look dude, if you didn't mean that gay kings are inappropriate for young groups, then fine, but that is what I quoted.
"The gnomes could be co-ruling kings, as ancient Rome had for a period of time. Their relationship could be entirely non-sexual and the issue kept purely political, for gaming with younger players."
Who makes the relationship of straight couples explicitly non-sexual for younger players?
There is a thread running through the entire history of RPGs says that any sexual or romantic involvement of characters is inappropriate. Part of the reason for this is the "younger players" issue. It was shocking to most of the players in my first RPG campaign that my character, a man, was interested in a woman character (and I was not hitting on her player). He ended up marrying a different player-character (after Keredwen was turned to stone) and none of the players had ever seen anything like that happen in gaming. And this was not a Puritanical community. This was New Haven in the 70s, several of us had slept with one another.
If you compare the amount of romance and sex in modules with the amount in fiction, you will see a vast wasteland in RPGs.
Making the game about Romance isn't the same thing as having families and married people.
Pick any published module that has a town with people in it. You'll find married people in it. Pick any published module that has royalty and you're almost certainly going to find someone who is married or that marriage plays a major role. Depicting characters who are in relationship to each other is not strange; depicting same-sex couples who are in relationship with each other should not be, either.
Quote from: Brendan;1103387I said that the King and Queen did not REQUIRE explanation, whereas two married co-Kings is unusual and therefore does.
Unusual to kids in 2019? I doubt it. My 12 year old daughter wants to DM, so I'll likely pick up the Essentials Kit for her. I doubt the existence of married male co-kings will even register with her. That sort of thing has been completely normalized for kids her age in our social environment. One of her friends who will likely play in the group is a boy who often wears dresses to school. Nobody cares.
Gays are only 1-5% of the US population (as an example) so gay relationships are strange and unusual.
An RPG can have a gay gnome Co-King situation, it's fiction, they can make up whatever they want.
But it's still gonna be strange.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1102976WotC's agenda is crystal clear. If you want to support their cram-politics-in-gaming "woke" agenda, continue to give WotC your money, your time and your effort.
If you don't support their agenda, there are 100s of other RPGs to play.
Here, Here
Quote from: Piestrio;1102979The 5e Starter Set is damn near perfect so of course WOTC is going to change it.
If it is not broke we will make it broke by getting woke. WOTC says: Let's offend our customer base once again
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1103467Gays are only 1-5% of the US population (as an example) so gay relationships are strange and unusual.
An RPG can have a gay gnome Co-King situation, it's fiction, they can make up whatever they want.
But it's still gonna be strange.
If something happens 5% of the time, it is
not strange. Rolling a Natural 1 (or a Natural 20) isn't weird, and that happens 5% of time.
I've never met someone Jewish and then said, "That was STRANGE" even though they make up less than 2% of the population.
I certainly agree that in a fantasy game, we expect strange things to happen more than we do in reality. A dragon attacking a village is certainly STRANGE - that can't happen often at all, or we wouldn't have villages. But it has to happen enough to give the PCs a reason to deal with unusual things.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1103479If something happens 5% of the time, it is not strange. Rolling a Natural 1 (or a Natural 20) isn't weird, and that happens 5% of time.
An evening of rolling dice, you'll expect 2 in 20 rolls to be a crit or a fumble. Say you only make one die roll that whole evening, you roll a crit or fumble, that would be
strange.
QuoteI've never met someone Jewish and then said, "That was STRANGE" even though they make up less than 2% of the population.
Depends on the context. Sometimes populations cluster by ethnicity. I'd find a Jew strange and unusual living in a primarily chinese neighborhood. Or vice versa.
QuoteI certainly agree that in a fantasy game, we expect strange things to happen more than we do in reality. A dragon attacking a village is certainly STRANGE - that can't happen often at all, or we wouldn't have villages. But it has to happen enough to give the PCs a reason to deal with unusual things.
Quote from: tenbones;1103357On Topic - Gay Gnome Kings. I don't care. The whole thing sounds pandery due to the fact that it's not "campaign material" and instead "adventure material".
It doesn't sound like it's trying to set up some campaign conceit for long-term play. Which means it's there as some kind of token-toss to the usual suspects.
Make it matter or leave it out, says I.
Quote from: Haffrung;1103460Unusual to kids in 2019? I doubt it. My 12 year old daughter wants to DM, so I'll likely pick up the Essentials Kit for her. I doubt the existence of married male co-kings will even register with her. That sort of thing has been completely normalized for kids her age in our social environment. One of her friends who will likely play in the group is a boy who often wears dresses to school. Nobody cares.
Comparing Haffrung and tenbones on this - I'm more along the lines of Haffrung's not caring.
I'd prefer a pair of gay NPCs to be two NPCs that just happen to be gay, rather than it being some sort of important campaign setup. I don't see why it should have to matter, any more than how government works in the Village of Hommlet.
I will withhold my thoughts except to say if it bothers you don't buy any WOTC products. This sort of thing is why I not interested in PF 2.
Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1103452If you compare the amount of romance and sex in modules with the amount in fiction, you will see a vast wasteland in RPGs.
You may not have realized this, but RPGs are a different experience than consuming fiction.
One of my friends wouldn't allow gnomes in his D&D campaigns.
He said they were gay.
I guess he was right.
Quote from: jhkim;1103485Comparing Haffrung and tenbones on this - I'm more along the lines of Haffrung's not caring.
I'd prefer a pair of gay NPCs to be two NPCs that just happen to be gay, rather than it being some sort of important campaign setup. I don't see why it should have to matter, any more than how government works in the Village of Hommlet.
So what is the difference? Seriously, if romantic relations are even brought up - is it not as arbitrary as wondering how government works in Hommlet?
I'll go one further - in normal play at my table, it's probably at least orders of magnitude more likely my PC's will become involved in some way/shape/form of *having* to interact with whatever passes for government/authority while traveling around in the Village of Hommlet as they are to pry into the sexual proclivities of *any* inhabitants of the same village.
Many many orders of magnitude.
Much less the specific sexual preferences of two particular gnome males that might happen to be co-rulers.
This is not to say that *I* as a GM might know that some NPC's are in fact, homosexual/heterosexual, or drop clues that may/may not be salient (two individuals co-habitating unmarried to anyone of the opposite sex) or whatever.
But for the purposes of deciding what is important for an adventure vs. a campaign - yes, those details should exist if they matter in substance to the conceits of the location setting. Why? This allows for a GM to have the flexibility to do whatever they want *otherwise* assuming they want to run things as generally described.
Otherwise it's a toss-off simply by dint of numbers and what people consider normal. And by normal - I mean BY THE NUMBERS. Hetero people aren't running around looking for homosexuals or indulging in the homosexual sub-culture without intent for the obvious reason: they're a radically smaller community. If we're assuming it's no different in nature, in real life, than it would be in a fantasy setting - and there is zero reason to believe otherwise unless we're speaking with unspecified claims, which I am not making...
How much more rare would it be to have two gay gnome kings... gnomes are *already* very rare in the Realms. They're *literally* called "The Forgotten Folk" for a reason - mainly because they choose to be reclusive, but it's pretty clear their communities are tiny.
So yeah - the odds of two gay male gnomes being kings... which ISN'T EVEN A THING in the Forgotten Realms with a couple of SUPER-RARE exceptions - notably Lantan, which is more of a hierarchical academic ruling class (Engineers!).
Yeah - this whole thing is silly and pandering specifically as it pertains to the Forgotten Realms. But let's be intellectually honest... It would be equally silly anywhere else *without* it being cooked into the setting for an in-game reason. Otherwise we could pretend all outliers are equal - maybe they're Asmodeus worshippers too!
Would people be upset if a tribe of marauding Orcs from the High Moors decided they enjoyed wearing human female dresses and makeup as "war paint"? Would that be offensive to anyone?
What if they captured male-elves and took them as their mates-by-conquest forcibly? But only because they couldn't tell the difference between male and female elves.
Would that be objectionable? (this has happened in video games- oddly no one seemed to freak out about it because of its silliness)
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1103481An evening of rolling dice, you'll expect 2 in 20 rolls to be a crit or a fumble. Say you only make one die roll that whole evening, you roll a crit or fumble, that would be strange.
Of the dozens and dozens of NPCs in the adventure (over 20), only two seem to be gay.
QuoteDepends on the context. Sometimes populations cluster by ethnicity. I'd find a Jew strange and unusual living in a primarily chinese neighborhood. Or vice versa.
As Jews more frequently marry people of Asian descent than you find in many other ethnic groups, you should not find that unusual at all. In fact it's a long running joke among Jews. There is even a research book on the topic called JewAsian (https://www.timesofisrael.com/with-jew-asian-marriages-on-the-rise-academic-couple-takes-on-subject-close-to-home/).
Quote from: jhkim;1103485Comparing Haffrung and tenbones on this - I'm more along the lines of Haffrung's not caring.
I'd prefer a pair of gay NPCs to be two NPCs that just happen to be gay, rather than it being some sort of important campaign setup. I don't see why it should have to matter, any more than how government works in the Village of Hommlet.
That is the thing. See my mini overview a few pages back that probably got lost in the damn political debate derail.
These two gnomes being married and male has ZERO impact. It is meaningless in the context of the locale or the characters really. They could be both female, or both hermaprodites or both human or both storm giants and it would be the exact same. Nothing. You can literally swap these two characters around any which way and the adventure and the locale is for all intents and purposes, exactly the same.
And it is exactly the same situation with that "daughter" in Curse of Strahd.
And I'd like to think that this is because the intent was to leave DMs room to make of it what they will. Or change things to suit their gaming group.
Quote from: tenbones;1103503Yeah - this whole thing is silly and pandering specifically as it pertains to the Forgotten Realms. But let's be intellectually honest... It would be equally silly anywhere else *without* it being cooked into the setting for an in-game reason. Otherwise we could pretend all outliers are equal - maybe they're Asmodeus worshippers too!
um... you obviously missed that part where Elminster spent some time transformed into a girl and nearly having a romantic relationship with a guy. Yeah. That happened.
Quote from: tenbones;1103506Would people be upset if a tribe of marauding Orcs from the High Moors decided they enjoyed wearing human female dresses and makeup as "war paint"? Would that be offensive to anyone?
What if they captured male-elves and took them as their mates-by-conquest forcibly? But only because they couldn't tell the difference between male and female elves.
Would that be objectionable? (this has happened in video games- oddly no one seemed to freak out about it because of its silliness)
Its the Forgotten Realms. Odds are it HAS happened. And if not there then over on Mystara because their orcs are a liiiiitle weird sometimes. :D
As for people freaking out here... where? We have some off topic political freaking out. But mostly its been pretty mild on the subject of the gnomes and instead more like commentary on wether or not such is appropriate or not for a setting and discussion on how to approach it, or improve the entry.
Which may have been the intent as noted prior.
Quote from: Omega;1103551Its the Forgotten Realms. Odds are it HAS happened. And if not there then over on Mystara because their orcs are a liiiiitle weird sometimes. :D
As for people freaking out here... where? We have some off topic political freaking out. But mostly its been pretty mild on the subject of the gnomes and instead more like commentary on wether or not such is appropriate or not for a setting and discussion on how to approach it, or improve the entry.
Which may have been the intent as noted prior.
Well you know... not "freAAAAAAKKKK out!-freak out"... just go into mild online tizzy.
Quote from: Omega;1103550um... you obviously missed that part where Elminster spent some time transformed into a girl and nearly having a romantic relationship with a guy. Yeah. That happened.
Well... LOL yes, I missed it. But it's Elminster. Dude is a total freak. He's done it with everyone/everything. That doesn't shock me in the slightest.
Quote from: tenbones;1103571Well... LOL yes, I missed it. But it's Elminster. Dude is a total freak. He's done it with everyone/everything. That doesn't shock me in the slightest.
Elminster is Greenwood's self-insert character. This is why the FR is referred to as Ed Greenwood's Magical Realm.
Quote from: Mistwell;1103515Of the dozens and dozens of NPCs in the adventure (over 20), only two seem to be gay.
The gnome co-regents, notable NPCs, with an unusual monarchy system stacked on top
almost as if to accomodate their sexual orientation.
QuoteAs Jews more frequently marry people of Asian descent than you find in many other ethnic groups, you should not find that unusual at all. In fact it's a long running joke among Jews. There is even a research book on the topic called JewAsian (https://www.timesofisrael.com/with-jew-asian-marriages-on-the-rise-academic-couple-takes-on-subject-close-to-home/).
Specifically Chinese asians?
Quote from: Mistwell;1103515Of the dozens and dozens of NPCs in the adventure (over 20), only two seem to be gay.
How many of those 20 "seem" to be heterosexual? And how many make no mention of or reference to their sexuality? It seems to me that the distribution of the NPCs as we imagine it is less relevant to the points of discussion here than is the distribution ratio of
mentions.
Just because 2 people are mentioned as being gay doesn't mean the other 18 are automatically straight. It's also possibly interesting that 2/20 is actually 10%, not 5%, where even 5% is over-representative of modern society's 3.5% (I can't speak to Gnome society).
It doesn't surprise me that 12-year-olds think homosexuality is just as "normal" as heterosexuality, since it's nearly as common in the media they consume. I haven't watched the final episode of Dark Crystal yet (not spoilers please!), but through the first nine episodes I recall seeing only 1 couple, and of course they are gay. For those not too good at math, that's 100% of the relationships in the show. It's also worth noting that neither the couple's sexuality nor even their existence plays any part in advancing the story -- the mention is entirely extraneous to the narrative.
To me, over-representation implies either a delusion or an agenda.
On the plus side, their wedding was fabulous!
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1103624The gnome co-regents, notable NPCs, with an unusual monarchy system stacked on top almost as if to accomodate their sexual orientation.
And if it had been the guards who help you access the dungeon where one King is imprisoned instead, you'd be claiming that's the notable NPC there almost as if it's to accommodate their sexual orientation. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Why is this a deal?
QuoteSpecifically Chinese asians?
Typically it's Chinese and Japanese, yes. There is actually a meaningful Jewish population in China, who went there during and just after WW2.
Quote from: Zalman;1103632How many of those 20 "seem" to be heterosexual? And how many make no mention of or reference to their sexuality? It seems to me that the distribution of the NPCs as we imagine it is less relevant to the points of discussion here than is the distribution ratio of mentions.
Just because 2 people are mentioned as being gay doesn't mean the other 18 are automatically straight. It's also possibly interesting that 2/20 is actually 10%, not 5%, where even 5% is over-representative of modern society's 3.5% (I can't speak to Gnome society).]
First of all, I don't agree with the logic of quota arguments. Characters in fantasy modules don't have to conform to their proportions in modern U.S. society. That applies both to those who argue for more representation or for less representation.
Second, even if you want to measure representation - it's one couple in one module. If one couple is 10% and thus over-representative within the NPCs of one module, then it's a problem of low statistics. Looking in just that single module, the only possibilities are 0% (under-represented) or 10% (over-represented). You would have to look across multiple modules to see what the representation is in finer detail.
I think part of the reason this is a neuralgic point in D&D in particular is the presence of alignment and interventionist deities. Unlike other games, where it can just be 'part of the setting' without necessarily incorporating value judgments one way or the other, including such elements in D&D carries the assumption that they're being called out as "Good" or "Evil," and as divinely approved or disapproved.
Quote from: jhkim;1103639Characters in fantasy modules don't have to conform to their proportions in modern U.S. society.
Exactly. Fantasy Gnomes might just be
gayer than real-life humans. The question I always have is "why"? When orcs are
eviler than modern humans it serves a purpose in the module -- to create an enemy we can slay without moral conundrum. What purpose is served by inventing a new ratio of gay-to-straight gnomes in a fantasy game? Or a fantasy movie like Dark Crystal?
When the ratios are changed with no connection to a module's plot or theme, it seems to me that either the author is intentionally trying to "over-normalize" the concept, or they are deluded about the real life ratios (just as the aforementioned 12-year-old). Or they're just virtue-signaling, because you know, gay is better than straight.
Quote from: Mistwell;1103637And if it had been the guards who help you access the dungeon where one King is imprisoned instead, you'd be claiming that's the notable NPC there almost as if it's to accommodate their sexual orientation.
How is being a guard comparable to a monarchy, with lineages and inherited positions?
QuoteTypically it's Chinese and Japanese, yes. There is actually a meaningful Jewish population in China, who went there during and just after WW2.
According to wiki, the jewish population in China is 0.00018 percent. I guess that's meaningful in that there aren't very many.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1103644According to wiki, the jewish population in China is 0.00018 percent. I guess that's meaningful in that there aren't very many.
2494 people.
Quote from: Zalman;1103642The question I always have is "why"? When orcs are eviler than modern humans it serves a purpose in the module -- to create an enemy we can slay without moral conundrum. What purpose is served by inventing a new ratio of gay-to-straight gnomes in a fantasy game? Or a fantasy movie like Dark Crystal?
Making things fantastic can help fire the imagination. It's like a writing prompt - finding a starting point to build a fantasy world is pretty important. Most people struggle most with figuring out where to start. And maybe gnome monarchy isn't the first place you'd THINK to start, but once you do start, your creative imagination may take you in a lot of places you wouldn't have gone without a starting point. Instead of 'gnomes are just like humans except short' you now have a fantasy world and interactions with gnomes is suddenly more dynamic and less wooden.
As far as the importance of representation (https://writershelpingwriters.net/2018/10/representation-in-literature-why-its-important-and-how-to-handle-it/) you can find a number of sources to cover it.
Here's a quote from the linked article:
QuoteThere are two primary reasons why representation is important: inclusivity and perception.
Seeing people who look, act, and experience life like them in media makes a person feel included in a society, and it reinforces positive views of themselves and what they can achieve in society. Also, members of other groups, especially majority groups, base their ideas of groups on what they see in the media. For example, a hiring manager who watches too many police procedurals might view candidates of minority races as having criminal tendencies.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1103644According to wiki, the jewish population in China is 0.00018 percent. I guess that's meaningful in that there aren't very many.
Huh... There are almost as many Jews in China as in Poland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population_by_country). That sounds meaningful to me.
>>For example, a hiring manager who watches too many police procedurals might view candidates of minority races as having criminal tendencies.<<
"His resume is perfect, but he's a WASP from the Upper West Side! No way am I hiring one of them - they're always murderin' people and blaming it on the Puerto Rican guy!"
Quote from: jhkimCharacters in fantasy modules don't have to conform to their proportions in modern U.S. society.
Quote from: Zalman;1103642Exactly. Fantasy Gnomes might just be gayer than real-life humans. The question I always have is "why"? When orcs are eviler than modern humans it serves a purpose in the module -- to create an enemy we can slay without moral conundrum. What purpose is served by inventing a new ratio of gay-to-straight gnomes in a fantasy game? Or a fantasy movie like Dark Crystal?
When the ratios are changed with no connection to a module's plot or theme, it seems to me that either the author is intentionally trying to "over-normalize" the concept, or they are deluded about the real life ratios (just as the aforementioned 12-year-old). Or they're just virtue-signaling, because you know, gay is better than straight.
I dislike this sort of armchair psychologizing. By exactly this same logic, then if an author puts in 0% gay NPCs in a module, then they must be trying to erase gays - or they're deluded that gays don't really exist and are only manufactured by modern liberal propaganda - or they're just virtue signaling to conservative players. I don't think such motive-questioning is warranted.
I don't have to know that an author's motives are pure. If it's a fun module, it's a fun module.
There doesn't need to be a special reason for an NPC to be gay, just like there doesn't need to be a special reason for that NPC to be straight.
Does every NPC have to have their orientation listed? That is what some of these "inclusion" nuts demand as if it has some sort of vast meaning.
No. We do not need to freaking know every damn NPC's orientation. We do not need to know even the important ones orientation unless it somehow impacts the adventure.
Or better yet. Do like we used to and leave it totally open so a DM or players can make of it what they will.
But now in this age of insane identity politics infesting every damn corner... they feel they need to force their agendas on people, or insert some little jab in as a "statement!" which does more harm than good because it is invariably done so ham handedly or ineptly.
If you are going to stick this stuff in gaming material then at lease make it relevant or dont bother.
If I had been writing that section I would have added some notes as to why these two are an item. Even if it is as simple as - gnomes, or at least the ones in the Phandalin region, picked this up from the local elves who have a higher population with Blessing of Corellon and thus change gender like others change clothes. - And then tie that into the elves elsewhere in the book.
Build up connections so it feels more organic and the region feels more connected and alive.
And since I have not yet finished reading the adventures. Maybee that is in there somewhere.
Quote from: Rhedyn;11036472494 people.
Compared the total population.
I bough the Wssentials, may run the adventure. Changed one of them to a Queen. Done.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1103650Huh... There are almost as many Jews in China as in Poland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population_by_country). That sounds meaningful to me.
Yes. It means Poland has about the same amount of Jews as China. Nothing else aside from how vanishingly small that population is in China compared to Poland due to the immense population differences and the sizes of the countries in question. (Poland: nearly 40 million vs China: nearly 1.4
billion. )
Its like comparing the population of wizards across the Sword Coast with the population of wizards in Halruaa.
Context.
And far as I am seeing so far in the module there is no indicators of how relevant these gnomes are or anything really. Again. It is just there like the entry in Curse of Strahd.
Quote from: jhkim;1103655I dislike this sort of armchair psychologizing. By exactly this same logic, then if an author puts in 0% gay NPCs in a module, then they must be trying to erase gays - or they're deluded that gays don't really exist and are only manufactured by modern liberal propaganda - or they're just virtue signaling to conservative players. I don't think such motive-questioning is warranted.
Isn't that exactly what is happening? This is precisely why I say - why does it matter? Unless you *make* it matter in the context of the setting. This allows anyone to insert
they want into the setting as they see fit without people have to do *exactly* what you say you don't want happening - that is actually happening.
Quote from: jhkim;1103655I don't have to know that an author's motives are pure. If it's a fun module, it's a fun module.
There doesn't need to be a special reason for an NPC to be gay, just like there doesn't need to be a special reason for that NPC to be straight.
Yes there does. Your post above just indicated that. Just because *you* don't see there is a reason why anything should be contextualized doesn't mean everyone else isn't doing that. Be they, straight, gay, from another culture, or whatever.
In some ways I think your position is worse in terms of play - because you're kinda saying "nothing matters". I'm saying if it's worth noting - then make it matter. That's a pretty big difference.
I think it's a larger stretch of the imagination to do what you're indicating and say "Ignore the jarring element in the room because it *could* happen" - never mind the conceits of the setting implied or otherwise.
Quote from: Omega;1103658We do not need to freaking know every damn NPC's orientation. We do not need to know even the important ones orientation unless it somehow impacts the adventure.
Or better yet. Do like we used to and leave it totally open so a DM or players can make of it what they will.
I don't know about you, but I used to play classic modules like Village of Hommlet and Ravenloft where they wouldn't pussyfoot around and would just say "Strahd loved Tatiana" or in Gygaxian "Smigmal is the leman of Falrinth". If you can't stand the mention of romantic relationships, then buy a Sharpie and black out those offensive lines. It's not like they take up much room, so I don't personally see the need - but you do you.
Quote from: Omega;1103658If I had been writing that section I would have added some notes as to why these two are an item. Even if it is as simple as - gnomes, or at least the ones in the Phandalin region, picked this up from the local elves who have a higher population with Blessing of Corellon and thus change gender like others change clothes. - And then tie that into the elves elsewhere in the book.
This presumes that in order to have a single gay couple, then the entire race has to change gender like others change clothes. If you want to have gnomes change gender in your game, then go right ahead. But it's not like that's necessary in order to have a single gay couple.
You walk into the throne room of Suzail, it is festooned with the finest Corymian decor, with additional handwoven carpets from far-flung Calimshan, bronzework statues from Chessenta, and draperies of the great Houses of Cormyr made of the finest Kozakuran silk. Standing on the throne is Fat Albert and the Gang, with Fat Albert wearing his Burger King Crown on his brow, held fast by a piece of half-chewed Wrigley's Juicy-Fruit gum in his hair. His chamberlain, Mushmouth steps forth...
"Heybuh Kibing Fabat Albubert. Hebere ibis yourba heberoes!"
With dimensional magic being possible in the Realms... there is *nothing* weird about this scene. Right?
Quote from: jhkim;1103666I don't know about you, but I used to play classic modules like Village of Hommlet and Ravenloft where they wouldn't pussyfoot around and would just say "Strahd loved Tatiana" or in Gygaxian "Smigmal is the leman of Falrinth". If you can't stand the mention of romantic relationships, then buy a Sharpie and black out those offensive lines. It's not like they take up much room, so I don't personally see the need - but you do you.
Do you think it's equally likely that someone like Strahd might love the woman Tatianna? as two gay gnome males would ascend to the title of King (which isn't even a thing in the Realms - I guess until now) completely free of any context? Possible? sure. Equal in probability - probably not. But then... you know... there's NO CONTEXT to it.
Quote from: jhkim;1103666This presumes that in order to have a single gay couple, then the entire race has to change gender like others change clothes. If you want to have gnomes change gender in your game, then go right ahead. But it's not like that's necessary in order to have a single gay couple.
No. It presumes the audience has to not care about the fact that this plot concept 1) has no context 2) doesn't really matter - since there is no context 3) that the consumers of this plot won't care there is no context 4) that there isn't some other motive behind not putting any context to this odd outlier of a scenario.
To the degree that one doesn't care about those things is the stretch you're making. With the tacit implication that (though YOU might not say this) the Usual Suspects on the Otherside will most certainly say it: that to question this *at all* means you're a homophobe.
Because it couldn't *possibly* be done for political reasons. Right?
Quote from: jhkim;1103666If you can't stand the mention of romantic relationships, then buy a Sharpie and black out those offensive lines. It's not like they take up much room, so I don't personally see the need - but you do you.
This presumes that in order to have a single gay couple, then the entire race has to change gender like others change clothes. If you want to have gnomes change gender in your game, then go right ahead. But it's not like that's necessary in order to have a single gay couple.
1: I said every NPC, not every important NPC. Try again please.
2: Which is nothing to do with what I put forward. Did you even read it or did you just knee jerk because you need to virtue signal?
Why not make one of the gnomes be half-Deep-gnome too? That's possible. Equally as arbitrary?
Quote from: Omega;1103658No. We do not need to freaking know every damn NPC's orientation. We do not need to know even the important ones orientation unless it somehow impacts the adventure.
So you're saying it is important in
this adventure. Because I think if you're dealing with the king and his lover, you need to know who he loves.
Quote from: tenbones;1103670Why not make one of the gnomes be half-Deep-gnome too? That's possible. Equally as arbitrary?
I noted that before the thread derail.
But that said I think there is room for doubt as to if this is in there for an agenda, or not. Due to the odd lack of anyone at WOTC crowing this. It may be just there because someone thought it was an interesting idea. Or even an artifact of what was once a larger entry. Or something else.
It is so tame and bland that I have a hard time reading agenda into its presence even knowing some of the staff do have agendas that would make this entry suspect.
Again, far as I can tell so far, it is just there. An isolated entry with no meaning assigned. Which may simply be intentional to allow individual DMs to embellish, change, or omit as they may.
Maybee one DM wants a pair of queens?
Another wants THREE kings!
No damn gnomes in my campaign so these are all GNOLLS!
One of the kings is really a clone - takes "love yourself" to new levels. :D
And so on in keeping with the more freeform approach Essentials takes.
What about a single gnome with Multiple Personality Disorder, who simply thinks he's two different kings (and everyone is too nervous to tell him given that one of his personalities has gone insane, so they feel coerced into playing along)?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1103677So you're saying it is important in this adventure. Because I think if you're dealing with the king and his lover, you need to know who he loves.
Nooooo. I am saying we do not need to know
every NPCs orientation. There is a difference here. Which you seem to have missed.
And in the Essentials Gnome Kings case... It oddly is not important. There is no context that I can come across yet. See my comment above for why that may have been intentional.
Quote from: Omega;1103678I noted that before the thread derail.
But that said I think there is room for doubt as to if this is in there for an agenda, or not. Due to the odd lack of anyone at WOTC crowing this. It may be just there because someone thought it was an interesting idea. Or even an artifact of what was once a larger entry. Or something else.
It is so tame and bland that I have a hard time reading agenda into its presence even knowing some of the staff do have agendas that would make this entry suspect.
Again, far as I can tell so far, it is just there. An isolated entry with no meaning assigned. Which may simply be intentional to allow individual DMs to embellish, change, or omit as they may.
Maybee one DM wants a pair of queens?
Another wants THREE kings!
No damn gnomes in my campaign so these are all GNOLLS!
One of the kings is really a clone - takes "love yourself" to new levels. :D
And so on in keeping with the more freeform approach Essentials takes.
I want to believe...
But... the truth is I don't. But hey, if people like it... ENJOY!
Quote from: Antiquation!;1103679What about a single gnome with Multiple Personality Disorder, who simply thinks he's two different kings (and everyone is too nervous to tell him given that one of his personalities has gone insane, so they feel coerced into playing along)?
I'm still waiting for my Asian Gnomish representation.
Quote from: Antiquation!;1103679What about a single gnome with Multiple Personality Disorder, who simply thinks he's two different kings (and everyone is too nervous to tell him given that one of his personalities has gone insane, so they feel coerced into playing along)?
You have been watching too much Pandorum haven't you? :eek:
heh. But that is just as valid a spin as any other.
Quote from: tenbones;1103681I want to believe...
But... the truth is I don't. But hey, if people like it... ENJOY!
I think Essentials will easily dethrone Starter as everyones favourite intro to D&D.
Quote from: Omega;1103684I think Essentials will easily dethrone Starter as everyones favourite intro to D&D.
Then... if they keep playing and don't spiral downward into Furry-play or some other silly shit, they will graduate into the clutches of advanced contextual gaming. And there I'll be waiting... handing out Triggers of Glorious Gaming to those that make their Will saves and LEVEL UP!...
MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1103648As far as the importance of representation (https://writershelpingwriters.net/2018/10/representation-in-literature-why-its-important-and-how-to-handle-it/) you can find a number of sources to cover it.
The big problem with a lot of this representation, be it in RPGs or broader media, though is that it's painting a very skewed picture of reality. The average estimate by people 18-25 is that 3-in-10 people are LGBT; nearly ten times the actual population. This is because everything from television to movies to woke RPGs is presenting LGBT characters as being everywhere.
It also becomes problematic in that this "inclusive" act is also, by definition, excluding others. Ex. Two gay gnome kings mean there's no representation of women with power in that adventure. Why is WotC being anti-woman? (this is sarcasm; it's sad that I have to actually make that explicit).
I get that LGBT is the current "shiny" of pop culture; but ultimately it being used out of all proportion to reality without an actual plot/adventure-related reason is rather like putting out an Essentials Kit where the only races available are half-elf, half-orc, dragonborn, tiefling and warforged and the only classes are Bard, Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger and Warlock. Sure, it's playable, but it's anything but representative of D&D as a whole.
My feeling is that "performance wokeness" in RPGs is going to age even worse than it will in broader pop culture (mostly because tv and movies and video games are there and gone... RPG books get used regularly for decades.
All sarcasm aside - this is why I, as "POC", find it hilarious that in being performative in ones showing of Wokeness - you're *tacitly* inflicting the very thing you claim is harming the people you're trying to "represent".
It only becomes glaringly worse when you see the largest proponents of this are not even necessarily the people being represented in the first place.
Self-loathing is pretty gross.
This is why I keep saying that if the information is not important for the adventure or setting, do not include it.
Quote from: jeff37923;1103694This is why I keep saying that if the information is not important for the adventure or setting, do not include it.
Bingo is your name-o.
Quote from: tenbones;1103682I'm still waiting for my Asian Gnomish representation.
Hmm. How about:
Three gnomes applied for the position of king but only two were allowed in, due to a new set of human-imposed rules limiting the yearly number of gnomes allowed to join the ranks of royalty; the large influx of well-qualified applicants from Gnomeland are making it difficult for humans to achieve any crowns of their own, in their own lands no less! Of course, the pressure to outperform the scrutinizing humanfolk in the run-up to the coronation drove one of the gnomes mad in the process...
Quote from: Omega;1103683You have been watching too much Pandorum haven't you? :eek:
Hey, all my ideas are original!
Original! /shakes fist
Quote from: tenbones;1103682I'm still waiting for my Asian Gnomish representation.
Hehehehe. Nice...
Quote from: tenbones;1103667You walk into the throne room of Suzail, it is festooned with the finest Corymian decor, with additional handwoven carpets from far-flung Calimshan, bronzework statues from Chessenta, and draperies of the great Houses of Cormyr made of the finest Kozakuran silk. Standing on the throne is Fat Albert and the Gang, with Fat Albert wearing his Burger King Crown on his brow, held fast by a piece of half-chewed Wrigley's Juicy-Fruit gum in his hair. His chamberlain, Mushmouth steps forth...
"Heybuh Kibing Fabat Albubert. Hebere ibis yourba heberoes!"
With dimensional magic being possible in the Realms... there is *nothing* weird about this scene. Right?
So, you're comparing having a gay character to bringing in characters from other dimensions. Having characters from other dimensions requires dimensional magic. Having gay characters requires... nothing. They just happen. A rate of 3.5% is not very unusual.
In the real world, if I find out that someone is gay, I don't ask "Was there some kind of weird interdimensional spell done to you?" or "Were you bitten by a radioactive drag queen?" They're just gay. It doesn't require some special explanation or story.
In the real world, there were gay people in medieval history. Likewise, in the Forgotten Realms, there are established gay characters. Further, Ed Greenwood (who created FR) made clear that marriage practices were quite broad and libertine in the local culture.
Yeah, the big deal isn't the event itself. I have casually gay characters in several of my products, no one ever seems to notice.
The big deal is the Motive.
Quote from: jeff37923;1103694This is why I keep saying that if the information is not important for the adventure or setting, do not include it.
Quote from: tenbones;1103695Bingo is your name-o.
J: Not necessarily. Something may be irrelevant to the adventure. But there to give the DM ideas and make of it what they will. Or to give the NPC a little more life than just a stat block and a name.
Do I need to know why Diana the Fighter level 5 is wearing a cooking pot on her head? No. I have enough brain cells still active to come up with all sorts of possible reasons. And just because an entry is effectively meaningless in no way means that entry can not be embellished, changed, or whatever the DM or even the players think it can be applied to.
T: Wrong-o is your name-o.
Are you two really that deficit in imagination?
Quote from: tenbones;1103667You walk into the throne room of Suzail, it is festooned with the finest Corymian decor, with additional handwoven carpets from far-flung Calimshan, bronzework statues from Chessenta, and draperies of the great Houses of Cormyr made of the finest Kozakuran silk. Standing on the throne is Fat Albert and the Gang, with Fat Albert wearing his Burger King Crown on his brow, held fast by a piece of half-chewed Wrigley's Juicy-Fruit gum in his hair. His chamberlain, Mushmouth steps forth...
"Heybuh Kibing Fabat Albubert. Hebere ibis yourba heberoes!"
With dimensional magic being possible in the Realms... there is *nothing* weird about this scene. Right?
It only gets weird when Cosby the court magician slips you a potion with a little extra in it.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1103644How is being a guard comparable to a monarchy, with lineages and inherited positions? According to wiki, the jewish population in China is 0.00018 percent. I guess that's meaningful in that there aren't very many.
Yes, that is in fact meaningful. For fucking China, the most populous nation on the planet, when considering the population of Jews in the world. Most nations have zero you realize, right?
Not sure why I am debating this with you any more though. You appear to have an odd agenda at this point.
'Fat Albert & the Gang' in Forgotten Realms, Contagious Bites of Radioactive Drag Queens... this is "campy RPG premises" gold! :eek: Keep spinning, lovelies, I'm taking it down in shorthand! :cool:
(And obviously the gnome kings should have been changed to an asexual blasian handi-capable enbi poly gestalt, you bigots! Subvert my expectations! /runs weeping, in literal tears!, to the safe space :o :p )
Dralasite Kings!
ahem.
The other possibility that came to mind is that this is some sort of weird nod to Dwarf Fortress.
Quote from: Omega;1103767Dralasite Kings!
ahem.
The other possibility that came to mind is that this is some sort of weird nod to Dwarf Fortress.
At least with dralasites there was some thought by the creators into making them gender fluid (they transition between male, female and neuter throughout their life cycle for those who don't know), which helps the dralasites to be actually more alien than the typical space opera alien with a funny forehead. With the gay gnomish kings it seems they put so little thought into the "diarchy" WOTC creates it can be undone by doing no more work than flipping one of the kings into a queen.
Quote from: wmarshal;1103781With the gay gnomish kings it seems they put so little thought into the "diarchy" WOTC creates it can be undone by doing no more work than flipping one of the kings into a queen.
I get the impression WoTC & Paizo see "King" as equivalent to "CEO", like Lisa Stevens is the King of Paizo (with her consort Queen Wertz). A CEO doesn't need to worry about producing an heir.
Quote from: wmarshalWith the gay gnomish kings it seems they put so little thought into the "diarchy" WOTC creates it can be undone by doing no more work than flipping one of the kings into a queen.
Quote from: S'mon;1103789I get the impression WoTC & Paizo see "King" as equivalent to "CEO", like Lisa Stevens is the King of Paizo (with her consort Queen Wertz). A CEO doesn't need to worry about producing an heir.
I don't have the Essentials Kit, so I'm not sure how they handle it there. But D&D has never had much semblance of feudalism. I mentioned the government of the Village of Hommlet before. I had thought that it wasn't defined, but when I checked this morning, it turns out I was wrong. The government is defined as follows:
QuoteThe elder is quite wise and greatly respected. He heads a council whose other members (in order of seniority) are --
Jaroo, the druid of the Grove (24)
Terjon, chief cleric of the church (20)
Elmo's father, Captain of the militia (2)
Ostler, the Innkeeper (7)
Mytch, the Miller (22)
Burne, the magic-user (31)
Rufus, Burne's associate (31)
The latter two are new arrivals to the council.
The elder is also the Justice of the Peace. Once each new moon, he holds a village meeting to hear ideas and complaints.
How succession works isn't defined, but it is implied that seniority is important for the council members. This isn't terrible, but it isn't particularly feudal - and seems just as modernist as declaring successors rather than having them by birth descent (which has happened in many cases in history).
Quote from: jhkim;1103720So, you're comparing having a gay character to bringing in characters from other dimensions. Having characters from other dimensions requires dimensional magic. Having gay characters requires... nothing. They just happen. A rate of 3.5% is not very unusual.
3.5% probability is *by* definition unusual. Being Gnomes on top of that makes it more unusual. Making them Sovereign rulers in a system that is completely outside their normal cultural mode of authority as portrayed in the setting for 30+ years - EVEN MORE unusual. Making them all of these things AND CO-RULERS? Yes... that's about the same probability as Fat Albert and Gang showing up through a color-pool in the Astral Plane and making it to Toril and taking over. Same statistical ballpark - which is close to nil. But hey! then that opens up the possibility of incompetent design AND/OR ulterior motives.
Quote from: jhkim;1103720In the real world, if I find out that someone is gay, I don't ask "Was there some kind of weird interdimensional spell done to you?" or "Were you bitten by a radioactive drag queen?" They're just gay. It doesn't require some special explanation or story.
That's funny. Because gnomes don't exist in the real world. But let's pretend they did. If you walked into America - and suddenly found out Bad Orange Man was killed and two homosexual Gnomes were suddenly made Monarchs of America. That wouldn't strike you as odd?
It's *not* that they're gay. It's not that they are Gnomes. It's not that there are kings. It's that it's ALL OF THESE THINGS AT ONCE. I find this equally stupid if they were ASIAN GNOMES and watched everyone like you pretend that wasn't weird. You're doing your obtuse thing again.
Quote from: jhkim;1103720In the real world, there were gay people in medieval history. Likewise, in the Forgotten Realms, there are established gay characters. Further, Ed Greenwood (who created FR) made clear that marriage practices were quite broad and libertine in the local culture.
Yes that is true. Gay rulers are everywhere. Gay Gnomish Kings? In the Realms? Precisely nowhere. They don't *have* kingdoms. But hey - I'll let that slide. It's context that I'm asking for. Thought that was clear. Context is always the thing for me (and should be for everyone that wants to game better)
But letting that slide implies some cartoony narrative bits have now slid into the conception of the Realms that I find silly and not useful. I have homosexual rulers in my own in my Realms game. But they have context to them beyond "just because".
And let's not pretend that gay rulers in real life did not have to go through specific lengths to justify their needs as if it didn't matter. For dynastic purposes it absolutely mattered. And there most certainly were political ramifications for meeting those needs or not depending on the ruler and location. Context matters even in real life.
And yes, Ed created FR (we all knew that unless you're doing performance posting) - marriage practices might very well be libertine in the local culture. That's fine! But it doesn't explain away the plausibility of the scenario in light of the rest of the Realms and how they handle these things historically in-setting.
OR...
Maybe the writers just have an agenda and/or are bad designers. Which is more likely?
Quote from: Opaopajr;1103751'Fat Albert & the Gang' in Forgotten Realms, Contagious Bites of Radioactive Drag Queens... this is "campy RPG premises" gold! :eek: Keep spinning, lovelies, I'm taking it down in shorthand! :cool:
(And obviously the gnome kings should have been changed to an asexual blasian handi-capable enbi poly gestalt, you bigots! Subvert my expectations! /runs weeping, in literal tears!, to the safe space :o :p )
It could happen! The D&D cartoon characters appeared in the Realms.
Quote from: Omega;1103731Are you two really that deficit in imagination?
Heheh do you *really* think we are lacking in imagination? c'mon! *I* could make a scenario with two-gnomish rulers that happened to be gay and put it in an adventure. I wouldn't do it arbitrarily - because the mere fact of those conditions demands recognition of the unusual circumstances.
That's PRECISELY why I said - why is it assumed to be not arbitrary? jhkim is posting "3.5%" is not unusual. Because you know... that's as stupid as saying "It's like 50/50 - you either get 3.5% or 96.5%! so 50/50! Nothing unusual at all."
It's arbitrary and sloppy for the express purposes of pretending it's normal.
I'm not asking them *not* to do it. I'm saying they should MAKE IT MATTER.
Quote from: Mistwell;1103745Yes, that is in fact meaningful. For fucking China, the most populous nation on the planet, when considering the population of Jews in the world. Most nations have zero you realize, right?
Not sure why I am debating this with you any more though. You appear to have an odd agenda at this point.
I guess that goes both ways, because I don't understand what your point is anymore.
What area or country are these gnomes Kings of?
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1103831I guess that goes both ways, because I don't understand what your point is anymore.
When we talk about people, absolute numbers matter. 100,000 people is 100,000 people whether they're in a country of 100,000 or 100,000,000,000. In terms of culture, the place where they are a minority will certainly end up being significantly different than the place where they are the only cultural group.
If the number of Jews in Poland is significant, the number of Jews in China is also significant, because they're similar numbers. It's quite possible for Jews in Poland to be represented more frequently in culture and society because they make up a more significant minority population than they do in China, but either way, you have significant numbers of people.
This is indicative and important in a gaming context as well in regard to creating a realistic seeming world. While you don't normally EXPECT to run into samurai in 'Western Fantasy Settings', you often do run into a few Western Fantasy characters in 'Fantasy Asia' (if only the PCs). If you think about that for a moment, including a few Samurai in the docks of 'not Paris' isn't STRANGE, but it is INTERESTING. The fact that people are moving around the world without regard to the PCs actually makes it easier to suspend belief - AND it offers some additional adventuring hooks if the PCs decide it is interesting.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1103854If you think about that for a moment, including a few Samurai in the docks of 'not Paris' isn't STRANGE, but it is INTERESTING.
Isnt' it interesting
because it's strange?
What would be strange?
Quote from: jhkim;1103819How succession works isn't defined, but it is implied that seniority is important for the council members. This isn't terrible, but it isn't particularly feudal - and seems just as modernist as declaring successors rather than having them by birth descent (which has happened in many cases in history).
Or its VERY Dark Ages (i.e. between Fall of Rome and c. 1000 AD) Medieval.
Many of the earliest kings in that period were elected from among the warrior caste of a society. Many kings would designate one of their sons (not necessarily the oldest) as who they would like to succeed them and often the warrior caste obliged, but it was not a guarantee, particularly if the king became unpopular or the heir he wanted to get the crown wasn't (a lot of times it still stayed in the family, it just went to a different son that the warrior caste preferred). Only later did bloodline primogeniture become the norm.
In other words, if you're in a "post-Imperial collapse" type setting where a king leads not more much than a large clan (ex. England during that period had either six or seven kings each ruling a different part of the island) then some sort of system where the king declares his chosen successor (usually, but not always, one of his sons) and it is confirmed by the body that is warrior caste (i.e. the nobles) would actually be right in line with the period.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1103856Isnt' it interesting because it's strange?
What would be strange?
Strange would be things that don't have easy explanations. Samurai being there because they were abducted by aliens is STRANGE; them being there because they took a boat as part of a cultural exchange program wouldn't be.
If you think about the real world and you posit that something has a 1 in 1 million chance of happening to a person on a given day, it'll happen to 7,500 people EVERY DAY. Something that happens 1 in a billion times still happens to 7 people every day. Fantasy worlds should include things that appear odd in part because the real world does. Sometimes the thing that seems weird is perfectly normal (but unexpected) and sometimes it is really STRANGE, but having things that appear interesting and unusual to players gives them reason to investigate and explore the world.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1103854This is indicative and important in a gaming context as well in regard to creating a realistic seeming world. While you don't normally EXPECT to run into samurai in 'Western Fantasy Settings', you often do run into a few Western Fantasy characters in 'Fantasy Asia' (if only the PCs). If you think about that for a moment, including a few Samurai in the docks of 'not Paris' isn't STRANGE, but it is INTERESTING. The fact that people are moving around the world without regard to the PCs actually makes it easier to suspend belief - AND it offers some additional adventuring hooks if the PCs decide it is interesting.
Oh you mean putting context to that strange oddity in the game? Is that actually happening here with this scenario? Maybe you should be the one talking with jhkim.
I've actually done exactly what you mentioned above. I placed an pagoda, with a big wall around it, smack dab in the middle of Elversult (right off the Dragonmere in the Realms) with a kensai and retainers living there - complete with backstory, reason they're there, woven into the tapestry of the city.
At some point like a year into the campaign, one of the players wandered there, a Paladin, that ended up kicking off a series of adventures that led to him adopting many of the practices of the owner, and led eventually to his quest that granted him his Holy Avenger... a katana.
The point being that I've been saying - if it's done well, there is every reason you can have Two Gay Gnome Co-Kings as silly and stupid as that sounds... if you give it the right context. IS that happening? It certainly doesn't sound so.
I should add that Elversult is, ironically, ruled by two lesbians, in-canon. They've been semi-major NPC's in my games for decades.
Quote from: tenbones;1103827That's PRECISELY why I said - why is it assumed to be not arbitrary? jhkim is posting "3.5%" is not unusual. Because you know... that's as stupid as saying "It's like 50/50 - you either get 3.5% or 96.5%! so 50/50! Nothing unusual at all."
3.5% isn't the norm, but it's also not very rare and doesn't require a special explanation. In a room of 30 people - like a high school classroom, say - it's likely that 1 person has a given 3.5% trait. Traits of similar rarity include grey eyes, or a man with height over 6 foot 2 inch (187 cm).
I've had several gay co-workers, have two gay cousins, and many gay friends.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1103722Yeah, the big deal isn't the event itself. I have casually gay characters in several of my products, no one ever seems to notice.
The big deal is the Motive.
Interesting. Can you talk about some examples of gay characters in your products? Did you feel that you had to put in special context to make their gayness matter?
Quote from: Chris24601;1103857Or its VERY Dark Ages (i.e. between Fall of Rome and c. 1000 AD) Medieval.
Many of the earliest kings in that period were elected from among the warrior caste of a society. Many kings would designate one of their sons (not necessarily the oldest) as who they would like to succeed them and often the warrior caste obliged, but it was not a guarantee, particularly if the king became unpopular or the heir he wanted to get the crown wasn't (a lot of times it still stayed in the family, it just went to a different son that the warrior caste preferred). Only later did bloodline primogeniture become the norm.
In other words, if you're in a "post-Imperial collapse" type setting where a king leads not more much than a large clan (ex. England during that period had either six or seven kings each ruling a different part of the island) then some sort of system where the king declares his chosen successor (usually, but not always, one of his sons) and it is confirmed by the body that is warrior caste (i.e. the nobles) would actually be right in line with the period.
I think I'm going to go something like this, only more Gnomic. That basically the Gnay Gnome Knings were chosen by acclamation to lead the clan, and after them it'll be someone else.
Quote from: S'mon;1103880Gnay Gnome Knings
LMAO! :p
Quote from: jhkim;11038783.5% isn't the norm, but it's also not very rare and doesn't require a special explanation. In a room of 30 people - like a high school classroom, say - it's likely that 1 person has a given 3.5% trait. Traits of similar rarity include grey eyes, or a man with height over 6 foot 2 inch (187 cm).
Stop moving the goalpost. *I* didn't say "very rare" - I disagreed with you claiming it's "not uncommon". It IS uncommon. And stop pretending that scale doesn't matter. Of course it matters.
If your selection size is 30... and 2 people meet the selection criteria - they are by definition UNCOMMON. Extrapolate all that out by the other criteria I outlined (Gnome, Non-Gnome cultural Title, Primary Ruler position - MULTIPLY that by 2, on top of a presumed non-gnome dominated citizenry)... and yeah, you're getting into magically small fractions. Wait... are we doing the contrarian dance? It really isn't a good look dude.
Quote from: jhkim;1103878I've had several gay co-workers, have two gay cousins, and many gay friends.
Aaaaannnd? What bit of data does this serve without any other contextual facts? Do you have 5,000,000 friends in your inner-circle? No one else in your life other than these people that happen to be homosexual? I mean, it's kind of non-sequitur. Does it matter?
I have a bunch of gay friends, family too. Doesn't change the overall averages of *reality*.
Quote from: tenbones;1103892Stop moving the goalpost. *I* didn't say "very rare" - I disagreed with you claiming it's "not uncommon". It IS uncommon. And stop pretending that scale doesn't matter. Of course it matters.
If your selection size is 30... and 2 people meet the selection criteria - they are by definition UNCOMMON. Extrapolate all that out by the other criteria I outlined (Gnome, Non-Gnome cultural Title, Primary Ruler position - MULTIPLY that by 2, on top of a presumed non-gnome dominated citizenry)... and yeah, you're getting into magically small fractions. Wait... are we doing the contrarian dance? It really isn't a good look dude.
Aaaaannnd? What bit of data does this serve without any other contextual facts? Do you have 5,000,000 friends in your inner-circle? No one else in your life other than these people that happen to be homosexual? I mean, it's kind of non-sequitur. Does it matter?
I have a bunch of gay friends, family too. Doesn't change the overall averages of *reality*.
"I don't know anybody who voted for Nixon."
Quote from: Antiquation!;1103881LMAO! :p
I'm gnetting mnore and mnore extreme as the thread pnrogresses.
Quote from: S'mon;1103897I'm gnetting mnore and mnore extreme as the thread pnrogresses.
Ha, it's the best part of this topic. I'm taking notes for when my "ancient gnomes" finally come out of hiding in my current campaign.
Quote from: S'mon;1103789I get the impression WoTC & Paizo see "King" as equivalent to "CEO", like Lisa Stevens is the King of Paizo (with her consort Queen Wertz). A CEO doesn't need to worry about producing an heir.
Nearly all of D&D past maybe Blackmoor and Greyhawk have tended to be like that. Apparently just assuming that kings and queens are replaced by someone totally different every time a new one is needed. Or in a few weird cases seem to assume the populace elect a new king.
Forgotten Realms is all over the place and you have elected leaders and hereditary leaders dotting the landscape.
All bets are off though with demi human, humanoid, and non human races. Orcs tend to be lead by whomever is strongest and can hold, or take, the position. As are many other humanoid races. Others are more structured and orderly like some depictions of goblins, kobolds, and a few others for example.
But keep in mind that just like with comics. There oft is no consistency due to different writers working on the same setting or parts of and putting their own spins on what they think an area or whole setting 'should' be.
Its like with this whole demon obsession 5e seems to have where a number of established creatures and races have been retooled to now be the product of some demon or diabolic force.
Quote from: jhkim;1103819I don't have the Essentials Kit, so I'm not sure how they handle it there. But D&D has never had much semblance of feudalism. I mentioned the government of the Village of Hommlet before. I had thought that it wasn't defined, but when I checked this morning, it turns out I was wrong. The government is defined as follows:
How succession works isn't defined, but it is implied that seniority is important for the council members. This isn't terrible, but it isn't particularly feudal - and seems just as modernist as declaring successors rather than having them by birth descent (which has happened in many cases in history).
Actually that probably follows how many towns are handled in feudal times. You are confusing Town with Kingdom. Towns even back then could and did have the eldest as leader. Others were hereditary. Others had no town leaders at all apparently.
But this does roll back to the Essentials gnome Kings. What are they kings of? This is a tiny little place. On AD&D terms its a Thorpe, not even big enough to rate as a Hamlet. It has a population of only
30, counting the 'monarchs'.
Quote from: tenbones;1103826It could happen! The D&D cartoon characters appeared in the Realms.
They also appeared in Mystara, and Known World, and Greyhawk, AND in the TV series some unknown world that may or may not have been "The Realm" from Keep on the Borderlands.
I think the only place they have not yet appeared is Eberron, Birthright, Spelljammer, and Planescape. yet. :cool:
Quote from: Omega;1103731J: Not necessarily. Something may be irrelevant to the adventure. But there to give the DM ideas and make of it what they will. Or to give the NPC a little more life than just a stat block and a name.
Do I need to know why Diana the Fighter level 5 is wearing a cooking pot on her head? No. I have enough brain cells still active to come up with all sorts of possible reasons. And just because an entry is effectively meaningless in no way means that entry can not be embellished, changed, or whatever the DM or even the players think it can be applied to.
Are you two really that deficit in imagination?
In isn't a matter of being deficit in imagination, it is a matter of the content creator giving the target audience what they paid for. Any GM worth a damn may expand upon an insignificant line of text to make it important to their Player group running through that module or setting. The question comes back to whether or not that information is significant to the work created. If Diana the Fighter is wearing a cooking pot on her head, why is that important to the adventure? If you have two gnay gnome kings co-ruling, why is their sexual orientation important to the adventure? Sure, we can make up reasons - but if the author included that in the adventure then there must be a reason why that is related to the adventure or else the author was just padding their word count in order to get more pay (not like that has never been done before, I'm looking at you Herman Melville).
Quote from: CRKrueger;1103844What area or country are these gnomes Kings of?
In the game? Phandalin is along the Sword Coast. In and around the Sword Mountains and south of Neverwinter Woods where some adventures will go as well.
Quote from: jhkim3.5% isn't the norm, but it's also not very rare and doesn't require a special explanation. In a room of 30 people - like a high school classroom, say - it's likely that 1 person has a given 3.5% trait. Traits of similar rarity include grey eyes, or a man with height over 6 foot 2 inch (187 cm).
Quote from: tenbones;1103892Stop moving the goalpost. *I* didn't say "very rare" - I disagreed with you claiming it's "not uncommon". It IS uncommon. And stop pretending that scale doesn't matter. Of course it matters.
You're using "not uncommon" in quotes here - but I never said the words "not uncommon". I just searched the thread. You used the terms unusual and weird -- and more specifically, in post #163 you compared the characters being gay to characters coming in from another dimension. Having characters be gay is not equivalent weirdness to being from another dimension -- it's the equivalent to someone being 6 foot 3 inches. I'm sitting across from a 6 foot 3 inch co-worker now.
Quote from: tenbones;1103892If your selection size is 30... and 2 people meet the selection criteria - they are by definition UNCOMMON. Extrapolate all that out by the other criteria I outlined (Gnome, Non-Gnome cultural Title, Primary Ruler position - MULTIPLY that by 2, on top of a presumed non-gnome dominated citizenry)... and yeah, you're getting into magically small fractions.
Magically small fractions? That seems like a misuse of statistics.
If I pick a random person out of a country and they happen to be a king, then yes, that would be a strange coincidence. But the NPCs in a module aren't randomly selected average citizens of the country. The king of the region is a notable NPC, and they are detailed *because* they are king. It's not a weird coincidence that the king is a king. Given a non-randomly selected king in the module, the chance of them being gay is 3.5% -- if we assume percentages is the same as the real world. (Which there's no need to do.)
Someone might argue "But 100% of the kings in this module are gay, which is far above 3.5%." But that's a problem of small statistics. If there's only one set of rulers in the module, then it's either 0% or 100%. To see the actual prevalence, you have to look across multiple modules. At least in my experience, WotC modules don't have frequent gay rulers. I'm pretty sure that they have over 30 sovereigns detailed that aren't gay among their various modules.
Also, I don't have the module yet, but I don't think it's a coincidence that the ruler is a gnome of a primarily non-gnome citizenry. I see references online that this is part of the Gnomengard quest, which by its name I think it a primarily gnomish country.
Quote from: Omega;1103900Nearly all of D&D past maybe Blackmoor and Greyhawk have tended to be like that. Apparently just assuming that kings and queens are replaced by someone totally different every time a new one is needed. Or in a few weird cases seem to assume the populace elect a new king.
Forgotten Realms is all over the place and you have elected leaders and hereditary leaders dotting the landscape.
Agree on the Realms, it's one of the things I always thought was silly about the gray box, the 1/2e hardback, and so on. It always felt like each little vale, city-state, or region needed it's own little form of government, and none of them were particularly historical, sensible, or even interesting.
Though from a broader perspective, the Realms is very short on kingdoms in the first place. Most of the familiar areas are independent city states or farming communities, with empires and broken nations scattered around the edges. Cormyr is the only real kingdom in the middle of it all, and it bears no resemblance to feudal kingdoms, because instead of a noble class ruling over feudal feifdoms, there's a lord assigned to each town and Azoun has the "fealty" of an ever-changing group of merchant lords.
Quote from: S'mon;1102858So, I got my EK yesterday. One adventure (set in the Forgotten Realms) involves two homosexual gnome 'kings' who are married to each other and co-rule in tandem, only one has gone mad and imprisoned the other.
Wondering if I can/should try to make this work, or ignore it. Making them brothers might make more sense. OTOH I have had gay male NPC relationships in my FR before, but only for humans, and I presented it as tolerated not socially sanctioned. I suppose I could go with Gnomes Are Into That Kinda Thing... but I'd like it make some kind of sense. I guess neither could be a hereditary monarch - they'd have to be elected together?
Late to the thread and I don't have enough time to read through it all right now but I'd keep everything as is and make them brothers. That way they could both have a legitimate claim to the throne. Also the entire "royal" family could believe in keeping it in the family which would help explain away the madness of the one brother.
Quote from: jhkim;1103910Magically small fractions? That seems like a misuse of statistics.
If I pick a random person out of a country and they happen to be a king, then yes, that would be a strange coincidence. But the NPCs in a module aren't randomly selected average citizens of the country. The king of the region is a notable NPC, and they are detailed *because* they are king. It's not a weird coincidence that the king is a king. Given a non-randomly selected king in the module, the chance of them being gay is 3.5% -- if we assume percentages is the same as the real world. (Which there's no need to do.)
Also, I don't have the module yet, but I don't think it's a coincidence that the ruler is a gnome of a primarily non-gnome citizenry. I see references online that this is part of the Gnomengard quest, which by its name I think it a primarily gnomish country.
I am guessing here you got the wrong impression of the situation...
In the adventure these gnomes are a reclusive faction and total a mere 20, formerly 22, and if the PCs dont do something about the problem the population will probably eventually be... ZERO.
Their "Kings" are literally just there and I am not seeing any indication of even why they are kings or what they are kings of as they do not represent any other gnomes in the region. This is a little Thorpe as AD&D would classify it as noted prior. Interestingly the population is evenly divided. 10 males, 10 females listed.
Take note that this whole thing is played more for laughs. These are Rock Gnomes and appear to be stand-ins for Tinker Gnomes and act just as goofball sometimes. And the place is littered with mechanical traps and gadgets. Not on the wack-o lefels of Tinker Gnomes. But it is not played seriously.
Quote from: jhkim;1103910At least in my experience, WotC modules don't have frequent gay rulers. I'm pretty sure that they have over 30 sovereigns detailed that aren't gay among their various modules.
How do you know they aren't gay? Are all 30 explicitly heterosexual? Or are you counting non-mentions as "not gay" because you actually believe that's the normal baseline?
Quote from: jhkim;1103910To see the actual prevalence, you have to look across multiple modules. At least in my experience, WotC modules don't have frequent gay rulers. I'm pretty sure that they have over 30 sovereigns detailed that aren't gay among their various modules.
At least one is possibly Bi. and in Curse of Strahd, Strahd is now stated up front to be Bisexual. But that module has an obvious agenda. Essentials does not.
Quote from: Omega;1103938At least one is possibly Bi. and in Curse of Strahd, Strahd is now stated up front to be Bisexual. But that module has an obvious agenda. Essentials does not.
All NPCs in Paizo APs are by default bisexual unless otherwise specified.
Quote from: Omega;1103938At least one is possibly Bi. and in Curse of Strahd, Strahd is now stated up front to be Bisexual. But that module has an obvious agenda.
Then I must be obtuse, because the only agenda I picked up on was 'let Hickman trash the 2E setting, which he never liked.' :) But that's probably why I didn't give it a close reading (although close enough to pick up on Strahd) and might have missed other factors.
Quote from: jhkim;1103910You're using "not uncommon" in quotes here - but I never said the words "not uncommon". I just searched the thread. You used the terms unusual and weird -- and more specifically, in post #163 you compared the characters being gay to characters coming in from another dimension. Having characters be gay is not equivalent weirdness to being from another dimension -- it's the equivalent to someone being 6 foot 3 inches. I'm sitting across from a 6 foot 3 inch co-worker now.
So rather than engage the actual point - you want to quibble about quotations as if you don't know there is indeed a forest surrounding the tree on the hill you're apparently willing to rhetorically die on. The pattern of being a contrarian, intellectually disingenuous individual is really starting to take shape.
But I'm still waiting for you to stop ignoring the fact I've repeatedly said it's not just about being gay. I've said it several times. But you help me build my alternate, and real point below. Come along... I'll show you, fearless tree-watcher.
Quote from: jhkim;1103910Magically small fractions? That seems like a misuse of statistics.
Yes. Magical. Literally in a narrative sense magical. When you cherry-pick my points that led me to this claim - but never address them, it's definitely magical. Much in the same way you magically ignore them.
Gay Gnome Dual-Kings in a setting historically rare (and to my recollection - never established at all - Gnomish Kings as a thing... there are no actual "kingdoms" of Gnomes in the Realms. Until now apparently - but it gets better. They're so rare - they literally had to create Gnomegarde out of thin air. It's brand new. /shrug. Magic indeed.
Quote from: jhkim;1103910If I pick a random person out of a country and they happen to be a king, then yes, that would be a strange coincidence. But the NPCs in a module aren't randomly selected average citizens of the country. The king of the region is a notable NPC, and they are detailed *because* they are king. It's not a weird coincidence that the king is a king. Given a non-randomly selected king in the module, the chance of them being gay is 3.5% -- if we assume percentages is the same as the real world. (Which there's no need to do.)
But by that standard - then a King isn't even a king. Because you're inserting context as if the module is not part of a larger established setting. It IS. And therefore the taxonomy of the established setting which the module resides in supersedes the precedents set in the module/adventure. So much so that it literally *defines* anything out of the norm as "Uncommon". In this case: A new and FIRST Gnomish Kingdom in 30+ years of the Forgotten Realms, that happens to be ruled by two gay male Gnomes. And you're claiming that's not weird despite all other contextual realities.
That takes an awful lot of disingenuous logic or... other things that frankly make you look worse, by ignoring.
Quote from: jhkim;1103910Someone might argue "But 100% of the kings in this module are gay, which is far above 3.5%."
Someone might. But I'm not. I think it's a cheap tactic to do - because I'm all about context. The MODULE is not a self-contained universe. As I stated above. It exists in the Forgotten Realms. If this were just a module and free-standing - I wouldn't care *at all*.
No more than I'd care if they made them Asian Gnomes, Keebler Elves, or Lawn Gnomes in a free-standing module. Because the only context of it is self-referential. Call it a Gnomish Empire if you want. But that's not what they did.
Quote from: jhkim;1103910But that's a problem of small statistics. If there's only one set of rulers in the module, then it's either 0% or 100%. To see the actual prevalence, you have to look across multiple modules. At least in my experience, WotC modules don't have frequent gay rulers. I'm pretty sure that they have over 30 sovereigns detailed that aren't gay among their various modules.
The Forgotten Realms are pretty well established. But you're doing your own argument a disservice here. Either it's astronomically uncommon or not. Small statistics aside - there are *no* actual Gnomish kingdoms in the Forgotten Realms. That alone is 100% factually true until now. That alone shoots your argument down about it not being fantastically odd to have Two Gay Gnomish Co-Kings of a Gnomish Kingdom. Since until now - there have been precisely ZERO. And it's arbitrary to call them Kings. It's arbitrary to make them Gnomes. It's arbitrary to decide it's "uncommon" to you since using real-world numbers in direct proportion to the assumed rarity of Gnomes withing the Realms, and the assumption that homosexuality among them are equal to humans - still registers as "not odd" to you. I'm not sure what else would suffice.
Would the Asian Gnome thing be weird? If so - why? If not... then carry on, because then that would explain your position perfectly.
Quote from: jhkim;1103910Also, I don't have the module yet, but I don't think it's a coincidence that the ruler is a gnome of a primarily non-gnome citizenry. I see references online that this is part of the Gnomengard quest, which by its name I think it a primarily gnomish country.
I looked it up. It's Gnomish. Changes nothing since Gnomes don't have kingdoms in the Realms (until now). Gnomes are also pretty rare in the Realms, their settlements rarely are above village status going over 1-2k in population. And here - we're talking a small village of less than 40. Some "kingdom".
The very fact you insist that your 3.5% is not uncommon - it literally took a writer to create a Gnomish Kingdom whole of cloth without *any* real characteristics of an actual Kingdom - and arbitrarily make the rulers of the Kingdom gay, doesn't seem to register to you that there is an agenda here beyond the obvious need to self-contextualize this.
I think it says more about you than me. Of all the arbitrary characteristics to append to something written and designed whole of cloth to the established norms of the setting itself without the slightest bit of skepticism seems grossly obtuse of you. or contrarian if you will. But you choose that position at the expense of your own credibility of logic. The persistence of which says other things. But hey - whatever floats your boat.
Quote from: jeff37923;1103905... or else the author was just padding their word count in order to get more pay (not like that has never been done before, I'm looking at you Herman Melville).
Heretic.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1103949Then I must be obtuse, because the only agenda I picked up on was 'let Hickman trash the 2E setting, which he never liked.' :) But that's probably why I didn't give it a close reading (although close enough to pick up on Strahd) and might have missed other factors.
The opening few pages are sprinkles with the usual buzzwords. Strahd is now a "Predator"... and not in the normal use of the word. Barovia is stated to be a "diverse" land now. mm-hmm. And so on. I have not finished reading through it but seems most of that rhetoric is in the opening pages and not much after aside from that Vistani "daughter" that I noticed at a glance near the start of the adventure layout of the Vistani. And the Bi, or possibly gay male vamp "concubine" later in the module. I have a feeling theres more and I just haven't read through enough to find them yet.
Quote from: Pat;1103959Heretic.
LOL
I think it is just different preferences. I go for the economy of writing model in that I want just enough information to run the adventure or use the setting, extra material I can make up on my own tailored to the game group.
Quote from: jeff37923;1103980LOL
I think it is just different preferences. I go for the economy of writing model in that I want just enough information to run the adventure or use the setting, extra material I can make up on my own tailored to the game group.
It might be Gaiman, it might not, but there was a decent quote or essay floating about regarding
Moby-Dick (if you're getting a sense of vagueness, that's accurate). Some people read the book, and to them it's this great story of revenge and obsession. For others, myself included, that's almost entirely irrelevant. No, it's about the long poetic digressions, the call-outs to philosophy and mythology, and the weaving of words and paragraphs into hypnotic passages. It's the deep sense of place, of being rooted in the whaling culture and ethos of 19th century New England; while at the same time it's adrift in the numinous, the fantastical, the mythic. For us, it's the journey that matters, not the destination or the reason.
And that applies to some degree to RPGs, as well.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1103062With everything else we accept as being possible in a fantasy world of magic, I could easily grok a magic urn that accepts seed from both kings and then acts as a womb for their child.
See, and that would be a really interesting plot thing, too. The gnome kings could hire the PCs to secure the necessary material, spells or magical elements necessary to create a magic womb that will let them create an heir.
Quote from: camazotz;1104272See, and that would be a really interesting plot thing, too. The gnome kings could hire the PCs to secure the necessary material, spells or magical elements necessary to create a magic womb that will let them create an heir.
This would be an interesting hook, although also perhaps for a more mature group.
( I apologize to any reader who finds my suggestion that D&D games for children shouldn't discuss magical jizz receptacles offensive)
Quote from: Brendan;1104273( I apologize to any reader who finds my suggestion that D&D games for children shouldn't discuss magical jizz receptacles offensive)
That's way over the top. Kid-appropriate is about presentation and focus more than content. You don't tell little kids a wedding is a joining of a jizz receptacle and a jizz donor, you tell them it's a damn wedding. Just call it something like an egg. Kids can handle eggs.
Quote from: camazotz;1104272See, and that would be a really interesting plot thing, too. The gnome kings could hire the PCs to secure the necessary material, spells or magical elements necessary to create a magic womb that will let them create an heir.
Easy. Just find your way to the Ghoul Market (http://bernietheflumph.blogspot.com/2018/12/whats-for-sale-at-ghoul-market.html?m=1) and pick up some Satyr Juice.
PC: Your highnesses! Highni? Highnessusses? We have procured the elixir!
King 1: Excellent! How does...how does it work?
PC: Um...the person who drinks this potion will become pregnant the next time he or she has sex.
King 1: Huh.
King 2: Er...
Long pause. Both kings look at the bottle, unease on each face.
King 1: Well, King 2. Drink up.
King 2: The hell? YOU drink it!
Maybe a good time for the PCs to visit the royal treasurer and get the hell out of Dodge.
Quote from: Omega;1103971The opening few pages are sprinkles with the usual buzzwords. Strahd is now a "Predator"... and not in the normal use of the word. Barovia is stated to be a "diverse" land now. mm-hmm. And so on. I have not finished reading through it but seems most of that rhetoric is in the opening pages and not much after aside from that Vistani "daughter" that I noticed at a glance near the start of the adventure layout of the Vistani. And the Bi, or possibly gay male vamp "concubine" later in the module. I have a feeling theres more and I just haven't read through enough to find them yet.
Oh brother, now you're searching for secret hidden agenda code? Unironically, as if you don't see you have your own agenda causing you to see what you want to see?
Quote from: Mistwell;1104343Oh brother, now you're searching for secret hidden agenda code? Unironically, as if you don't see you have your own agenda causing you to see what you want to see?
I see that the Coastal Wizards have found their Paladin. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Omega;1103971The opening few pages are sprinkles with the usual buzzwords. Strahd is now a "Predator"... and not in the normal use of the word. Barovia is stated to be a "diverse" land now. mm-hmm. And so on. I have not finished reading through it but seems most of that rhetoric is in the opening pages and not much after aside from that Vistani "daughter" that I noticed at a glance near the start of the adventure layout of the Vistani. And the Bi, or possibly gay male vamp "concubine" later in the module. I have a feeling theres more and I just haven't read through enough to find them yet.
Maybe you're reading too much into it? I had to re-read the passage twice to determine if Escher had been seduced by Strahd. The book decribes him as a "handsome, young man" to whom "Strahd has shown favor to in the past" and now he is worried that Strahd is getting bored with him. I interpret that as Escher is bisexual or gay, but Strahd is simply in it for the blood supply. At any rate, it struck me more of a standard vampire archetype than an SJW agenda.
On the other hand, I could not find the character in the 3.5 version of Ravenloft. Escher is a new NPC for the the 5E version.
Quote from: Aglondir;1104363Maybe you're reading too much into it?
Not really. Theres been talk of this before and the opener is just too leaden with the usual buzzwords harping. But as noted. It is all in the opening mostly far as I can tell. That I am aware of. We know that various WOTC staff have an agenda. Because they cant keep their mouths shut.
How much of that agenda is in Strahd is hard to say past what they tell you at the start and whats in the adventure proper, which is only two entries that I know of. I'll have to dig out the module and see if Escher is the same NPC I am thinking of.
I know the moment the word "diverse" or "diversity" hits the page/screen, there is a momentary impulse for my eyes to look up and try to see what is going on in the back of my skull.
Of course I choose to ignore the impulse. But you know... that doesn't mean it's not there. That's why I passed the Gom Jabbar and I'm human. I don't get triggered, I merely recognize the minimal conditioning of our entertainment environment as it sandblasts us with their buzzword conditionals.
Quote from: jeff37923;1104357I see that the Coastal Wizards have found their Paladin. :rolleyes:
Oh no, WOTC does plenty of that sort of stuff. It's just that it's not secret and hidden and implied subtly like he's claiming. He's seeing SWJ agenda everywhere he looks, in words like "predator" about A MAD VAMPIRE OVERLORD TRAPPED IN HIS OWN HELL. Or "diverse" when they mean "there's a variety of monsters and races everywhere!". You don't have to "read into" this stuff. They're not being subtle like that. When they want to virtue signal, it's like the F'ing bat signal, not hidden code you need to decipher!
Quote from: Omega;1104394Not really. Theres been talk of this before
Oh, there's "been talk". Oh now it's all clear. Hear that everyone, "there's been talk" so it "must be true!"
QuoteHow much of that agenda is in Strahd is hard to say
Hard to say for us plebs, but not for you right? You can see past the clever masks to the "true" SJW signaling which is so subtle literally only you have ever made note of it in the years since this adventure was published! So clever it just seeps into the subconscious of readers that the mad trapped vampire overlord is a "predator" in more ways than one!
Jesus F'ing Christ on a stick, with people like you representing the dissenting voices for this hobby, the agenda-laden need not worry about their actual schemes being undone. I have a riddle for you, can you see the Number 23 in my post?
Quote from: Mistwell;1104454can you see the Number 23 in my post?
Your Join Date is listed as 2006.
That's a 2 followed by two digits (2) which divide into (6) three times, so that is clearly a coded 23.
I'm on to you Mistwell. :)
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1104487Your Join Date is listed as 2006.
That's a 2 followed by two digits (2) which divide into (6) three times, so that is clearly a coded 23.
I'm on to you Mistwell. :)
The SJW finds a dogwhistle. :rolleyes:
This is Jeff's lack of surprise. :rolleyes:
Quote from: jeff37923;1104496The SJW finds a dogwhistle. :rolleyes:
This is Jeff's lack of surprise. :rolleyes:
LOL I am a Social Justice Warrior now? Or DeadDMWalking? I just wanted to track your insanity.
Quote from: Mistwell;1104501LOL I am a Social Justice Warrior now? Or DeadDMWalking? I just wanted to track your insanity.
No, you are the WotC shill and he is the SJW. Know your roles!
Quote from: jeff37923;1104509No, you are the WotC shill and he is the SJW. Know your roles!
Sorry mang, you're right. I will try to do better next time.
Quote from: Mistwell;1104514Sorry mang, you're right. I will try to do better next time.
You gotta admit, WotC has been going overboard in showing how woke they are. It is like they are trying to outdo Paizo.
Quote from: Omega;1104394We know that various WOTC staff have an agenda. Because they cant keep their mouths shut.
I think the demarcation point was the raindow ampersand in Mearl's social media.
Quote from: Omega;1104394How much of that agenda is in Strahd is hard to say past what they tell you at the start and whats in the adventure proper, which is only two entries that I know of. I'll have to dig out the module and see if Escher is the same NPC I am thinking of.
Escher is on page 70.
Quote from: Mistwell;1104454Oh, there's "been talk". Oh now it's all clear. Hear that everyone, "there's been talk" so it "must be true!"
So you are saying the WOTC staff who have said these things didnt really say these things?
Quote from: Zalman;1103632I haven't watched the final episode of Dark Crystal yet (not spoilers please!), but through the first nine episodes I recall seeing only 1 couple, and of course they are gay. For those not too good at math, that's 100% of the relationships in the show.
I only watched one episode, so I don't think I can spoil anything for you, but there was a straight couple, Rian and Mira. (OK, maybe I should watch that episode again in case I wasn't paying enough attention.)
Quote from: jhkim;1103819I don't have the Essentials Kit, so I'm not sure how they handle it there. But D&D has never had much semblance of feudalism. I mentioned the government of the Village of Hommlet before. I had thought that it wasn't defined, but when I checked this morning, it turns out I was wrong. The government is defined as follows:
How succession works isn't defined, but it is implied that seniority is important for the council members. This isn't terrible, but it isn't particularly feudal - and seems just as modernist as declaring successors rather than having them by birth descent (which has happened in many cases in history).
It seems pretty standard for D&D that rulers are the highest level characters, no matter their origin; if their child ends up inheriting, it's because they also achieved a high level (perhaps from the support of being given lots of magic items). Player characters rarely have anyone with significant authority over them, and the NPCs never seem surprised or confused by this quality of PCs, which I wouldn't expect if it were feudalism.
Quote from: rawma;1105027I only watched one episode, so I don't think I can spoil anything for you, but there was a straight couple, Rian and Mira. (OK, maybe I should watch that episode again in case I wasn't paying enough attention.)
Rian and Mira demonstrated implied romantic interest, granted. Perhaps it's me that needs to re-watch but I don't recall them ever becoming a full-fledged couple, or so much as holding hands much less kissing. As far as I can tell, the only demonstrably successful couple was the aforementioned gay one.
Someone else mentioned the ratio of homosexual relationships in our video world was found to be 3 in 10. It's hard (for me) not to be curious as to why the ratio in our fiction is so much higher than that in real life.
Quote from: Zalman;1105136Someone else mentioned the ratio of homosexual relationships in our video world was found to be 3 in 10. It's hard (for me) not to be curious as to why the ratio in our fiction is so much higher than that in real life.
Why would expect ratios in fiction to even vaguely resemble real life? Stories focus on interesting events, and tend to highlight the exceptional or the different. And while changes in those ratios may reflect broader cultural shifts, they can just as easily be fads among writers.
Which is precisely why this looks like it's intentional pandering to that fad.
Quote from: Pat;1105140Why would expect ratios in fiction to even vaguely resemble real life? Stories focus on interesting events, and tend to highlight the exceptional or the different. And while changes in those ratios may reflect broader cultural shifts, they can just as easily be fads among writers.
Sure, homosexuality being a "fad" among writers who find it personally "interesting" is one explanation for the difference. Is that what you personally believe? That 3/10 writers are personally fascinated with homosexuality? I believe that if writers were into homosexuality, then they'd be writing
about it, rather than just inserting it arbitrarily.
As to fiction resembling real life even "vaguely" ... that's a non-sequitur: we always expect the details of a fictional story that aren't integral to the story being told to be realistic. That's how we can tell which parts are fiction. We expect that the Fellowship of the Ring to be able to march across the land without floating away because we expect gravity to work the same way that it does in real life. If gravity doesn't work the same way in that piece of fiction, we expect an explanation.
Quote from: Zalman;1105199Sure, homosexuality being a "fad" among writers who find it personally "interesting" is one explanation for the difference. Is that what you personally believe? That 3/10 writers are personally fascinated with homosexuality? I believe that if writers were into homosexuality, then they'd be writing about it, rather than just inserting it arbitrarily.
As to fiction resembling real life even "vaguely" ... that's a non-sequitur: we always expect the details of a fictional story that aren't integral to the story being told to be realistic. That's how we can tell which parts are fiction. We expect that the Fellowship of the Ring to be able to march across the land without floating away because we expect gravity to work the same way that it does in real life. If gravity doesn't work the same way in that piece of fiction, we expect an explanation.
Let's stop, and step back a bit. I can't really address your specific conclusions, because your arguments are based on a false premise.
We absolutely do not expect the details of fiction to be realistic. We do demand verisimilitude in some things, but only in certain very narrow and very specific areas, and those areas vary by person. More importantly, verisimilitude isn't reality, it's a sleight of hand, a deception, designed to trick our brains. When the details of fiction are closely examined, for example when transcripts of actual conversations are compared to the dialog in successful stories, the elements from the stories bear very little resemblance to reality. In fact, it's the elements from reality that often seems fake or unrealistic. That's because fiction is a set of devices designed to fools our minds into accepting the alternate reality of a story, and it fulls exploits the way the human mind fills in gaps, recognizes and completes patterns, demands moral outcomes, identifies with stories and characters, and engages memory. Storytelling techniques are closer to dream logic, and use cues like genre conventions or perceived social pressure to guide our reactions, and then build in underlying themes and other connections to bind it into a coherent piece. We're not just willing to overlook gaps and outrageous inconsistencies, we're entirely blind to their existence because our minds fills over any holes and stamps down any proud nails, and this occurs at below the level of conscious thought.
Quote from: Zalman;1105199As to fiction resembling real life even "vaguely" ... that's a non-sequitur: we always expect the details of a fictional story that aren't integral to the story being told to be realistic. That's how we can tell which parts are fiction. We expect that the Fellowship of the Ring to be able to march across the land without floating away because we expect gravity to work the same way that it does in real life. If gravity doesn't work the same way in that piece of fiction, we expect an explanation.
There are a ton of things in fiction that aren't like in real life. Like how in romantic comedies, everyone is ridiculously good-looking and even poor people have beautiful houses. And they can find parking right by where they're going. Or basically anything in an action movie.
If the percentage of LGBT people needs to match real life in on-screen relationships, what about the percentage of overweight people? Also, shouldn't the ratio of older women to younger women match real life?
I don't mean to dismiss any of these. There are a lot of misconceptions that people get from watching television and movies, and to a lesser degree books. It can be a problem, because unfortunately people spend a huge amount of time watching films and TV, and it can skew their perceptions. On the other hand, one can go too far in demanding realism in fiction.
And here I am starting reading through the Tomb of Annihilation module and what have we here near the beginning? Yep. A guy who wants the PCs to help save his husband.
And again it is just... there... a total throw-away insertion like the others so far. There may be more in the module but I suspect like in Ravenloft and Essentials it will be only one or two at best.
And again my feeling is not that the presence is bad. It is that the presence feels so totally meaningless.
I almost caved and bought into 5e. The subject of this thread clearly shows that WotC are not worth throwing money at. Not even sure I want to buy the old TSR reprint stuff since money goes into the same pocket.
Quote from: Omega;1107914And here I am starting reading through the Tomb of Annihilation module and what have we here near the beginning? Yep. A guy who wants the PCs to help save his husband.
And again it is just... there... a total throw-away insertion like the others so far. There may be more in the module but I suspect like in Ravenloft and Essentials it will be only one or two at best.
And again my feeling is not that the presence is bad. It is that the presence feels so totally meaningless.
I think we were talking about Ravenloft before, so I re-read tbe entire book to see if there was any Woke content.
- There's a statement about Barovia being diverse, but it is so buried that it is easy to miss. Also, it is not clear what they mean by diverse.
- Escher, who has been seduced by Strahd, lives in the castle.
- A revenant knight at Argynvostholt had a gay partner in life. You can talk to his ghost.
I'm fine with all of that. It seems rather mild to me, not SJW or pushing an agenda.
Given the current Seattle climate, I don't think we'll see Ravenloft published again. There are too many "problematic" elements.
Quote from: Aglondir;1107937I think we were talking about Ravenloft before, so I re-read tbe entire book to see if there was any Woke content.
I'm fine with all of that. It seems rather mild to me, not SJW or pushing an agenda.
Given the current Seattle climate, I don't think we'll see Ravenloft published again. There are too many "problematic" elements.
I agree. It is pretty mild, bordering on meaningless in the other books even.
The "diverse" comment in Strahd may be. But its the only comment I could find. So who knows if they meant SJW diverse or normal sane people diverse. But odds are they meant the loony definition of diverse. Haven't gotten to the revenant part yet. And you missed the Vistani "daughter" who is actually a boy. So that brings us up to 4 in Strahd, counting Strahd himself. Curse of Strahd seems to have the biggest agenda. But it obviously has several agendas going on. Which mercifully does not hurt the module really due to the virtual meaninglessness of each instance.
I am not sure any of the material, so far as what I have, has shown any real SJW agenda flags. But, so far as what I have, there is at least one odd little insertion in each.
Quote from: Teodrik;1107919I almost caved and bought into 5e. The subject of this thread clearly shows that WotC are not worth throwing money at. Not even sure I want to buy the old TSR reprint stuff since money goes into the same pocket.
Re-read what we have been discussing. So far at least all these things have been pretty small and meaningless. Aside from Curse of Strahd, and whatever book had the genderflipping elf trait, none of the material has shown any real SJW agenda flags. And aside from Mearls and one other staffer not actually involved in game production. We have not seen alot of virtue signalling or SJW hate screeds.
I'd say for now at least 5e is safe to buy into. And the books can be gotten fairly cheap off amazon or ebay. And if you never plan to run a 5e module then you'll probably not run into anything really annoying.
Cant say that of other publishers now. And at the rate WOTC is going. In a year or two they will succomb as well if Hasbro doesnt tighten their leash again.
The diversity quota in recent years is nothing more than a cheap transparent attempt to get into the good graces of the shallow yellow journalists.
Criticizing D&D for being unrealistic is low hanging fruit, sure, but if you're going to acknowledge the existence of "minorities" in a game context, then maybe it would help to do some actual research to better integrate it into the world building.
Since Young Earth Creationism is true for most D&D settings IIRC, then that raises the question of why human diversity exists at all. Were humans created with different skin colors and sexual orientations or did those develop due to random mutation because evolution is (somehow) true too? What are the religious views on gender, race, sexual orientation, etc? Are the gods bigots?
If I was a god creating humanity, then I wouldn't design them in such a way as to cause all the prejudice that afflicts them. Misogyny and homophobia? I'd solve that by making everyone hermaphroditic like snails and clown fish. Racism? I'd give everyone color changing skin like cephalopods and chameoleons. Classism? I'd give them a hive mind so they're biological communists.
Humans suck and no benevolent god would allow them to exist.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1108022Since Young Earth Creationism is true for most D&D settings IIRC
If you say so. I prefer my D&D settings as post-apocalyptic returns to barbarism, pre-cataclysmic "Hyborian ages", or as alternate worlds with their own rich history and cosmology. I don't see how "Young Earth" creationism of a single divine author creating all things by direct fiat factors into any D&D setting necessarily, unless specifically written that way.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1108022If I was a god creating humanity, then I wouldn't design them in such a way as to cause all the prejudice that afflicts them. Misogyny and homophobia? I'd solve that by making everyone hermaphroditic like snails and clown fish. Racism? I'd give everyone color changing skin like cephalopods and chameoleons. Classism? I'd give them a hive mind so they're biological communists.
Humans suck and no benevolent god would allow them to exist.
I'm glad you're not in charge of anything. 'Vive la difference', I say. That sounds boring as hell. Who wants to play in that world? All people the same, no conflict, no drive to do anything other than exist.
Perhaps the gods also delight in variety and enjoy a good story? Maybe the Demiurge isn't an asshole, but just a really really good DM. ;)
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1108022If I was a god creating humanity, then I wouldn't design them in such a way as to cause all the prejudice that afflicts them. Misogyny and homophobia? I'd solve that by making everyone hermaphroditic like snails and clown fish. Racism? I'd give everyone color changing skin like cephalopods and chameoleons. Classism? I'd give them a hive mind so they're biological communists.
Why not just cut to the chase and make them mindless organic robots who do and think whatever you tell them to?
QuoteHumans suck and no benevolent god would allow them to exist.
All lifeforms suck. Viruses infest and infect other organisms to reproduce. Dolphins rape each other. Chimps are magnitudes more brutal than humans to their own species. Hyenas kill and devour the children of other animals, often eating them while they're still alive and concious of the pain. I could go on.
"Who provideth for the raven his prey, When his young ones cry unto God, And wander for lack of food?"
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1108022The diversity quota in recent years is nothing more than a cheap transparent attempt to get into the good graces of the shallow yellow journalists.
Criticizing D&D for being unrealistic is low hanging fruit, sure, but if you're going to acknowledge the existence of "minorities" in a game context, then maybe it would help to do some actual research to better integrate it into the world building.
Since Young Earth Creationism is true for most D&D settings IIRC, then that raises the question of why human diversity exists at all. Were humans created with different skin colors and sexual orientations or did those develop due to random mutation because evolution is (somehow) true too? What are the religious views on gender, race, sexual orientation, etc? Are the gods bigots?
If I was a god creating humanity, then I wouldn't design them in such a way as to cause all the prejudice that afflicts them. Misogyny and homophobia? I'd solve that by making everyone hermaphroditic like snails and clown fish. Racism? I'd give everyone color changing skin like cephalopods and chameoleons. Classism? I'd give them a hive mind so they're biological communists.
Humans suck and no benevolent god would allow them to exist.
If only a benevolent god would turn us all into happy fun puppy rainbows. That would solve world hunger and the budget deficit.
Quote from: Pat;1105203Let's stop, and step back a bit. I can't really address your specific conclusions, because your arguments are based on a false premise.
We absolutely do not expect the details of fiction to be realistic. We do demand verisimilitude in some things, but only in certain very narrow and very specific areas, and those areas vary by person. More importantly, verisimilitude isn't reality, it's a sleight of hand, a deception, designed to trick our brains. When the details of fiction are closely examined, for example when transcripts of actual conversations are compared to the dialog in successful stories, the elements from the stories bear very little resemblance to reality. In fact, it's the elements from reality that often seems fake or unrealistic. That's because fiction is a set of devices designed to fools our minds into accepting the alternate reality of a story, and it fulls exploits the way the human mind fills in gaps, recognizes and completes patterns, demands moral outcomes, identifies with stories and characters, and engages memory. Storytelling techniques are closer to dream logic, and use cues like genre conventions or perceived social pressure to guide our reactions, and then build in underlying themes and other connections to bind it into a coherent piece. We're not just willing to overlook gaps and outrageous inconsistencies, we're entirely blind to their existence because our minds fills over any holes and stamps down any proud nails, and this occurs at below the level of conscious thought.
Man, that's a longggg paragraph.
There are people who don't want to see certain things depicted in their games. If you say you don't want to see rape depicted in your games, most people will say that makes you a good person. However; if you say you don't want to see LGBTQ+ content in your games, you are considered a horrible person. That is crazy. Both are outside of the norm.
Quote from: Razor 007;1108214There are people who don't want to see certain things depicted in their games. If you say you don't want to see rape depicted in your games, most people will say that makes you a good person. However; if you say you don't want to see LGBTQ+ content in your games, you are considered a horrible person. That is crazy. Both are outside of the norm.
Are you equating rape with sexuality? I would think you could see the difference.
In an RPG, you are signing up to go on adventures and you're expecting 'bad things to happen', but it's also a form of escapism. Most players expect the chance to be the good guys and have the opportunity to 'win'. Along the way people will face obstacles and 'evil creatures' that oppose them. The nature of the opposition may vary from cartoon villain all the way to the grimmest, darkest fantasy novel you've seen. There are people that have different comfort levels with how evil is portrayed. In most cases, violence against children is not permitted, even if the villains should have no compunction against it. In the real world, children suffer enough and it interferes with our escapist fantasy.
In an RPG, you are signing up to go on adventures with people that are fantastic - dwarves, elves and dragonborn, for instance. Players are not their characters, but players absolutely (sometimes!) explore aspects of their personality in their characters. Male players playing female characters and vice versa are just as common as (real-life) humans playing goblins (as characters). There's no reason why someone who chooses to express their personal (or a variant) sexual preference for their character should bother you - especially if your character doesn't have any basis for discrimination. There are real-life societies that have been shockingly chill with same-sex relationships historically. Very few game worlds define that type of bias.
In the real world, rape is a bad thing, and including it in your game can certainly make you APPEAR to be a bad person who supports or fantasizes about rape. In the real world, LGBTQ+ people are real people who often have problems with acceptance and have been fighting for inclusion. They are common enough that most people know one or more, even very well - they are outside the 'norm' in only a very narrow definition of what 'normal' is. I have no problem with representation in my games; I don't mind more diverse skin tones for dwarves or Vulcans, and I don't mind someone including homosexual Gnomes. If I use a published module, I absolutely expect to make changes to tailor the experience for my group - it's not a big deal if you choose to change the relationship, but if players knew you did and WHY you did, some of them might be uncomfortable.
Quote from: Razor 007;1108214Man, that's a longggg paragraph.
No, it's really not.
Quote from: Razor 007;1108214There are people who don't want to see certain things depicted in their games. If you say you don't want to see rape depicted in your games, most people will say that makes you a good person. However; if you say you don't want to see LGBTQ+ content in your games, you are considered a horrible person. That is crazy. Both are outside of the norm.
D&D is also outside the norm. Do you think D&D is also equivalent to depicting rape?
Quote from: Pat;1108254No, it's really not.
D&D is also outside the norm. Do you think D&D is also equivalent to depicting rape?
Most don't need gay gnomes to enjoy D&D, if any. Most don't either enjoy depictions of rape in D&D. They they don't need to be deemed being the same while being non-enjoyable for different reasons. Not a very complicated concept. You can reject both.
Quote from: Teodrik;1108256Most don't need gay gnomes to enjoy D&D, if any. Most don't either enjoy depictions of rape in D&D. They they don't need to be deemed being the same while being non-enjoyable for different reasons. Not a very complicated concept. You can reject both.
But Razor did equate them.
Quote from: Pat;1108254No, it's really not.
D&D is also outside the norm. Do you think D&D is also equivalent to depicting rape?
And so since the very same people that appear to be concerned with "problematic content" also happen to be the ones doing the political pandering - do you think this is some coincidence? That Razor arbitrarily used "rape" as direct example of "things to avoid" you are passive aggressively implying the very thing he's pointing out.
What precisely *are* you implying by saying he's comparing depictions of homosexuality to rape? You tell us. I think it's very clear what he said - *as an example*.
Don't like "rape" - how about murder? Is that common in D&D? Pretty much is. Do you think we should have more homosexual representation in D&D than murder? And using your rhetorical example - are you by extension... PRO-MURDER?!?!?!?! /gasp
(I can't believe this is actually a discussion... yet here we are)
Quote from: tenbones;1108262And so since the very same people that appear to be concerned with "problematic content" also happen to be the ones doing the political pandering - do you think this is some coincidence? That Razor arbitrarily used "rape" as direct example of "things to avoid" you are passive aggressively implying the very thing he's pointing out.
What precisely *are* you implying by saying he's comparing depictions of homosexuality to rape? You tell us. I think it's very clear what he said - *as an example*.
Don't like "rape" - how about murder? Is that common in D&D? Pretty much is. Do you think we should have more homosexual representation in D&D than murder? And using your rhetorical example - are you by extension... PRO-MURDER?!?!?!?! /gasp
(I can't believe this is actually a discussion... yet here we are)
I was pretty blatantly implying it's a terrible example. I phrased it as a question to soften it a bit, in case Razor hadn't really thought the comparison through. You don't just randomly compare things to rape, unless you want to totally derail a conversation.
No idea what you mean about political pandering, so that entire first paragraph doesn't parse. And the digression about murder seems irrelevant. People don't have the same emotional reaction to murder in fiction that they do to rape.
Agree that I can't believe this actually being disputed.
Quote from: Pat;1108254No, it's really not.
D&D is also outside the norm. Do you think D&D is also equivalent to depicting rape?
I used the word rape intentionally. It doesn't bother most people that you might slice and dice some orcs while playing an imaginary elf game; but if you say that you also forcibly acquire a shot of poontang, suddenly all hell breaks loose.
Quote from: Pat;1108264I was pretty blatantly implying it's a terrible example. I phrased it as a question to soften it a bit, in case Razor hadn't really thought the comparison through. You don't just randomly compare things to rape, unless you want to totally derail a conversation.
But you knew exactly what he meant, regardless of whether you thought it was a "good example". I, and anyone else with common sense, that engages in these discussions in good faith, already know *this* is the level of discussion people invariably has to descend to in order to point it out. And yet... even this doesn't apparently suffice.
Quote from: Pat;1108264No idea what you mean about political pandering, so that entire first paragraph doesn't parse. And the digression about murder seems irrelevant. People don't have the same emotional reaction to murder in fiction that they do to rape.
SJWS at WotC/Paizo are running the show. They're pandering to the SJW's they believe are the majority of consumers. The SJW agenda is political pandering. Period. The degree to which they do it is what this thread is partially about and worth discussion. The point of Razor's - since you're literally making me spell it out - is that you created the digression as a rhetorical tactic to make it about "rape" when he used it *specifically* as an arbitrary thing we *ALL* agree is an outlier to gaming and proclaiming it so makes you "good". But if you say *anything* about the proclivity of inserting the SJW pandering bits - you're the Devil, either by directly or by insinuation.
It's ARBITRARY by example. You are the one now claiming he's equating being gay with rape. And it is the peculiar disingenuous tactic of SJWs (not saying YOU are an SJW - just that this is a common rhetorical tactic) to ignore the real point, in order to deflect in order to shoot for the more inane point that no one is really making.
That's why I brought up MURDER as a specific digression to point out how your framing of his valid point derails the discussion. Now the natural course is - "Let's debate on whether murder or rape is more heinous? Or let's debate about people's emotional reaction to murder vs. rape in fiction? BLAH BLAH - nicely deflected off of Razor's obvious point...
Quote from: Pat;1108264Agree that I can't believe this actually being disputed.
And with this - you're either doubling down on being disingenuous. OR you truly missed Razor's point. In either case that makes having the discussion pretty difficult.
Quote from: tenbones;1108272But you knew exactly what he meant, regardless of whether you thought it was a "good example". I, and anyone else with common sense, that engages in these discussions in good faith, already know *this* is the level of discussion people invariably has to descend to in order to point it out. And yet... even this doesn't apparently suffice.
SJWS at WotC/Paizo are running the show. They're pandering to the SJW's they believe are the majority of consumers. The SJW agenda is political pandering. Period. The degree to which they do it is what this thread is partially about and worth discussion. The point of Razor's - since you're literally making me spell it out - is that you created the digression as a rhetorical tactic to make it about "rape" when he used it *specifically* as an arbitrary thing we *ALL* agree is an outlier to gaming and proclaiming it so makes you "good". But if you say *anything* about the proclivity of inserting the SJW pandering bits - you're the Devil, either by directly or by insinuation.
It's ARBITRARY by example. You are the one now claiming he's equating being gay with rape. And it is the peculiar disingenuous tactic of SJWs (not saying YOU are an SJW - just that this is a common rhetorical tactic) to ignore the real point, in order to deflect in order to shoot for the more inane point that no one is really making.
That's why I brought up MURDER as a specific digression to point out how your framing of his valid point derails the discussion. Now the natural course is - "Let's debate on whether murder or rape is more heinous? Or let's debate about people's emotional reaction to murder vs. rape in fiction? BLAH BLAH - nicely deflected off of Razor's obvious point...
And with this - you're either doubling down on being disingenuous. OR you truly missed Razor's point. In either case that makes having the discussion pretty difficult.
Fuck you. The problem isn't anything I've said. You're not the victim here. You are the one being disingenuous.
I made a clear point, and I've clarified that point. Using rape as an analogy is a conversation ender. It's an awful conversational tactic, regardless of how much you try to justify it by shifting the blame. The problem is you're reading shit into what I said. I didn't address Razor's point, anywhere. Why? Because this started with my post, where I was talking about the differences between fiction and reality. And Razor replied by randomly bringing up rape. So that digression you're talking about? It was 100% Razor, 0% me. Rape is the type of thing that causes all rational talk to come screeching to a halt, just like it did here thanks to Razor, Teodrik, and you. That's what I addressed.
Re-read what you wrote about "good faith". You've built up this imaginary edifice of what conversations on this topic are like, and you just randomly assigned half of it to me because... fuck if I know why. That's the exact opposite of good faith. This need not just to take sides, but to assume there are only two sides, and to view everything anyone says as being some kind of code that indicates which side they're on; and then the moment you decide someone's not on your side based on those invisible, imaginary cues, you ascribe to them this long list of random things you think are bad; is a pathology. One shared by both you, and the SJWs. And it's the reason why nobody sane wants to participate in these conversations, because they're basically just crazy people shouting at each other.
I wonder how those defending the notion that "everyone is gay because ... fiction!" would feel about every character in their games and other media having an average of 12 children. Aragorn: 12 kids. Legolas: 8 kids. Gandalf: 16 kids. Every hobbit family, everyone in Bree. No reason related to the story at all of course (it's "Lord of the Rings", not "Why are there so many kids")
If you think that's weird at all then you hate children, right?
Next, try to wrap your head around the fact that everyone having an average of 12 kids each is a similarly unreal ratio to that in which our games and media are populated with homosexuals (again, with zero bearing on the point of the story). I think it's OK to think that's weird.
Quote from: Zalman;1108288I wonder how those defending the notion that "everyone is gay because ... fiction!" would feel about every character in their games and other media having an average of 12 children. Aragorn: 12 kids. Legolas: 8 kids. Gandalf: 16 kids. Every hobbit family, everyone in Bree. No reason related to the story at all of course (it's "Lord of the Rings", not "Why are there so many kids")
If you think that's weird at all then you hate children, right?
Next, try to wrap your head around the fact that everyone having an average of 12 kids each is a similarly unreal ratio to that in which our games and media are populated with homosexuals (again, with zero bearing on the point of the story). I think it's OK to think that's weird.
Heck, let them have
children, period. Around this time last year, when
Dragon Heist was getting attention for its Waterdeep-as-Fantasy-Seattle approach, I asked people who owned the product "Okay, do we have any families with children in among all this LBGTQ+ representation?" The answer, as I recall, was 'well, no ...'.
Quote from: Pat;1108279I made a clear point, and I've clarified that point. Using rape as an analogy is a conversation ender. It's an awful conversational tactic, regardless of how much you try to justify it by shifting the blame. The problem is you're reading shit into what I said. I didn't address Razor's point, anywhere. Why? Because this started with my post, where I was talking about the differences between fiction and reality. And Razor replied by randomly bringing up rape. So that digression you're talking about? It was 100% Razor, 0% me. Rape is the type of thing that causes all rational talk to come screeching to a halt, just like it did here thanks to Razor, Teodrik, and you. That's what I addressed.
I agree that the rape analogy is bullshit and a derailing. Further, it's hidden a switch of goalposts. In the previous conversation, the argument from Zalman was in favor of supposed greater realism -- namely that the percentage of LGBT characters in modules should match real life. This was being used as an argument against WotC, which supposedly had higher than 4% (or whatever). But Razor's counter was to argue that it's OK to want 0% LGBT characters.
To try to re-rail, here's the conversation from post #251 to post #261:
Quote from: ZalmanAs to fiction resembling real life even "vaguely" ... that's a non-sequitur: we always expect the details of a fictional story that aren't integral to the story being told to be realistic. That's how we can tell which parts are fiction. We expect that the Fellowship of the Ring to be able to march across the land without floating away because we expect gravity to work the same way that it does in real life. If gravity doesn't work the same way in that piece of fiction, we expect an explanation.
Quote from: PatWe absolutely do not expect the details of fiction to be realistic. We do demand verisimilitude in some things, but only in certain very narrow and very specific areas, and those areas vary by person. More importantly, verisimilitude isn't reality, it's a sleight of hand, a deception, designed to trick our brains. When the details of fiction are closely examined, for example when transcripts of actual conversations are compared to the dialog in successful stories, the elements from the stories bear very little resemblance to reality. In fact, it's the elements from reality that often seems fake or unrealistic. That's because fiction is a set of devices designed to fools our minds into accepting the alternate reality of a story, and it fulls exploits the way the human mind fills in gaps, recognizes and completes patterns, demands moral outcomes, identifies with stories and characters, and engages memory. Storytelling techniques are closer to dream logic, and use cues like genre conventions or perceived social pressure to guide our reactions, and then build in underlying themes and other connections to bind it into a coherent piece. We're not just willing to overlook gaps and outrageous inconsistencies, we're entirely blind to their existence because our minds fills over any holes and stamps down any proud nails, and this occurs at below the level of conscious thought.
Quote from: Razor 007;1108214Man, that's a longggg paragraph.
There are people who don't want to see certain things depicted in their games. If you say you don't want to see rape depicted in your games, most people will say that makes you a good person. However; if you say you don't want to see LGBTQ+ content in your games, you are considered a horrible person. That is crazy. Both are outside of the norm.
I agree with Pat and disagree with Zalman about realism. Fiction doesn't have to be realistic, even in background details like economics, clothing, demographics, etc. Thus, I disagree with the argument that LGBT characters in modules should have to statistically match their frequency in reality.
If Razor wants to have zero percent LGBT characters in his games, I don't particularly care -- because I don't think games are real life. But his gaming preferences are his taste, not an objective mark against WotC.
Greetings!
What the hell is the stupid obsession with rape, and the constant posturing of "Rape Inclusion" or whatever as some kind of moral badge? In my campaigns, *Rape* is a pretty common and ordinary activity--for conquering armies, barbarian hordes, and mass assaults and invasions by wicked, evil humanoids. Much like the news, Bards and other people in the campaign world reference rape of various individuals as appropriate, or unfortunate populations, again as appropriate to the situation and events at hand.
Villainous characters also engage in rape, brutal torture, murder and sacrifice, among other horrific atrocities.
Do so many of you actually have *player characters* that go around raping women? In my campaigns, such activity would earn most such characters a villainous reputation, with a likely judicial or communal judgement of being executed, tortured, or maimed in some compacity. Conquering armies and bands of mercenaries would otherwise benefit from a somewhat different metric, depending on the nation, people, alignment, and culture--much like we see in our own historical records.
It's almost like some kind of taboo terminology with hushed, magical properties, whenever anyone even so much as mentions *Rape*. As I noted, such sensitive sensibilities would likely be severely triggered reading any of dozens, hundredsof historical books and accounts--as well as the Bible. In a dark, brutal and violent world, women are frequently raped as a matter of course. It's a trapping of being female throughout history in virtually every culture and time. In history, women are frequently raped. In a warlike fantasy world, women are likewise often subjected to rape, just like men are often brutally tortured and killed. Children are slaughtered, or enslaved. So what? It's a historically-flavoured fantasy game. Lots of terrible things happen, like being tortured, slaughtered by weapons, roasted alive by fire, or eaten by some horrifying monster.
In such a game for exmple, a player character might learn that their home village was conquered by an army of savage beastmen. Most everyone was slaughtered and eaten, while the women were raped and enslaved. NEXT?
Perhaps the player characters can investigate and discover if some of their female relatives or friends still live, and may be rescued? Whatever. Geesus. The whole triggering angst about the term being referenced is just stupid to me.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Zalman;1108288I wonder how those defending the notion that "everyone is gay because ... fiction!" would feel about every character in their games and other media having an average of 12 children. Aragorn: 12 kids. Legolas: 8 kids. Gandalf: 16 kids. Every hobbit family, everyone in Bree. No reason related to the story at all of course (it's "Lord of the Rings", not "Why are there so many kids")
If you think that's weird at all then you hate children, right?
Next, try to wrap your head around the fact that everyone having an average of 12 kids each is a similarly unreal ratio to that in which our games and media are populated with homosexuals (again, with zero bearing on the point of the story). I think it's OK to think that's weird.
The average number of kids in pre-industrial society was much higher than today. A dozen kids isn't THAT noteworthy in a medieval setting (heck, I know a couple Catholic families in my area in the present with over a dozen kids and over a hundred grandkids). On the high side, but not strange.
In other words, your numbers are off. To properly convey the ridiculousness of the gay gnome kings in the setting the typical human family needs to have a HUNDRED children (so 33 sets of triplets back-to-back starting from the age of 15 to actually physically accomplish that). That's how unbelievable the co-ruling gay kings are.
To be fair though, the most ridiculous part was calling them kings when their community was just 40 people.
Quote from: Zalman;1108288I wonder how those defending the notion that "everyone is gay because ... fiction!" would feel about every character in their games and other media having an average of 12 children. Aragorn: 12 kids. Legolas: 8 kids. Gandalf: 16 kids. Every hobbit family, everyone in Bree. No reason related to the story at all of course (it's "Lord of the Rings", not "Why are there so many kids")
If you think that's weird at all then you hate children, right?
During the series, Aragorn is frickin 87 years old -- never been married, no children. In a world without birth control, this would normally be interpreted as being
flamingly gay. In fact, the entire fellowship is like this. Frodo is 50 years old, never been married, no children. The youngest among them is Pippin at 28 -- but all were unmarried with no children.
I think what you suggest would actually be far more normal than what is portrayed in Lord of the Rings.
Moreover, you're comparing to a hypothetical of *every* character is gay -- as opposed to what's seen in the module, which is a *single couple* being gay.
EDITED TO ADD: Cross-posted with Chris24601
Quote from: Chris24601;1108298To properly convey the ridiculousness of the gay gnome kings in the setting the typical human family needs to have a HUNDRED children (so 33 sets of triplets back-to-back starting from the age of 15 to actually physically accomplish that). That's how unbelievable the co-ruling gay kings are.
To be fair though, the most ridiculous part was calling them kings when their community was just 40 people.
I don't even understand this. How is *one couple* being gay comparable to changing the standards of *every* family in the entire setting to be over-the-top? That doesn't make sense to me. The gnome kings are of the sort of inclusion of "blink and you'll miss it". One could easily play through the module and not encounter them at all.
As for their tiny kingdom, the Arthurian sagas and other tales seem to be full of threadbare "kings" who have little more than the clothes on their backs.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1108294Heck, let them have children, period. Around this time last year, when Dragon Heist was getting attention for its Waterdeep-as-Fantasy-Seattle approach, I asked people who owned the product "Okay, do we have any families with children in among all this LBGTQ+ representation?" The answer, as I recall, was 'well, no ...'.
That's more interesting to me than the presence of LGBTetc. characters. I recall when the monster manual talked about young appearing in bands of humans, demihumans, and humanoids, and I've always assumed that they were still there if unmentioned. I guess the same could have been said for the LGBTetc. groups, but now they must be mentioned, but no one thinks of the children (except for the now-dead Epstein and, of course, R. Kelly). I wonder when they will become the "must be mentioned group" in RPGs. I also wonder if there is a connection between NPCs never having children and PCs so often being orphans...
Quote from: SHARK;1108296Greetings!
What the hell is the stupid obsession with rape, and the constant posturing of "Rape Inclusion" or whatever as some kind of moral badge? In my campaigns, *Rape* is a pretty common and ordinary activity--for conquering armies, barbarian hordes, and mass assaults and invasions by wicked, evil humanoids. Much like the news, Bards and other people in the campaign world reference rape of various individuals as appropriate, or unfortunate populations, again as appropriate to the situation and events at hand.
Villainous characters also engage in rape, brutal torture, murder and sacrifice, among other horrific atrocities.
Do so many of you actually have *player characters* that go around raping women? In my campaigns, such activity would earn most such characters a villainous reputation, with a likely judicial or communal judgement of being executed, tortured, or maimed in some compacity. Conquering armies and bands of mercenaries would otherwise benefit from a somewhat different metric, depending on the nation, people, alignment, and culture--much like we see in our own historical records.
It's almost like some kind of taboo terminology with hushed, magical properties, whenever anyone even so much as mentions *Rape*. As I noted, such sensitive sensibilities would likely be severely triggered reading any of dozens, hundredsof historical books and accounts--as well as the Bible. In a dark, brutal and violent world, women are frequently raped as a matter of course. It's a trapping of being female throughout history in virtually every culture and time. In history, women are frequently raped. In a warlike fantasy world, women are likewise often subjected to rape, just like men are often brutally tortured and killed. Children are slaughtered, or enslaved. So what? It's a historically-flavoured fantasy game. Lots of terrible things happen, like being tortured, slaughtered by weapons, roasted alive by fire, or eaten by some horrifying monster.
In such a game for exmple, a player character might learn that their home village was conquered by an army of savage beastmen. Most everyone was slaughtered and eaten, while the women were raped and enslaved. NEXT?
Perhaps the player characters can investigate and discover if some of their female relatives or friends still live, and may be rescued? Whatever. Geesus. The whole triggering angst about the term being referenced is just stupid to me.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
It is common in wartime conditions for the pillagers to rape men too (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_males). The belief that only women are raped is unrealistic, sexist, homophobic, ageist, blah blah blah, but more importantly this false belief contributes to the persecution of male survivors.
The belief that men don't have to worry about being raped in wartime is a childish fiction, the equivalent of Disney sanitizing fairy tales of their copious amounts of rape and cannibalism. To indiscriminate rapists, holes are holes. Assuming that the man survives, he will never be able to tell anyone else about what happened without being persecuted as unmanly.
That's just the tip of the iceberg. Pillagers will rape
everyone, engage in sexual torture, brutal mass murder, and desecration of the dead. One only needs to look at Nanking, the Balkans, or Africa for well-documented examples of these wartime sexual atrocities.
Quote from: Pat;1108279Fuck you. The problem isn't anything I've said. You're not the victim here. You are the one being disingenuous.
Easy tiger. I'm pointing out the OBVIOUS. Don't take my word for it: take the word of Razor himself. HE even said it. YOU even said it by saying it was a "terrible example" - that is an implication that you understood what he meant, but your own personal decision to focus on the example instead of the point was YOURS.
And I'm certainly no victim in *anything*. I'm merely having a discussion. So unfuck me, please?
Quote from: Pat;1108279I made a clear point, and I've clarified that point. Using rape as an analogy is a conversation ender.
Who gets to decide that? If you knew damn well why he used it, and I backed it up since the word "rape" comes across your ocular sensory organs like a cheesegrater - I used Murder - for the INTENT of staying on Razor's more valid point, then why did you shift the point to comparing Rape to Murder vs. the real point he was making?
It appears the only person making *any* analogy a conversation ender is you. I'm game to use, Rape, Murder, Incest, Genocide,
-cide, Drug use - whatever - a discussion point that stays on topic of pandering. You are the one making exceptions. /shrug
Quote from: Pat;1108279It's an awful conversational tactic, regardless of how much you try to justify it by shifting the blame. The problem is you're reading shit into what I said. I didn't address Razor's point, anywhere. Why? Because this started with my post, where I was talking about the differences between fiction and reality. And Razor replied by randomly bringing up rape. So that digression you're talking about? It was 100% Razor, 0% me. Rape is the type of thing that causes all rational talk to come screeching to a halt, just like it did here thanks to Razor, Teodrik, and you. That's what I addressed.
So to stay on Razor's REAL point of value - I switched it to "/random roll of horrible shit worse than merely being gay that's ACTUALLY commong in RPG's" - MURDER. Which you then decided to naturally turn away from the real point into yet, something else. *That* is the only conversational tactic in play. I'm the one trying to stay on point. The larger point. The point that is actually germane to the thread topic. I'm not trying to make demands of people here on what words are allowed and not allowed to be used as a contrast to political pandering. That's silly.
Quote from: Pat;1108279Re-read what you wrote about "good faith". You've built up this imaginary edifice of what conversations on this topic are like, and you just randomly assigned half of it to me because... fuck if I know why.
How imaginary is it - when you just literally did it?
Quote from: Pat;1108279That's the exact opposite of good faith. This need not just to take sides, but to assume there are only two sides, and to view everything anyone says as being some kind of code that indicates which side they're on; and then the moment you decide someone's not on your side based on those invisible, imaginary cues, you ascribe to them this long list of random things you think are bad; is a pathology. One shared by both you, and the SJWs. And it's the reason why nobody sane wants to participate in these conversations, because they're basically just crazy people shouting at each other.
And since I'm trying to stay on topic - and not telling you what words to use, and which ones not to use - I'm backing up Razor's claim about the prevalence of what is political pandering on various levels, and HE merely brought up the observation you don't seem okay with discussing?
I'm not imagining *anything* - the words are literally right there on the screen. I don't even know why you're apparently angry? I'm not angry. I'm merely saying it's a bad rhetorical tool you're using. Otherwise speak to the point, not your feelings about the choice of words he used - when you *clearly* by your own words understood what he was getting at.
Quote from: jhkim;1108306During the series, Aragorn is frickin 87 years old -- never been married, no children. In a world without birth control, this would normally be interpreted as being flamingly gay. In fact, the entire fellowship is like this. Frodo is 50 years old, never been married, no children. The youngest among them is Pippin at 28 -- but all were unmarried with no children.
I think what you suggest would actually be far more normal than what is portrayed in Lord of the Rings.
Moreover, you're comparing to a hypothetical of *every* character is gay -- as opposed to what's seen in the module, which is a *single couple* being gay.
Nah - it's the fact that it's not necessary at all to have every Intersectional Denomination of Identity in every piece of fiction for the ulterior purposes to the fiction itself. Which is true the *vast* majority of the time.
So I don't get lost in the stupid weeds:
Razors's contention is: Rape is an outlier to most games. i.e. it shouldn't be part of the game. Since being LGBT is an outlier - let's *remove* Rape as a comparison since it hurts people's feelings. And use...
Eating Exclusively With Our Left Hand
We all agree that having representations of Eating Exclusively With Our Left Hand is probably not useful in our games. Why is it merely saying that having LGBT elements in our games is villainizing for saying we don't need those elements either?
(And I'm still waiting for WotC to magically give me any representation for my ethnic heritage lo these many years... and yet... I survive! See? I'm not victim! I'm a Non-Representation Survivor!)
Quote from: tenbones;1108312I'm a Non-Representation Survivor!
You poor thing! You've hopelessly internalized your own marginalization! As a white guy who finds this deeply disturbing, let me tell you why you're part of your own non-problem - and how that is a real problem! :p
Quote from: Antiquation!;1108316You poor thing! You've hopelessly internalized your own marginalization! As a white guy who finds this deeply disturbing, let me tell you why you're part of your own non-problem - and how that is a real problem! :p
I want to thank Antiquation for being an ally. When will people realize that words are violence? And because of my POC-status... I'm at the mercy of the supremacy of the CIS-hetero vaginally-challenged. Thankfully WotC is focusing on more common Intersectional tiers of the Pyramid. One day they'll get to my Unicorn herd. One day...
Until then... I will listen to more Survivor.
Quote from: jhkim;1108306During the series, Aragorn is frickin 87 years old -- never been married, no children. In a world without birth control, this would normally be interpreted as being flamingly gay. In fact, the entire fellowship is like this. Frodo is 50 years old, never been married, no children. The youngest among them is Pippin at 28 -- but all were unmarried with no children.
I think what you suggest would actually be far more normal than what is portrayed in Lord of the Rings.
Moreover, you're comparing to a hypothetical of *every* character is gay -- as opposed to what's seen in the module, which is a *single couple* being gay.
Quote from: tenbones;1108310Nah - it's the fact that it's not necessary at all to have every Intersectional Denomination of Identity in every piece of fiction for the ulterior purposes to the fiction itself. Which is true the *vast* majority of the time.
I don't think that every module has to have every identity, or that every module has to have LGBT characters.
However, I think it's fine if some modules have LGBT characters -- with some having 4% LGBT and some having 12% LGBT and some having 0%.
In August, I just ran the original Ravenloft module (I6) using 5E rules, which had no LGBT characters. On the other hand, my son is running the 5E Essentials adventure now for his friends at college, and it sounds like it's going pretty well. When last I heard, the PCs had just arrived at Gnomengard.
Quote from: jhkim;1108340I don't think that every module has to have every identity, or that every module has to have LGBT characters.
However, I think it's fine if some modules have LGBT characters -- with some having 4% LGBT and some having 12% LGBT and some having 0%.
For whose benefit is this? I'm not being facetious. I'm seriously asking - for WHOM does this benefit? If *I* do not have nor need any particular identity representation requirement of my own to be present within the context of any given RPG I myself don't write - what purpose does it serve other than the emotional virtue signalling of those in the majority denomination?
And is there *anything* that backs this up as being good or that it makes for a better product? Because it seems to me the a priori assumption of SJW's is that THEY assume that heterosexual relationships are the norm despite nothing in D&D in particular being overtly *for* sex. Heterosexuals and homosexuals can appreciate the form of their preferred sex-partners without explicitly showing them inflagrante. Can we agree on that? At *no* point in any game I've ever run with all my NPC's across decades - gay,straight,bi, whatever - has there ever been some express point to show any kind of sexuality that didn't involve actual assumptions of sex-in-play as part of the game or for some reason important to the NPC. And that's in the privacy of campaign play where these things are meant to mean something contextual. I've never known anyone, including one of my bi-sexual GM's back in LA, to do anything different. In precisely *zero* of my published stuff have I ever written material for my own personal identifications, mainly because they have nothing to do with the conceits of the worlds I've written for.
In published adventures - why would this ever need to be a thing at all? Who is it serving? Children that might pick up and play? The insinuation by not producing these kinds of material for non-adults (since adults should be able to make up their own minds) - that its somehow creating "homophobes" as defined by SJW's. That pretty much the re-skinned Satanic Panic for the new generation.
I'm certainly not saying Never do it. I'm saying - it's not being done in service to the product. It's being done precisely for ulterior motives that frankly are people projecting their issues.
Quote from: tenbones;1108320I want to thank Antiquation for being an ally.
;) I can feel the social reward points coursing through my veins. Time to go self-congratulate on Twitter! It's just not the same in private...
Quote from: tenbones;1108320Until then... I will listen to more Survivor.
:cool: Rock on!
Quote from: jhkim;1108306During the series, Aragorn is frickin 87 years old -- never been married, no children. In a world without birth control, this would normally be interpreted as being flamingly gay. In fact, the entire fellowship is like this. Frodo is 50 years old, never been married, no children. The youngest among them is Pippin at 28 -- but all were unmarried with no children.
No, it wouldn't. Aragorn is the heir to the throne of Gondor, if he were a historical figure he wouldn't have any choice about who he marries. He's also a Numenorean, who live about three times as long as humans. On top of that, he's directly descended from Elros Half-Elven, the first King of Numenor (and brother to Elrond; yes Aragon ultimately marries his great-to-the-X uncle's daughter), so his life expectancy is even greater than that thanks to his elf blood. So that 87 could mean nearly anything. And Legolas is the son of King Thranduil, and immortal. Gandalf is also immortal, a spirit who has taken (elderly) human form. We can go through the rest of the fellowship that way.
The exceptions are the Hobbits. Especially since they are basically little rural English gentlemen, we can probably assume there would be some speculation about Frodo (cf. all the Frodoo/Sam internet memes for a modern example). But gossip isn't certainty; it's a big stretch to say the majority of historical English bachelors were gay. But that's really only Frodo, because Hobbits are also longer-lived than humans, and don't officially come of age until they're 33. Merry and Pippin are still lads about town.
Though I don't think Chris24601 realizes how enormously improbable 33 triplets in row would be. Triplets occur in 1 in 200,000 births, and (0.000005)^3... well, let's just say you'd need about 175 digits to write it out. Even if triplets tend to run in families so we can reduce those odds a bit, it's safe to say it's still a lot less common than anything else being discussed.
Quote from: tenbones;1108309Who gets to decide that? If you knew damn well why he used it, and I backed it up since the word "rape" comes across your ocular sensory organs like a cheesegrater - I used Murder - for the INTENT of staying on Razor's more valid point, then why did you shift the point to comparing Rape to Murder vs. the real point he was making?
It appears the only person making *any* analogy a conversation ender is you. I'm game to use, Rape, Murder, Incest, Genocide, -cide, Drug use - whatever - a discussion point that stays on topic of pandering. You are the one making exceptions. /shrug
I, very softly and indirectly, pointed out that rape tended to be a conversation ender. You're the one who turned my prediction into reality, not me. My initial response was mild, it's was your reply that whipped out the cheesegrater. I did reply to that using strong wording, but if you actually paid attention, it was aimed at your lies about what I said. Not the rape that has you so discombobulated.
And you seem to be under the delusion that when someone responds to a post, they are obligated to respond directly to the main thrust of the other person's argument. Oh wait, no, it's clear you don't actually believe that. You're just being a hypocrite. Because while I didn't address Razor's central thesis in any way (nice that you finally noticed that, BTW), you're ignoring that Razor did it first. This started with my post on the nature of fiction.
Quote from: SHARK;1108296What the hell is the stupid obsession with rape, and the constant posturing of "Rape Inclusion" or whatever as some kind of moral badge?
In my campaigns, *Rape* is a pretty common and ordinary activity--for conquering armies, barbarian hordes, and mass assaults and invasions by wicked, evil humanoids. Much like the news, Bards and other people in the campaign world reference rape of various individuals as appropriate, or unfortunate populations, again as appropriate to the situation and events at hand.
Villainous characters also engage in rape, brutal torture, murder and sacrifice, among other horrific atrocities.
Do so many of you actually have *player characters* that go around raping women? In my campaigns, such activity would earn most such characters a villainous reputation, with a likely judicial or communal judgement of being executed, tortured, or maimed in some compacity.
1: Where? I have bot seen anyone defending rape as a justifiable action for a PC to take unless they were an evil one? And even then its vanishingly rare.
2: In mine it may happen. But is allways seen as an evil, or at least not nice act.
3: Varies from table to table massively. Everyone has their threshold. I've games with people who were ok with torture, but not with rape, or sex at all. And with players who were ok with sex, but not rape or torture, and so on. You handle each on a case by case basis and how reasonable or not a request is.
4: Never have. Dont recall anyone who ever has. A PC pulling that would be in potentially serious trouble, as would attacking merchants and citizens. Which so far have not ever had anyone try to pull. But I have a long standing and very hard rule forbidding Chaotic Evil and Neutral Evil PCs as they are invariably too disruptive. Lawful Evil PCs are allowed. But if they start terrorizing the populace then that PC isnt long for this world likely.
x: I agree some posters way over-react to just the mere mention of the word rape. You missed the whole blowup here and especially over on BGG over Tournament of Rapists. That was a 52 car trainwreck of often willfull stupidity.
All of this though is wayyy off topic.
Back on topic. I think it is rather bemusing that so far all the examples of gay NPCs in the modules I have, have been male. Haven't spotted a single lesbian pairing yet.
Quote from: Pat;1108346I, very softly and indirectly, pointed out that rape tended to be a conversation ender. You're the one who turned my prediction into reality, not me. My initial response was mild, it's was your reply that whipped out the cheesegrater. I did reply to that using strong wording, but if you actually paid attention, it was aimed at your lies about what I said. Not the rape that has you so discombobulated.
I thought it was patently obvious that *I* don't consider "Rape" as a conversation-ender (mainly because no one is actually being raped either in discussion nor in context of the conversation). The point being I think it's disingenuous to the larger point Razor was making - which I fully agree is worth discussing, not shutting down over some subjective minutiea. But I will admit - when you said "Fuck you." to me... that was the softest "fuck you" I've ever experienced. Props for that.
Quote from: Pat;1108346And you seem to be under the delusion that when someone responds to a post, they are obligated to respond directly to the main thrust of the other person's argument.
Well. No. But I do seem to think it's more productive to having a discussion in terms of being in good faith. Case in point - even now - you still aren't addressing it. I'm *on point*. I'm in directly point with the OP. The Title of the Thread. Razor's larger and pertinent claim. You are the one obsessed with parsing the rules of what words can/can't be used to have a discussion that you aren't really interested in having. And let's be clear that while you don't seem to get my chiding about cheesegraters as mild jest - you certainly seemed to be taking it personal and are pissed off because you don't get that I am/are/going to be talking about this topic because I find it interesting - you'll resort to simply saying "fuck you" and call me a "hypocrite" etc. free of context further avoiding the discussion.
You should note: I specifically went out of my way to not call you any names - even an SJW - which you may/may not actually be, I'm speaking directly to the conversation. Period. But if it means this much to you to be riled up and talk shit- have at it. /shrug.
Quote from: Pat;1108346Oh wait, no, it's clear you don't actually believe that. You're just being a hypocrite. Because while I didn't address Razor's central thesis in any way (nice that you finally noticed that, BTW), you're ignoring that Razor did it first. This started with my post on the nature of fiction.
Yeah because I think the central thesis of his idea is more important than you, me, or him. That's why I'm still on it. Why are you diverting? In fact - why do you even care at this point? You seem to care more about the very self-admitted lesser point - which you concocted rhetorically - then the obvious <---third time I keep saying it germane idea.
Here, I'll do you a favor so you can feel good. "Rape is off limits for Pat to engage in discussion without ad-hominem attacks." Okay everyone. Do not say the R-word. We calm now?
Okay - "MURDER" is worse than being Gay, and it's a common thing in RPGs. Why is that not evil? (and we know why - it's political pandering).
Quote from: jhkimI don't think that every module has to have every identity, or that every module has to have LGBT characters.
However, I think it's fine if some modules have LGBT characters -- with some having 4% LGBT and some having 12% LGBT and some having 0%.
Quote from: tenbones;1108342For whose benefit is this? I'm not being facetious. I'm seriously asking - for WHOM does this benefit? If *I* do not have nor need any particular identity representation requirement of my own to be present within the context of any given RPG I myself don't write - what purpose does it serve other than the emotional virtue signalling of those in the majority denomination?
And is there *anything* that backs this up as being good or that it makes for a better product?
I'm not claiming that LGBT characters make for a better product. That should be absolutely clear from what I wrote. I do not have any problem with a module having 0% LGBT characters - I just ran one.
You're the one claiming that there is a problem here. Is there anything to back up the idea that editing LGBT characters out of modules will make for a better product?
Quote from: tenbones;1108342I'm certainly not saying Never do it. I'm saying - it's not being done in service to the product. It's being done precisely for ulterior motives that frankly are people projecting their issues.
So, if you're not saying never do it -- then can you give some examples of how you would prefer it to be done? What are good examples of LGBT characters in RPG modules, and how do they differ from what's in the Essential Kit?
Quote from: Omega;1108352Back on topic. I think it is rather bemusing that so far all the examples of gay NPCs in the modules I have, have been male. Haven't spotted a single lesbian pairing yet.
Nor do I see any left-handed LGBT males or heteros with left-hands represented either. We're 10% of the population!!!!
It almost feels like they're trying to show us something from a personal bias?
Quote from: jhkim;1108355I'm not claiming that LGBT characters make for a better product. That should be absolutely clear from what I wrote. I do not have any problem with a module having 0% LGBT characters - I just ran one.
You're the one claiming that there is a problem here. Is there anything to back up the idea that editing LGBT characters out of modules will make for a better product?
I have PRECISELY zero proof that in RPG's virtue-signalling SJW's will ruin the game. But that's why I made the claim in the Get Woke/Go Broke thread - that's because RPG's are such a small industry, that SJW's and their virtue-signalling Intersectional Religious activities can go on forever without repercussions.
Quote from: jhkim;1108355So, if you're not saying never do it -- then can you give some examples of how you would prefer it to be done? What are good examples of LGBT characters in RPG modules, and how do they differ from what's in the Essential Kit?
And I quote...
QuoteI'm certainly not saying Never do it. I'm saying - it's not being done in service to the product. It's being done precisely for ulterior motives that frankly are people projecting their issues.
Care to take a do-over?
Which is why I'm wondering where my Left-handed representation is? Where is my Filipino representation? My people were slaves for 350 years. Left handed people are probably the most oppressed minority that have made GIGANTIC contributions to our species directly out of proportion to other minority groups... and yet... we're so left out. Why do you think that is?
We just don't seem to rise very high in the Oppression Stack of the Woke. It's curious. Or it's like people among the SJW's don't care that Left handed people and non-blacks suffered under slavery too. It's almost like we're invisible. I guess we just don't rate the political capital you get from the Alphabet Herd. OH WELL!!!... I guess I'll just have to Survive Gloria Gaynor style.
Quote from: tenbones;1108353I thought it was patently obvious that *I* don't consider "Rape" as a conversation-ender
Yet you ended it, anyway.
Quote from: tenbones;1108353Well. No. But I do seem to think it's more productive to having a discussion in terms of being in good faith.
Yes, but good faith involves applying the same standards to everyone. You're attacking me for not directly addressing Razor's point, but you're not going after Razor for not directly addressing my point, which happened
first. That's you acting in bad faith.
Quote from: tenbones;1108353And let's be clear that while you don't seem to get my chiding about cheesegraters as mild jest - you certainly seemed to be taking it personal and are pissed off because you don't get that I am/are/going to be talking about this topic because I find it interesting - you'll resort to simply saying "fuck you" and call me a "hypocrite" etc. free of context further avoiding the discussion.
I said fuck you to make it clear this isn't an abstract disagreement. You behaved poorly, exhibiting all those words you've been throwing around like disingenuous, or cheesegrater. It's not an emotional reaction, it's clarity. I'm making it very explicit that I'm finding fault in
you.
And I did call you a hypocrite, but it was not free of context. I explained exactly why you're a hypocrite.
Quote from: tenbones;1108353You should note: I specifically went out of my way to not call you any names - even an SJW - which you may/may not actually be, I'm speaking directly to the conversation. Period. But if it means this much to you to be riled up and talk shit- have at it. /shrug.
You put words in my mouth, told me what emotions I was feeling, and made backhanded accusations, but you didn't use any of the 7 magic words so you're the innocent?
Fuck that. I respond in kind, but I avoid all that backhanded shit. If I think you're acting like an asshole, I'll say it. I won't imply you're a SJW, make up arguments for you just so I can rebut them, claim you're secretly seething, and all this other passive aggressive shit.
Quote from: tenbones;1108353Here, I'll do you a favor so you can feel good. "Rape is off limits for Pat to engage in discussion without ad-hominem attacks." Okay everyone. Do not say the R-word. We calm now?
SWOOOSH
That's the sound of you completely, utterly missing the point.
Quote from: Pat;1108360Yet you ended it, anyway.
Yes, but good faith involves applying the same standards to everyone. You're attacking me for not directly addressing Razor's point, but you're not going after Razor for not directly addressing my point, which happened first. That's you acting in bad faith.
I said fuck you to make it clear this isn't an abstract disagreement. You behaved poorly, exhibiting all those words you've been throwing around like disingenuous, or cheesegrater. It's not an emotional reaction, it's clarity. I'm making it very explicit that I'm finding fault in you.
And I did call you a hypocrite, but it was not free of context. I explained exactly why you're a hypocrite.
You put words in my mouth, told me what emotions I was feeling, and made backhanded accusations, but you didn't use any of the 7 magic words so you're the innocent?
Fuck that. I respond in kind, but I avoid all that backhanded shit. If I think you're acting like an asshole, I'll say it. I won't imply you're a SJW, make up arguments for you just so I can rebut them, claim you're secretly seething, and all this other passive aggressive shit.
SWOOOSH
That's the sound of you completely, utterly missing the point.
Okay fine - *I* am a fucker. Hypocrite. Asshole. Who cares?
Well... I'm still having the conversation, with others. Join us if you want. Or not. /shrug.
Quote from: tenbones;1108361Well... I'm still having the conversation, with others. Join us if you want. Or not. /shrug.
Not terribly interested. You're just talking past each other, anyway.
Are there any modern examples of Trans NPC's from WotC or Paizo?
I used to have a bunch of NPC's in my Spelljammer game that were from that race the Reigar - and they're all Trans.
Quote from: tenbones;1108356Nor do I see any left-handed LGBT males or heteros with left-hands represented either. We're 10% of the population!!!!
It almost feels like they're trying to show us something from a personal bias?
I know! They keep UN-Left handing Warduke! Those Monsters!:mad:
(No. Im not joking. Well ok its still a joke. But a serious joke! Honest! About every other depiction of Warduke flips his sword and shield to the wrong hands. Tim Trueman and the old D&D storybooks got it right (though even the storybooks occasionally flubbed it) WOTC seems hellbent on consistently getting it wrong.)
Quote from: tenbones;1108365Are there any modern examples of Trans NPC's from WotC or Paizo?
I used to have a bunch of NPC's in my Spelljammer game that were from that race the Reigar - and they're all Trans.
One of the books, think Mordenkainin's Guide, added Correlon's Blessing which allows elves with the blessing to flip gender if they want each morning. This was also inserted into the new Adventurers League rules update.
Quote from: Omega;1108368One of the books, think Mordenkainin's Guide, added Correlon's Blessing which allows elves with the blessing to flip gender if they want each morning. This was also inserted into the new Adventurers League rules update.
Wait, I'm confused. Why is the ability a Corellon-related thing?
Quote from: Antiquation!;1108369Wait, I'm confused. Why is the ability a Corellon-related thing?
That diety had long been described as fluid or androgynous.
Quote from: jhkimSo, if you're not saying never do it -- then can you give some examples of how you would prefer it to be done? What are good examples of LGBT characters in RPG modules, and how do they differ from what's in the Essential Kit?
Quote from: tenbones;1108358And I quote...
QuoteI'm certainly not saying Never do it. I'm saying - it's not being done in service to the product. It's being done precisely for ulterior motives that frankly are people projecting their issues.
Care to take a do-over?
I think you've misread me there, tenbones. I specifically acknowledged your claim, and asking for more detail. I'm not sure how else you're reading that.
Quote from: tenbones;1108365Are there any modern examples of Trans NPC's from WotC or Paizo?
I used to have a bunch of NPC's in my Spelljammer game that were from that race the Reigar - and they're all Trans.
From what I understand, the Reigar aren't trans. They have two sexes and no mentioned difference in sexuality. They just have similar appearances of males and females, like lizardmen or many other alien/monster races.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1108371That diety had long been described as fluid or androgynous.
Huh. Admittedly I haven't played D&D seriously or paid attention to its lore since the 3e days, but I don't remember that at all.:confused: Here's to getting older I guess!
Well, that derailed quickly.......
Quote from: jhkim;1108374-- then can you give some examples of how you would prefer it to be done? What are good examples of LGBT characters in RPG modules, and how do they differ from what's in the Essential Kit?
I would prefer it - as I've stated- only if it contextually matters. I can't think off hand where it matters so much it *needs* to be done at all. But the rulers of Elversult in the Realms were long-established as lesbians. But it contextually didn't matter much. Which only supports my point. What you do at your table is fine. I don't know where the line is except that the selectiveness of the Woke Oppression Stack seems to be curiously one-sided in the modern era.
Conversely - I've asked you: what is the benefit and how is it measured for including it? How does it serve the fiction?
Quote from: jhkim;1108374From what I understand, the Reigar aren't trans. They have two sexes and no mentioned difference in sexuality. They just have similar appearances of males and females, like lizardmen or many other alien/monster races.
Yeah they're "androgynous". But what that means in modern Intersectional parlance is beyond me... it might be an insult at this time - I don't profess to know.
Quote from: jeff37923;1108379Well, that derailed quickly.......
It's not hard when people are being disingenuous. /shrug.
The Redrum thing is still unanswered.
Quote from: Teodrik;1107919I almost caved and bought into 5e. The subject of this thread clearly shows that WotC are not worth throwing money at. Not even sure I want to buy the old TSR reprint stuff since money goes into the same pocket.
There isn't much of the wokeness on display in the 3 core books, Volo's and Xanathar's. You can run 5E with that content alone, and never approach Paizo levels of wokeness; but post-core 5E is drifting in that direction.
Quote from: tenbones;1108382It's not hard when people are being disingenuous. /shrug.
The Redrum thing is still unanswered.
I gotta say, when you dubbed yourself a Survivor, I immediately heard Blue Oyster Cult's song "Sole Survivor" playing in my head.
Quote from: jeff37923;1108385I gotta say, when you dubbed yourself a Survivor, I immediately heard Blue Oyster Cult's song "Sole Survivor" playing in my head.
Damn... good call on that!!!!!!!
I've bought the 5E Essentials Kit and will read through it when I have time so that I can comment more on this hot button subject......
Quote from: Antiquation!;1108377Huh. Admittedly I haven't played D&D seriously or paid attention to its lore since the 3e days, but I don't remember that at all.:confused: Here's to getting older I guess!
This actually dates from 1E days. The earliest reference I have is in the 1982 issue of the Dragon, with Roger Moore's article on "The Elven Point of View".
QuoteElven males and females, though they are aware of their differences in physical strength, see each other as equals. Elven queens are as common as elven kings. Corellon Larethian is regarded by some elves as male, by some as female, by some as neither or both. Though female elves do not serve in the armies in any great number (except as unicorn cavalry riders) because of their lower strengths, other areas of elven life are about equally divided between male and female participants. Only actual combat occupations show a definite pro-male ratio, and even then the difference is not as extreme as in (for example) human or dwarven armies.
Source: https://annarchive.com/files/Drmg060.pdf (page 8)
Quote from: jeff37923;1108388I've bought the 5E Essentials Kit and will read through it when I have time so that I can comment more on this hot button subject......
It *really* isn't a "hot button" topic. People invested in 5e make it a hot-button topic because people like me say it's silly to have it in there and that it's there for pandering purposes only.
Quote from: Omega;1108368One of the books, think Mordenkainin's Guide, added Correlon's Blessing which allows elves with the blessing to flip gender if they want each morning. This was also inserted into the new Adventurers League rules update.
Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes.
Quote from: jhkim;1108391This actually dates from 1E days.
Interesting. I mean, it does sort of make sense given how androgynous most elf variants are depicted anyway.
Quote from: Antiquation!;1108394Interesting. I mean, it does sort of make sense given how androgynous most elf variants are depicted anyway.
Actually, I take that back. It's in the original entry for Corellon in Deities and Demigods (1980). From page 106:
QuoteCorellon Larethian represents the highest ideals of elvenkind: "he" is skilled in all the arts and crafts, and is the patron of music, poetry, and magic. Corellon is alternately male or female, both or neither. The god is also mighty in battle, and is said to have personally banished such demons as Lolth from the sunlit Upperworld. Elven lore states that the race of elves sprang from the drops of blood Corellon shed in this epic battle.
Quote from: tenbones;1108392It *really* isn't a "hot button" topic. People invested in 5e make it a hot-button topic because people like me say it's silly to have it in there and that it's there for pandering purposes only.
I agree with your premise because we have seen a lot of stuff shoehorned in to 5E for social justice reasons. I'm curious enough to spend $8 on eBay to find out.
Quote from: Antiquation!;1108369Wait, I'm confused. Why is the ability a Corellon-related thing?
Interestingly, this would seem to also imply that those characters
without Correlon's Blessing
can't simply flip gender each morning. Seems kinds of anti-woke!
However, after having discussed this previously, it looks like Corellon's Blessing allows you to change
sex, not gender, and thus appeases. And since gender and sex are unrelated, and as far as I know there aren't any sex-specific rules or restrictions in 5e, all that really changes via this blessing is the character's genitalia.
Which, you know, comes up all the time in D&D.
Quote from: jhkim;1108306During the series, Aragorn is frickin 87 years old -- never been married, no children. In a world without birth control, this would normally be interpreted as being flamingly gay. In fact, the entire fellowship is like this. Frodo is 50 years old, never been married, no children. The youngest among them is Pippin at 28 -- but all were unmarried with no children.
I think what you suggest would actually be far more normal than what is portrayed in Lord of the Rings.
I dont think that you could get to be a 87 year old Ranger by being
flamingly gay. That would give you at least a -2 to your Stealth checks.
Quote from: Zalman;1108402Interestingly, this would seem to also imply that those characters without Correlon's Blessing can't simply flip gender each morning. Seems kinds of anti-woke!
However, after having discussed this previously, it looks like Corellon's Blessing allows you to change sex, not gender, and thus appeases. And since gender and sex are unrelated, and as far as I know there aren't any sex-specific rules or restrictions in 5e, all that really changes via this blessing is the character's genitalia.
Which, you know, comes up all the time in D&D.
So, wait. Does the sex change come with all the reproductive features involved? Or are elves so blessed sterile/barren? There are some interesting implications there. Perhaps this is too off-topic for the thread and deserves its own topic, then again I don't feel too bad considering the bulk of the thread content.
Quote from: Antiquation!;1108405So, wait. Does the sex change come with all the reproductive features involved? Or are elves so blessed sterile/barren?
They're Seattle elves. They don't reproduce.
Quote from: jhkim;1108306During the series, Aragorn is frickin 87 years old -- never been married, no children. In a world without birth control, this would normally be interpreted as being flamingly gay. In fact, the entire fellowship is like this. Frodo is 50 years old, never been married, no children. The youngest among them is Pippin at 28 -- but all were unmarried with no children.
Quote from: Shasarak;1108403I dont think that you could get to be a 87 year old Ranger by being flamingly gay. That would give you at least a -2 to your Stealth checks.
Heh! That just goes to show how good a Ranger he is. Those closeted gay rangers get it too easy with their stealth bonuses. :p
And back to Pat, who replied to this semi-seriously:
Quote from: Pat;1108346No, it wouldn't. Aragorn is the heir to the throne of Gondor, if he were a historical figure he wouldn't have any choice about who he marries. He's also a Numenorean, who live about three times as long as humans. On top of that, he's directly descended from Elros Half-Elven, the first King of Numenor (and brother to Elrond; yes Aragon ultimately marries his great-to-the-X uncle's daughter), so his life expectancy is even greater than that thanks to his elf blood. So that 87 could mean nearly anything. And Legolas is the son of King Thranduil, and immortal. Gandalf is also immortal, a spirit who has taken (elderly) human form. We can go through the rest of the fellowship that way.
The exceptions are the Hobbits. Especially since they are basically little rural English gentlemen, we can probably assume there would be some speculation about Frodo (cf. all the Frodoo/Sam internet memes for a modern example). But gossip isn't certainty; it's a big stretch to say the majority of historical English bachelors were gay.
Pat, I formally withdraw my remark about Aragorn being gay.
Nevertheless, I really do think it's weird that they're all that old while being unmarried and childless. Being long-lived doesn't really explain anything, I feel. Even if Aragorn has a life expectancy of 300, wouldn't he still be looking for some action prior to age 87? That's a lot of time to go without nookie. And even the characters with children had tiny families. Denethor had only two children, and Theoden had one. One or two characters like this wouldn't be remarkable -- but it's a trend with nearly everyone in the series.
Quote from: jhkim;1108410Nevertheless, I really do think it's weird that they're all that old while being unmarried and childless. Being long-lived doesn't really explain anything, I feel. Even if Aragorn has a life expectancy of 300, wouldn't he still be looking for some action prior to age 87? That's a lot of time to go without nookie. And even the characters with children had tiny families. Denethor had only two children, and Theoden had one. One or two characters like this wouldn't be remarkable -- but it's a trend with nearly everyone in the series.
It's ahistorical and not particularly realistic, but I wouldn't say it's weird. Because Lord of the Rings isn't a pseudo historical fantasy, it's high fantasy. A romance in the Arthurian sense, and to a lesser degree in the more banal sense. Everything is vast and sweeping, stakes are high, the regions are huge, time stretches on endlessly, and everything comes to dramatic ends (with a few exceptions, like the Scourge of the Shire). Same with marriage; it's not a political convenience or a duty, or about getting some ass; from Beren and Luthien to Aragorn and Arwen, it's about the culmination of true love and sacrifice.
Quote from: Pat;1108346Though I don't think Chris24601 realizes how enormously improbable 33 triplets in row would be. Triplets occur in 1 in 200,000 births, and (0.000005)^3... well, let's just say you'd need about 175 digits to write it out. Even if triplets tend to run in families so we can reduce those odds a bit, it's safe to say it's still a lot less common than anything else being discussed.
Sequential triplets was just the only way I could cram 100 kids into a 30 year female reproductive window. The point was that in terms of representation the two gay gnomes far exceed the actual levels of the modern homosexual population. I wasn't specifically trying for the odds of multiple triplets... I was just trying to get the average family size to the point where it would as ludicrously over-represented.
Quote from: jhkimthen can you give some examples of how you would prefer it to be done? What are good examples of LGBT characters in RPG modules, and how do they differ from what's in the Essential Kit?
Quote from: tenbones;1108381I would prefer it - as I've stated- only if it contextually matters. I can't think off hand where it matters so much it *needs* to be done at all. But the rulers of Elversult in the Realms were long-established as lesbians. But it contextually didn't matter much. Which only supports my point. What you do at your table is fine. I don't know where the line is except that the selectiveness of the Woke Oppression Stack seems to be curiously one-sided in the modern era.
Just to check that I am understanding what you are saying here... What I understand is that if you only want LGBT characters if they contextually matter - but you can't think of any cases where it would matter. Thus, there are no positive examples you can cite of LGBT characters in an RPG. Is that a fair assessment?
Quote from: tenbones;1108381Conversely - I've asked you: what is the benefit and how is it measured for including it? How does it serve the fiction?
As I said, I don't think that there is an overall benefit or drawback to having LGBT characters. I don't think modules with LGBT characters are overall better than modules without LGBT characters, and conversely, I don't think modules without LGBT characters are better. If I hear that a module has an LGBT couple in it, it makes me neither more interested nor less interested in buying it.
Personally, I will include LGBT characters when they seem to fit. For example, last week I re-ran a game of my Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG (Cinematic Unisystem), and among the six PCs one was lesbian and one was bi. (NOTE: That doesn't mean that I think all games need 33% LGBT, it's just that this game happened to have two characters.) I thought they were both cool characters who fit well with the game, which was set in modern-day Santa Cruz. The first was "Ashley McBay, Gay Vegetarian Wiccan Rich Girl" -- which nicely captured a side of Santa Cruz, and who was roughly the Santa Cruz equivalent of Cordelia in the TV series. Here's her character sheet:
http://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/buffy/chars/display.cgi?shortname=slayerbot/ashley
The other character was Tori, "Goth Chick from Hell" -- a transplant from Sunnydale. Also a fun and cool character, I thought, for a comedy-action game.
http://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/buffy/chars/display.cgi?shortname=slayerbot/tori
Quote from: Pat;1108411It's ahistorical and not particularly realistic, but I wouldn't say it's weird.
I don't disagree with anything you said, so I think this is a to-may-to / to-mah-to sort of thing about how we're describing it.
Quote from: S'mon;1108408They're Seattle elves. They don't reproduce.
LOL! I can't decide whether that's tragic or hilarious!
Quote from: jhkim;1108419As I said, I don't think that there is an overall benefit or drawback to having LGBT characters. I don't think modules with LGBT characters are overall better than modules without LGBT characters, and conversely, I don't think modules without LGBT characters are better. If I hear that a module has an LGBT couple in it, it makes me neither more interested nor less interested in buying it.
That's about my view as well.
Quote from: Antiquation!;1108369Wait, I'm confused. Why is the ability a Corellon-related thing?
WOTC pulled a LOTR gag and cherry picked a comment from an old source. Essentially, depending on the source Corellon could be male or female. I believe 2es Complete Elves. sooooo. WOTC gender swapping elves! Because... Diversity!
Note that any elf can pick this one up. Including Drow. PC elves can select it at chargen.
Addendum: Actually it goes all the way back to Deities & Demigods. So it is not totally out of the blue.
Quote from: Omega;1108453WOTC pulled a LOTR gag and cherry picked a comment from an old source. Essentially, depending on the source Corellon could be male or female. I believe 2es Complete Elves. sooooo. WOTC gender swapping elves! Because... Diversity!
Note that any elf can pick this one up. Including Drow. PC elves can select it at chargen.
It's not cherry picking, it's literally the sole defining characteristic of Corellon Larethian, from the very start (1e's D&DG). Beyond the shifting sex, there's literally nothing unique about him; he is almost a caricature of a bland generic elfgod.
Though if the power is about switching between male and female, they are choosing to fixate on a narrow aspect of his nature, because Corellon Larethian can also be neither or both at once.
Quote from: jeff37923;1108385I gotta say, when you dubbed yourself a Survivor, I immediately heard Blue Oyster Cult's song "Sole Survivor" playing in my head.
I was thinking David Hassilhoff's song Survivor for Kung Fury. :cool:
Back on topic.
There was that odd transgender-ish Draconian in one of the Dragonlance modules way back. So there you go.
Quote from: jeff37923;1108388I've bought the 5E Essentials Kit and will read through it when I have time so that I can comment more on this hot button subject......
I think you'll probably have the same reaction I did. That its totally meaningless to the adventure. It really is just... there... and nothing else.
That is how alot of these are in the modules. Just... there... and nothing else. Esher and Strahd in Curse of Strahd being exceptions so far.
Quote from: jhkim;1108395Actually, I take that back. It's in the original entry for Corellon in Deities and Demigods (1980). From page 106:
They are gods afterall. A few others can do that as well. Raven could appear as anything, even the Moon. Hotoru allways assumes the likeness of the chief of the tribe he appears to. Which implies he will appear female if the chief is. Tobadzizinti is stated as usually appearing as male, but can shapechange. Girru is another like that. There are more if one knows the backgrounds of various gods and pantheons D&D refferences. Loki for example.
Quote from: Antiquation!;1108405So, wait. Does the sex change come with all the reproductive features involved? Or are elves so blessed sterile/barren? There are some interesting implications there. Perhaps this is too off-topic for the thread and deserves its own topic, then again I don't feel too bad considering the bulk of the thread content.
It says they can change gender. So yes that is a complete sex change, at will. Once each morning if so desired.
Quote from: Pat;1108456It's not cherry picking, it's literally the sole defining characteristic of Corellon Larethian, from the very start (1e's D&DG). Beyond the shifting sex, there's literally nothing unique about him; he is almost a caricature of a bland generic elfgod.
Though if the power is about switching between male and female, they are choosing to fixate on a narrow aspect of his nature, because Corellon Larethian can also be neither or both at once.
Right. I re-read my old Deities & Demigods and there it is way back at the start. Su addendumed my comment to make note of that and someone else pinned it down as well.
And it is cherry picking as WOTC had to hunt to find the only fantasy D&D god specifically stated to be either or neither. Though as said. I am fairly sure it is refferenced in Complete Elves.
Quote from: Omega;1108467Right. I re-read my old Deities & Demigods and there it is way back at the start. Su addendumed my comment to make note of that and someone else pinned it down as well.
And it is cherry picking as WOTC had to hunt to find the only fantasy D&D god specifically stated to be either or neither. Though as said. I am fairly sure it is refferenced in Complete Elves.
Ambiguous or changeable sex is a fairly common divine attribute, from many Hindu gods to Loki. And there were traces earlier in 2nd edition: Forgotten Realms Adventures, the first hardcover released after the 2e core, made it very explicit that sex was optional for all gods, and the art reflected that by randomly mixing up which gods appeared as women and which appeared as men.
Though while the new power draws explicitly references those old myths via Corellon Larethian, it sounds like it's more based on modern gender identification rather than ancient legends.
Quote from: Pat;1108471Ambiguous or changeable sex is a fairly common divine attribute, from many Hindu gods to Loki. And there were traces earlier in 2nd edition: Forgotten Realms Adventures, the first hardcover released after the 2e core, made it very explicit that sex was optional for all gods, and the art reflected that by randomly mixing up which gods appeared as women and which appeared as men.
Though while the new power draws explicitly references those old myths via Corellon Larethian, it sounds like it's more based on modern gender identification rather than ancient legends.
Yeah, I'd say there's a 95% chance that current Seattle values had more to do with the inclusion in Mordenkainen's, than it just being a nod to the old school source books.
Considering the timing. Was there any doubt it was not there just as a PC bone to the dogs?
Quote from: Omega;1108477Considering the timing. Was there any doubt it was not there just as a PC bone to the dogs?
Is it not more like a tribute to the faithful ?
Quote from: S'mon;1108408They're Seattle elves. They don't reproduce.
You've hit on one of the reasons I was asking about families with children last year. :)
Quote from: tenbones;1108342For whose benefit is this? I'm not being facetious. I'm seriously asking - for WHOM does this benefit? If *I* do not have nor need any particular identity representation requirement of my own to be present within the context of any given RPG I myself don't write - what purpose does it serve other than the emotional virtue signalling of those in the majority denomination?
It doesn't have to be
about you.
There are a lot of people who find themselves isolated from others like themselves because they're part of a specific uncommon minority or an uncommon mix of various minority statuses. Perhaps if they were confident enough it wouldn't matter to them to see people they can easily identify portrayed in the fantasy they consume, but that doesn't mean it
doesn't.
Even if you want to decry it as 'pandering', the fact is my specific demographic (white hetero-sexual cis-gendered male)
has been pandered to in fantasy for a long time.
I've just picked a pick at random from my bookshelf - AD&D 2nd Edition Book of Artifacts. I have NO IDEA what art is in the book but I'm going to find out. I'm remarking on any picture that includes a person but not the black & white pictures that depict an object only.
Cover: Appears to depict a caucasian male and female. The male has no shirt (beefcake) the female has a deeply cut shirt revealing all of her cleavage, knee high boots and a loincloth. I'd consider this to be 'fan service' aimed at my demographic.
Page 8: Black & White: fat man
Page 12: Black & White: face obscured by a veil. The features suggest female.
Page 22: Full Color: Baba Yaga - depicted as an old crone who's sex is not readily apparent
Page 28: Black & White: a coin with a veiled face. This one is more obviously female.
Page 34: Full Color: Hand and eye of Vecna
Page 55: Full color: Four people are being attacked by a swarm of bees. One is a black human male; the other male figure is a barbarian with impossibly muscled arms and legs. I would NOT consider it fan-service for women. There are two female figures, a half-elf and a dwarf, I suspect - neither appears to be highly sexualized.
Page 59: Black & White: a party of human male (?), gnome (?) male, and female dwarf. None are overtly sexualized
Page 66: Full Color: Orb of Dragonkind depicting one of the Elven Kings from Dragonlance.
Page 68: Black & White: A party of adventureres, it appears to be two males and two females. One of the males appears to be an Elf with long hair.
Page 72: Black & White: A man being eaten by goo.
Page 76: Black & White: A man who is of extreme advanced age.
Page 95: Full Color: A roman centurion
Page 108: Black & White: A bearded figure (human, dwarf) mixing potions
Page 109: Black & White: A dwarf priest at an anvil alter
Page 117: Black & White: Two males (humans, gnomes?) stealing eggs from a large bird
Page 121: Black & White: A male human reading a magical tome
Page 126: Black & White: A male elf with staff and human female wizard with wand dueling
Page 129: Black & White: A male sitting in a magical library
Page 130: Black & White: A female in a magical library
!!!Page 132: Black & White: An older figure of indeterminate gender (probably male)
Page 134: Black & White: A male human reading tomes
Page 135: Black & White: A female reading a tome
Page 151: Black & White: A party of five (3 males, 2 females) stepping through a portal where two male orcs are marching
Page 156: Black & White: Two male warriors appear to be fleeing an earthquake/flood. Another male figure is driving a wagon; two women look down from the windows of an upper floor
Okay, after reviewing the book art it is pretty clear that USUALLY any picture that could be ANYONE is a white male (ie, all the pictures of a single person not doing crazy adventuring things). By the time I was nearly done, I was surprised to see female characters depicted just doing normal things like reading a book. Compared to other 2E books, there was less fan service than I might have expected, but it's also possible that they were more 'woke' about how much sexual imagery they included. As far as minorities, there was one person that didn't appear to be caucasian. Even if you exclude the black & white figures, there isn't much representation of anyone that isn't white - definitely no Asians and no non-white girls.
Quote from: jhkim;1108419Just to check that I am understanding what you are saying here... What I understand is that if you only want LGBT characters if they contextually matter - but you can't think of any cases where it would matter. Thus, there are no positive examples you can cite of LGBT characters in an RPG. Is that a fair assessment?
Vaerana Hawklyn and Lady Lord Yanseldara. Obvious lesbians but handled without making them anything other than just what they were. The fact that they're lesbians was irrelevant. They weren't cast as what modern "LGBT" culture would say is non-hetero in their behavior. That is part of the issue. I have no idea what YOU mean by positive representations of LGBT characters? Everyone I know that is LGBT in my life is "normal" - they're professional adults that, like me, keep their bedroom habits private, or at least discuss it only privately among friends. Exactly none of them are into American Pride parades and they disapprove of the Fabulous(tm) cliche of LGBT culture. In fact, they do not even like, they actively disavow, being grouped with the other alphabet people because they do not have anything in common with them. Does that make them bigots too?
I can't think of any case where sexual preference matters in published game material, in general. I do not require positive examples of people's sexual preference in *anything*. Are you saying otherwise? Do you require Transexual NPC's be represented? Furries? BDSM? Bi-sexuals? What about people into scat or water-sports?
Should these things be represented? Do they matter for the purposes of playing published material for the purposes of mass-consumption, including minors? I'm going to put my chip on the table and say: no.
And not because I'm puritanical. I do not run games for minors. I run very adult games. Because adults.
Quote from: jhkim;1108419As I said, I don't think that there is an overall benefit or drawback to having LGBT characters. I don't think modules with LGBT characters are overall better than modules without LGBT characters, and conversely, I don't think modules without LGBT characters are better. If I hear that a module has an LGBT couple in it, it makes me neither more interested nor less interested in buying it.
So you think there is no connection between today's SJW Intersection Religion and the continued insertion of these non-contextual LGBT elements into the game? Or is that okay with you? And why not any other form of representation that is out of context? Why the arbitrary need for THIS over anything else historically not represented? Like Left-Handed Filipino-hybrids?
Quote from: jhkim;1108419Personally, I will include LGBT characters when they seem to fit. For example, last week I re-ran a game of my Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG (Cinematic Unisystem), and among the six PCs one was lesbian and one was bi. (NOTE: That doesn't mean that I think all games need 33% LGBT, it's just that this game happened to have two characters.) I thought they were both cool characters who fit well with the game, which was set in modern-day Santa Cruz.
Great! I do the same thing. I give them context to my game at my table. That's appropriate. I would be fine with it in published material IF they made it contextual to the setting and even then, it would depend on the execution.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108504It doesn't have to be about you.
It does if they want my money. And if you read upthread - I said it's NOT that big of a deal. Because it isn't. I have no investment in D&D. It's not meant for me anymore - and that's cool! This is just me discussing the topic at hand.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108504There are a lot of people who find themselves isolated from others like themselves because they're part of a specific uncommon minority or an uncommon mix of various minority statuses. Perhaps if they were confident enough it wouldn't matter to them to see people they can easily identify portrayed in the fantasy they consume, but that doesn't mean it doesn't.
Ahh. So isolating others is okay if it panders to those that want to make it about
THEM. Interesting logic.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108504Even if you want to decry it as 'pandering', the fact is my specific demographic (white hetero-sexual cis-gendered male) has been pandered to in fantasy for a long time.
No. That's not pandering. That's called being the MASSIVE NORM. That's called being the demographic that created all of this. That's called being the demographic that catapulted this hobby into the place that included everyone by allowing anyone at their table to do *anything* they want. But now all the established material is being reworked to fit in this pandering agenda at the expense of the established settings in varying degrees for the sole purposes that have nothing to do with the game.
That's why I respect Blue Rose. They created the setting specifically with LGBT conceits in mind. That is how you do it. You don't have to be LGBT to engage with it. The system is fine. If someone ran it - I'd play the shit out of it - in context with its setting. I don't need to be pandered to in that game - and *I* am a minority. Hell I'm not pandered to in D&D as it is.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108504I've just picked a pick at random from my bookshelf - AD&D 2nd Edition Book of Artifacts. I have NO IDEA what art is in the book but I'm going to find out. I'm remarking on any picture that includes a person but not the black & white pictures that depict an object only.
Cover: Appears to depict a caucasian male and female. The male has no shirt (beefcake) the female has a deeply cut shirt revealing all of her cleavage, knee high boots and a loincloth. I'd consider this to be 'fan service' aimed at my demographic.
Page 8: Black & White: fat man
Page 12: Black & White: face obscured by a veil. The features suggest female.
Page 22: Full Color: Baba Yaga - depicted as an old crone who's sex is not readily apparent
Page 28: Black & White: a coin with a veiled face. This one is more obviously female.
Page 34: Full Color: Hand and eye of Vecna
Page 55: Full color: Four people are being attacked by a swarm of bees. One is a black human male; the other male figure is a barbarian with impossibly muscled arms and legs. I would NOT consider it fan-service for women. There are two female figures, a half-elf and a dwarf, I suspect - neither appears to be highly sexualized.
Page 59: Black & White: a party of human male (?), gnome (?) male, and female dwarf. None are overtly sexualized
Page 66: Full Color: Orb of Dragonkind depicting one of the Elven Kings from Dragonlance.
Page 68: Black & White: A party of adventureres, it appears to be two males and two females. One of the males appears to be an Elf with long hair.
Page 72: Black & White: A man being eaten by goo.
Page 76: Black & White: A man who is of extreme advanced age.
Page 95: Full Color: A roman centurion
Page 108: Black & White: A bearded figure (human, dwarf) mixing potions
Page 109: Black & White: A dwarf priest at an anvil alter
Page 117: Black & White: Two males (humans, gnomes?) stealing eggs from a large bird
Page 121: Black & White: A male human reading a magical tome
Page 126: Black & White: A male elf with staff and human female wizard with wand dueling
Page 129: Black & White: A male sitting in a magical library
Page 130: Black & White: A female in a magical library !!!
Page 132: Black & White: An older figure of indeterminate gender (probably male)
Page 134: Black & White: A male human reading tomes
Page 135: Black & White: A female reading a tome
Page 151: Black & White: A party of five (3 males, 2 females) stepping through a portal where two male orcs are marching
Page 156: Black & White: Two male warriors appear to be fleeing an earthquake/flood. Another male figure is driving a wagon; two women look down from the windows of an upper floor
So what?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108504Okay, after reviewing the book art it is pretty clear that USUALLY any picture that could be ANYONE is a white male (ie, all the pictures of a single person not doing crazy adventuring things). By the time I was nearly done, I was surprised to see female characters depicted just doing normal things like reading a book. Compared to other 2E books, there was less fan service than I might have expected, but it's also possible that they were more 'woke' about how much sexual imagery they included. As far as minorities, there was one person that didn't appear to be caucasian. Even if you exclude the black & white figures, there isn't much representation of anyone that isn't white - definitely no Asians and no non-white girls.
I'm not white. SO WHAT? Is bog-standard D&D supposed to be reflecting MY culture? The answer is NO. It's European. If I want to play "Asian D&D" I'll run a fucking Asian-themed game. Why are you pretending that people don't have the intelligence to choose what they prefer? Or in your apparent case - why do you think white people should be filled with such grotesque self-loathing that they need to inflict it on others - and WORSE - dare to condescend to minorities like *me* about how I should somehow be victimized by the fact that your self-loathing view of your own culture did something to my ancestors - and you know, representation in a fucking fantasy elf-game is some kind of restitution for some past wrong that exists only in YOUR fucked up mind?
Let me tell you another story... I have been liberated by the Greco-Roman philosophy that helped create this fucking awesome place called America. A place that has spawned such ridiculous opulence and thought-provoking pastimes that my jungle-trodding cannibal ancestors could *never* have appreciated. This whole thread is a such a "Beyond First-World Problem" reading your bizarre list makes me literally laugh out loud at the complete disassociation from reality people like you (and I'm assuming there are others here that believe as you do) - where you think this is "important" in the big picture. It's... dare I say it... tremendously condescending... maybe even a little passively racist. I'll choose to call it ignorant. You should do yourself a huge favor and go live in the third-world for a spell. If that doesn't teach you to appreciate Western culture (as long as it survives without people like you to erode it from within), then I honestly don't know what more to tell you. I find your justification for this post... insanely ignorant.
And to think... you said "It doesn't have to be about YOU" - your entire justification for your position is about YOUR self-loathing as a white-hetero-cis-male. HAHAHAHAHAHAH. Man that's fucked up.
Quote from: Omega;1108466It says they can change gender. So yes that is a complete sex change, at will. Once each morning if so desired.
That means you could self-impregnate!!! Now THAT is how you fix the dwindling Elf-population problem in the Realms.
So now a game that depicts a fantasy version of medieval Europe is bad because most of the pictures in the book are of white males. Got it.
Quote from: Brad;1108513So now a game that depicts a fantasy version of medieval Europe is bad because most of the pictures in the book are of white males. Got it.
And why don't they complain that Bushido doesn't have enough Whites or Blacks in them? Gee I wonder why that is?
Quote from: tenbones;1108508That's why I respect Blue Rose. They created the setting specifically with LGBT conceits in mind. That is how you do it. You don't have to be LGBT to engage with it. The system is fine. If someone ran it - I'd play the shit out of it - in context with its setting.
But the Forgotten Realms were created with a libertine outlook that was inclusive of LGBT. By design, the setting is a deliberate contrast with the marriage traditions of historical Europe -- including same-sex marriage and polyamorous marriage. Here's the creator Ed Greenwood talking about LGBT characters in the Forgotten Realms:
Quote from: Ed GreenwoodFolks, the Realms have ALWAYS had characters (mortals and deities) who crossdressed, changed gender (and not just to sneak past guards in an adventure, by way of shapeshifting magic or illusions), were actively bisexual, and openly gay.
Note that he's not just talking about historically-parallel closeted gay - but specifically openly gay.
If you're playing in a historical medieval Europe setting, then yeah, LGBT characters will usually have to be hidden or closeted in their behavior. But the Forgotten Realms aren't historical Europe. I'm not sure, but my impression is that Greyhawk is closer to medieval Europe, though there are still a huge number of changes and I'm not sure specifically about attitudes regarding LGBT people in Greyhawk.
I do believe that characters should fit the setting. If it's a historical medieval Europe setting, then an openly married gay couple would be out of place. But in the Forgotten Realms, the opposite is true. It's established that there are open same-sex marriages, so if there weren't any among NPCs, then that would be failing to match the context of the setting.
In what way is a beefcake + cheesecake cover specifically an appeal to "white heterosexual cis-gender males"??? Just because they're white, or...? I'm fairly confident that images of attractive, confident heroes transcends ethnicity, gender and sexual preference. I'm also not sure that "pandering" is being used correctly in this context at all.
I'll be honest, obvious culture of the creators and the setting aside, I just don't understand where deadDMwalking is coming from at all. What would the "ideal" art and representation be that appeals to everyone at the same time and makes every demographic feel appreciated?
Quote from: jhkim;1108526Note that he's not just talking about historically-parallel closeted gay - but specifically openly gay.
Sounds like 100% retroactive bullshit to make money.
Quote from: tenbones;1108509That means you could self-impregnate!!! Now THAT is how you fix the dwindling Elf-population problem in the Realms.
"Well guys, I'm gonna turn in. I'll be in my tent, uh... meditating..."
Quote from: Antiquation!;1108423LOL! I can't decide whether that's tragic or hilarious!
Realistic.
Quote from: Brendan;1108530Realistic.
Too true. Though, I wonder if Seattle elves also paint all the crosswalks rainbow-colored during festival season.
Quote from: Brad;1108528Sounds like 100% retroactive bullshit to make money.
I can't say for sure what the setting's creator had in mind from the outset; but to me it smells like an attempt to ride the current wave, and remain the default setting for WOTC D & D.
Quote from: Brad;1108528Sounds like 100% retroactive bullshit to make money.
No, I think Greenwood's on the level here. I remember hearing years before the current phase of the [strike]Apostasy of the West[/strike] Sexual Revolution that Greenwood had had to tone down the Realms for publication, and he had Elminster genderswapping as early as 1994 (at least, that's when it made it into print).
Quote from: jhkim;1108526But the Forgotten Realms were created with a libertine outlook that was inclusive of LGBT. By design, the setting is a deliberate contrast with the marriage traditions of historical Europe -- including same-sex marriage and polyamorous marriage. Here's the creator Ed Greenwood talking about LGBT characters in the Forgotten Realms:
Note that he's not just talking about historically-parallel closeted gay - but specifically openly gay.
And now you make my point for me: THE VAST MAJORITY OF US ARE NOT L-G-B-or-T. I treat them like people with special interests, nothing more. I'm not obligated to buy into those interests. I fully accept many among them have chosen to form their own in-group. That in-group DOES NOT INCLUDE ME as it is dependent on inclinations I have *zero* amounts of. It makes perfect sense for someone to create a fictional setting representing the fantasies of that in-group to roleplay in with whatever conceits emerge from that. It doesn't mean I have to accept their interests inserted into things I consume that are already established.
Unfortunately for Ed, we'll never know what his table-version of the game was *supposed* to be. Nor do I hold Ed Greenwood up as some great arbiter of culture. I'm PERFECTLY fine with the idea of playing in Ed's libertine LGBT revisionist wonderland view of his setting - but there is a good reason that never came out of editorials in the early 80's when gaming was still relatively in its infancy.
And this is PRECISELY why Blue Rose stands apart from what is *established* in the Forgotten Realms. If you were a Blue Rose fan - and Blue Rose achieved the same level of recognition and play that the Realms did, and some asshole writers came in and started making all the LGBT character's straight and hetero, or changed their race or some other stupid shit, would that be okay with you? It wouldn't be okay with me for the exact same reason I don't think it's okay with the Realms. Or are you going to say that's a different scenario?
But hey! This is the New D&D. And I submit it's their's to do with what they will. I'm a whale of RPG consumption. I literally spend thousands of dollars on gaming products annually. It's their loss, not mine. I don't need their *weak* political drivel as a third-appendage inserted into my gaming products.
Go big or go home. Want two gay gnome kings? Well create an adventure path where two gay gnomes form an actual army and conquer and establish a kingdom where they do the whole LGBT rights thing. Then have the module respond in kind with the people they screw over in establishing that kingdom. Then the curious attempts at maintaining that kingdom... and take it seriously. As opposed to being this silly shit they're tossing out there.
The reality is that they can't do it because they don't have the balls or skill to do it in a way that will stand up. And they know it. And those that do understand why - know what a total shitshow it would turn into by conceit of trying to portray it with any amount of realism - because it will simply show that being L-G-B-or-T doesn't matter when it comes to actually ruling a kingdom. It matters in maintaining it and it will paint the so-called "inclusive" community to be every bit as barbaric and inhumane as *every* real gay/bi ruler in history that had to go through the same shit.
And unless Ed Greenwood has been sniffing a lot of glue these days - he knows this too. Which is why he neatly (or maybe against his will), along with his editors, skipped all that stuff in the final outing.
Quote from: jhkim;1108526If you're playing in a historical medieval Europe setting, then yeah, LGBT characters will usually have to be hidden or closeted in their behavior. But the Forgotten Realms aren't historical Europe. I'm not sure, but my impression is that Greyhawk is closer to medieval Europe, though there are still a huge number of changes and I'm not sure specifically about attitudes regarding LGBT people in Greyhawk.
Again you make my point. The Realms as published isn't GREENWOOD'S version EITHER. It's being changed further (whether it's closer or futher from Greenwood's vision is moot to me, since I don't really care about Greenwood's opinions) from what has been established. This is precisely why Blue Rose *should* exist.
It strikes me that you, and perhaps others, confuse the real reasons that "inclusivity" seems to be limited specifically to inserting LGBT-interest into content as "not political" when it's pretty obvious it is. The arbitrariness is likewise fairly obvious in WHO within the Intersectional Oppression stack gets chosen to be represented and who doesn't without context to the material. That *always* seems to get glossed over.
Quote from: jhkim;1108526I do believe that characters should fit the setting. If it's a historical medieval Europe setting, then an openly married gay couple would be out of place. But in the Forgotten Realms, the opposite is true. It's established that there are open same-sex marriages, so if there weren't any among NPCs, then that would be failing to match the context of the setting.
This has *nothing* to do with the published material. At no point have *I* ever said anything remotely to this, or even alluded to this. PC's can make nearly anything they want as long as it's appropriate to the setting - which for me usually is limited to regional stuff. Like I don't allow people to play Githyanki in my Sword Coast game set among the Shadow Thieves of Amn or something. I do not care what my PC's want their characters to bang - and I always accomodate that within reason based on the situation at the table. I do not require or desire that to be explicit in published material unless it's overtly part of the setting.
Call the spade a spade please. Revisionism is what is happening here. The most glaring thing is it comes off as condescending in its representation. As if being LGBT - I'd want to be represented by two bitchy male gay gnomes trying to murder one another by hiring a bunch of PC's who are likely hetero... Jesus... if that's what it takes to have "good representation" - then I question your entire point of questioning me.
Quote from: Brad;1108513So now a game that depicts a fantasy version of medieval Europe is bad because most of the pictures in the book are of white males. Got it.
Greyhawk is not fantasy Europe - or at least, not exclusively. The
Book of Artifacts is not set in a specific setting so could not be a proxy for Europe.
Quote from: jhkimNote that he's not just talking about historically-parallel closeted gay - but specifically openly gay.
Quote from: Brad;1108528Sounds like 100% retroactive bullshit to make money.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1108535No, I think Greenwood's on the level here. I remember hearing years before the current phase of the [strike]Apostasy of the West[/strike] Sexual Revolution that Greenwood had had to tone down the Realms for publication, and he had Elminster genderswapping as early as 1994 (at least, that's when it made it into print).
Yup. tenbones mentioned the lesbian couple Lady Lord Yanseldara and Vaerana Hawklyn -- who date at least back to 1996 when they were featured in one of the Forgotten Realms novels ("The Veiled Dragon"), and possibly much earlier. They might have dated back to the 1987 Campaign Set. The Realms had supposedly been Greenwood's imaginary world since before role-playing in them -- like Tekumel for M.A.R. Barker.
I'm still waiting for my Asian Gnome representation! Where is the outcry. Don't give me that Korobokuru shit.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108538Greyhawk is not fantasy Europe - or at least, not exclusively. The Book of Artifacts is not set in a specific setting so could not be a proxy for Europe.
Are you implying the majority of Greyhawk is not clearly informed by European folklore, history, and mythology cribbed from American and European sci-fi and fantasy?
You do realize Greyhawk is D&D right? Titles, sovereign nomenclature, flora and fauna - even the supernatural variety. Pretty much majority European OR co-opted foreign things lensed by European folklore. Thats a mighty small pinhead you're dancing on.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108538Greyhawk is not fantasy Europe - or at least, not exclusively. The Book of Artifacts is not set in a specific setting so could not be a proxy for Europe.
Yes it is. Stop being retarded. "Not exclusively". You make it sound like medieval Europe equals romanticized King Arthur tales instead of literally hundreds of distinct ethnic groups who all hate each other. Have you ever actually read a history book before..?
Quote from: jhkim;1108540Yup. tenbones mentioned the lesbian couple Lady Lord Yanseldara and Vaerana Hawklyn -- who date at least back to 1996 when they were featured in one of the Forgotten Realms novels ("The Veiled Dragon"), and possibly much earlier. They might have dated back to the 1987 Campaign Set. The Realms had supposedly been Greenwood's imaginary world since before role-playing in them -- like Tekumel for M.A.R. Barker.
Fair enough, but I still maintain him saying it is purely for marketing purposes. He surely didn't promote these notions when TSR was pumping out the FR trilogies by the millions. Tekumel has never been anything but upfront about its culture, and THAT is the entire reason I think a lot of us have issues with shoehorning all this bullshit into D&D. Tekumel has weird sex cults, matriarchs, non-Western traditions, etc. Zero issue with that, it's a game about a world based on Indian-inspired mythos. Greyhawk is a pseudo-European environment that borrows heavily from pulp swords-and-sorcery, so when you try to add all this ridiculous transgender crap as being 100% normal with zero repercussions, it makes no sense whatsoever. It's pandering to a small group of insanely vocal, hyper-militant people.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108504It doesn't have to be about you.
I dunno, shouldn't it be about the people who are buying the actual books and therefore helping WotC profit from creating them?
Quote from: tenbones;1108537And now you make my point for me: THE VAST MAJORITY OF US ARE NOT L-G-B-or-T. I treat them like people with special interests, nothing more. I'm not obligated to buy into those interests. I fully accept many among them have chosen to form their own in-group. That in-group DOES NOT INCLUDE ME as it is dependent on inclinations I have *zero* amounts of. It makes perfect sense for someone to create a fictional setting representing the fantasies of that in-group to roleplay in with whatever conceits emerge from that. It doesn't mean I have to accept their interests inserted into things I consume that are already established.
I'm not LGBT either -- but when I create settings, I'll often include LGBT characters. Likewise, Ed Greenwood isn't LGBT as far as I know, but he created a setting with openly LGBT characters. Conversely, it's not like LGBT players and authors are restricted to only playing Blue Rose. They can and do play in Greyhawk, Deadlands, Amber, etc.
Quote from: tenbones;1108537Unfortunately for Ed, we'll never know what his table-version of the game was *supposed* to be. Nor do I hold Ed Greenwood up as some great arbiter of culture. I'm PERFECTLY fine with the idea of playing in Ed's libertine LGBT revisionist wonderland view of his setting - but there is a good reason that never came out of editorials in the early 80's when gaming was still relatively in its infancy.
Quote from: tenbones;1108537Want two gay gnome kings? Well create an adventure path where two gay gnomes form an actual army and conquer and establish a kingdom where they do the whole LGBT rights thing.
OK, so you're claiming that homosexuality is actually suppressed in the Realms, in contradiction to what Greenwood says. So any homosexual characters should have to struggle with the social rules against them. Do I understand that correctly?
As far as I know, the editing has never contradicted Ed's views of the Realms on this point. That is, it's possible that the editors at TSR may have toned down or edited out mentions of homosexuality from Greenwood's writing during the 1980s and 1990s -- but on the other hand, they've never inserted in anything saying that homosexuality is not tolerated, or that the values are otherwise different from his vision. And there have always been a scattering of same-sex couples like Hawklyn and Yanseldara. The modules not mentioning something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist in the setting, though. If TSR edited out mentions of pregnancy in their modules (which I suspect they did), I wouldn't presume that no one gets pregnant in the setting. I'd think that pregnancy exists in the setting, and the modules just weren't talking about it.
Quote from: jhkimYup. tenbones mentioned the lesbian couple Lady Lord Yanseldara and Vaerana Hawklyn -- who date at least back to 1996 when they were featured in one of the Forgotten Realms novels ("The Veiled Dragon"), and possibly much earlier. They might have dated back to the 1987 Campaign Set. The Realms had supposedly been Greenwood's imaginary world since before role-playing in them -- like Tekumel for M.A.R. Barker.
Quote from: Brad;1108547Fair enough, but I still maintain him saying it is purely for marketing purposes. He surely didn't promote these notions when TSR was pumping out the FR trilogies by the millions. Tekumel has never been anything but upfront about its culture, and THAT is the entire reason I think a lot of us have issues with shoehorning all this bullshit into D&D. Tekumel has weird sex cults, matriarchs, non-Western traditions, etc. Zero issue with that, it's a game about a world based on Indian-inspired mythos. Greyhawk is a pseudo-European environment that borrows heavily from pulp swords-and-sorcery, so when you try to add all this ridiculous transgender crap as being 100% normal with zero repercussions, it makes no sense whatsoever. It's pandering to a small group of insanely vocal, hyper-militant people.
I'm not disagreeing about Greyhawk - I don't offhand know what attitudes towards LGBT people are in Greyhawk, but I agree that they're probably closer to historical medieval.
But for Forgotten Realms, Greenwood *did* write in these notions even when TSR was pumping out FR trilogies. Some parts may have been veiled by editors, but it's still in there. Yanseldara and Hawklyn were unquestionably a lesbian couple. Elminster was changed into a woman for years by the goddess of magic, for example. Back then, actually, a lot of LGBT material wasn't subject to as much scrutiny as today - because there wasn't a spotlight on LGBT rights. So things like Elminster turning into Elmara, or Corellon Larethian being gender-fluid were viewed as weird fantasy rather than current politics.
I think the emphasis on LGBTQ representation is going to date RPG products (probably most pop culture products) like big hair and leg warmers dates stuff from the 80's.
Quote from: tenbones;1108509That means you could self-impregnate!!! Now THAT is how you fix the dwindling Elf-population problem in the Realms.
These arent Hollywood movie hermaprodites. :mad:
But. One has to assume that of the elf gets pregnant then they cant change to male. Either that or they have the ultimate contraceptive/abortion system.That alone should have the SJW cultists flipping out with the implications. :D
Quote from: SHARK;1108296Greetings!
What the hell is the stupid obsession with rape, and the constant posturing of "Rape Inclusion" or whatever as some kind of moral badge? In my campaigns, *Rape* is a pretty common and ordinary activity--for conquering armies, barbarian hordes, and mass assaults and invasions by wicked, evil humanoids. Much like the news, Bards and other people in the campaign world reference rape of various individuals as appropriate, or unfortunate populations, again as appropriate to the situation and events at hand.
Villainous characters also engage in rape, brutal torture, murder and sacrifice, among other horrific atrocities.
Do so many of you actually have *player characters* that go around raping women? In my campaigns, such activity would earn most such characters a villainous reputation, with a likely judicial or communal judgement of being executed, tortured, or maimed in some compacity. Conquering armies and bands of mercenaries would otherwise benefit from a somewhat different metric, depending on the nation, people, alignment, and culture--much like we see in our own historical records.
It's almost like some kind of taboo terminology with hushed, magical properties, whenever anyone even so much as mentions *Rape*. As I noted, such sensitive sensibilities would likely be severely triggered reading any of dozens, hundredsof historical books and accounts--as well as the Bible. In a dark, brutal and violent world, women are frequently raped as a matter of course. It's a trapping of being female throughout history in virtually every culture and time. In history, women are frequently raped. In a warlike fantasy world, women are likewise often subjected to rape, just like men are often brutally tortured and killed. Children are slaughtered, or enslaved. So what? It's a historically-flavoured fantasy game. Lots of terrible things happen, like being tortured, slaughtered by weapons, roasted alive by fire, or eaten by some horrifying monster.
In such a game for exmple, a player character might learn that their home village was conquered by an army of savage beastmen. Most everyone was slaughtered and eaten, while the women were raped and enslaved. NEXT?
Perhaps the player characters can investigate and discover if some of their female relatives or friends still live, and may be rescued? Whatever. Geesus. The whole triggering angst about the term being referenced is just stupid to me.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
This reminds me of a controversy about the novel Friday. The title character was
a: an artificial person
b: trained as a spy and courier.
c: involved in a life or death struggle.
Some guys captured her. In their line of work, they could have killed her and she would not have been surprised or really all that resentful. It was the way things were in her world. But they raped her. She didn't like it but she was, herself, a hardened killer and not a normal person. Later on, she forgave one of them.
The shit really flew. A man I knew who worked for years to help get a convicted (and guilty) murderer out of prison wrote an op ed about how horrible this was and what a bad example it was to girls.
Fuck all, Friday wasn't a role model. Normal readers felt sorry for her, while admiring some of her qualities. And rape isn't worse than murder.
Quote from: tenbones;1108543Are you implying the majority of Greyhawk is not clearly informed by European folklore, history, and mythology cribbed from American and European sci-fi and fantasy?
You do realize Greyhawk is D&D right? Titles, sovereign nomenclature, flora and fauna - even the supernatural variety. Pretty much majority European OR co-opted foreign things lensed by European folklore. Thats a mighty small pinhead you're dancing on.
We went over this months ago in a thread on now "racist" D&D is by not being "inclusive" enough and when it was pointed out some Greyhawk races are dark skinned the reaponse was "they arent dark enough!" and "they are really representing spanish or mediteranian races which dont count (except when the cultists want them too)
Quote from: jhkim;1108540Yup. tenbones mentioned the lesbian couple Lady Lord Yanseldara and Vaerana Hawklyn -- who date at least back to 1996 when they were featured in one of the Forgotten Realms novels ("The Veiled Dragon"), and possibly much earlier. They might have dated back to the 1987 Campaign Set. The Realms had supposedly been Greenwood's imaginary world since before role-playing in them -- like Tekumel for M.A.R. Barker.
No, they're not in the gray box. To the best of my knowledge, their first appearance is in 1990's
Forgotten Realms Adventures, though it doesn't mention their sexuality. Vaerana is just described as Yanseldara's "deeply trusted companion, strong right arm, and former adventuring comrade", and they live together in the "Ladytowers". So readers could draw that conclusion, not draw that conclusion, or just ignore it because sexuality generally isn't a factor for most NPCs.
Quote from: Antiquation!;1108529"Well guys, I'm gonna turn in. I'll be in my tent, uh... meditating..."
Short rest?
Continuing reading through Tomb of Annihilation we come to a second instance. Leader of a thieves guild and his male right hand man and consort. This is at least a little more fleshed out than the first. But it is still just... there...
Here is another bemusing thing I notice in these modules... In each case the inclusion so far has been predominantly not good people. Or at best, ambiguous as to if they are good or bad. Haven't gotten back to Curse of Strahd yet but assume the gay revnant is on the good side?
Quote from: jhkimYup. tenbones mentioned the lesbian couple Lady Lord Yanseldara and Vaerana Hawklyn -- who date at least back to 1996 when they were featured in one of the Forgotten Realms novels ("The Veiled Dragon"), and possibly much earlier. They might have dated back to the 1987 Campaign Set. The Realms had supposedly been Greenwood's imaginary world since before role-playing in them -- like Tekumel for M.A.R. Barker.
Quote from: Pat;1108580No, they're not in the gray box. To the best of my knowledge, their first appearance is in 1990's Forgotten Realms Adventures, though it doesn't mention their sexuality. Vaerana is just described as Yanseldara's "deeply trusted companion, strong right arm, and former adventuring comrade", and they live together in the "Ladytowers". So readers could draw that conclusion, not draw that conclusion, or just ignore it because sexuality generally isn't a factor for most NPCs.
Huh, that seems pretty clear to me. I don't think it's modern political revisionism to say that Vaerana and Yanseldara are lesbian. I think they were always lesbian, and the module was just circumspect in talking about it in 1990.
Quote from: jhkim;1108586Huh, that seems pretty clear to me. I don't think it's modern political revisionism to say that Vaerana and Yanseldara are lesbian. I think they were always lesbian, and the module was just circumspect in talking about it in 1990.
They may or may not be. No idea. But it is modern literary criticism thinking that every description of a couple of same sex friends living in the same house is always veiled something else. Likewise the idea you expressed earlier about characters not having children. Historically, plenty of people had no particular interest in setting up a married household, with all that implied, but for a whole host of reasons found it convenient to share a house. Were some of them homosexual or other things? I'm sure they were. It made a great cover for them. But this idea that every example of that type fits the modern preconceptions just isn't logical or consistent with the full portrayal of those societies.
Now Ed Greenwood being still alive and on the record, his particular example probably does fit the pattern you've set here. I imagine quite a few written examples do, in games or otherwise. More so than reality.
They were always lesbians in my long-term campaign that was actually set in Elversult. The degree to which it mattered was only in context at my table. I never took them to be "normal" representations of rulers - since obviously even back then they didn't overtly say it. But that's precisely why it only matters insofar as your games delve into such matters at the table.
Simply saying it and doing nothing with it in publication today is puerile or pandering (or both) in a setting where such things aren't the norm, where in 1990 it was edgy. The quality of the modern penchant for it is condescending in most cases, as Omega pointed out above, to anyone from the LGBT group with half a brain.
Quote from: jhkim;1108586Huh, that seems pretty clear to me. I don't think it's modern political revisionism to say that Vaerana and Yanseldara are lesbian. I think they were always lesbian, and the module was just circumspect in talking about it in 1990.
Why is that clear? All it says is they work together, they live in the same mansion, and they're friends. I agree they were probably always intended to be lesbian, but the text as written merely leaves open the possibility. That you assume it means they're clearly lesbians is you reading your own prejudices and assumptions into the text.
Quote from: Omega;1108579We went over this months ago in a thread on now "racist" D&D is by not being "inclusive" enough and when it was pointed out some Greyhawk races are dark skinned the reaponse was "they arent dark enough!" and "they are really representing spanish or mediteranian races which dont count (except when the cultists want them too)
yeah... "It's never enough". I'm feeling victimized. I need those Asian Gnomes... STAT!
/reaches for his Emotional Support Tarrasque
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1108589But this idea that every example of that type fits the modern preconceptions just isn't logical or consistent with the full portrayal of those societies.
Now Ed Greenwood being still alive and on the record, his particular example probably does fit the pattern you've set here. I imagine quite a few written examples do, in games or otherwise. More so than reality.
Yes, I agree with this. I'm only talking particularly about Ed Greenwood, and in particular, that idea that he's being revisionist for saying that there were always openly gay couples in the Forgotten Realms. I scoffed along with most at, say, Rowling's claim that Dumbledore is gay. But in this case, it seems to me that here Greenwood is on the level.
I mean, the two of them living together in the "Ladytowers"?? Plus his other examples, like Elminster changing sex for years. After that, the case for him being revisionist is pretty thin.
Quote from: Pat;1108592Why is that clear? All it says is they work together, they live in the same mansion, and they're friends. I agree they were probably always intended to be lesbian, but the text as written merely leaves open the possibility. That you assume it means they're clearly lesbians is you reading your own prejudices and assumptions into the text.
I remember when we got that book (it's a lovely book, I still use it as a reference today) - literally everyone in both my groups read into it the same way. And I don't recall any of us being freaked out by it - but that's largely because it literally doesn't overtly say it. We just figured okay, and they happened to be major NPC's in a location that was our hub.
"Prejudice" is pretty strong - none of us had any antipathy towards the idea. Two of my players were gay, they didn't give a shit. I wouldn't even say we were particularly sophisticated thinkers back then. I just found it to be interesting to use as a gaming fodder. I have a special place in my heart for those NPC's to this day.
The gay Gnomish Kings thing? Sloppy and dumb premise.
Quote from: jhkim;1108596Yes, I agree with this. I'm only talking particularly about Ed Greenwood, and in particular, that idea that he's being revisionist for saying that there were always openly gay couples in the Forgotten Realms. I scoffed along with most at, say, Rowling's claim that Dumbledore is gay. But in this case, it seems to me that here Greenwood is on the level.
I mean, the two of them living together in the "Ladytowers"?? Plus his other examples, like Elminster changing sex for years. After that, the case for him being revisionism is pretty thin.
This is Old News - literally almost 30-years old.
The new stuff they're churning out isn't even *trying* to make it contextual. By your standard - you're saying just because a godlike Archmage changes shape it's a nod to LGBT representation? Are you kidding me? That's like saying the movie the Howling is representative of Furry Representation.
There is a distinct difference between what Greenwood plays at his table and what was printed. Any deviation from that established fact is by definition "revisionism" even if he meant for there to be Gay Pride Events in Shadowdale all along. Chromatic Spray was invented for closeted LGBT representation too? Maybe the Silverfire is really a metaphor for Brony magic too?
Dragonblooded are clearly for Dragon-kin self-identified.
Yellow Dragons - are representative of Golden Shower enthusiasts? You know what that means for Brown Dragons....
Ambiguity is often a positive quality in art for a host of reasons.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1108602Ambiguity is often a positive quality in art for a host of reasons.
Are you saying Brown Dragons AREN'T allegorical?
Quote from: jhkim;1108596I mean, the two of them living together in the "Ladytowers"?? Plus his other examples, like Elminster changing sex for years. After that, the case for him being revisionist is pretty thin.
That's still applying your prejudices, like you did before with Aragorn. You were wrong about Tolkien, and you're right about Greenwood, but that's not the point. The point is the text alone gives you no basis for drawing a firm conclusion either way. The reason you were sure in both cases is because you were reading the text as if it's a secret code for LGBT characters. Which it sometimes is, it depends on the author and context. But most of the time, it's not a secret code. It's just what it says it is. The reason we can read that text and go lesbians! is because 1) we apply our own prejudices indiscriminately (like you did), or 2) we have metatextual information that supports that conclusion. Which we do in 2019, but in 1990, we didn't. This was before Greenwood's libertine predilections were public knowledge, before festhalls were explained, before Elminster became a manslut, and before he made any statements about homosexuality in the Realms. There were a couple hints -- I think it was Greenwood's first novel,
Spellfire, which talked a bit about how some adventurers slept around. But that was a minor aside, the main character had a more traditional romance, and there was really nothing about gay or lesbian characters.
Quote from: tenbones;1108604Are you saying Brown Dragons AREN'T allegorical?
It would certainly help explain why I think the Forgotten Realms setting is such a pile. :p
Quote from: tenbones;1108593yeah... "It's never enough". I'm feeling victimized. I need those Asian Gnomes... STAT!
/reaches for his Emotional Support Tarrasque
You better be reaching with your left hand! :p
Quote from: Antiquation!;1108606It would certainly help explain why I think the Forgotten Realms setting is such a pile. :p
It wasn't always so. Once when the world was grey and rectangular. Before the 3rd age of D&D has risen from the depths, there was a boxset of high adventure!!!
Quote from: jhkim;1108596Yes, I agree with this. I'm only talking particularly about Ed Greenwood, and in particular, that idea that he's being revisionist for saying that there were always openly gay couples in the Forgotten Realms. I scoffed along with most at, say, Rowling's claim that Dumbledore is gay. But in this case, it seems to me that here Greenwood is on the level.
I mean, the two of them living together in the "Ladytowers"?? Plus his other examples, like Elminster changing sex for years. After that, the case for him being revisionist is pretty thin.
The bolded part makes as much sense as claiming that Burne and Rufus must be gay since they live together in a tower in Hommlet.....
Quote from: tenbones;1108608It wasn't always so. Once when the world was grey and rectangular. Before the 3rd age of D&D has risen from the depths, there was a boxset of high adventure!!!
Yeesh! Cool it with the dusty old war stories, gramps! ;)
Quote from: Pat;1108605That's still applying your prejudices, like you did before with Aragorn. You were wrong about Tolkien, and you're right about Greenwood, but that's not the point. The point is the text alone gives you no basis for drawing a firm conclusion either way.
Dude, I didn't actually think that Aragorn was flamingly gay. In retrospect, I didn't put a smiley on it, but at the time I thought it was clear enough. If you want to call me revisionist and think that I'm trying to wriggle out of something, fine.
I think maybe I'm posting a little too quickly. I'll try to post a summary of my position a little later.
Quote from: jhkim;1108625Dude, I didn't actually think that Aragorn was flamingly gay. In retrospect, I didn't put a smiley on it, but at the time I thought it was clear enough. If you want to call me revisionist and think that I'm trying to wriggle out of something, fine.
I think maybe I'm posting a little too quickly. I'll try to post a summary of my position a little later.
I don't have the necessary qualities to play Jeff Bridges.
If you meant the flaming ranger and the Ladytowers comment in jest, that's fine. I wasn't trying to attack you, I was just pointing out a flaw in reasoning, and using it an illustration of a wider issue, i.e. how we tend to impose our modern preconceptions and knowledge on past events. This seems to be happening more and more, and makes it hard to engage with the past, whether the past is 35 years ago when D&D became a fad, or the Middle Ages.
Quote from: tenbones;1108593yeah... "It's never enough". I'm feeling victimized. I need those Asian Gnomes... STAT!
/reaches for his Emotional Support Tarrasque
Just didtch the Korobokuru dwarves and replace them with more traditional and accurate koro-pok-guru which cleave closer to certain types of gnomes. Like 5e's Forrest Gnomes.
Quote from: tenbones;1108604Are you saying Brown Dragons AREN'T allegorical?
Yes. They arent black, ENOUGH! :(
And if they are black, enough. Then it is RACIST! :mad:
And round and round we go with these sociopaths.
We have gone from "make of it what you will" to "If you don't state it is then It IS!" and "If you dont state it is, then it ISNT!" Leaning to the ISNT! side because that allows these nuts to bitch more.
And if you do state some NPCs are gay or black or eat their bread butter side down. Then it is never, ever, ENOUGH!
And if you do have representation and its all perfect. Guess what? They will concoct some insane reason to bitch anyhow.
Now back to the topic of Gnay Gnarden Gnomes.
Havent a fucking clue! Still reading through.
Quote from: jhkim;1108625Dude, I didn't actually think that Aragorn was flamingly gay.
I knew you had SJW tendencies, but understood even you weren't 100% Chaotic Liberal.
Quote from: Brad;1108650I knew you had SJW tendencies, but understood even you weren't 100% Chaotic Liberal.
Its a trap. Done believe him! :eek:
Quote from: PatThat's still applying your prejudices, like you did before with Aragorn. You were wrong about Tolkien, and you're right about Greenwood, but that's not the point.
Quote from: jhkim;1108625Dude, I didn't actually think that Aragorn was flamingly gay.
Quote from: Brad;1108650I knew you had SJW tendencies, but understood even you weren't 100% Chaotic Liberal.
Heh. Thanks for your faith and support, Brad. :D
Quote from: jhkim;1108568OK, so you're claiming that homosexuality is actually suppressed in the Realms, in contradiction to what Greenwood says.
If we're playing in Ed's Magical Realm, there is a place for autogynephiliac m2f gender-swapping, as well as (beautiful, busty) bisexual mage-queens, (beautiful, busty) young female mage-apprentices, all with a strong gerontophile interest in corpulent bearded sages, etc etc. But it bears little resemblance to Jeremy Crawford's Magical Realm, so there's little place for male on male homosexuality - at most that's just something that happens in the background.
Reading a little further through ToA and here is another, and surprisingly not male for once. A female merchant who has as consorts a succubus and incubus. And like the other evil merchant with a male consort. She too is fleshed out a bit.
Quote from: jhkim;1108419Just to check that I am understanding what you are saying here... What I understand is that if you only want LGBT characters if they contextually matter - but you can't think of any cases where it would matter. Thus, there are no positive examples you can cite of LGBT characters in an RPG. Is that a fair assessment?
As I said, I don't think that there is an overall benefit or drawback to having LGBT characters. I don't think modules with LGBT characters are overall better than modules without LGBT characters, and conversely, I don't think modules without LGBT characters are better. If I hear that a module has an LGBT couple in it, it makes me neither more interested nor less interested in buying it.
Personally, I will include LGBT characters when they seem to fit. For example, last week I re-ran a game of my Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG (Cinematic Unisystem), and among the six PCs one was lesbian and one was bi. (NOTE: That doesn't mean that I think all games need 33% LGBT, it's just that this game happened to have two characters.) I thought they were both cool characters who fit well with the game, which was set in modern-day Santa Cruz. The first was "Ashley McBay, Gay Vegetarian Wiccan Rich Girl" -- which nicely captured a side of Santa Cruz, and who was roughly the Santa Cruz equivalent of Cordelia in the TV series. Here's her character sheet:
http://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/buffy/chars/display.cgi?shortname=slayerbot/ashley
The other character was Tori, "Goth Chick from Hell" -- a transplant from Sunnydale. Also a fun and cool character, I thought, for a comedy-action game.
http://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/buffy/chars/display.cgi?shortname=slayerbot/tori
So cool that you are running that game. I have to tell C.J. Oddly enough, the first playtest sessions featured a guy playing a lesbian Slayer and a gay woman playing a really slutty straight woman. "Slutty" was the player's description. I prefer "generous."
Quote from: Omega;1108632Just didtch the Korobokuru dwarves and replace them with more traditional and accurate koro-pok-guru which cleave closer to certain types of gnomes. Like 5e's Forrest Gnomes.
What are the chances we can get them in a 5e Adventure Path? I hear they're docked 30-points on the Oppression Scale because they're Asian, and they're not as Oppressed as other marginalized non-indigenous groups of hetero-adjacent interests and pan-spectrum identities?
This is a powerful Elf Mage NPC in my Black Mountain District setting.
Alcorelen has a predilection for short affairs with humans and this is the nearest place to her usual haunts where they may be found. Sometimes she loiters in the taverns around the Pocket, where a player-character might encounter her. She is extremely attractive. Her opinion of the faction struggle is that dwarfs are stuffy and should lighten up or at least shut up.
Should I change "humans" to "human men or women" to be woke enough or to "human males" to be unwoke enough?
Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1108722Should I change "humans" to "human men or women" to be woke enough or to "human males" to be unwoke enough?
Are you implying the character is so closed-minded she refuses to even consider having sex with other races? That is... a little problematic.
Quote from: tenbones;1108720What are the chances we can get them in a 5e Adventure Path? I hear they're docked 30-points on the Oppression Scale because they're Asian, and they're not as Oppressed as other marginalized non-indigenous groups of hetero-adjacent interests and pan-spectrum identities?
Interestingly so far there has not been any adventures or material for Kara-Tur. There has been some asian themed class paths. Samurai and Kensai come to mind. But so far nothing set over there. Maybee once they get this demon obsession out of their system?
Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1108722Should I change "humans" to "human men or women" to be woke enough or to "human males" to be unwoke enough?
Human Gnomes. :o
Quote from: Antiquation!;1108725Are you implying the character is so closed-minded she refuses to even consider having sex with other races? That is... a little problematic.
Since she's an elf, she
is having sex with other species. In fact, she just turned down an elf suitor who traveled a long way to court her. Is she a bigot for not banging dwarfs? hobbits? goblins? I don't know.
Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1108730Is she a bigot for not banging dwarfs? hobbits? goblins? I don't know.
Depends who you ask. Won't SOMEBODY,
PLEASE think of the kobolds!
Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1108730Since she's an elf, she is having sex with other species. In fact, she just turned down an elf suitor who traveled a long way to court her. Is she a bigot for not banging dwarfs? hobbits? goblins? I don't know.
Maybee she has a round ear fetish? :cool:
Maybee she is turned off by those dead black halfling eyes Holloway liked to draw?
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/53/6c/24/536c24513a072dd4b2eb560b052c7aa2.jpg)
Maybee she has a fear of heights and dwarves are just too scary?
Quote from: Antiquation!;1108731Depends who you ask. Won't SOMEBODY, PLEASE think of the kobolds!
Someone did! Half Kobolds in Malatra wayyyyyy back. We try to
not think of the kobolds now. :eek:
Quote from: Omega;1108733Someone did! Half Kobolds in Malatra wayyyyyy back. We try to not think of the kobolds now. :eek:
WTF! :eek: I choose not to wrack my brain over the reasoning on that one.
Quote from: tenbones;1108537And now you make my point for me: THE VAST MAJORITY OF US ARE NOT L-G-B-or-T.
That's right. We're just elves, gnomes, halflings, half-orcs, and dwarves, gamers all minding our business.
As I mentioned earlier, an overall summary of my position - which might have gotten lost in the back-and-forth.
In general, I'd usually want gay characters to be handled just like any other characters, like being left-handed or green-eyed. It shouldn't be a political point either way. They would just exist because such people exist within the setting. In settings with accepted same-sex marriage like modern-day U.S., or Blue Rose's Aldis, or Forgotten Realms - then I'd expect to see a few same-sex married couples if there are other married couples. In historical or pseudo-historical settings, there would still be gay people, but they would typically (but not always) be hidden or closeted.
I don't have any particular expectation about how often I'd see such characters. Modules aren't demographic treatises, and I don't have any demand that gay people exist in precisely the proportion they are in real life or the fictional setting. That means I don't have a problem with 0% gay but I also don't have a problem with 15% gay.
I don't generally care about the politics of module authors, not because I don't care about politics, but because I don't feel like RPGs are an important battleground for politics. I don't have any purity tests for authors. It could be that a module has 0% gay characters because the module author is actually a homophobe. I don't particularly care to probe that. Conversely, maybe a gay couple is included because the author is a gay-rights advocate. That's doesn't influence me either way to get the module.
What I care about is how well the module plays for me. Are the characters interesting, the background cool, and the challenges dynamic? Most of the times, modules will fail. A random NPC from a random module won't be particularly cool. Likewise, a random gay NPC from a random module won't be particularly cool. That doesn't mean I want to block gay NPCs from appearing - it means I'm going to be selective in my module buying regardless of whether NPCs are gay or not.
Quote from: jhkim;1108801In settings with accepted same-sex marriage like modern-day U.S., or Blue Rose's Aldis, or Forgotten Realms - then I'd expect to see a few same-sex married couples if there are other married couples.
Accepted same sex marriage as an institution wasn't really mentioned as part of the Forgotten Realms though. Really this only started about 3 years ago with Crawford getting control of the productions. A queen or king with a homosexual consort who is tolerated by the public, which has historical precedents and is fairly easy to conceive of, really is not the same thing as gay marriage as an actual societal institution.
Even with Golarion, gay marriage as an actual recognised thing only started appearing around 2012-13.
Quote from: jhkim;1108801In general, I'd usually want gay characters to be handled just like any other characters, like being left-handed or green-eyed. It shouldn't be a political point either way. They would just exist because such people exist within the setting. In settings with accepted same-sex marriage like modern-day U.S., or Blue Rose's Aldis, or Forgotten Realms - then I'd expect to see a few same-sex married couples if there are other married couples. In historical or pseudo-historical settings, there would still be gay people, but they would typically (but not always) be hidden or closeted.
And the arbiter of that is whom? If you look at the history of my posts - I'm the "CONCEIT" guy. If it's established conceit in the setting, then there is NO issue. Why? Because there is NO issue. If you want it at your table - no problem. But in publication those items should be put in there from the jump. And if you're going to insert it in there - you damn well better put some context around it. Otherwise you're just pandering.
And I'm not saying it *can't* be done. I'm saying if you're going to introduce it, to it within context. Don't just do it and pretend no one notices.
"Gee - the King of Cormyr is suddenly a Left-handed Asian guy, with a bone in his nose."
"Oh well haven't you noticed that Tenbones is now the Lead Dev on The Realms and he's trying to give more representation to Jungle Asian savages." /eyeroll
Because yeah, that really is the intent of the setting... and in everyone's interests. Please.
Whereas some honest attempt might be a very risky adventure path which Realms adventurers get sent to a newly discovered island - and I populate it with tons of Jungle Asian shit and the bone-in-the-nose rehabilitated cannibal headhunting chieftan is a new convert to
because a missionary found their way there, and the adventure is surviving and dealing with the fallout of "discovery". Rather than sticking my personal pet-interests in everyone elses shit and putting it in their face with zero context.
Honor the material first.
Quote from: jhkim;1108801I don't have any particular expectation about how often I'd see such characters. Modules aren't demographic treatises, and I don't have any demand that gay people exist in precisely the proportion they are in real life or the fictional setting. That means I don't have a problem with 0% gay but I also don't have a problem with 15% gay.
But that's exactly what you're saying - you want a demographic quota. My question is WHY? Why not just leave it open? GM's can add whatever suits their fancy at their table. LESS is MORE. When you put non-sequitur material (yes, Left-Handed Jungle Asian Cannibal Headhunters as NON-SEQUITUR as Gay Gnomish Kings) into a setting without proper context, you might turn away potential GM's that would otherwise use that material. The problem is for people perhaps more strident in your passive-aggressive position that are probably unwilling to have this discussion as you do - are more willing to say "those people" are racist/phobes for simply not needing/wanting their special interests.
Quote from: jhkim;1108801I don't generally care about the politics of module authors, not because I don't care about politics, but because I don't feel like RPGs are an important battleground for politics.
And yet... you are subject to them every bit as we are. We are having that discussion *because* of those very politics.
Quote from: jhkim;1108801I don't have any purity tests for authors. It could be that a module has 0% gay characters because the module author is actually a homophobe. I don't particularly care to probe that. Conversely, maybe a gay couple is included because the author is a gay-rights advocate. That's doesn't influence me either way to get the module.
So you're dancing around these things completely free of calling the spade a spade. If the setting doesn't outright have these things as a conceit, then they're not conceits of the setting. If you want to put them into your game at your table. FEEL FREE. If you're going to add them to a setting as a "new thing" - then honor the importance of that thing (whatever it is, because CLEARLY it means that much to you), with having the decency to put it into context with the setting that heretofore didn't have it in the first place.
I find it hypocritical and/or bizarre that you would jump to the furthest worst position for someone NOT including gays in their setting overtly, by implying that such author might be an actual homophobe. When by implication - any NPC in any game can be *whatever the fuck you want* it to be at your table as a GM. When I don't see *ANYONE* mentioning the lack of White or Black people in Bushido, the lack of Asian NPC's in Dragon Coast, - are those authors racists? There are more fucking Asians than gays in the world, jhkim, you know. There aren't any because it's not a conceit. But there can be as many as you need or want at your table. Why is this even needing to be explained?
Quote from: jhkim;1108801What I care about is how well the module plays for me. Are the characters interesting, the background cool, and the challenges dynamic? Most of the times, modules will fail. A random NPC from a random module won't be particularly cool. Likewise, a random gay NPC from a random module won't be particularly cool. That doesn't mean I want to block gay NPCs from appearing - it means I'm going to be selective in my module buying regardless of whether NPCs are gay or not.
Right, so who is all the virtue signalling for? If modules mostly fail (which I agree, and why I don't use them) - who is it for? Who does it serve IN GAME? Precisely no one. It's designed for SJWS to feel good and pat each other on the back for pretending they're doing something real in the real-world for us poor marginalized minorities. <--- The Spade is a Spade.
Quote from: S'mon;1108854Accepted same sex marriage as an institution wasn't really mentioned as part of the Forgotten Realms though. Really this only started about 3 years ago with Crawford getting control of the productions. A queen or king with a homosexual consort who is tolerated by the public, which has historical precedents and is fairly easy to conceive of, really is not the same thing as gay marriage as an actual societal institution.
Even with Golarion, gay marriage as an actual recognised thing only started appearing around 2012-13.
So? Accepted same sex marriage as an institution wasn't really a part of the United States until four years ago.
The Forgotten Realms isn't a real place - it doesn't have a real history. Lots of people take liberties with it, altering it to suit their needs. But because it is a fantasy place, there's no reason our own biases should have been part of the social fabric; most people added them because they didn't specifically choose to leave them out. Now maybe the folks in the Forgotten Realms oppose having Kobold spouses, but maybe not. There's not really any reason why same-sex unions should be controversial when unions between species are so common...
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108949But because it is a fantasy place, there's no reason our own biases should have been part of the social fabric; most people added them because they didn't specifically choose to leave them out.
sarc/ I agree with you. And I happen to know this zoophiliac, who likes to fuck dogs in the ass - real dogs, with wet muzzle and hairy butts.
I'm gonna lobby for him to join WotC and take over Mearls as creative director. When he will be in that position, he intends to reveal that the paladin who is the spokeman for the Lords of Waterdeeep (I forgot his name) has been in an intimate relationship for 20 years with an adorable Boston Terrier (well... it was adorable 20 years ago, but now, it shows its age. It's a real heartbreaker ;-(
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108949There's not really any reason why same-sex unions should be controversial when unions between species are so common...
I totally agree with you, deadDMwalking. It's time we put to bed this specist attitude towards man-dog relationship.
Ho, and my buddy zoophiliac is totally prepared to deal with whiners who will cry he's sabotaging their precious Forgotten Realms. He will call them bigots, racists, specists and finally - for having the audacity of criticizing him for trying to paint a fantasy world anew in the colours of his minority - he will brand them Nazis.
I can't wait for all this to happen ! We will all sing kumbaya, except the totally mean nazi people who disagree with us ! /sarc
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108949So? Accepted same sex marriage as an institution wasn't really a part of the United States until four years ago.
The Forgotten Realms isn't a real place - it doesn't have a real history.
Except that it does. The moment it was published. And it's been maintained in a certain manner within various parameters that is pretty normal "D&D fantasy" until fairly recently.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108949Lots of people take liberties with it, altering it to suit their needs.
... *at* their tables.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108949But because it is a fantasy place, there's no reason our own biases should have been part of the social fabric; most people added them because they didn't specifically choose to leave them out.
...*at* their tables. And in the published world the conceits of their various fantasy cultures are fairly well laid out from Greybox until today. The social fabric of most major cultures in the Realms is fairly established. Whatever biases we bring to that fabric is for us to jack around with. If you're going to introduce new conceits - like Cormyr suddenly has devil-worship and slavery, because the new writer is into BDSM and Devil worship... you damn well better make some attempt at convincing people why this is now a thing, and more importantly - why I would want to engage in this "thing" and pay money for it. Sell us on it.
NO one is under some obligation to accept things that are not the "norm" to be "normal". The way it's done in entertainment is like some kind of revenge fantasy.
Let's make Captain America a Nazi! Let's make Thor a weepy bitch, and make the new Thor a female. - Those are some HARD sells. SELL me on it. Well they failed. But if you don't like it, you're suddenly a homophobe, Nazi-sympathizer *because* you don't like how they failed to deliver.
Two gay gnome "kings" trying to hire presumably mostly heterosexuals to kill the other? That is somehow a good representation of LGBT representation?
At no point do these "creators" take responsibility for the MANNER in which they try to introduce their ideas. Worse - they tend to do it so badly that they disrespect the whole intent of representation and the material which they're trying to insert it into.
Best case - don't do it. You're not that good and/or the idea is superfluous to the whole point trying to be made.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108949Now maybe the folks in the Forgotten Realms oppose having Kobold spouses, but maybe not. There's not really any reason why same-sex unions should be controversial when unions between species are so common...
Except it's not "normal". Just because it exists doesn't make it normal. It means it CAN happen - it's still not common. So that means if you're going to do it - give it some meaningful context. And further - let's not pretend that Kobolds, Orcs, Hobgoblins, Goblins do not have cultural significance in the Forgotten Realms. They're evil and they're the enemies of "good" races. Having a kobold spouse would be an extreme outlier. If you wanna conflate LGBT issues with established evil monsters hooking up with standard PC's races and pretending it *shouldn't* have any contextual significance in your games - that's on you.
Pretending otherwise in published material based on the history of the Realms would be silly... at best if I'm charitable. Otherwise it sounds like moral relativism to me, which sounds like a stupid way to game. But YMMV.
Quote from: tenbones;1108967Except that it does. The moment it was published. And it's been maintained in a certain manner within various parameters that is pretty normal "D&D fantasy" until fairly recently.
I disagree. Consistency in the Realms is your imagination. Are you completely disregarding 4th edition?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108971I disagree. Consistency in the Realms is your imagination. Are you completely disregarding 4th edition?
At my table. Yes. Partially. I've been running the Realms since around '87, in the same campaign. It's virtually impossible to keep anything canon in line with your campaign(s) at the table.
Why? What's your point? Are you insinuating that when 4e dropped, LGBT representation magically happened in the Realms?
Quote from: tenbones;1108975Why? What's your point? Are you insinuating that when 4e dropped, LGBT representation magically happened in the Realms?
Well pieces of another world along with their inhabitants did replace chunks of the FR world. Most of those lands went away in 5e, but the left people and their ideas behind. No, I'm not trying to suggest this as a serious answer, but if you want it to be, then go ahead and use it as such.
Quote from: tenbones;1108975Why? What's your point? Are you insinuating that when 4e dropped, LGBT representation magically happened in the Realms?
My point is that the setting is provided by someone other than yourself, and they do what they want with it when they want to. They can (and do) claim that things are different than they said
and they've always been different. Sometimes Drow items stop dissolving in the sun and sometimes a new race that never existed before suddenly has always existed. It's usually termed 'retconning' and it's silly to complain about it. If you don't like Dragonborn in the Forgotten Realms, you can say 'not in my version', but you should ask yourself why what
you want automatically trumps what a
player might want. If your answer boils down to 'even though it is a fictional world designed to be a fun place to play in, in my mind it's a REAL PLACE DAMMIT and I can't bear the thought of inconsistent changes', well, the insane one might be you.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108981you should ask yourself why what you want automatically trumps what a player might want.
Emphasis on the
might.
I do remember making some of my liberal, female players happy when I made two of my male NPCs gay in my 4e FR campaign. I don't recall any demands that Gay Marriage Has Always Been A Thing (And We Have Always Been At War With Thay) though.
Quote from: S'mon;1108988Emphasis on the might.
There clearly are players that have asked for increased representation of people that they identify with. That's why we're where we are. Holding some line that says, Dragonborn are okay, but GAYS??? just strikes me as awfully silly. For lots of good reasons the default of D&D worlds is that men and women are equally capable adventurers without regard to historical norms; especially if magic is equally innate and generally BETTER than martial power, that makes a lot of sense.
Likewise, when your most immediately pressing problem is whether your village is prepared to survive the next scheduled dragon assault, stoning people for putting their private parts inside people with the same private parts doesn't seem like it makes sense.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108981My point is that the setting is provided by someone other than yourself, and they do what they want with it when they want to. They can (and do) claim that things are different than they said and they've always been different. Sometimes Drow items stop dissolving in the sun and sometimes a new race that never existed before suddenly has always existed. It's usually termed 'retconning' and it's silly to complain about it. If you don't like Dragonborn in the Forgotten Realms, you can say 'not in my version', but you should ask yourself why what you want automatically trumps what a player might want. If your answer boils down to 'even though it is a fictional world designed to be a fun place to play in, in my mind it's a REAL PLACE DAMMIT and I can't bear the thought of inconsistent changes', well, the insane one might be you.
Certainly. And again - this is my larger point: the conceits of the setting matter. If you want me to continue to support a published product, everytime you produce something for that setting, you're selling me those conceits. If you change them - you're risking me not liking whatever those changes were. The beauty of RPG's are that if those changes are minimal - then you can ignore them.
The point becomes when you as a consumer decides the product is something you want to consume. For me - the moment a product ceases to be useful, and that includes when it becomes intentionally political extraneous to any need I have for the product - then I'm out. Using my previous example - if a Devil-Worshipping developer started putting his pet ideology into the Realms, I'd feel the same way, if handled at the level current Woke ideology is being handled.
As for what the "players" want at my table. LOL that's easy. Don't play. It's a two-way street. I don't run stuff I don't have an interest in. Likewise my players don't have to play in *anything* I offer up. And that's our social contract. I am the primary GM of my group. But when it's time to do a new campaign - it requires *me* to do a sales-pitch to my players. They absolutely get to tell me what they're interested in playing or not. They don't get to tell me how to do it - otherwise *they* can GM that thing, and make the sales pitch to us. No one is obligated to do anything or have some vested interest in playing a certain way.
Sell me on it. Or GTFO.
Edit: On the FLIPSIDE of that coin - if Woke Ideology is so "good", why do they not simply make an entire setting based on those ideals and flesh it out, and PUBLISH it, with every Woke Conceit covered, representational requirement met, genders galore, politics scrubbed clean of anything remotely "offensive" - and let it sink or swim on its own?
WHY co-opt what is already established? We both know why that is. Again this is why I respect Blue Rose. They had the balls to try.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108993There clearly are players that have asked for increased representation of people that they identify with. That's why we're where we are. Holding some line that says, Dragonborn are okay, but GAYS??? just strikes me as awfully silly.
And this is where the Woke Ideology gets its foothold in the door. Let's play! "How much representation is required for there to be *enough* LGBT representation?" What is the quality of that representation? Thus far, as far back as 1990(!) there were gay rulers in the Realms. How many more will suffice? How many more are *necessary*? For what reason?
The answer is simple - there is no answer that will ever suffice for the ideologically thirsty. That's precisely why the question is loaded and why its asked.
Because the point of representation in a game is *NON-CONTEXTUAL*. No one in *reality* is being demeaned by not being represented in a work of fiction. That is some intensely entitled narcissistic lunacy. Haven't you read this thread? Where are my Left-Handed Bone-in-The-Nose Jungle Asian Kings in the Dragon's Reach? Where are ANY Asian rulers in the Dragon's Reach? Sword Coast? Asians are real. There are more Asians than gays in the whole world. Let's not talk about Asian gays - where is their specific representation? What about left-handed Asian gays? After we settle that... then we'll move to the next "thing" that's not represented. None of which has any real context to the material.
And yet... we're led to believe it matters in some manner of importance.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108993For lots of good reasons the default of D&D worlds is that men and women are equally capable adventurers without regard to historical norms; especially if magic is equally innate and generally BETTER than martial power, that makes a lot of sense.
Well that's easy. Men/Women - that's 100% of the population. What does that have anything to do with who is sexually attracted to whom? D&D doesn't model the act of sex. And fortunately we can do whatever we damn well please at our tables.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108993Likewise, when your most immediately pressing problem is whether your village is prepared to survive the next scheduled dragon assault, stoning people for putting their private parts inside people with the same private parts doesn't seem like it makes sense.
Should we outlaw any analog culture whose historical cultural practices are culturally anathema to modern Western society? Is that some kind of suggestion? I'm not sure what the point is getting at?
I mean - I'm not saying you can't have that stuff in there, I've run campaigns that started all the PC's as slaves in Thay... and treated them *horribly* with the whole first 5-levels being about setting up a huge slave revolt and escape, that post 5th level turned into a war that ultimately destroyed Thay and Szass Tam and his undead/gnoll hordes.
What are you suggesting we set the conceits of a setting to sell to? A small demographic with specific interests? Or a larger demographic with more general interests that you leave open to interpretation? One doesn't mean you hate the other. And one isn't obligated to support the other either.
Quote from: tenbones;1108996D&D doesn't model the act of sex.
Thank Xenu for the comprehensiveness of GURPS! Roll Sex Appeal, possibly Carousing followed by Erotic Arts (maybe an HT roll depending on duration), calculate fatigue loss and call it a night. :p
We don't talk about the fan-made "GURPS Sex" supplement...
Quote from: jeff37923;1108388I've bought the 5E Essentials Kit and will read through it when I have time so that I can comment more on this hot button subject......
OK, I've finally had enough time to read the short adventure and the two gnome kings aren't that meaningful in context. Their entire "kingdom" consists of about a score of subjects, they are all tinker gnomes pretty much, and worrying about perpetuating their line is pointless because their lifestyle will result in an eventual pocket-sized gnomish genocide (they are manufacturing minor magic items in a wild magic zone).
The writing of the 4 page adventure "Gnomengarde" is pretty bad. Honestly, the token gay kings are not nearly as bullshit as the Mimic (Int 5) which is stalking and eating the gnomes in a very intelligent and clever manner (that the attack which triggered the gnome king's madness came when this medium creature was disguised as a rug is just icing).
Exactly. This is what I noted right off. Their being gay is meaningless. They are kings of what? That's right. A small workshop. Of recluses. (at least they have about 50/50 population spread for gender somehow.)
But as noted earlier and in another thread. It could be this blankness as it were was intentional. "make of it what you will" Like we did at the start of the thread.
This is definitely inclining me to go with "gnome madness" angle.
Quote from: jeff37923;1109065OK, I've finally had enough time to read the short adventure and the two gnome kings aren't that meaningful in context. Their entire "kingdom" consists of about a score of subjects, they are all tinker gnomes pretty much, and worrying about perpetuating their line is pointless because their lifestyle will result in an eventual pocket-sized gnomish genocide (they are manufacturing minor magic items in a wild magic zone).
LOL
I call dibs on "Pocket-sized Gnomish Genocide" for my folk metal cover band.
Quote from: jeff37923;1109065The writing of the 4 page adventure "Gnomengarde" is pretty bad. Honestly, the token gay kings are not nearly as bullshit as the Mimic (Int 5) which is stalking and eating the gnomes in a very intelligent and clever manner (that the attack which triggered the gnome king's madness came when this medium creature was disguised as a rug is just icing).
Out of an academic interest in "things done poorly that annoy people in RPGs": what's bullshit about the Mimic?
Quote from: jeff37923;1109065The writing of the 4 page adventure "Gnomengarde" is pretty bad. Honestly, the token gay kings are not nearly as bullshit as the Mimic (Int 5) which is stalking and eating the gnomes in a very intelligent and clever manner (that the attack which triggered the gnome king's madness came when this medium creature was disguised as a rug is just icing).
Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1109187Out of an academic interest in "things done poorly that annoy people in RPGs": what's bullshit about the Mimic?
From the context, that the mimic is acting more intelligently than jeff37923 thinks it should for its Int 5.
But Int 5 is not that low; most animals are lower (ape has 6, baboon has 4; most predators have 2 or 3). I imagine its ability to mimic objects is instinctive (so it doesn't imagine something that might plausibly be in the room, but appears as something it's seen, perhaps even having an ancestral memory of things it might mimic) but Int 5 would probably be sufficient to remember which things fooled its victims better in a given room (and it's CR 2, so easily able to survive being spotted as out of place by commoners to get that experience).
Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1109187Out of an academic interest in "things done poorly that annoy people in RPGs": what's bullshit about the Mimic?
Quote from: rawma;1109199From the context, that the mimic is acting more intelligently than jeff37923 thinks it should for its Int 5.
But Int 5 is not that low; most animals are lower (ape has 6, baboon has 4; most predators have 2 or 3). I imagine its ability to mimic objects is instinctive (so it doesn't imagine something that might plausibly be in the room, but appears as something it's seen, perhaps even having an ancestral memory of things it might mimic) but Int 5 would probably be sufficient to remember which things fooled its victims better in a given room (and it's CR 2, so easily able to survive being spotted as out of place by commoners to get that experience).
The intelligence is a part of it, but it is a volume problem. Mimic's are amorphous and can shape themselves into chests, barrels, thick walls, chest of drawers, and other solid furnishings. I have trouble imagining a mimic shaping itself into something like a chair, stool, or rug because the volume of those objects is mostly empty space or too thin to house a mouth + digestive tract (vacuole?) capable of eating a medium sized creature. The writer of that adventure seems to have read the monster description of a mimic and used the idea without fully understanding what the monster is or is used for in adventures by Dungeon Masters.
Quote from: jeff37923;1109207The intelligence is a part of it, but it is a volume problem. Mimic's are amorphous and can shape themselves into chests, barrels, thick walls, chest of drawers, and other solid furnishings. I have trouble imagining a mimic shaping itself into something like a chair, stool, or rug because the volume of those objects is mostly empty space or too thin to house a mouth + digestive tract (vacuole?) capable of eating a medium sized creature. The writer of that adventure seems to have read the monster description of a mimic and used the idea without fully understanding what the monster is or is used for in adventures by Dungeon Masters.
Ahhhh. Got it. I grok that -- attention to detail and internal consistency. Thanks!
Quote from: jeff37923;1109207The intelligence is a part of it, but it is a volume problem. Mimic's are amorphous and can shape themselves into chests, barrels, thick walls, chest of drawers, and other solid furnishings. I have trouble imagining a mimic shaping itself into something like a chair, stool, or rug because the volume of those objects is mostly empty space or too thin to house a mouth + digestive tract (vacuole?) capable of eating a medium sized creature. The writer of that adventure seems to have read the monster description of a mimic and used the idea without fully understanding what the monster is or is used for in adventures by Dungeon Masters.
This one is actually easy to explain. Kinda. Maybee...
All the mimic has to do is shape its extra mass into mimicing the floor or other objects if it wanted to appear as something small.
But more importantly. Remember that the mimic is naturally mostly a hollow space. Compacted its not all that big so it can assume shapes like chests and chairs within limits. Then it just has to grapple the prey and cram them into its maw. So it may be it is being used right here. It is described as mimicing a barrel, and a rug. Two things that are reasonable. A chair is probably reasonable too within limits.
The main problems are that the "king" just freaked and holed up in his room and
did not tell anyone else. This place is a ruin waiting to happen.
Quote from: Omega;1109214This one is actually easy to explain. Kinda. Maybee...
All the mimic has to do is shape its extra mass into mimicing the floor or other objects if it wanted to appear as something small.
But more importantly. Remember that the mimic is naturally mostly a hollow space. Compacted its not all that big so it can assume shapes like chests and chairs within limits. Then it just has to grapple the prey and cram them into its maw. So it may be it is being used right here. It is described as mimicing a barrel, and a rug. Two things that are reasonable. A chair is probably reasonable too within limits.
I still struggle with the volume. Spreading out to a 10' square rug just makes the volume very thin.
Quote from: Omega;1109214The main problems are that the "king" just freaked and holed up in his room and did not tell anyone else. This place is a ruin waiting to happen.
Well, that and the king was attacked in his throne room by the mimic when it was a rug. How do you not notice a new rug?
"The mimic can use its action to polymorph into an object or back into its true, amorphous form. Its statistics are the same in each form." I don't think it's bound by conservation of volume, conservation of internal organs or even conservation of mass.
Quote from: Omega;1109214The main problems are that the "king" just freaked and holed up in his room and did not tell anyone else. This place is a ruin waiting to happen.
The king might have thought, "Huh, somebody put in a new rug. I'll have to ask about that." and barely escaped with his life based on being missed by its initial pseudopod attack. Or asked one of his subjects about it and ran away when that subject was killed. And either way is hiding in his room because of horror, guilt and the paranoid certainty that, if he opens the door at all, the mimic will enter his room as a spoon on a tray of food or an envelope in the daily mail or an extra roll of toilet paper, whether or not mimics could actually mimic any of those objects (he failed his Nature check, or Arcana check, or whatever would tell you about mimics, or didn't even try).
Maybe his gayness protected him; his stereotypical flair for interior decoration warned him that the rug that would look innocuous to a straight ruler was actually a terrible danger, and he fled to his room in horror, revulsion and shame that his partner, his soul mate, could have approved such a hideous thing (although the other king was unaware of it). If he lives through the adventure, he will be starting a podcast "Queer Gnome Eye for the Straight Adventurer". :D
(I haven't actually seen the adventure; sorry if I've inferred something incorrect from the earlier posts.)
Quote from: tenbones;1108996And this is where the Woke Ideology gets its foothold in the door.
And in the 1950s someone could have written "And this is where the Communist Ideology gets its foothold in the door," if the gnomes instead ran a socialist collective.
This overreaction is ridiculous. The evil lesbians and gays will not be taking over the nation because a couple of fantasy gnome kings are affiliated with them. It will not snowball into something meaningful because it's outright silly.
Quote from: rawma;1109221Maybe his gayness protected him; his stereotypical flair for interior decoration warned him that the rug that would look innocuous to a straight ruler was actually a terrible danger, and he fled to his room in horror, revulsion and shame that his partner, his soul mate, could have approved such a hideous thing (although the other king was unaware of it). If he lives through the adventure, he will be starting a podcast "Queer Gnome Eye for the Straight Adventurer". :D
(I haven't actually seen the adventure; sorry if I've inferred something incorrect from the earlier posts.)
I know that you are just kidding, but that kind of parody is something that I think would want to be avoided if the character inclusion was supposed to be taken seriously and not a stereotype.
Quote from: Mistwell;1109223And in the 1950s someone could have written "And this is where the Communist Ideology gets its foothold in the door," if the gnomes instead ran a socialist collective.
This overreaction is ridiculous. The evil lesbians and gays will not be taking over the nation because a couple of fantasy gnome kings are affiliated with them. It will not snowball into something meaningful because it's outright silly.
Nice strawman.
If your game table doesn't watch an hour of midget on midget man fucking before playing this adventure, you're all a bunch of hateful bigots!
And tenbones, you're quite right about WotC's selective view of "representation". It's just political pandering woke bullshit because its quite clear the "Gnome = Gay" is just as meaningless to the adventure as "Gnome = Left Handed".
Also, how does a workshop have one king, let alone two kings? These aren't tinker gnomes. These fuckers are gully dwarves!
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108981If you don't like Dragonborn in the Forgotten Realms, you can say 'not in my version', but you should ask yourself why what you want automatically trumps what a player might want.
Because I'm the GM.
The person who puts in the work makes the decisions about the game world, and that's the GM.
The players' decision is whether to play in that GM's game world or leave.
Quote from: Mistwell;1109223And in the 1950s someone could have written "And this is where the Communist Ideology gets its foothold in the door," if the gnomes instead ran a socialist collective.
This overreaction is ridiculous. The evil lesbians and gays will not be taking over the nation because a couple of fantasy gnome kings are affiliated with them. It will not snowball into something meaningful because it's outright silly.
Woke Ideology already rules the USA, so I find this a weird inversion! Conversely the Stalin-affiliated Communists had gone from controlling much of the US government in the 1940s, to losing power under Eisenhower, which being on the decline is how McCarthy was able to openly oppose them.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1109259Also, how does a workshop have one king, let alone two kings? These aren't tinker gnomes. These fuckers are gully dwarves!
That's my take away from the thread. The whole thing from concept to implementation sounds like a train wreck of sloppy thinking.
Is the adventure equally terrible, or does it have any merit?
Quote from: Pat;1109287That's my take away from the thread. The whole thing from concept to implementation sounds like a train wreck of sloppy thinking.
Is the adventure equally terrible, or does it have any merit?
After having read it, I'd say that it was terrible and has little to no merit.
Quote from: jeff37923;1109215I still struggle with the volume. Spreading out to a 10' square rug just makes the volume very thin.
Well, that and the king was attacked in his throne room by the mimic when it was a rug. How do you not notice a new rug?
1: A 10ft square area depending on the thickness, and lets assume it was say a half inch thick. would get you something with a 2.5x2ft volume I believe. So it fits for something that is currently predating on gnomes.
2: considering how lacking in the brains department some of these gnomes appear to be. Makes sense in context. Or just assumed someone put a new rug in.
x: I get the feeling someone had read the old Phillip K Dick story Colony which seems to be the inspiration for the Mimic. Except mercifully they do not seem to ever mimic clothes.
Quote from: jeff37923;1109290After having read it, I'd say that it was terrible and has little to no merit.
I would not say it is terrible. But for anyone burned out on any kind of Knutty Krynn Komedy Knomes... it can come across as a little annoying. Especially as prior to this Rock Gnomes were not resented as wanna-be Tinker Gnomes. But I get the impression too that possibly someone writing this section was, like way too fucking many gamers, fixated on the idea that ALL gnomes are tinker gnome morons existing only for the chuckles. And they didnt even play that up enough.
Such is.
Quote from: Pat;1109287That's my take away from the thread. The whole thing from concept to implementation sounds like a train wreck of sloppy thinking.
Is the adventure equally terrible, or does it have any merit?
It is one mission out of several. The players might actually miss it depending on what jobs they take along the way.
It is either very sloppy or a very poor attempt at a joke location. And it feels like a joke location. Just with a serious threat. But the writing contradicts the location. These gnomes are supposed to be important somehow to the area. But theres only 20 of them, down from 22 originally. The place is essentially a workshop and dormitory for a bunch of recluse gnomes. Who seem pretty open for a bunch of recluses.
Without any history on the place its impossible to tell the exact why it exists or how.
But again this may be another "make of it what you will" thing. Left mostly blank so the DM can flesh it out however they want.
1: Maybee they are outcasts considered a bit... off... by wherever they originally came from. This is their try at making it on their own.
2: Maybee they are a bit... off... and were sent off to this place to both get them out of everyones hair, and give them something constructive to do.
3: Maybee they are a bit... off... set out to make their own colony for whatever reasons. And came across this abandoned gnome workshop. The mimic is why it is abandoned.
4: This started off normal. But eating mushrooms grown in a wild magic pocket has left some, or all, of the new colony a bit... off...
and so on. Make of it what you will.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108981My point is that the setting is provided by someone other than yourself, and they do what they want with it when they want to.
Are you seriously trying to claim that *anyone* that gets the wheel of the car can decide to do *whatever* they want with it - in PUBLICATION? You are playing very fast and loose with something I'm not claiming - and in fact I've drawn a strict distinction between the table and publication. Not sure if you're doing it on purpose... but it wouldn't be the first time you've framed your points this way.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108981They can (and do) claim that things are different than they said and they've always been different. Sometimes Drow items stop dissolving in the sun and sometimes a new race that never existed before suddenly has always existed. It's usually termed 'retconning' and it's silly to complain about it.
Stay on target. WHAT about what you just said is political in nature? What about it has *anything* to do with real-world conceits invading fictional ones? What about what you said has *anything* to do any attempt and honoring the PREVIOUS conceits of the setting. I'll tell you: ZERO on counts one and two. And on three - they very much explained away Drow weapons "dissolving in the sun" via the idea of alloy quality. etc. It didn't remove the old conceit. It added onto it without changing it.
As for construing these things being the same thing - you're being extremely disingenuous. The Woke Agenda is in play. This isn't shocking to anyone but you.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108981If you don't like Dragonborn in the Forgotten Realms, you can say 'not in my version', but you should ask yourself why what you want automatically trumps what a player might want. If your answer boils down to 'even though it is a fictional world designed to be a fun place to play in, in my mind it's a REAL PLACE DAMMIT and I can't bear the thought of inconsistent changes', well, the insane one might be you.
FORTUNATELY my players don't get to determine what *I* want in my game. As I posted - I'm not going to run anything I don't want to run. That includes putting dumb stuff in there that doesn't belong. I don't GM by committee but I certainly ask them what they're interested to see if it dovetails with what I'm willing to run. Beyond that: they can choose to play/not play or run something themselves. Pretty easy.
Quote from: Mistwell;1109223And in the 1950s someone could have written "And this is where the Communist Ideology gets its foothold in the door," if the gnomes instead ran a socialist collective.
What precisely do you think the inclusion of this ridiculous scenario is supposed to reflect? Aside from an embarrassing example of "pro-LGBT". Because I wouldn't find it flattering. Are you denying it's political in intent?
Quote from: Mistwell;1109223This overreaction is ridiculous. The evil lesbians and gays will not be taking over the nation because a couple of fantasy gnome kings are affiliated with them. It will not snowball into something meaningful because it's outright silly.
Who is over-reacting? I've posted *MULTIPLE* times in this thread that it's not a big deal. MULTIPLE TIMES. It's merely a topic of discussion. Who is making a big deal about it? I'm just speaking my observation.
As for snowballing into something meaningful... hmm I think it's already done that, by showing the door to those that don't really want to support this backhanded silliness in the products they consume. I'd say that's meaningful.
Quote from: Pat;1109287That's my take away from the thread. The whole thing from concept to implementation sounds like a train wreck of sloppy thinking.
Is the adventure equally terrible, or does it have any merit?
And under THIS premise (which you perfectly outlined) is the "positive representation" the Woke, so thirsty for any form of legitimacy, will accept as a score for their team.
Have at it people/them/they/whatevers!
Quote from: jeff37923;1109243Nice strawman.
Wrong trendy argumentation retort. The trendy argumentation retort you were looking for is whataboutism, not strawman. I did not accuse him of making that argument. I compared his argument to another argument.
Unless you mean the lesbians and gays taking over snowball. Which was obvious hyperbole. Whatever people are afraid of with this, it's stupid. There is nothing to fear from this. Our culture is not being harmed by a couple of gay gnomes in your fantasy adventure book.
Quote from: tenbones;1109338What precisely do you think the inclusion of this ridiculous scenario is supposed to reflect? Aside from an embarrassing example of "pro-LGBT". Because I wouldn't find it flattering. Are you denying it's political in intent?
It reflects nothing. And I don't care if it has political intent, I care if it does any harm to anything making it worth getting your knickers in a bunch over it. And it doesn't do harm to anything, so it is silly to overreact this much to it. We're what, 450 responses in to a couple of gay gnomes in your fantasy adventure?
QuoteWho is over-reacting? I've posted *MULTIPLE* times in this thread that it's not a big deal. MULTIPLE TIMES.
You do understand the irony of you posting many times that something isn't a big deal, and then repeating it in all caps twice. Right? I mean you see it?
Quote from: Mistwell;1109344It reflects nothing. And I don't care if it has political intent,
Well there you go. Other people do. /shrug.
Quote from: Mistwell;1109344I care if it does any harm to anything making it worth getting your knickers in a bunch over it. And it doesn't do harm to anything, so it is silly to overreact this much to it. We're what, 450 responses in to a couple of gay gnomes in your fantasy adventure?
Do you think those people perpetuating these political narratives in their products haven't contributed to the harm caused to other people in the gaming industry? Are you going to actually say that on RPGsite? LOL
Yes we're talking about one tree in a very very large forest. and that Tree happens to be filled with the very rot that is causing sickness far beyond the forest. And it's indicative of the lengths to which people will bury their heads in the sand over Intersectional Religous Zealotry and refuse to simply admit that very damage you're choosing to ignore in your statement.
I mean - we can discuss only gay-gnomre kings... and we should... but there is a lot more to it than just that. I thought that was pretty clear after 40+ pages of varying levels of actual discussion.
Quote from: Mistwell;1109344You do understand the irony of you posting many times that something isn't a big deal, and then repeating it in all caps twice. Right? I mean you see it?
I don't think YOU do. I of course do. Because you know... I had to keep repeating yet more because you're pretending I never said it. Right? I mean... I did have to repeat it to you. You see the irony of your supposed irony? You could just acknowledge it and move on - rather than passive-aggressively insinuate otherwise, or trying to make some nebulous rhetorical point that speaks to literally *nothing* I haven't acknowledged. Yet... here you are.
Edit: Note- you didn't answer any of *my* questions. Give me some Ukrainian Quid P.Q.
Quote from: Mistwell;1109342Wrong trendy argumentation retort. The trendy argumentation retort you were looking for is whataboutism, not strawman. I did not accuse him of making that argument. I compared his argument to another argument.
Unless you mean the lesbians and gays taking over snowball. Which was obvious hyperbole. Whatever people are afraid of with this, it's stupid. There is nothing to fear from this. Our culture is not being harmed by a couple of gay gnomes in your fantasy adventure book.
Sorry I described your disingenuous stupidity with the wrong term. I'll endeavor to be more accurate when describing the idiocy that you post in the future. :rolleyes:
Quote from: jeff37923;1109065... they are all tinker gnomes pretty much, and worrying about perpetuating their line is pointless because their lifestyle will result in an eventual pocket-sized gnomish genocide (they are manufacturing minor magic items in a wild magic zone ...
Someone could have pointed that out at the first and closed the argument hard. I was on the fence until you reported it. Now I'm completely out. :)
Quote from: Mistwell;1109342Wrong trendy argumentation retort. The trendy argumentation retort you were looking for is whataboutism, not strawman. I did not accuse him of making that argument. I compared his argument to another argument.
Unless you mean the lesbians and gays taking over snowball. Which was obvious hyperbole. Whatever people are afraid of with this, it's stupid. There is nothing to fear from this. Our culture is not being harmed by a couple of gay gnomes in your fantasy adventure book.
Quote from: jeff37923;1109348Sorry I described your disingenuous stupidity with the wrong term. I'll endeavor to be more accurate when describing the idiocy that you post in the future. :rolleyes:
I should back up here for a moment because I was in a hurry to get ready for work in my first response.
The annoyance you have brought out from me is because of how you are disingenuously framing your commentary. You are insinuating that any criticism of WotC's piss-poor writing is due to fear of the subject matter (the use of token gay characters and a lack of understanding for the setting), which makes it easier to dismiss such criticism. The thing is, I want the writing to be worth paying for. I shelled out my hard earned dollars for this and want my money's worth (which I think I haven't gotten). If I supported the social justice based inclusion of LGBT characters, then I'd be annoyed that the token gay characters are both pathetic and obviously shoehorned in to a throwaway adventure within the main module - they are practically comic relief (which is far more insulting than their tokenism).
The problem isn't that people who are critical of WotC are afraid of this material, the problem is that supporters of WotC are afraid of their favorite game being criticized accurately.
Quote from: tenbones;1109336FORTUNATELY my players don't get to determine what *I* want in my game. As I posted - I'm not going to run anything I don't want to run. That includes putting dumb stuff in there that doesn't belong. I don't GM by committee but I certainly ask them what they're interested to see if it dovetails with what I'm willing to run. Beyond that: they can choose to play/not play or run something themselves. Pretty easy.
If a DM can not figure out how to include a Dragonborn into a DnD setting then they are not smart enough to even be allowed to DM in the first place - and this is a game that a 11 year old can run.
I mean we are talking about serious levels of retardation here.
Quote from: Shasarak;1109375If a DM can not figure out how to include a Dragonborn into a DnD setting then they are not smart enough to even be allowed to DM in the first place - and this is a game that a 11 year old can run.
I mean we are talking about serious levels of retardation here.
What if they simply choose not to include dragonborn? Would the assumption be that they can not figure it out because they are not smart, or they allowed to make that choice without being attacked?
Quote from: Shasarak;1109375If a DM can not figure out how to include a Dragonborn into a DnD setting then they are not smart enough to even be allowed to DM in the first place - and this is a game that a 11 year old can run.
I mean we are talking about serious levels of retardation here.
Yeah... I see what you mean. This comment IS pretty retarded.
Quote from: jeff37923;1109290After having read it, I'd say that it was terrible and has little to no merit.
Thanks.
Quote from: Omega;1109299... It is either very sloppy or a very poor attempt at a joke location...
Without having read it, that sounds plausible. Humor is tough, especially in written form, and it could certainly explain the absurdity.
Quote from: Shasarak;1109375If a DM can not figure out how to include a Dragonborn into a DnD setting then they are not smart enough to even be allowed to DM in the first place - and this is a game that a 11 year old can run.
I mean we are talking about serious levels of retardation here.
Yep, lemme just let some fuckwit's marketing decisions run completely roughshod over 20+ years of my setting's development.
My table, my setting, fuck you. Don't like it, fuck off.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;1109381Yep, lemme just let some fuckwit's marketing decisions run completely roughshod over 20+ years of my setting's development.
My table, my setting, fuck you. Don't like it, fuck off.
This.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;1109381Yep, lemme just let some fuckwit's marketing decisions run completely roughshod over 20+ years of my setting's development.
My table, my setting, fuck you. Don't like it, fuck off.
It's the modern version of the old complaint against the Puritans. The problem with the Puritans was that they were upset at the thought that somewhere a person was having fun. Now it is people upset at the thought that somewhere a person was thinking for themselves. Can't have either one in elf games.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;1109381Yep, lemme just let some fuckwit's marketing decisions run completely roughshod over 20+ years of my setting's development.
My table, my setting, fuck you. Don't like it, fuck off.
The Viking Hat
LIVES! Long may it be worn by GMs!
I had to tell an 11 year old boy there were no Dragonborn in Primeval Thule...
Once he got over it, and stopped threatening to boycott the campaign, he made a much cooler* character anyway.
*Literally - Vorstag the Frost Giant's Son!
Quote from: jeff37923;1109242I know that you are just kidding, but that kind of parody is something that I think would want to be avoided if the character inclusion was supposed to be taken seriously and not a stereotype.
:confused: :eek: A fair point. In honor of your gracious defense of your LGBT comrades, I am inclined to offer a more serious opinion on the other thread. This thread was never serious, except for the important questions about mimic anatomy.
Quote from: jeff37923;1109366I should back up here for a moment because I was in a hurry to get ready for work in my first response.
The annoyance you have brought out from me is because of how you are disingenuously framing your commentary. You are insinuating that any criticism of WotC's piss-poor writing is due to fear of the subject matter (the use of token gay characters and a lack of understanding for the setting), which makes it easier to dismiss such criticism. The thing is, I want the writing to be worth paying for. I shelled out my hard earned dollars for this and want my money's worth (which I think I haven't gotten). If I supported the social justice based inclusion of LGBT characters, then I'd be annoyed that the token gay characters are both pathetic and obviously shoehorned in to a throwaway adventure within the main module - they are practically comic relief (which is far more insulting than their tokenism).
The problem isn't that people who are critical of WotC are afraid of this material, the problem is that supporters of WotC are afraid of their favorite game being criticized accurately.
And that is a disingenuous description of most of the comments in this thread. There is a whole lot of "Ew you got your SJW in my peanut butter" in this thread. I have total sympathy for the "this doesn't make much sense" and "this is poorly written". I have no sympathy for the "yet more sign of the SJW apocalypse" tone of so many posts here.
Quote from: Shasarak;1109375If a DM can not figure out how to include a Dragonborn into a DnD setting then they are not smart enough to even be allowed to DM in the first place - and this is a game that a 11 year old can run.
I mean we are talking about serious levels of retardation here.
Well, you know - I don't include Zentraedi in my game either. Or Bi-clopses. Or Tri-clopses. Or Dinosaur men. Or any other arbitrary race I don't need or want to explain in my largely Greybox influenced game.
Could I put any of those things in there? sure. Easily. But I don't like them. I don't even think they belong - but hey, I get it. Marketing needs something new to show the kids.
I'll grant I still might be retarded tho. The question would be "compared to what". Being burdened with the curse of perspective is often something most people don't have to endure today... I'm just a poor little POC.
Quote from: Mistwell;1109433And that is a disingenuous description of most of the comments in this thread. There is a whole lot of "Ew you got your SJW in my peanut butter" in this thread.
So we have to like SJW shit in our peanut-butter too? Look at the title of the thread. Look at the content in which it's presented. do you think it's "good"? You seem to talk a lot of shit without actually saying anything.
If you like this stuff - sell it. We're right here. Instead you'd rather make passive-aggressive insinuations like a little twat. I'm down to have the discussion. What's objectively good about this, and the rest of the SJW stuff you pretend is "good". And tell us how? Tell me why my Asian Gnomes aren't represented? I've been asking again - multiple times - none of the allies to these ideas can explain it to me. Why is that?
Quote from: Mistwell;1109433I have total sympathy for the "this doesn't make much sense" and "this is poorly written". I have no sympathy for the "yet more sign of the SJW apocalypse" tone of so many posts here.
Great! Tell us why these things are connected. Tell us why having one doesn't immediately lead to the other? Because contrary to a LOT of people here, I do believe you can use SJW themes and make it good. I just don't think SJW's would like the ramifications of it. You've offered *nothing* to discuss... but c'mon, you didn't really want to do that.
Quote from: tenbones;1109443So we have to like SJW shit in our peanut-butter too? Look at the title of the thread. Look at the content in which it's presented. do you think it's "good"? You seem to talk a lot of shit without actually saying anything.
If you like this stuff - sell it. We're right here. Instead you'd rather make passive-aggressive insinuations like a little twat. I'm down to have the discussion. What's objectively good about this, and the rest of the SJW stuff you pretend is "good". And tell us how? Tell me why my Asian Gnomes aren't represented? I've been asking again - multiple times - none of the allies to these ideas can explain it to me. Why is that?
Great! Tell us why these things are connected. Tell us why having one doesn't immediately lead to the other? Because contrary to a LOT of people here, I do believe you can use SJW themes and make it good. I just don't think SJW's would like the ramifications of it. You've offered *nothing* to discuss... but c'mon, you didn't really want to do that.
Because there never was anything meaningful to discuss after the first couple of comments. IT'S MEANINGLESS. That's my point! I am not going to "sell it" because there is nothing to sell. It had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ADVENTURE ITSELF, AND DOES NO HARM IN ANY WAY aside from poorly written nonsense - which isn't unique to SJW issues at all. People are free to dislike it, particularly if it makes no sense or is poorly written. But your reaction in particular is clearly way past those kinds of objections and well into "SJW Apocolypse oh my God they're taking over run for your lives grab the pitchforks if we don't stop it now our entire lives will be ruined" level of hysteria.
It's not like your reaction to this has been anything close to the tone you'd take to any other kind of poorly written or nonsense element of an adventure. If the gnomes were, say, posing as hobgoblins for no reason at all, you wouldn't be posting about it like this. You might make an off hand comment that it makes no sense or is poorly written, but you wouldn't go on and on like you are but-for the fact it's that they're GAY gnomes who are poorly written and make no sense. Add in the gay part and you freak your shit out.
Which is why I am bashing you for it. Calm down Francis. It's no more meaningful than any other minor element of an adventure which is poorly written or makes no sense.
Quote from: tenbones;1109443So we have to like SJW shit in our peanut-butter too?
Like it? No. But much like the FDA forces us to accept that certain amounts of rodent shit, insect heads, maggots, mold, etc. are in the food we buy, it is quite likely that we have to accept that some things we don't like are going to make it into the games that we buy.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1109455Like it? No. But much like the FDA forces us to accept that certain amounts of rodent shit, insect heads, maggots, mold, etc. are in the food we buy, it is quite likely that we have to accept that some things we don't like are going to make it into the games that we buy.
Good point!
Quote from: Mistwell;1109450Because there never was anything meaningful to discuss after the first couple of comments. IT'S MEANINGLESS. That's my point! I am not going to "sell it" because there is nothing to sell. It had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ADVENTURE ITSELF, AND DOES NO HARM IN ANY WAY aside from poorly written nonsense - which isn't unique to SJW issues at all. People are free to dislike it, particularly if it makes no sense or is poorly written. But your reaction in particular is clearly way past those kinds of objections and well into "SJW Apocolypse oh my God they're taking over run for your lives grab the pitchforks if we don't stop it now our entire lives will be ruined" level of hysteria.
Oh so you agree with me? Ok. I don't think *anyone* here, I'm certainly not, is saying there is an SJW Apocalypse. You said that. It literally *can't* be for me: I don't play D&D. I don't give WotC any of my money. It's a non-issue, but fun to talk about. *I*, once again, have said many times now in this thread, to which you've called it "ironic" only in relation to your own shit-posting, that it's not a big deal. You seem to be more interested in insinuating that we believe otherwise. My gaming life is just fine. This one thing on its own *is* meaningless. But the incremental insertion of this stuff is on purpose. You know... *because* Crawford has *said so*, and is actively pushing for it in D&D.
https://kotaku.com/dungeons-dragons-promises-to-make-the-game-more-queer-1798401117
https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/1050444027282186240?lang=en
https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurenorsini/2019/04/17/wizards-of-the-coasts-new-lgbtq-merch-is-its-latest-push-for-inclusivity/#7d6b39d92a41
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKJhtdOd_ag&feature=youtu.be
https://www.themarysue.com/sexuality-and-gender-diversity-dungeons-and-dragons-next/
To examine these things without examining the quality or execution of this program seems stupid, don't you think?
I completely disagree that this stuff is harmless. The very people that rally behind this - for ulterior motives are the very people that *have* caused damaged to other people in this industry for simply not being Woke enough. But you already knew that. Me personally? Kinda sorta, but nothing that is going to affect me.
Quote from: Mistwell;1109450It's not like your reaction to this has been anything close to the tone you'd take to any other kind of poorly written or nonsense element of an adventure. If the gnomes were, say, posing as hobgoblins for no reason at all, you wouldn't be posting about it like this. You might make an off hand comment that it makes no sense or is poorly written, but you wouldn't go on and on like you are but-for the fact it's that they're GAY gnomes who are poorly written and make no sense. Add in the gay part and you freak your shit out.
Oh so now you're a mind-reader? How about you settle on just being a "reader" - you know, where I keep asking for my Asian Gnomes? Why are you not asking for my Asian Gnomes? Do you think two gay gnomish kings is the same thing as gnomes posing as hobgoblins? You know... because in a published work meant for all ages, where magic exists and posing as hobgoblins can happen... but implying that two male gnomes having sex (which is the only thing that sets apart two males gnomes from two gay male gnomes - that happen to have titles that do not exist in their culture, nor represented in the actual adventure) seems appropriate or even a quality representation of LGBT "virtues"? I'm a little scared you'd be happy if my Asian Gnome representation was a bunch of yellow-skinned buck-toothed gnomes doing the dopey-dance with rice-paddy pajamas and straw hats as "acceptable". Funny, but I'd shoot for higher standards myself, on either count.
Or better yet - not at all, since I don't think having Asian Gnome Kings is appropriate without good context. None of which is analogous to the shitshow they served up with the Gay Gnomes.
Quote from: Mistwell;1109450Which is why I am bashing you for it. Calm down Francis. It's no more meaningful than any other minor element of an adventure which is poorly written or makes no sense.
Well that's the funny thing. I don't feel bashed. I feel like you're projecting your own problems on me (and everyone else) - that don't really affect me the way you believe it does. I've found this thread quite funny. At no point have I ever been anything but amused by it. Which I attribute some of that to you. Francis isn't here, Dave. The point of the thread is the very thing that is meaningless. But to ignore the larger thing it speaks to says more about you than any of us.
So lets take this further assuming it is "make of it what you will".
Anyone have any thoughts on what this workshop dormitory place will become if the PCs can end the mimic threat? Because what it will become if they do not stop the mimic, or never visit the place, is another ruin dotting the landscape.
Honestly I am at a loss as they just seem too few and too lacking intelligence to survive long once the PCs are away. A small band of orcs or even a group of kobolds could probably wipe them out. The dormitory area is accessible from the outside! Adventures being adventurers. It is totally possible the party will get the task done at the place and then leave never knowing the fate if this place.
But some thoughts. Assuming the "king" comes back to his senses. I could see a push to beef up security. Or ask the PCs to talk to the local dwarves for advice and help in fortifying the place. This would tie the different locations together more and make things ongoing.
I'm catching up with this thread after being away the last three days. Following up on some earlier thoughts from S'mon and tenbones first.
My son is in the middle of running this currently with his friends at college. I'd like to check in with him about how it went before commenting specifically on that part.
Quote from: jhkimIn settings with accepted same-sex marriage like modern-day U.S., or Blue Rose's Aldis, or Forgotten Realms - then I'd expect to see a few same-sex married couples if there are other married couples.
Quote from: S'mon;1108854Accepted same sex marriage as an institution wasn't really mentioned as part of the Forgotten Realms though. Really this only started about 3 years ago with Crawford getting control of the productions. A queen or king with a homosexual consort who is tolerated by the public, which has historical precedents and is fairly easy to conceive of, really is not the same thing as gay marriage as an actual societal institution.
On the one hand, I agree that toleration of homosexual couples is not the same thing as same-sex marriage. Still, this seems more like hair-splitting to me, because Forgotten Realms has never been historically plausible - and a couple like Lady Lord Yanseldara and Vaerana Hawklyn have no historical precedents that I can think of.
Ever since it first came out, I think Forgotten Realms has emphasized being a little more magical and strange than Greyhawk. It's clearly ahistorical, as shown by features like Yanseldara and Hawklyn. I feel that not explicitly calling them lesbian was an artifact of 1990s RPG publishing, not an in-game feature that lesbianism was taboo in the Realms. I think nearly everyone in this thread has agreed that Greenwood did always intend them to be gay, and that he's not lying or being revisionist when he says that they are now.
So at least, openly gay couples are an established part of the Realms, with the details of marriage being unclear.
Quote from: jhkimI don't have any particular expectation about how often I'd see such characters. Modules aren't demographic treatises, and I don't have any demand that gay people exist in precisely the proportion they are in real life or the fictional setting. That means I don't have a problem with 0% gay but I also don't have a problem with 15% gay.
Quote from: tenbonesBut that's exactly what you're saying - you want a demographic quota. My question is WHY? Why not just leave it open? GM's can add whatever suits their fancy at their table. LESS is MORE. When you put non-sequitur material (yes, Left-Handed Jungle Asian Cannibal Headhunters as NON-SEQUITUR as Gay Gnomish Kings) into a setting without proper context, you might turn away potential GM's that would otherwise use that material. The problem is for people perhaps more strident in your passive-aggressive position that are probably unwilling to have this discussion as you do - are more willing to say "those people" are racist/phobes for simply not needing/wanting their special interests.
As I said, I'm fine with 0% gay characters in a given module. And 0% gay is no more open than 15% gay. GMs can always do what they want with a module - add gays, remove gays, add left-handers, remove left-handers, etc. But I don't support sanitizing modules so that they don't offend people. If authors want to be middle-of-the-road / sanitized, that's fine. But not every module is for everyone.
Quote from: jhkim;1109581and a couple like Lady Lord Yanseldara and Vaerana Hawklyn have no historical precedents that I can think of.
The historical reality is that no one really cares if two women shack up together. At most you get a bit of sniggering.
As far as Forgotten Realms goes, well it'd feel like Crawford/Disney-style virtue signalling if Cormyr was suddenly ruled by two Queens or two Kings. But there are plenty of places where two same-sex rulers wouldn't be a big deal, at least if they were self made adventurer types. I'm going to assume neither Gnome Kning is Scion of A Proud And Ancient Dynasty.
That's the part that I squint at.
How is this... "offering" of SJW virtue... passing any kind of muster for those that care, in the LGBT arena, as "good"? WTF kinds of standards are in operation here where this is considered acceptable?
That only speaks worse of the situation.
Quote from: jhkim;1109581But I don't support sanitizing modules so that they don't offend people. If authors want to be middle-of-the-road / sanitized, that's fine. But not every module is for everyone.
My take is simple: if you're going to do "it" - make it matter or leave it open to interpretation. If it doesn't warrant making it matter - then don't pretend it doesn't and stuff it in there or worse - make a caricature of it, which undermines the whole point of inserting it in there in the first place for ulterior motives. It's either sloppy design, writing, or conceptualizing - and likely all three.
With Lady Lord Yanseldara and Vaerana Hawklyn, to me it was obvious but left open ended. It gave me the option to play with it, to contextualize it for my uses. And I did. And they were gay. And it played a big part of my campaign for years.
But I could add a lot of stuff around it without making a big mockery of it for meta-purposes to people that would never know because they didn't play with me. Which is what I think is happening here with the Gay Gnomish Kings.
The adventure is a throwaway. The gnomes are all described (including the two kings) by one NPC statblock called "gnomish recluse". So they are all considered interchangeable, effectively disposable.
Quote from: jhkimBut I don't support sanitizing modules so that they don't offend people. If authors want to be middle-of-the-road / sanitized, that's fine. But not every module is for everyone.
Quote from: tenbones;1109604My take is simple: if you're going to do "it" - make it matter or leave it open to interpretation. If it doesn't warrant making it matter - then don't pretend it doesn't and stuff it in there or worse - make a caricature of it, which undermines the whole point of inserting it in there in the first place for ulterior motives. It's either sloppy design, writing, or conceptualizing - and likely all three.
It's always open to interpretation -- because it's your own damn campaign. If someone didn't like Yanseldara and Hawklyn, maybe they change them into a Lord and Lady in their campaign. If you don't like that gnome kings are gay -- you can change them. The module is the module -- you can do with it whatever you like.
But I don't think that modules should be stripped of all color because someone might be offended or someone might think that the wrong motive was behind it.
Quote from: jhkim;1109612It's always open to interpretation -- because it's your own damn campaign. If someone didn't like Yanseldara and Hawklyn, maybe they change them into a Lord and Lady in their campaign. If you don't like that gnome kings are gay -- you can change them. The module is the module -- you can do with it whatever you like.
But I don't think that modules should be stripped of all color because someone might be offended or someone might think that the wrong motive was behind it.
But they can't be both. You don't get to add your personal shit into a game for the purposes extraneous to the setting and game itself - there are no Gnomish kings in the Realms, *and* demand by fiat of public shaming, it be considered acceptable to everyone regardless of context. There is no purpose to making them gay arbitrarily and then making them caricatures and pretend it's both serious and be extolled (maybe not by you) as some celebratory example of inclusion. Then castigate any that dare say "poor form" to it. Whether it's in execution or content is irrelevant to the ideologues that let it slide for either reason.
The difference no one is talking about here is the intent. Yanseldara and Hawklyn *may* have been intended for some ulterior motive - but it was handled fine and obviously open for consideration.
But today this is not why those two gnomes are gay. They're overtly gay for pandering purposes. And done poorly. Just as poorly as if you and I were to accept them as Asian Gnomes doing the ching-chong dance with buck-teeth slap-boxing one another with squinty-eyes like buffoons and having some white-liberal asshole tell us "See! Asian inclusivity!" and pat themselves on the back. Then have Kotaku, and the usual shit-sites all proclaim WotC for being so progressive.
What about the Realms? Yeah... what about it...
I'm sorry - I just have standards and I don't accept low-expectations as a general position of acceptability. And this is why I don't spend my money on WotC products, when otherwise I would. It's their money to take simply by not pandering to moronic ideas that renders their work shabby.
Edit: I'm not asking for sanitization - I'm asking for excellent quality free of ideological drivel. Not really too much to ask.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1109378What if they simply choose not to include dragonborn? Would the assumption be that they can not figure it out because they are not smart, or they allowed to make that choice without being attacked?
Yeah maybe you are running a world that only has Dwarves.
But thats not DnD, thats Dwarfland: The Digging.
Quote from: jeff37923;1109607The adventure is a throwaway. The gnomes are all described (including the two kings) by one NPC statblock called "gnomish recluse". So they are all considered interchangeable, effectively disposable.
That was something noticed too. They all ref that Rock Gnome Recluse stat block. Not even the more prominent of the gnomes is statted? But this is a starter and meant to be easy to parse by a mew GM. But a little variety would have been nice even if it is "bob the gnome has a WIS of 12 instead of the listed 10". Done have the box open at the moment but isnt there some notes on tweaking NPCs? I'll have to check later.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;1109381Yep, lemme just let some fuckwit's marketing decisions run completely roughshod over 20+ years of my setting's development.
My table, my setting, fuck you. Don't like it, fuck off.
If the retard, I mean DM cant handle a Dragon born then damn right fuck off. I have no interest in yet another unoriginal Tolkien rip off.
I'm currently listening to Dave Rubin's interview with Douglas Murray. One of Mr. Murray's brilliant observations jarred something loose in my head relevant to our favorite gnay gnome thread.
If the authors were really attempting to build a more diverse and interesting fictional world for adventuring, then they did a piss poor job of it.
If, on the other hand, their real purpose was virtue signaling and tweaking the noses of their ideological opponents, then they succeeded.
Assuming the second motivation, there's no need to flesh out the particulars for the inclusion of TOPIC X within the world. In fact, the more that TOPIC X stands out in a jarring manner, the more it has in fact served its purpose. Anyone who notices that it doesn't fit the larger narrative context and is foolish enough to comment on it has in effect "outed" themselves as counter-revolutionary, or at least non-revolutionary which amounts to the same thing.
What we are assuming to be a bug from the standpoint of good writing / module design may actually be a feature, for those with a certain political agenda.
Quote from: Shasarak;1109642I have no interest in yet another unoriginal Tolkien rip off.
Why? Are you too dumb to handle elves, dwarves and hobbits?
See how stupid that sounds?
Quote from: Shasarak;1109642If the retard, I mean DM cant handle a Dragon born then damn right fuck off. I have no interest in yet another unoriginal Tolkien rip off.
Just interest in yet another WotC kitchen sink fantasy world?
Quote from: Shasarak;1109639Yeah maybe you are running a world that only has Dwarves.
But thats not DnD, thats Dwarfland: The Digging.
Actually theres a few published D&D settings with various tweaks. Some pretty heavy.
D&D Conan: Human only.
Dragonlance: No half-orcs, no halflings.
Dark Sun: No dwarves, Not sure if there were any gnomes or half-elfs. Not sure if halflings were allowed as a PC race? Been 2 decades.
Masque of the Red Death: Human only.
O and BX: No gnomes, half-elfs, or half-orcs. Greyhawk and Blackmoor may have added some but I dont have those on hand to check.
5e Basic and Essentials: No gnomes, half-elfs, half-orcs, tieflings or dragonborn.
Oriental Adventures: no standard races that isnt human or dwarf.
Vikings, Celts, and Rome: Human only.
Don't know about Birthright or Council of Wyrms as the books are in storage.
BECMI: had a set of books that focused on one race and some tertiary ones. Top Ballistia was centered on Gnomes. But other races were still present. But the book was a setting unto itself and could be played so as could the undersea one. Not sure about the others.
And so on.
Quote from: Omega;1109650Actually theres a few published D&D settings with various tweaks. Some pretty heavy.
D&D Conan: Human only.
Dragonlance: No half-orcs, no halflings.
Dark Sun: No dwarves, Not sure if there were any gnomes or half-elfs. Not sure if halflings were allowed as a PC race? Been 2 decades.
Masque of the Red Death: Human only.
O and BX: No gnomes, half-elfs, or half-orcs.
5e Basic and Essentials: No gnomes, half-elfs, half-orcs, tieflings or dragonborn.
Oriental Adventures: humans and dwarves.
Vikings, Celts, and Rome: Human only.
Don't know about Birthright or Council of Wyrms.
BECMI: had a set of books that focused on one race and some tertiary ones. Top Ballistia was centered on Gnomes. But other races were still present. But the book was a setting unto itself and could be played so as could the undersea one. Not sure about the others.
And so on.
Dark Sun had dwarves and half-elves.
Oriental Adventures (the AD&D one) had humans, korobokuru (wild dwarves), hengeyokai (shape-shifting animals), and spirit folk.
I'm not familiar enough with the others to comment.
Quote from: tenbones;1109520Oh so now you're a mind-reader? How about you settle on just being a "reader" - you know, where I keep asking for my Asian Gnomes? Why are you not asking for my Asian Gnomes?
No I am calling you a coward, for pretending you'd care equally about gnomes posing as hobgoblins as you do gnomes who are gay. You argue later why you think them being gay is so important, so you're both admitting this is a lie but for some bizarre reason proclaiming your innocence here. It's a mutually exclusive position you're taking here. No mind-reading necessary because you admit it IS that they're gay that's behind your protest - obviously!
QuoteDo you think two gay gnomish kings is the same thing as gnomes posing as hobgoblins?
Yes, *I* do. You obviously do not. Which is why it's so weird you accused me of mind-reading when I said that's what you appear to think. You're confirming it right here, you DO think being gay is a huge big difference from posing as Hobgoblins. I really do not in this context. Both would be just as meaningless to the adventure.
QuoteYou know... because in a published work meant for all ages, where magic exists and posing as hobgoblins can happen... but implying that two male gnomes having sex (which is the only thing that sets apart two males gnomes from two gay male gnomes - that happen to have titles that do not exist in their culture, nor represented in the actual adventure) seems appropriate or even a quality representation of LGBT "virtues"?
NOBODY is having sex in the adventure. If they were a male and female, would you go right to "Implying they're having sex, in adventure intended for all ages!! Eeek!"? No of course not. You're all concerned because of the possibility that somewhere off-screen people are having gay sex, but would be perfectly fine if that same implication were made of straight sex. And don't fucking deny it, because there ARE married straight characters in many WOTC adventures and you've never had an issue with a single one of them!
Apparently just the thought of gay people having sex gets your knickers in a bunch.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1109652Dark Sun had dwarves and half-elves.
Oriental Adventures (the AD&D one) had humans, korobokuru (wild dwarves), hengeyokai (shape-shifting animals), and spirit folk.
I'm not familiar enough with the others to comment.
I was just commenting on the standard races each does not have. Or what it has. Not listing every variant or new race. Pretty sure 1st ed Dark Sun did not have dwarves as a PC race? It was stated they were extinct and only half-drarf Muls were left? I could be very wrong on that. Been 2 decades. :o
Edited my list to be a little more clear.
Quote from: Brendan;1109643I'm currently listening to Dave Rubin's interview with Douglas Murray. One of Mr. Murray's brilliant observations jarred something loose in my head relevant to our favorite gnay gnome thread.
If the authors were really attempting to build a more diverse and interesting fictional world for adventuring, then they did a piss poor job of it.
If, on the other hand, their real purpose was virtue signaling and tweaking the noses of their ideological opponents, then they succeeded.
Assuming the second motivation, there's no need to flesh out the particulars for the inclusion of TOPIC X within the world. In fact, the more that TOPIC X stands out in a jarring manner, the more it has in fact served its purpose. Anyone who notices that it doesn't fit the larger narrative context and is foolish enough to comment on it has in effect "outed" themselves as counter-revolutionary, or at least non-revolutionary which amounts to the same thing.
What we are assuming to be a bug from the standpoint of good writing / module design may actually be a feature, for those with a certain political agenda.
Humm. Good point.
Quote from: Mistwell;1109657Apparently just the thought of gay people having sex gets your knickers in a bunch.
I remember in the late '90s coming home from Tuesday evenings being manly & soldierly with SA80 rifles at the local Territorial Army Reserve base, to find my then-wife watching gay sex on TV (Channel 4's
Queer as Folk) with some middle-aged roue buggering jailbait, and feeling vaguely annoyed - getting my knickers in a bunch, as you say. Must be the testosterone.
Quote from: Omega;1109658Pretty sure 1st ed Dark Sun did not have dwarves as a PC race? It was stated they were extinct and only half-drarf Muls were left? I could be very wrong on that.
Both dwarves and muls (sterile half-human/dwarf hybrids) were playable in the original boxed set. I don't know about the 4ed reboot. Dwarves had special rules for endurance and playing their obsession/focus.
Not only were these races very different in Dark Sun, Dark Sun also had feral cannibal halflings, "half-giants" (actually a magically engineered race), and the insectoid Thri-kreen.
Quote from: Shasarak;1109639Yeah maybe you are running a world that only has Dwarves.
But thats not DnD, thats Dwarfland: The Digging.
So we can't run a dwarf only campaign? What about a fighter or mage or thief only campaign? What about when the next version of D&D comes along and gender-fluid demi-animals are one of the new standard "core races"? Are you obligated to fit them into your campaign?
You realize that people have been tweaking the race/class/style of D&D since the beginning, all under the guise of D&D and often in material published by TSR?
This is getting seriously weird. Speaking of "The Digging" you're the one doing it.
Quote from: Shasarak;1109639Yeah maybe you are running a world that only has Dwarves.
But thats not DnD, thats Dwarfland: The Digging.
So we can't run a dwarf only campaign? What about a fighter or mage or thief only campaign? You realize that people have been tweaking the race/class/style of D&D since the beginning, all under the guise of D&D and often in material published by the copy-right holders?
This is getting seriously weird. Speaking of "The Digging" you're the one doing it.
Quote from: jhkimIf you don't like that gnome kings are gay -- you can change them. The module is the module -- you can do with it whatever you like.
But I don't think that modules should be stripped of all color because someone might be offended or someone might think that the wrong motive was behind it.
Quote from: tenbones;1109618The difference no one is talking about here is the intent. Yanseldara and Hawklyn *may* have been intended for some ulterior motive - but it was handled fine and obviously open for consideration.
But today this is not why those two gnomes are gay. They're overtly gay for pandering purposes.
When I'm referring to wrong motives, I am discussing intent. From my view, you would like to say that it's the SJWs who have purity tests, and demand that authors not have any wrongthink on display. But here you're saying the equivalent -- authors should have only the proper intent for creating.
I have no idea of the true reasons why either Yanseldara/Hawklyn or the gnomes were created. And I don't feel I have to know. What matters to me is how well the module plays. I'm still waiting to hear from my son about how well that part of the adventure went. I only know Yanseldara and Hawklyn through mentions -- and I know they are in the novel "The Veiled Dragon". Are they featured in an adventure module?
Quote from: Shasarak;1109642If the retard, I mean DM cant handle a Dragon born then damn right fuck off. I have no interest in yet another unoriginal Tolkien rip off.
The funny thing is how much you assume about my setting.
But you're demonstrably fucking retarded, so I don't really give two shits about your opinion.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1109648Just interest in yet another WotC kitchen sink fantasy world?
It does not have to be a kitchen sink fantasy world. Playing the only Dragonborn in Middle Earth would give you a different experience then Hobbit #965 Footy McFurfoot.
How did it get there? Well if Saruman can make Uruk-hai then he could make Dragonborn as well.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;1109683The funny thing is how much you assume about my setting.
But you're demonstrably fucking retarded, so I don't really give two shits about your opinion.
I dont even want one shit from you and if I did your world probably does not even have it!
Quote from: Shasarak;1109702It does not have to be a kitchen sink fantasy world. Playing the only Dragonborn in Middle Earth would give you a different experience then Hobbit #965 Footy McFurfoot.
How did it get there? Well if Saruman can make Uruk-hai then he could make Dragonborn as well.
OK, so you're the one that has to demand the GM allow in a special snowflake for your unique enjoyment. I pity such limited imagination in players.
Quote from: Shasarak;1109706I dont even want one shit from you and if I did your world probably does not even have it!
The next time I have need for a Golgothan, it will be named Shasarak, in honor of you.
Quote from: tenbones;1109520I don't think *anyone* here, I'm certainly not, is saying there is an SJW Apocalypse.
It gets said entirely too much.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1106497Ithe RPG hobby becoming politicized by self-described SJWs
Quotethe SJW's takeover of our hobby pleases liberals
Apocalypse is not Armageddon. Apocalypse means the "unveiling". AKA, everyone's putting their cards on the table.
The staff of WotC, Paizo, Monte Cook, Green Ronin proudly self-describe themselves and their companies as Social Justice Warriors, woke progressives, or other CTRL-left titles. These companies are increasingly shoving their politics into their products and any criticism of their woke crusade is decried as sexist, racist, phobic, blah blah blah.
And low and beyond, WHO are pleased about all the politics being shoved into our hobby? WHO are cheering for X-cards and "consent tools" at conventions, cons banning games by "deplorable" designers and declaring the RPG hobby was never "inclusive" until the woke brigade arrived?
Oh, that would be liberals.
So yes, the RPG hobby is becoming politicized by self described SJWs and the SJW's takeover of our hobby pleases liberals.
Not rocket science.
Quote from: Shasarak;1109375If a DM can not figure out how to include a Dragonborn into a DnD setting then they are not smart enough to even be allowed to DM in the first place
I like Dragonborn, but who and what goes into my own settings is decided by me. Exclusion of certain elements is a great way to personalize a setting and narrow the focus for the campaign.
BTW, I'd be totally down for an All-Saurian fantasy world.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;1109381My table, my setting, fuck you. Don't like it, fuck off.
Exactly.
Players have the choice to play or not play. If a GM can't get a full table, then that GM gets to decide to either expand their setting options for PCs or just spend more time gathering interested players.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1109455Like it? No. But much like the FDA forces us to accept that certain amounts of rodent shit, insect heads, maggots, mold, etc. are in the food we buy, it is quite likely that we have to accept that some things we don't like are going to make it into the games that we buy.
Nope. We do not have to accept any politics in our RPGs. Zero.
There aren't a handful of RPG companies. WotC doesn't even control D&D. There are hundreds with new Kickstarters or DriveThru launches, plus there are thousands of "dead" games from the past 4 decades to be revisited.
We can absolutely vote with our dollars. We can absolutely say YES or NO to whatever we like or dislike.
Quote from: tenbones;1109602How is this... "offering" of SJW virtue... passing any kind of muster for those that care, in the LGBT arena, as "good"? WTF kinds of standards are in operation here where this is considered acceptable?
It's a purity test. Nothing more, nothing less.
You either nod with the SJW choir, stay silent, or dissent and get labeled a bigot for not chowing down on the pandering.
Quote from: tenbones;1109618I'm not asking for sanitization - I'm asking for excellent quality free of ideological drivel. Not really too much to ask.
It IS too much to ask from WotC, Paizo, Monte Cook, Green Ronin or any other company dedicated to shoving their "ideological drivel" into the products.
But fortunately, we have HUNDREDS (maybe thousands) of other RPG games to support.
Quote from: rawma;1109735It gets said entirely too much.
For the record, I've had not-straight players and not-straight characters in my home games long before the "Virtuous Left" decided da gays were kewlio purse puppies and celebrity fashion accessories.
Why? Because everybody has always been welcome at my table and I've always had a wide variety of NPCs.
The sick joke about the Gay Gully Dwarves is they're nothing but a purity test. It's the exact throwaway tokenism that the "Virtuous Left" complained about when a minority or female character was tossed into a media product simply for optics. Hell, South Park literally has a black kid named Token to make fun of the trope, but their Token is actually a cool character.
It's the hypocrisy of "selective inclusion" and obvious political pandering that's the poison to the hobby. It's not about including homosexuals as players or NPCs. It's entirely about political pandering to create DIVISION among gamers. That's what sickens me about the SJW brigade.
I don't give a damn if you and I agree on anything ever, but I want a hobby where you and I can sit down together, make believe we're magical elves, toss dice and eat Cheetos, if only for a few happy hours at a convention without real world politics intruding in any manner.
I can't speak for every game table, but fun players (regardless of other characteristics) were always welcome to my table and every table I've played at. I've met plenty of bad GMs and a few asshole GMs, but none who said "Not You!" to any player because of their sex junk or where they wanted to put their sex junk.
And, again for the record,
I don't want ANY politics in my RPGs. Zero. Nada. None. I spat at TSR for pandering to the Satanic Panic in 2e and caving into the Mommy Brigade in the 80s. That was utterly retarded. Just like WotC today.
I'm probably skipping Sine Nomine's Wolves of God Kickstarter because I doubt I'd ever run a "Christian Fantasy" game, even though I expect Kevin Crawford to do an excellent (and non-political) job with the game.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1109745Nope. We do not have to accept any politics in our RPGs. Zero.
There aren't a handful of RPG companies. WotC doesn't even control D&D. There are hundreds with new Kickstarters or DriveThru launches, plus there are thousands of "dead" games from the past 4 decades to be revisited.
We can absolutely vote with our dollars. We can absolutely say YES or NO to whatever we like or dislike.
You keep on voting with your dollars and see if that changes anything--whether that be less politics in game books or less nasty shit in our food. My bet is that all those "voting with out dollars" types don't even register. You can keep buying from the big companies or marginalize yourself to the tiny corner that makes it the way you want it (this applies to any particular corner that fits any particular "you") but it won't really change the directions of the industry. Now, it might change what you encounter in your locale if you get your group(s) to agree with you, but that's perhaps the best you can hope for on eliminating politics by buying from fringe companies or cutting yourself off and sticking to old products (with presumably fewer politics or at least fewer "offensive" politics if you think that everything is politics).
Me, I'll just buy what I find appealing and accept that it might have some icky stuff in it or be made by people with politics different from mine. Again, this applies to both games and food equally in my eyes.
Quote from: Mistwell;1109657No I am calling you a coward, for pretending you'd care equally about gnomes posing as hobgoblins as you do gnomes who are gay. You argue later why you think them being gay is so important, so you're both admitting this is a lie but for some bizarre reason proclaiming your innocence here. It's a mutually exclusive position you're taking here. No mind-reading necessary because you admit it IS that they're gay that's behind your protest - obviously!
Then you completely misinterpret the many times I've spelled it out here (and you're incapable of appreciating sarcastic humor - once again into the breach and Ill literally spell it out just for you) : I DO NOT CARE. AND NEITHER DO YOU - AND NEITHER DO THEY.
I'm saying it's a bullshit standard from the jump. It's *because* they pick and choose arbitrarily who is represented WITHOUT context to the exclusion of everything else they *pretend* is important.
NONE OF IT IS. That's what I'm pointing out in the larger picture. It doesn't belong. It's not inclusive. It's divisive. What do you not understand? If they made them Asian Gnomes in the same venal context I absolutely would say the same thing. That *you* and others accept this offering as somehow positive - again says more about you than me.
If you can get on your high-horse of bullshit fake morality and claim one is more important than the other - I'm down to hear it. Go for it. This should be fun.
Quote from: Mistwell;1109657Yes, *I* do. You obviously do not. Which is why it's so weird you accused me of mind-reading when I said that's what you appear to think. You're confirming it right here, you DO think being gay is a huge big difference from posing as Hobgoblins. I really do not in this context. Both would be just as meaningless to the adventure.
So you ratified my larger point - it's meaningless. It's amazing what lengths you have to go through to admit what we already know and see. If you think they're equivalent - then cite to me the amount of Hobgoblin material in the Forgotten Realms vs. male gay gnome material. I'll wait here.
Quote from: Mistwell;1109657NOBODY is having sex in the adventure. If they were a male and female, would you go right to "Implying they're having sex, in adventure intended for all ages!! Eeek!"? No of course not.
Which is more common - heterosexual relationships or homosexual relationships? Which is more prevalent in context of gaming material? Which is *required*? What context do you need to have a King and Queen? What context is required for a King and King? Among Gnomes? In a social ranking they don't USE. In a Kingdom that isn't actually a kingdom? In a setting that doesn't have them historically?
Asian Gnomes are sounding commensurately appropriate right about now.
It's meaningless because it's non-contextual. You know... that thing I keep repeating to you that you keep ignoring yet oddly get around to admitting upthread. Don't let my Asian Gnome thing fool you - it's a Target Dummy for Dummies you keep shooting at for the exact purposes I put it up. By SJW standards - would that make you a racist you're not advocating for Asian Gnomes when a POC that is Asian is asking for them? Go on... shoot at it some more. It's fun.
Quote from: Mistwell;1109657You're all concerned because of the possibility that somewhere off-screen people are having gay sex, but would be perfectly fine if that same implication were made of straight sex.
Nope. Have all the gay sex you want. I'm saying the gay gnomes are in there for pandering purposes - nothing more. And they're *bad* representations of gay characters. Did you miss that? Again?
Quote from: Mistwell;1109657And don't fucking deny it, because there ARE married straight characters in many WOTC adventures and you've never had an issue with a single one of them!
I wouldn't actually know... since I don't run modules. But I'm not going to deny heterosexual relationships on the surface don't require a lot in terms of context. You know... can you tell me many King/King gay relationships in history? Go look it up. I'll wait here. Yeah - that's called context.
Quote from: Mistwell;1109657Apparently just the thought of gay people having sex gets your knickers in a bunch.
Only if you're an idiot. Which my repeating of my position seems to be indicative of the real problem here. I've played gay characters before. I have gay male players, a furry, bi, lesbians, both as players. I really don't care who/what you put your genitalia in. I'm saying... yet again... and again... that this excuse for shitty representation is arbitrary and for pandering purposes.
That you presume your retarded stance on the worst possible standard without yourself trying to speak to any of the points made other than accusing people like the pussy that you are, of passive aggressively being homophobic (just say it) - ALL while by that same standard you refuse to support the need for Asian Gnomes - would likewise brand you a racist.
All of which is amusing to me. (no I don't think you're a racist - I think you're missing the thrust of bigger point on purpose, in which case you're a disingenuous twat. If you really believe the shit you're saying to me - you might be an actual racist by your own standards - not mine.)
Quote from: rawma;1109735It gets said entirely too much.
Or it does not get said enough.
When company reps are spouting SJW hate speeches and getting patted on the back for it. Yes. There is a freaking problem that is escalating as it spreads like a malignant cancer.
Quote from: jhkim;1109670When I'm referring to wrong motives, I am discussing intent. From my view, you would like to say that it's the SJWs who have purity tests, and demand that authors not have any wrongthink on display. But here you're saying the equivalent -- authors should have only the proper intent for creating.
So here's the purity test for you. How would you portray slavery in Forgotten Realms? Is Maztica and colonial issues that were portrayed in it, racist? How many Asian Gnomes are required to show Asian Diversity? I'm being specific here because male Gay Gnomes Kings is *pretty specific* and being held up as representational of the SJW Progressive showcase. It's someone's "pet charade" that we are hamfistedly being expected to accept OR ELSE (by else, I mean publicly being passive-aggressively called a homophobe by SJW/leaning/adjacent/allies/lol for calling the spade a spade.) This is not diversity. This is pandering. This is not good representation. It doesn't need to be there.
When *I* am claiming that if you're going to do it - make it contextual and make it "GOOD". Children rarely assume that same-sex relationships are inherently sexual - because they're kids. So it's arbitrary in this attempt at forcing diversity, in these absurd examples - two gay gnome kings - why not make them two gay gnomes that have some legitimate issue where their outlier status is part of that issue to be dealt with in the adventure in a meaningful manner - rather than as a cheap thumb-in-the-eye for virtue points.
It's putting the ideology ahead of the product. Fuck that. Christian Rock sucks ass for the same reason - despite the often excellent skills of the musicians (lookin at you Stryper). Have some standards.
Besides what depth of obligation am I supposed to give the personal interests of someone willing to muck up the conceits of something established for their OWN purposes? No more than anyone here is supposed to agree to seeing Asian Gnomes as Kings of Cormyr. I have YET to see a single person ratify that. Why do you think that is, jhkim, my fellow half-Asian? Why do you think that is Asian Gnomes can't be kings of Cormyr? What are they saying by not saying that? /sarcasm off
Quote from: jhkim;1109670I have no idea of the true reasons why either Yanseldara/Hawklyn or the gnomes were created. And I don't feel I have to know.
That's RIGHT. You don't know, I don't know. But the presentation is enough for us to decide AT the table without someone having decided FOR US.
Quote from: jhkim;1109670What matters to me is how well the module plays. I'm still waiting to hear from my son about how well that part of the adventure went. I only know Yanseldara and Hawklyn through mentions -- and I know they are in the novel "The Veiled Dragon". Are they featured in an adventure module?
They're not mentioned heavily anywhere in modules - they're just a blurb with inferences in the regional writeup. Not sure about the novel. I read the module (a friends copy) - it's
Quote from: Spinachcat;1109745It's a purity test. Nothing more, nothing less.
You either nod with the SJW choir, stay silent, or dissent and get labeled a bigot for not chowing down on the pandering.
Well I still have my tattered POC-card (Asian flavored... which means dick in the SJW world... but it's what I got), and clearly as Mistwell's posts indicate - I'm a homophobe for being on the thread pointing out the pandering... So I guess I'm in good company.
but it would make him a racist since I'm an oppressed minority... and he's oppressing me. Shit that makes me a transphobe... because I may have misgendered him... shit I did it again. This Intersectionality shit is hell on communication.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1109745It IS too much to ask from WotC, Paizo, Monte Cook, Green Ronin or any other company dedicated to shoving their "ideological drivel" into the products.
But fortunately, we have HUNDREDS (maybe thousands) of other RPG games to support.
Yep. That's why none of this really bothers me. I'm only speaking on the topic of the thread. All of those companies lost my support years ago, and it is all unnecessary.
Oh well - my moneys go elsewhere.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1109763Me, I'll just buy what I find appealing and accept that it might have some icky stuff in it or be made by people with politics different from mine. Again, this applies to both games and food equally in my eyes.
Yes, this is my attitude.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1109756I don't give a damn if you and I agree on anything ever, but I want a hobby where you and I can sit down together, make believe we're magical elves, toss dice and eat Cheetos, if only for a few happy hours at a convention without real world politics intruding in any manner.
I can't speak for every game table, but fun players (regardless of other characteristics) were always welcome to my table and every table I've played at. I've met plenty of bad GMs and a few asshole GMs, but none who said "Not You!" to any player because of their sex junk or where they wanted to put their sex junk.
And, again for the record, I don't want ANY politics in my RPGs. Zero. Nada. None. I spat at TSR for pandering to the Satanic Panic in 2e and caving into the Mommy Brigade in the 80s. That was utterly retarded. Just like WotC today.
I would prefer that people of different political views be able to sit at the game table together and play. But for me, that means accepting that not everything will be done exactly the way you do it. So liberal players don't cry about sexism or racism in another person's game -- and also that conservative players don't cry about tokenism or virtue signaling in another person's game.
If someone likes D&D2e material, I'll play in that game and not spit at them or otherwise complain. I'll play and try to have fun. Maybe it won't be to my taste, but I'll give it a fair shot.
For some people, the inclusion of minorities is not a political act; it's just reflecting the world that they see.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1109851For some people, the inclusion of minorities is not a political act; it's just reflecting the world that they see.
Or... you know... politically convenient to be excluded. The world they see is quite clear: it's the internal bubble of their minds wracked with self-loathing and guilt over shit that only exists there, and they demand everyone else kowtow to it. Or else.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1109851For some people, the inclusion of minorities is not a political act; it's just reflecting the world that they see.
*rolls eyes*
Quote from: jhkim;1109844Yes, this is my attitude.
I would prefer that people of different political views be able to sit at the game table together and play. But for me, that means accepting that not everything will be done exactly the way you do it. So liberal players don't cry about sexism or racism in another person's game -- and also that conservative players don't cry about tokenism or virtue signaling in another person's game.
If someone likes D&D2e material, I'll play in that game and not spit at them or otherwise complain. I'll play and try to have fun. Maybe it won't be to my taste, but I'll give it a fair shot.
So why not have the Woke zealots make their Woke settings and win people over with their good works? Why co-opt other established settings if they already derisively feel it's too "white, patriarchal, and sexist"? You know why - it's for petty "revenge" against people that won't buy into their own belittling sexist, racist views they hold over minorities and whomever they can co-opt into their weird little Alphabet Oppression Hierarchy which only exists to pad their numbers. It's not like any of these people have *anything* in common with one another aside from the Oppression Narrative.
Edit: But many of us already know the answer to this... I just like hearing other people say it but continue to refuse to acknowledge it.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1109851For some people, the inclusion of minorities is not a political act; it's just reflecting the world that they see.
I agree. But we are in a day and age, again, where that is 90% of the time not the case. Its inclusion as a checklist. Nothing more. We've seen it before and will probably see it again in some later age if this current spate of political correctness ever ends.
And this is precisely why it's only token pandering...
So by this logic, being that I live in Southern California I need all my RPG settings to be 40% Hispanic? I mean, my most recent gaming group was more like 60-70% Hispanic, so that is the "world I see".
Also, no one is arguing that gay (demi) humans can't exist in the Realms, or any other setting. The question isn't "Do they exist?" but rather "HOW do they live?" Put another way, "How does this fit into the setting? How does it work in my game?"
Quote from: tenbones;1109867And this is precisely why it's only token pandering...
Which is why some of us oppose "inclusion".
On the positive side they are looking into making the books accessible to the blind. Which I think is a good thing even if they might be doing it for the virtue points. I'd like to think they aren't. But at this point who knows?
Quote from: Brendan;1109868So by this logic, being that I live in Southern California I need all my RPG settings to be 40% Hispanic? I mean, my most recent gaming group was more like 60-70% Hispanic, so that is the "world I see".
Also, no one is arguing that gay (demi) humans can't exist in the Realms, or any other setting. The question isn't "Do they exist?" but rather "HOW do they live?" Put another way, "How does this fit into the setting? How does it work in my game?"
Yep.
Quote from: Brendan;1109868Also, no one is arguing that gay (demi) humans can't exist in the Realms, or any other setting. The question isn't "Do they exist?" but rather "HOW do they live?" Put another way, "How does this fit into the setting? How does it work in my game?"
I've been discussing this, pointing out examples of the established gay characters in the Realms and how they are regarded. I think that's how Lady Lord Yanseldara and Vaerana Hawklyn came up.
It appears to me that the Realms is different from historical Europe, and there is little to no prejudice against gay couples. There's no mention of such prejudice that I know of in any established material, and the creator of Forgotten Realms Ed Greenwood has explicitly said that this is the case. For example, there is no sign that Yanseldara and Hawklyn suffered from prejudice or fear for being seen as gay (regardless of whether they really were). tenbones has argued that what Ed Greenwood says isn't necessarily the truth of the Realms, but I don't see that any other Realms writer has established otherwise. So the precedents I know of are:
1) Long-standing couples like Yanseldara and Hawklyn show no fear of prejudice for being perceived as gay.
2) The creator says that such historical prejudice doesn't exist in the Realms.
3) Newly-created couples that are explicitly gay don't appear to have this prejudice towards them.
I think all of these are consistent. Do you have an argument that attitudes towards gay couples is like in historical Europe, or do you have some other conjecture about what attitudes in the Realms are?
Quote from: jhkim;1109927Do you have an argument that attitudes towards gay couples is like in historical Europe, or do you have some other conjecture about what attitudes in the Realms are?
The Realms are a big place. It would depend on where and when, and probably also on the social status of the couple in question, how out in the open everything was, vs how "wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more", and several other factors. You know... just like in real life.
The recent inclusion of gay men within the institution of marriage is very particular to modern Western life and depends on historical and political antecedents unique to our time and culture. Just plopping it down in "the Realms" as if its exactly the same thing with no commentary is dumb. Plopping down a modern gay marriage in ancient Athens would have been shocking and weird. Hell, a modern heterosexual marriage would be borderline incomprehensible to the majority of human race throughout history.
If you want to get into the weeds of sexual-familiar relations you need to think about the setting and make whatever system(s) exist in that setting fit. No one has done this because they don't care about the setting. They care about virtue signaling and counter signaling. You either accept this new "improved" realms whole cloth, or you're a bigot. I mean, why ELSE would you complain? Obviously this is just "how things are". We've always had gay marriage just like hetero marriage. We've always been at war with EastAsia.
There never was some implicit hatred in the realms between ALL orcs and humans! All the Half-orcs are products of loving relationships between progressive Orcs and progressive humans!
Not once is Orc-on-Human/Human-on-Orc rape *ever* shown. Therefore... love.
Edit: For the sarcasm challenged I forgot my obligatory /slant-eye roll.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1109713OK, so you're the one that has to demand the GM allow in a special snowflake for your unique enjoyment. I pity such limited imagination in players.
The player plays one character which, by definition, is a special snowflake.
Or do you just give your players a bunch of Pre-Gens to choose from?
Quote from: tenbones;1109947There never was some implicit hatred in the realms between ALL orcs and humans! All the Half-orcs are products of loving relationships between progressive Orcs and progressive humans!
Not once is Orc-on-Human/Human-on-Orc rape *ever* shown. Therefore... love.
Hah!
Quote from: GnomeWorks;1109715The next time I have need for a Golgothan, it will be named Shasarak, in honor of you.
Its a shame I can not repay the favour for you nameless Gnomish Troll.
How about those half-elves?
Does it means that Elves practice abortion since there are no examples Half-orc/Half-elves? Or are elves implicitely racist since there apparently *aren't* any? Shame! SHAME!
Forgotten Realms is becoming so problematic.
Quote from: jhkimDo you have an argument that attitudes towards gay couples is like in historical Europe, or do you have some other conjecture about what attitudes in the Realms are?
Quote from: Brendan;1109935The Realms are a big place. It would depend on where and when, and probably also on the social status of the couple in question, how out in the open everything was, vs how "wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more", and several other factors. You know... just like in real life.
That doesn't seem like an answer to me. Sure, there can be variations, but the first point to variations is to establish what is typical. For when and where - in the Realms I'm assuming 1489 Sword Coast would be the main answer. There might be variations within there, but its possible to generalize. Similarly, one could generalize like how gay couples were regarded in 1489 Europe. There can be regional variations, but it's easy to come up with some basics.
Quote from: Brendan;1109935The recent inclusion of gay men within the institution of marriage is very particular to modern Western life and depends on historical and political antecedents unique to our time and culture. Just plopping it down in "the Realms" as if its exactly the same thing with no commentary is dumb. Plopping down a modern gay marriage in ancient Athens would have been shocking and weird. Hell, a modern heterosexual marriage would be borderline incomprehensible to the majority of human race throughout history.
If you want to get into the weeds of sexual-familiar relations you need to think about the setting and make whatever system(s) exist in that setting fit.
As I said, the Realms have *always* been pointedly ahistorical. They have *never* had medieval gender roles or feudal class laws or many other standards of historical societies. A pair like Lady Lord Yanseldara and Vaerana Hawklyn would be borderline incomprehensible to most historical societies -- indeed, huge swaths of the Realms are quite different than real-world history. I think approaching the Realms as if they're historical Earth is foolish and revisionist. It's a fantasy realm, shaped by gods and magic.
In the Realms, there are present gods that have dictated rules about good and evil - which makes social mores vastly different than any historical society. I think the attitudes of the gods would be the most important issue for social attitudes.
Quote from: jhkim;1109927I've been discussing this, pointing out examples of the established gay characters in the Realms and how they are regarded. I think that's how Lady Lord Yanseldara and Vaerana Hawklyn came up.
It appears to me that the Realms is different from historical Europe, and there is little to no prejudice against gay couples. There's no mention of such prejudice that I know of in any established material, and the creator of Forgotten Realms Ed Greenwood has explicitly said that this is the case. For example, there is no sign that Yanseldara and Hawklyn suffered from prejudice or fear for being seen as gay (regardless of whether they really were). tenbones has argued that what Ed Greenwood says isn't necessarily the truth of the Realms, but I don't see that any other Realms writer has established otherwise. So the precedents I know of are:
1) Long-standing couples like Yanseldara and Hawklyn show no fear of prejudice for being perceived as gay.
2) The creator says that such historical prejudice doesn't exist in the Realms.
3) Newly-created couples that are explicitly gay don't appear to have this prejudice towards them.
I think all of these are consistent. Do you have an argument that attitudes towards gay couples is like in historical Europe, or do you have some other conjecture about what attitudes in the Realms are?
Since I brought up Yanseldara and Hawklyn as an example of how to do it and make it okay for everyone...
You're now extrapolating it to mean ANY AND ALL instances of it - including dogshit examples like the Gay Gnomish Kings idea is GOOD and acceptable because
1) They show no "fear" or prejudice in their writeup. Well it doesn't show them as actually being GAY either. Nor does it show that they're wearing undergarments. But we're free to make whatever assumptions we want *at our table* because the presentation is left OPEN.
2) Ed Greenwood says so. Much like Dumbledore is Gay and everyone loves that brave posthumous post-publication achievement that means NOTHING for a fictional character after the fact, and completely never shown in the publication. /yank yank
3) That newly created couples that are gay... you mean the capering murderous gay gnomish kings that are trying to hire largely heterosexual PC's to murder one another? Yeah... better wait a second...
This is consistent if you're willing to lower your standards to candy-coated dogshit shaped like cherries is fine to put in your fruit-salad because "it appears nice".
But hey, Coprophilia is a thing! We should introduce that into the Realms too!
Quote from: jhkim;1109954That doesn't seem like an answer to me. Sure, there can be variations, but the first point to variations is to establish what is typical. For when and where - in the Realms I'm assuming 1489 Sword Coast would be the main answer. There might be variations within there, but its possible to generalize. Similarly, one could generalize like how gay couples were regarded in 1489 Europe. There can be regional variations, but it's easy to come up with some basics.
So are you saying the attempts being made today isn't political? I'd just like to know if you're pretending to ignore what we're saying for the purposes of us not talking past one another- or you're ignoring it to be contrarian.
Quote from: jhkim;1109954TAs I said, the Realms have *always* been pointedly ahistorical. They have *never* had medieval gender roles or feudal class laws or many other standards of historical societies. A pair like Lady Lord Yanseldara and Vaerana Hawklyn would be borderline incomprehensible to most historical societies -- indeed, huge swaths of the Realms are quite different than real-world history. I think approaching the Realms as if they're historical Earth is foolish and revisionist. It's a fantasy realm, shaped by gods and magic.
In the Realms, there are present gods that have dictated rules about good and evil - which makes social mores vastly different than any historical society. I think the attitudes of the gods would be the most important issue for social attitudes.
Then are you implying that that ANY attempts at inserting historical assumptions is unnacceptable? That we must use modern day politics to guide our attempts at having fantasy RPG's contain any sense of historical "realism" - that what is considered *normal* is not enough for any sub-culture, race, adult, to engage in without editorial cultural marxism or moral relativism at play?
Because if not - then you need to start telling us "HOW MUCH GAY/RACE/GENDER/OPPRESSION" is enough/not enough in our games? Go!
Quote from: Spinachcat;1109745I like Dragonborn, but who and what goes into my own settings is decided by me. Exclusion of certain elements is a great way to personalize a setting and narrow the focus for the campaign.
BTW, I'd be totally down for an All-Saurian fantasy world.
So then you agree with my premise that you could add Dragonborn to your setting?
Quote from: Brendan;1109868So by this logic, being that I live in Southern California I need all my RPG settings to be 40% Hispanic? I mean, my most recent gaming group was more like 60-70% Hispanic, so that is the "world I see".
No, that's not what I'm saying. When you read a fantasy novel and the text doesn't describe the character (or describes them minimally) you probably start with a 'default' that shares more features with you than not. Even when a character is described as female, I have sort of a Platonic image of a woman in my mind and I start editing features to match the description. When she is described as having 'flame red hair', my default image gets updated. If skin color isn't mentioned, my imagination automatically paints them as 'white'. That's what's normal to me and I generally expect that people would describe how someone is
different than my expectation, or different than 'average'. The thing is, my idea of average is not based on a global average; I don't imagine a East Asian/South Asian person as my default.
When I think of Mermaids, my images have been informed by popular culture going back to Greek Myths and movies like
Splash and
the Little Mermaid. Not being able to recall a single instance of where a mermaid was described as having dark skin, I had
never in my life imagined a black mermaid until I was asked to do so (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/10/opinion/black-little-mermaid.html?searchResultPosition=2). When building a world, I would have just assumed they all look like my variation of 'normal' or 'default', rather than spending time thinking about how varied and more dynamic my world could be with multiple cultures represented in these types of fantasy races. The same thing happened with Idris Elba being cast as Thor (https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2010/apr/27/idris-elba-thor-race-debate).
I don't recall any descriptions of the color of the Æsir or Vanir; Loki is half-giant and I always imagined him as a basically normal looking dude. But there's no reason they couldn't be blue-skinned a la Krishna.
When I create a world and I just put people that look like variations of me, that's not INTENTIONALLY excluding other people, so if someone points out that's what I'm doing, I'm actually really happy that I can make the effort to add more. It makes the world seem more plausible once I consider it from another angle.
Does that mean you need ANY Latinos in your world? I don't think so, any more than you need Norse. But if you have a human race that appears to be a reskin of Vikings, why NOT have Latinos? Certainly worlds like Matica do; so failing to have them in other parts of Forgotten Realms also seems like an oversight. I don't like to tell a player that he or she can't play a character that they want to play, especially if it's a very minor thing like skin tone. Trying to figure out how to include a custom race or monstrous race is harder work, but it is often worthwhile to make the game more enjoyable for the player. I'm not trying to recreate any epic fantasy tales or re-tell the Lord of the Rings saga. It doesn't ruin it for me if the Tale of the Lance now has Saurians. I'm not too worried with remaining 'true to the source material'. The source material
doesn't care, so it's easy to focus on the player's needs first. When I'm
generating the source material, I try to accommodate the player desire's that I'm most aware of. I try to make interesting cultures that are distinct from each other, so even if I don't think
I'd want to play a particular character concept, it is likely supported by my setting without major needs for revision.
Quote from: Brendan;1109868Also, no one is arguing that gay (demi) humans can't exist in the Realms, or any other setting. The question isn't "Do they exist?" but rather "HOW do they live?" Put another way, "How does this fit into the setting? How does it work in my game?"
I thought the question is, 'what are they doing in THIS adventure'? As far as how they fit into the world, apparently being king of a group of 40 people is considered
so insignificant that it doesn't HAVE to impact the larger world. This can be a unique situation or it can imply a whole system of investiture that makes Gnomes that much more culturally distinct from Dwarves and Elves.
You're confusing what you do at your table with what is set down by the conceits of a setting you're choosing to play in. The disingenuous of the question was posted upthread several times by me:
1) Make a setting that has the conceits you want to play in and publish it. Don't change the conceits non-contextually to an established setting, or do it sloppily, or for ulterior reasons, and not expect people to balk.
2) If you don't believe #1 - then explain how many blacks and latinos should be present in Bushido RPG, for it to be given the stamp of approval for "Inclusivity."
Conceits matter in the setting as published. Feel free to change it all you want at your table. Publication is different. If you're going to honor whatever has been established by changing it - make it GOOD. Good = whatever your fans are willing to accept. You might fuck up. That's on you.
Why is this so difficult to understand? Why am I, a Asian, having to explain to white-people their own shit? And for them to stop with the self-loathing, flagellation and passive-aggressive bigotry they're laying down on everyone else through their virtue-signalling? If D&D were this racist how did I ever end up here?
Why Galactus? Why?
Quote from: jhkimAs I said, the Realms have *always* been pointedly ahistorical. They have *never* had medieval gender roles or feudal class laws or many other standards of historical societies. A pair like Lady Lord Yanseldara and Vaerana Hawklyn would be borderline incomprehensible to most historical societies -- indeed, huge swaths of the Realms are quite different than real-world history. I think approaching the Realms as if they're historical Earth is foolish and revisionist. It's a fantasy realm, shaped by gods and magic.
Quote from: tenbones;1109962Then are you implying that that ANY attempts at inserting historical assumptions is unnacceptable? That we must use modern day politics to guide our attempts at having fantasy RPG's contain any sense of historical "realism" - that what is considered *normal* is not enough for any sub-culture, race, adult, to engage in without editorial cultural marxism or moral relativism at play?
Inserting historical assumptions that clash with previously-established material about the Realms would be revisionist. Personally, I'd prefer that such revisionism be done in an explicit reboot. Or just work with a more historically accurate setting like Harn, rather than trying to change the Realms.
It's not about current politics, but rather about the established setting. I think it's fair to say that as established in the 1980s and 1990s, the Forgotten Realms had a trend of modernism where they more reflect the social values of the authors rather than medieval values. But that's how the setting was created, so it's the truth in that world. If you don't like how Ed Greenwood created the Realms, then fine -- you're free to change it at your own table. But the original books as published don't have historically accurate medieval attitudes.
Not all setting are or need to be historically realistic. I enjoy playing in historical settings and in some more grounded settings like Harn. But I also enjoy playing in non-historical settings like Narnia or Diskworld.
If you want to make your case for what attitudes towards gay couples should be in the Realms, then please offer them -- but the case should be judged on how well it fits with previously established material.
Quote from: tenbones;1109947There never was some implicit hatred in the realms between ALL orcs and humans! All the Half-orcs are products of loving relationships between progressive Orcs and progressive humans!
Not once is Orc-on-Human/Human-on-Orc rape *ever* shown. Therefore... love.
Edit: For the sarcasm challenged I forgot my obligatory /slant-eye roll.
1: Of course not! Orcs do not hate anyone. They just want to kill everyone. Totally different.
2: Very true! This is, um, planned parenthood. Yes. That is what it is.
3: I don't know? Seems legit to me? (https://cf.geekdo-static.com/images/whistle.gif)
So I am the only one who thinks of the fate of these poor gnomes after the adventurers leave? (https://cf.geekdo-static.com/images/cry.gif)
Quote from: Omega;1110001So I am the only one who thinks of the fate of these poor gnomes after the adventurers leave? (https://cf.geekdo-static.com/images/cry.gif)
If WotC is writing them as throwaway tokens, why should anyone treat them any different?
Quote from: tenbones;1109815I wouldn't actually know... since I don't run modules.
Ohhhh. Here I was bothering to respond to you, and had been typing a response to your full post. But now I get it. You're just like one of those internet RPG kids who read books and talk about them and pretend that makes them part of the game. I see now - you don't actually buy and play the thing we're discussing anyway. So it's all just white room theory to you. You're just the right-leaning Internet warrior version of all those left-leaning SJW Internet warriors who also don't play the stuff they complain about. All you care about is ideas and motives because there IS NO ACTUAL PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE for you involved in this topic.
It all becomes clear now.
Enjoy your Critical Role fandom, tenbones. Or don't. What do I care - you're not actually a player of the RPG material we're discussing so why would I even care what you think about it in theory?
Quote from: Shasarak;1109948The player plays one character which, by definition, is a special snowflake.
Or do you just give your players a bunch of Pre-Gens to choose from?
In my current game, I allow:
Dwarf, Hill
Dwarf, Mountain
Elf, High
Elf, Wood
Gnome, Forest
Half-Elf
Half-Orc
Halfling
Human
I do not allow:
Dragonborn
Elf, Drow
Gnome, Rock
Tiefling
That's 9/13 race options open for PC use. If they can't find something there that they want to play, they can play in another campaign.
Your argument that PCs are all special snowflakes and that I'm somehow restricting them to playing pregens is just foolishness.
BTW, your sweet Pathfinder 2e doesn't have dragonborn either.
Since I run most of my campaigns and adventures in a offshoot of Karameikos/Known World. Gnomes are not a PC race normally unless the players make an effort to open up talks and trade with them.
This is why I place my fantasy settings in the omegaverse genre. It shuts up anyone whining about representation when I tell them that all women have been replaced by men who can get pregnant.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1109763You keep on voting with your dollars and see if that changes anything--whether that be less politics in game books or less nasty shit in our food. My bet is that all those "voting with out dollars" types don't even register.
Voting with my dollars changes everything...for me. It's actually really fun and leads to interesting discoveries, with both food and games.
I'm not trying to change the RPG industry. I'm encouraging gamers to support small publishers who don't shove politics into their products instead of feeling their only option is silent dissent while giving their money to assholes.
However I'm not really as single customer because as a GM, I am a multiplier. Many of my players turned into customers and GMs for games I introduced to them to via convention events and home campaigns.
But I agree that all my multiplied actions don't register on the spreadsheets of the big companies. However, they DO register with the small publishers who need every sale to push through their next Kickstarter or justify that next fancy cover.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1109763You can keep buying from the big companies or marginalize yourself to the tiny corner that makes it the way you want it (this applies to any particular corner that fits any particular "you") but it won't really change the directions of the industry.
Dude, I'm a 50 year old headbanger with a wild gray mullet. I've NEVER given a flying fuck about being marginalized in a tiny corner because MY tiny corner is blasting crazy ass metal and we're moshing like lunatics to some band the mainstream never heard of.
If "mainstream gamers" feel they must gobble down whatever shit WotC feeds them that's sad, but meanwhile my marginalized tiny corner table full of players is gonna be playing something awesomely fun and without compromise.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1109763Me, I'll just buy what I find appealing and accept that it might have some icky stuff in it or be made by people with politics different from mine. Again, this applies to both games and food equally in my eyes.
Do you really enjoy picking shit nuggets out of your corporate approved breakfast?
Is that really a compromise you want to make?
BTW, I'm also 1000% cool with games "made by people with politics different than mine", but I don't want their politics, or my politics, or anyone else's politics in my games. I understand Kevin Crawford and Grim Jim are "liberals", ZakS is an "anarchist", RPGPundit is a "libertarian" and Venger As'Nas Satanis is a "priest of Cthulhu", but none of them put politics IN their games and none of them preach their politics through their games. All of them just make good games.
Quote from: jhkim;1109844I would prefer that people of different political views be able to sit at the game table together and play. But for me, that means accepting that not everything will be done exactly the way you do it. So liberal players don't cry about sexism or racism in another person's game -- and also that conservative players don't cry about tokenism or virtue signaling in another person's game.
Why not just run a game without sexism, racism, tokenism or virtue signalling?
It's not rocket science.
Quote from: Shasarak;1109966So then you agree with my premise that you could add Dragonborn to your setting?
I'm the GM so I can add or subtract
anything to my setting when I design it. I rarely add new elements during the campaign because my design phase involves significant time figuring out how the various chosen elements interact and why. Then the campaign is about seeing how the players deal with those chosen elements and their cross-element interactions.
Quote from: Shasarak;1109948The player plays one character which, by definition, is a special snowflake.
True, but they are a "special snowflake" within the context of my campaign setting. All snowflakes may be frozen water, but the flavor options for the water is determined by the list of chosen elements.
Quote from: Shasarak;1109948Or do you just give your players a bunch of Pre-Gens to choose from?
Always for convention games, drop in campaigns and one-shots, and very often for short arc campaigns. It ends the argument "I don't have the book" when I can give them choices and handle mechanics on my side. My players like how I weave their PCs into the setting and with each other so they just jump into the game. My more proactive players make their own PCs, or collaborate more.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1109851For some people, the inclusion of minorities is not a political act; it's just reflecting the world that they see.
Absolutely. It's natural for creations to reflect the world as seen by their creators.
Unfortunately, its 2019 and everything is a political shitfest and all inclusions and exclusions are suspect.
Quote from: Brendan;1109868Also, no one is arguing that gay (demi) humans can't exist in the Realms, or any other setting. The question isn't "Do they exist?" but rather "HOW do they live?" Put another way, "How does this fit into the setting? How does it work in my game?"
That's too smart for this thread. Go away. :D
Quote from: tenbones;1109815Have all the gay sex you want.
Woot! Dibs on the 18+ twinks! I'm sending them to my friends as Christmas gifts!
Quote from: tenbones;1109817How many Asian Gnomes are required to show Asian Diversity?
42! It's the answer to everything!
Quote from: tenbones;1109817Christian Rock sucks ass for the same reason - despite the often excellent skills of the musicians (lookin at you Stryper). Have some standards.
WASP makes the best Christian rock!
[video=youtube;lq5UQ8gWU-A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lq5UQ8gWU-A[/youtube]
Quote from: tenbones;1109990Why am I, a Asian, having to explain to white-people their own shit? And for them to stop with the self-loathing, flagellation and passive-aggressive bigotry they're laying down on everyone else through their virtue-signalling? If D&D were this racist how did I ever end up here?
Because you're one of the coloreds! You have a "POC force field" against SJW criticism. [OMG, 2019 is so insane. I've written more WTF sentences this year than in the last decade.]
It's why I always advocate for "big tents" because sometimes you need an Asian Gnome Cannibal to kick some ass.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1108980Well pieces of another world along with their inhabitants did replace chunks of the FR world. Most of those lands went away in 5e, but the left people and their ideas behind. No, I'm not trying to suggest this as a serious answer, but if you want it to be, then go ahead and use it as such.
Quote from: S'mon;1108854Accepted same sex marriage as an institution wasn't really mentioned as part of the Forgotten Realms though. Really this only started about 3 years ago with Crawford getting control of the productions. A queen or king with a homosexual consort who is tolerated by the public, which has historical precedents and is fairly easy to conceive of, really is not the same thing as gay marriage as an actual societal institution.
Even with Golarion, gay marriage as an actual recognised thing only started appearing around 2012-13.
Quote from: S'mon;1108988Emphasis on the might.
I do remember making some of my liberal, female players happy when I made two of my male NPCs gay in my 4e FR campaign. I don't recall any demands that Gay Marriage Has Always Been A Thing (And We Have Always Been At War With Thay) though.
All you nerds overanalyzing WotC's decision in Faerun of all settings need to read up on yer Reamslore. Ed Greenwood's original campaign had a lot more sexually liberal social mores all over the place (non-monogamous families, legalized sex work, homophobia being rare to the point of nonexistence, etc) but TSR sensors at the time reigned in some of these things. Like brothels being renamed festhalls.
He's made some responses on the matter even back in pre-5e days, like lesbian dating circles using steel roses as a signifier of sexuality. (http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=20686&whichpage=3)
QuoteMen trying to signal their interest in sex or courtship will often wear an artificial flower perched on one shoulder: a red rose for "I'm looking for courtship," a black rose for "I'm looking for sex," and a steel rose to signal homosexual interest (a device also used by lesbians). In 'my' Realms, there's no stigma attached to homosexual relationships, only to any sexual behaviour that involves exploiting children, and any sexual behaviour that involves force or coercion (please note: WILLINGLY undergoing pain or bondage doesn't count).
I'm pretty sure if there's no real stigma and there are courtship rituals for same-sex couples, that also alludes to marriage as a possibility.
While there is more visible LGBT content, comparatively speaking, in 5th Edition the seeds where always there. We're just watching a full harvest come to bloom. I'm sure some folks can point to the fact that these are online posts, but Greenwood is considered an authoritative source on all things Faerun by fans even if he doesn't write all the sourcebooks for WotC.
Quote from: Libertad;1110137All you nerds overanalyzing WotC's decision in Faerun of all settings need to read up on yer Reamslore. Ed Greenwood's original campaign had a lot more sexually liberal social mores all over the place (non-monogamous families, legalized sex work, homophobia being rare to the point of nonexistence, etc)
Yeah, I'm well aware of that. I always applied a kind of liberal 1980s sensibility to my FR, though I probably toned down some stuff like polyamory compared to Ed's version. I certainly never ran it as Real Medieval Land. In my Loudwater FR campaign, when 2 homosexual couples (1 gay, 1 lesbian, 3 of the 4 being 'official' NPCs) came out at the Midsummer Ball ca 2012 IRL, everyone applauded more or less enthusiastically and thought they were Stunning & Brave (TM). There was never any question of the couples being legally 'married', though.
Quote from: jhkim;1109995Inserting historical assumptions that clash with previously-established material about the Realms would be revisionist. Personally, I'd prefer that such revisionism be done in an explicit reboot. Or just work with a more historically accurate setting like Harn, rather than trying to change the Realms.
This is commensurate with the intent and presentation of that material in the setting. Comparing the Realms then, to now, taking into account all the permutations of insertions of various stuff - some good, some horrible, is a sketchy affair. Which is why I default to Greybox+2e.
Quote from: jhkim;1109995It's not about current politics, but rather about the established setting. I think it's fair to say that as established in the 1980s and 1990s, the Forgotten Realms had a trend of modernism where they more reflect the social values of the authors rather than medieval values. But that's how the setting was created, so it's the truth in that world. If you don't like how Ed Greenwood created the Realms, then fine -- you're free to change it at your own table. But the original books as published don't have historically accurate medieval attitudes.
I disagree a bit. Today it's less about the setting than it is about politics. I mean - the whole point of many of the threads around here is evidence of that. A lot of people do not agree with 1) the assertions of modern Woke politics 2) do not agree with their presentation in D&D - or do not want them at all.
I'd submit the conceits of Greybox Realms as big sandbox. There are no analogs to the political state of the time circa late-80's that inform the setting. No more than any evidence of the Realms prior to publication as an official setting can you find any real-world political intents in the pages of Dragon Magazine where it first appeared - regardless of whether editorial removed it, or Greenwood intended it. What emerged is what was consumed and ingested by the populace.
It would be like Christopher Tolkien writing more Middle-Earth material and saying Gandalf and Saruman were lovers, and his father always intended that. And that he had a discussion with his father who privately admitted that Mordor was really inspired by Franco Spain... and Southron's were really Hispanics.
Yeah - that's not what the world thinks of with Lord of the Rings. More to the point, those desires, however personal to their creator, adds *nothing* to the setting. The meal has been cooked, presented, and dined upon and ingested. You don't get to force-feed extra ingredients after the fact and expect *everyone* to accept it. If you'll permit me to extend the analogy - This doesn't mean you don't get to re-serve the dish with new flourishes or ideas (new editions). But it doesn't mean that it's qualitatively good either.
It's all in the crafting. So with the presentation of Woke Politics into D&D - for many it's like pairing Jello-Brand Gelatin with Wagyu steak. It's discordant. Unnecessary. And just like there are ghetto-ass people that think Kool-Aid and Spam is wtf-delicious (me), you trying to rebrand it as "Fine Dining" flies in the face of reality.
Worse: castigating people for disagreeing all while trampling on the meal - it's like hiring McDonald's fry-cooks to go into a Michelin-starred restaurant and demanding the customers treat the ghetto-meal they're served with the same credence they would if Eric Ripert cooked it on pain of censure or worse.
Quote from: jhkim;1109995Not all setting are or need to be historically realistic. I enjoy playing in historical settings and in some more grounded settings like Harn. But I also enjoy playing in non-historical settings like Narnia or Diskworld.
And even in Narnia and Diskworld there are *social norms* of Eurocentric fantasy well established. You may not like it. But then you shouldn't consume what you don't like. That's the whole point of the subversion - to re-purpose established properties for ulterior purposes, however benignly intended... (which I believe is rare - given the insane levels of virtue signalling and gaslighting of people on the left) when rejected becomes the excuse to reveal the real ideological desire for EXCLUSION. Erring on the side of special-interest - be they me calling for Asian Gnomes, is stupid. That's why I keep saying it. It's an outlier to the conceits of what is already established.
You change it at your peril. And no one is obligated to *like* what you like. And just because someone doesn't like your outlier thing - Asian Gnomes for example - doesn't really mean they hate them. Yet people on the Left that have invaded all our favorite pastimes have become the useful idiots for people with darker agendas beyond just this. Entitlement to ones pet-ideology does not make for good gaming.
WE all are the casualties of this insipid mode of thinking.
Quote from: jhkim;1109995If you want to make your case for what attitudes towards gay couples should be in the Realms, then please offer them -- but the case should be judged on how well it fits with previously established material.
*I* don't care about gay couples in my games. I care about people doing interesting things that will be of interest to my games. I don't need or require publishers deciding those things for me. I don't require Asian representation - and I'm Asian. But if you're going to DO it... do it GOOD. Don't reskin the fucking King of Cormyr to be Asian just to pander to me.
And there is a reason why you don't see Kara-Tur products on the market for Forgotten Realms - it DOESN'T SELL. It doesn't mean that people are racist. There's a lot of people that love Kara-Tur (I think the boxset is one of the best things TSR ever put out - hats off to Mike Pondsmith for writing it). But it's an outlier culture to the mainstream market of consumers. That's reality. Same with Al-Qadim - something dear to my heart (which I wrote material for). Al-Qadim, if I'm going to be brutally honest - might be better than Kara-Tur. Tough call. It DIDN'T SELL.
Those were honest attempts at creating actually diversity of culture in D&D. They were extremely high-quality in their attempts for what they were. But they largely weren't sustainable (and we can discuss the manifold reasons for that - racism would probably not even make the list).
Today? It's nothing but pandering. Before you ask me how "attitudes" should be reflected in the Realms - one has to explain to me WHY IT SHOULD MATTER IN PUBLICATION over what you can do at your own table?
If I want Asian Gnomes in my game - I can populate the world to my heart's content with Asian Gnomes. Gay Asian Gnomes. Trans-Dragon Furries. Whatever I want.
IF these ideas had value - why can't you create a new setting where we could see all these Woke ideas in *practice*. Honestly - what do these worlds look like? I'll warrant the answer is already well known - Blue Rose wasn't a huge seller, and that was about as honest as a shot at this as there's been. And I'll put up Kara-Tur and Al-Qadim against any Woke-inspired setting *any* day... but the results will be the same...
The goal here is not sustainability - it's political pandering and retribution by petty selfish people that put their own interests ahead of the material. This transcends just gaming... Look around.
Quote from: Mistwell;1110015Ohhhh. Here I was bothering to respond to you, and had been typing a response to your full post. But now I get it. You're just like one of those internet RPG kids who read books and talk about them and pretend that makes them part of the game. I see now - you don't actually buy and play the thing we're discussing anyway. So it's all just white room theory to you. You're just the right-leaning Internet warrior version of all those left-leaning SJW Internet warriors who also don't play the stuff they complain about. All you care about is ideas and motives because there IS NO ACTUAL PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE for you involved in this topic.
It all becomes clear now.
Enjoy your Critical Role fandom, tenbones. Or don't. What do I care - you're not actually a player of the RPG material we're discussing so why would I even care what you think about it in theory?
This is the most meta-nonsensical retarded response yet. Keep'em flying.
Quote from: Omega;1110067Since I run most of my campaigns and adventures in a offshoot of Karameikos/Known World. Gnomes are not a PC race normally unless the players make an effort to open up talks and trade with them.
Well now you're on the radar for not being Gnome-inclusive as a default. The next step is in weighing and measuring *how* much diversity *actually* exists in your alleged Karameikos/Known World game... you know... because those settings were created by CIS-White-Men.
The Inquisition is watching you now.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1110111WASP makes the best Christian rock!
Ahh Blackie... there was a point where all I ever wanted was to wear a codpiece with a rip-saw blade in it. Then I "grew up". Now, I'm an old man and all I want is to strut around with a cod-piece with a rip-saw blade jutting out of it. Everything is cyclical.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1110111Because you're one of the coloreds! You have a "POC force field" against SJW criticism. [OMG, 2019 is so insane. I've written more WTF sentences this year than in the last decade.]
It's why I always advocate for "big tents" because sometimes you need an Asian Gnome Cannibal to kick some ass.
Yeah! I have magical moral authoritarial wisdom that stems from the epicanthic folds of my eyes, the pigmentation of my skin, and the ninja-like reflexes and Confucian wisdom mixed with heightened math-skills coded into my DNA that automatically enables me to be better than mere CIS-White Men, who are POC-card deficient.
Although I admit... the Asian POC-card is pretty low in the Woke Oppression Stack... I've heard it's going to be removed from it altogether soon. Soon Asians won't be a race... we'll be this odd looking brand of White Male. Off-White Male.
Quote from: Libertad;1110137All you nerds overanalyzing WotC's decision in Faerun of all settings need to read up on yer Reamslore. Ed Greenwood's original campaign had a lot more sexually liberal social mores all over the place (non-monogamous families, legalized sex work, homophobia being rare to the point of nonexistence, etc) but TSR sensors at the time reigned in some of these things. Like brothels being renamed festhalls.
He's made some responses on the matter even back in pre-5e days, like lesbian dating circles using steel roses as a signifier of sexuality. (http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=20686&whichpage=3)
Quote from: tenbones;1110168There are no analogs to the political state of the time circa late-80's that inform the setting. No more than any evidence of the Realms prior to publication as an official setting can you find any real-world political intents in the pages of Dragon Magazine where it first appeared - regardless of whether editorial removed it, or Greenwood intended it. What emerged is what was consumed and ingested by the populace.
It would be like Christopher Tolkien writing more Middle-Earth material and saying Gandalf and Saruman were lovers, and his father always intended that. And that he had a discussion with his father who privately admitted that Mordor was really inspired by Franco Spain... and Southron's were really Hispanics.
Yeah - that's not what the world thinks of with Lord of the Rings.
I think the closer parallel would be J.R.R. Tolkien himself still being alive, and truthfully saying that editors censored his version of Middle Earth. By parallel, you're insisting that the censored Middle Earth is the "real" version -- that any new publishing should conform to 1980s censorship standards because that's what people are used to, and anyone who doesn't want to conform to 1980s censorship is revisionist and injecting politics.
I think this is exactly backwards. I believe that wanting to impose 1980s censorship standards is a politically-motivated imposition on the fantasy world.
If some other 1980s writer had canonically written in that gay couples were discriminated against in the Realms, then you could argue that it was an established truth about the world. But instead, the censors just took out any mentions of gayness one way or the other. With that as a void, I think the most consistent way forward is the lack of prejudice that Greenwood intended. I don't think that sticking to 1980s censorship standards is required in order to be true to the setting as written.
D&D publishes a module with a minority: Conservative snowflakes are triggered and lose their shit because SWMs are under attack and are being oppressed.
D&D publishes a module without any minorities: Liberal snowflakes are triggered and lose their shit because minorities are under attack and are being oppressed.
*yawn*
Quote from: Mistwell;1110015Ohhhh. Here I was bothering to respond to you, and had been typing a response to your full post. But now I get it. You're just like one of those internet RPG kids who read books and talk about them and pretend that makes them part of the game. I see now - you don't actually buy and play the thing we're discussing anyway. So it's all just white room theory to you. You're just the right-leaning Internet warrior version of all those left-leaning SJW Internet warriors who also don't play the stuff they complain about. All you care about is ideas and motives because there IS NO ACTUAL PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE for you involved in this topic.
It all becomes clear now.
Enjoy your Critical Role fandom, tenbones. Or don't. What do I care - you're not actually a player of the RPG material we're discussing so why would I even care what you think about it in theory?
WTBF, so someone has to run modules to be an RPG player and to have an opinion on these issues? Well, I ran "Keep on the Borderlands" back when it came out. Therefore, I have a right to an opinion and I think your idea here is full of shit. In my opinion, running modules is a step on the way to setting up your own setting and running your own adventures. Sure, I have read some modules and mined them for ideas but I only ran the one. Other people love modules and that's ok too but it does not mean that they have more of a right to an opinion.
Quote from: jhkim;1110202I think the closer parallel would be J.R.R. Tolkien himself still being alive, and truthfully saying that editors censored his version of Middle Earth. By parallel, you're insisting that the censored Middle Earth is the "real" version -- that any new publishing should conform to 1980s censorship standards because that's what people are used to, and anyone who doesn't want to conform to 1980s censorship is revisionist and injecting politics.
But that's just it - *editorial* matters. This is why I keep drawing the distinction between publication and what you do at the table. Publication is for mass-consumption. You're selling a product. The moment you politicize it - you're immediately being exclusionary. And worse - unless the product is designed to be political in its consumption, then you're putting those politics ahead of the product itself.
I need a /random table roll - a Cereal-Bowl. Not a Gay Cereal Bowl. Or a Nazi Cereal Bowl.
It's not "censorship standards" to market to the broadest appeal for the given culture. The insertion of extraneous shit for the purposes of virtue-signalling happens at the expense of the product. As Michael Jordan has said with great wisdom - "Republican's wear Nikes too."
That people demand their individual interests be "represented" - is fine. The question is "in what manner?" If you're going to repurpose something for special interests - it is stupid to think your special interests aren't niche, which by definition they are. Does this mean you can't introduce those things? Not at all. But you have to do it in a way that makes sense for the purposes of publication and consumption.
Putting chocolate chips in vanilla ice-cream doesn't keep the flavor "vanilla". Nor does removing chocolate chips from the ice-cream make it suddenly "vanilla" either. Consumers buy what they are interested in.<--- see that?
You don't get to force people to be interested in stuff they don't want. THAT is the point. LGBT, race, colonialism and all the favorite topics of the Woke are *not* what D&D is about. If it were - we wouldn't be having this discussion. WotC is putting their ideology ahead of their product. The irritating thing is they're doing it like Marvel is doing it: they're using the years of cache the brand has built up, rather than creating their vision whole of cloth and trying to insert their ideas peacemeal into those established works. The quality of such attempts has been atrocious. I'll grant that WotC has been nowhere near as bad as Marvel in terms of the product, but in terms of social media? They're pretty much in lockstep.
Quote from: jhkim;1110202I think this is exactly backwards. I believe that wanting to impose 1980s censorship standards is a politically-motivated imposition on the fantasy world.
Then you should be able to clearly illustrate HOW obliged am I to be interested in your pet-issues? Editing standards when done correctly are for the benefit of the product. I know because I help my wife with it every single day. Unless you're telling me that you believe D&D exists as a marketing tool for Woke Ideology... you then need to be able to explain *why* I should be okay with it and why I should monetarily support and consume it? And can you do so without calling me a bigot?
Quote from: jhkim;1110202If some other 1980s writer had canonically written in that gay couples were discriminated against in the Realms, then you could argue that it was an established truth about the world.
Or they can do as they DID - and not say anything and leave such conflicts to be used at the table as the GM sees fit? Otherwise you have unspoken claims about the purposes of depictions of *anything* without explicit instructions from the authority of the authors. That is a *horrible* way to game. Your litmus test to your own assertion would be: What if they did say that gay couples were discriminated against? Do you think that would have been censored away by those dreaded 80's Editorial Censors? Or what if they said gay couples could only be shown in a positive light? Would that be okay with you? Does it imply that something is being put in front of the game itself?
What else can we extrapolate with your logic? Coprofilia- eating of shit, IS in the game. Otyughs eat "waste". So by extension can we now make that a thing so we have shit-eating positivism represented? Sounds silly and stupid - but in the 1980's no one thought we'd be having these kinds of demands today either. The exclusion of the norm and the degree to which people pretend to be outraged over it and *exclusionary* is the troubling thing. Hell this site exists because of that phenomenon.
There are reasons why homosexuality is treated differently historically, much like being left-handed, or being from another culture, or appearing differently. It's not a castigation to pretend there isn't cultural norms or preferences. But you don't get to club people over the head for not being into "your thing" if all they wanna do is play elf-games their way. If you want to change those opinions - well that's on you to stick the landing. That's not happening because the reality is they're not really trying to sell people on these ideas. They're slap-dashing them in there free of context and demanding we like it. Or else.
Quote from: jhkim;1110202But instead, the censors just took out any mentions of gayness one way or the other. With that as a void, I think the most consistent way forward is the lack of prejudice that Greenwood intended. I don't think that sticking to 1980s censorship standards is required in order to be true to the setting as written.
Then create the setting that SHOWS that. Don't insert it into something already accepted and established and do it in a half-ass manner and then get angry that people don't like it.
SELL YOUR IDEAS. If it's good. It'll be accepted. If it's not. It won't. NO one is obliged to buy into another person's issues or desires.
The irony here is that the Book of Erotic Fantasy and the Book of Unlawful Carnal Knowledge handled this so much better. BoUCN included sections on how to integrate sexual minorities for those who cared for such things.
I think the cries of better representation are selective. D&D has never done heterosexual representation well, so why would you expect them to do homosexual representation any better? Seriously, when was the last time you played an adventure with a memorable heterosexual relationship that didn't involve extraneous melodrama like interspecies relations, arranged marriage, implied rape, or becoming pregnant with the antichrist?
WotC can't write relationships, so they shouldn't try. It makes the most sense to simply describe all NPCs as gender neutral if it isn't relevant to the plot and allow the GM to decide their sex/gender/orientation as desired.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1110258I think the cries of better representation are selective. D&D has never done heterosexual representation well, so why would you expect them to do homosexual representation any better? Seriously, when was the last time you played an adventure with a memorable heterosexual relationship that didn't involve extraneous melodrama like interspecies relations, arranged marriage, implied rape, or becoming pregnant with the antichrist?
D&D isn't a relationship drama. The only time someone's sexuality comes up is because it's an implied part of the background (peasant man and peasant woman live in the same house, they have kids, there might or might not be a "husband" or "wife" reference somewhere), or because it's part of a usually clumsy plot point, or there's a light reference to someone's magical realm (festhalls, all those Charisma 16-18 bar wenches, etc.).
It's just not important. That's why attempts at "representation" stand out, because they're explicitly highlighting something the rest of the game almost completely ignores.
Quote from: Pat;1110260all those Charisma 16-18 bar wenches
That does sound like my magical realm ...and my local pub. :cool:
Quote from: S'mon;1110296That does sound like my magical realm ...and my local pub. :cool:
:mad: I'm not jealous. I'm not.
Quote from: tenbones;1110170Well now you're on the radar for not being Gnome-inclusive as a default. The next step is in weighing and measuring *how* much diversity *actually* exists in your alleged Karameikos/Known World game... you know... because those settings were created by CIS-White-Men.
The Inquisition is watching you now.
In mine gnomes are red skinned as I based them off of local legends of the "little people" that have been passed down. Years later TSR does the Atruaghin gazeteer for Mystara and it is native american & aztec/mayan themed. Great illustrations in that by Fabian by the way. His and Tim Trueman's NA depictions actually look NA.
Quote from: Kael;1110216D&D publishes a module with a minority: Liberal snowflakes are triggered and lose their shit because minorities are under attack and are being oppressed.
D&D publishes a module without any minorities: Liberal snowflakes are triggered and lose their shit because minorities are under attack and are being oppressed.
Fixed that for you. :cool:
Quote from: Omega;1110318In mine gnomes are red skinned as I based them off of local legends of the "little people" that have been passed down. Years later TSR does the Atruaghin gazeteer for Mystara and it is native american & aztec/mayan themed. Great illustrations in that by Fabian by the way. His and Tim Trueman's NA depictions actually look NA.
Oddly this splendifiorous creation is missing from modern D&D... Clearly their Oppression Ranking isn't high enough.
Quote from: Omega;1110321Fixed that for you. :cool:
Nah, I had right the first time. This thread is proof of that.
Quote from: Pat;1110260D&D isn't a relationship drama. The only time someone's sexuality comes up is because it's an implied part of the background (peasant man and peasant woman live in the same house, they have kids, there might or might not be a "husband" or "wife" reference somewhere), or because it's part of a usually clumsy plot point, or there's a light reference to someone's magical realm (festhalls, all those Charisma 16-18 bar wenches, etc.).
It's just not important. That's why attempts at "representation" stand out, because they're explicitly highlighting something the rest of the game almost completely ignores.
Comeliness 16-18 bar wenches. Everybody forgets the short lived attribute of Comeliness......
Replying to Pat --
From Post #405 (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?41102-5e-Essentials-Kit-quot-married-Gnome-Kings-quot-co-ruling&p=1108801&viewfull=1#post1108801), I summarized:
Quote from: jhkim;1108801In general, I'd usually want gay characters to be handled just like any other characters, like being left-handed or green-eyed. It shouldn't be a political point either way. They would just exist because such people exist within the setting. In settings with accepted same-sex marriage like modern-day U.S., or Blue Rose's Aldis, or Forgotten Realms - then I'd expect to see a few same-sex married couples if there are other married couples. In historical or pseudo-historical settings, there would still be gay people, but they would typically (but not always) be hidden or closeted.
I don't have any particular expectation about how often I'd see such characters. Modules aren't demographic treatises, and I don't have any demand that gay people exist in precisely the proportion they are in real life or the fictional setting. That means I don't have a problem with 0% gay but I also don't have a problem with 15% gay.
Quote from: Pat;1110260D&D isn't a relationship drama. The only time someone's sexuality comes up is because it's an implied part of the background (peasant man and peasant woman live in the same house, they have kids, there might or might not be a "husband" or "wife" reference somewhere), or because it's part of a usually clumsy plot point, or there's a light reference to someone's magical realm (festhalls, all those Charisma 16-18 bar wenches, etc.).
It's just not important.
I agree, and I feel like this is exactly what I've been saying. I think sexuality should be a minor background detail. I don't think an author should have to tiptoe around saying that two people are husband and wife, or that a "festhall" is actually a brothel. One should just be able to say those and not have it be a big deal. By contrast, jeff37923 created a thread specifically about how to have plots that hinge around being gay -
"Brainstorming: What Scenarios Would Hinge Upon a NPCs Sexual Orientation/Preference?" (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?41279-Brainstorming-What-Scenarios-Would-Hinge-Upon-a-NPCs-Sexual-Orientation-Preference)
That's the opposite about how I generally approach sexuality. I'd have that a character is straight or gay, and that's it. It's a minor bit of color that won't generally come up.
Quote from: Omega;1110318In mine gnomes are red skinned as I based them off of local legends of the "little people" that have been passed down. Years later TSR does the Atruaghin gazeteer for Mystara and it is native american & aztec/mayan themed. Great illustrations in that by Fabian by the way. His and Tim Trueman's NA depictions actually look NA.
You forgot to mention that Atruaghin Gazetteer is absolutely terrible, the nadir of the line. And it's not really Aztec or Mayan themed, except for a little about the immortals. It's based on the plains tribes.
Quote from: jeff37923;1110345Comeliness 16-18 bar wenches. Everybody forgets the short lived attribute of Comeliness......
Might need to bump that up a bit, Comeliness didn't follow the same scale as the other attributes. PCs could start with a score of 23, and gods could reach as high as 30.
Quote from: tenbones;1110339Oddly this splendifiorous creation is missing from modern D&D... Clearly their Oppression Ranking isn't high enough.
So true. So in my 5e version I guess I'll have them oppressing other tribes and nations. :rolleyes:
Quote from: jeff37923;1110345Comeliness 16-18 bar wenches. Everybody forgets the short lived attribute of Comeliness......
Lived a bit longer in Oriental Adventures. But yeah. It never caught on. Nor did pretty much 95% of the skills n Powers book for 2e with its plethora of new sub stats.
Quote from: jhkim;1110380Replying to Pat --
From Post #405 (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?41102-5e-Essentials-Kit-quot-married-Gnome-Kings-quot-co-ruling&p=1108801&viewfull=1#post1108801), I summarized:
I agree, and I feel like this is exactly what I've been saying. I think sexuality should be a minor background detail. I don't think an author should have to tiptoe around saying that two people are husband and wife, or that a "festhall" is actually a brothel. One should just be able to say those and not have it be a big deal. By contrast, jeff37923 created a thread specifically about how to have plots that hinge around being gay -
"Brainstorming: What Scenarios Would Hinge Upon a NPCs Sexual Orientation/Preference?" (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?41279-Brainstorming-What-Scenarios-Would-Hinge-Upon-a-NPCs-Sexual-Orientation-Preference)
That's the opposite about how I generally approach sexuality. I'd have that a character is straight or gay, and that's it. It's a minor bit of color that won't generally come up.
To an extent I agree with this and the quoted posts about FR specifically. But for D&D in general, and especially RPGs as a group, there are plenty of different strokes for different folks, and it's largely a matter of what your group is comfortable with and the setting. Most campaigns I've played in have been very sex-neutral and largely abided by the T for Teen sort of mantra. We may torture enemies for information and brutally murder old folks who wronged us, but even the implication someone was visiting a brothel, much less what may transpire within, is danced around and ignored. That being said, it's not the only way to play, and being default doesn't make it "correct". In my homebrew setting, Aphrodite as a Goddess has temples that are pretty brazenly brothels. The priests, priestesses, and acolytes of Aphrodite are pretty openly whores, and the magic they practice to perform the miracles of their deity, let's just say it's not PG-13. That doesn't mean it needs to be spelled out in explicit detail any more than the decapitation and disemboweling of the PC's enemies needs to be, but it's there and part of the setting, because it makes sense contextually and logically, based on history and intellectual consistency. In such a setting, if someone chooses to engage with the faithful of Aphrodite, it makes *sense* for them to be pretty open about their sexuality, because it's directly related to their practices, interests, and the ways they are expecting to interact with the PCs. Meanwhile, a follower of Tempus will almost certainly NOT bring up their sexuality in pretty much any context, and you'd have to tail them and monitor who goes in and out of their tent to have an idea regarding it, as it has absolutely nothing to do with their primary interests or the way they expect to interact with the PCs, barring individual interpersonal complications.
I will say I am not a huge fan of how prudish most media, including generic RPGs, tend to be. Sexual content is intrinsically tied to the existence of biological life. We don't need to spell out what the PCs do in regards to that any more than we need to spell out them eating or sleeping or breathing or relieving themselves, but it like any biological function CAN be a point of interest, and it makes as little sense to me to gloss over that aspect of life as it does to try to dance around eating and drinking and hide what goes on when they stop at a tavern. Maybe I'm alone in this, let me know. Fundamentally my guiding principle is, are my players expressing interest in it, and is it just one or two players while the rest of the PCs fall silent, or are they all interested, and if they are all interested, let them explore whatever they want to explore, whether that's trade negotiations, drinking contests, crafting, sexual activity, or whatever else.
It's not really about the presentation of sexuality.
It's about the desire to appropriate *anything* and everything from normal society and make them Woke. None of the issues within the individual segments of the Intersectional Religion has *anything* in common with one another - they are groups of people following the pied-piper's narrative that they are oppressed by White Heterosexual Male Patriarchal Culture, and *everything* is a product of that, and needs to be co-opted or destroyed.
If it were about sexuality only - adult players wouldn't *really* be debating this. It's about the pandering political agenda being inserted into everything for purposes OTHER than real-world issues that L's or G's, or POC's, or T's or anyone else conveniently co-opted into their bullshit agenda based on immutable characteristics that *NO ONE* can change, have to face.
But they pretend it matters. It doesn't.
Quote from: Giant Octopodes;1110430To an extent I agree with this and the quoted posts about FR specifically. But for D&D in general, and especially RPGs as a group, there are plenty of different strokes for different folks, and it's largely a matter of what your group is comfortable with and the setting. Most campaigns I've played in have been very sex-neutral and largely abided by the T for Teen sort of mantra. We may torture enemies for information and brutally murder old folks who wronged us, but even the implication someone was visiting a brothel, much less what may transpire within, is danced around and ignored.
Absolutely, there are different strokes for different folks. Some groups are T-for-Teen. Apparently, there are some groups where even G-rated material is avoided -- where just having two NPCs be man and wife might be too much information. I haven't seen that extreme much, but if people want to play that way, they're welcome to.
Most of my non-D&D games tend to have some visible romantic relations - like in Champions, it was common for a character to have an NPC girlfriend or boyfriend, or in Buffy the Vampire Slayer there were various romantic subplots, or in historical / pseudo-historical games there was some maneuvering over marriages (usually arranged marriages). In D&D, I've typically seen less of this -- though there is at least an understanding that NPCs would be in relationships.
Quote from: Giant Octopodes;1110430I will say I am not a huge fan of how prudish most media, including generic RPGs, tend to be. Sexual content is intrinsically tied to the existence of biological life. We don't need to spell out what the PCs do in regards to that any more than we need to spell out them eating or sleeping or breathing or relieving themselves, but it like any biological function CAN be a point of interest, and it makes as little sense to me to gloss over that aspect of life as it does to try to dance around eating and drinking and hide what goes on when they stop at a tavern. Maybe I'm alone in this, let me know.
No, I feel similarly. I like a variety of games - including some with romantic melodrama, along with plenty without. But the standard of avoiding even G-rated mention of romance seems strange to me. In my D&D games, there will typically be at least mentions of, say, interest in a comely bar-maid or similar.
Quote from: jhkim;1110612Absolutely, there are different strokes for different folks. Some groups are T-for-Teen. Apparently, there are some groups where even G-rated material is avoided -- where just having two NPCs be man and wife might be too much information. I haven't seen that extreme much, but if people want to play that way, they're welcome to.
Most of my non-D&D games tend to have some visible romantic relations - like in Champions, it was common for a character to have an NPC girlfriend or boyfriend, or in Buffy the Vampire Slayer there were various romantic subplots, or in historical / pseudo-historical games there was some maneuvering over marriages (usually arranged marriages). In D&D, I've typically seen less of this -- though there is at least an understanding that NPCs would be in relationships.
It's not even different strokes for different strokes, it's often just the nature of the game and the group.
Buffy: The Vampire Slayer is very explicitly a show about relationships, and the RPG emulates that, so dating is an important part of the default premise. The super-hero genre as a whole is only one step removed from Soap Operas, so there will be significant others to rescue and maybe some forbidden attraction. But D&D? Despite the terrible anime, the dungeon isn't really a place to pick up girls or guys. And unlike
Pendragon, where the downtime and things like marriage are formalized, D&D's downtime is often brushed over or ignored.
The second reason is because having a sexually- or even romantically- oriented game requires everyone be on the same page, and comfortable with everyone else around the table expressing that degree of sexuality. Essentially, it works best with mixed peer groups, i.e. people who in other circumstances would be sharing girl talk, locker room talk, or flirting. If you have kids, strange old men, happily married couples, and so on, you're probably not going to focus much on romantic or sexual relationships because nobody really wants to think about each other that way.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1109851For some people, the inclusion of minorities is not a political act; it's just reflecting the world that they see.
Sadly, WotC has demonstrated that this level of inclusion is for attention and not just a reflection of the world we live in. And I'm torn if this adventure, which makes a gay character a villain and mentally ill, should be presented in a Starter set. Imagine being a young member of the LGBT and this game you are hearing about as inclusive, casts someone you identify with as mentally ill and the bad guy.
Quote from: Sunsword;1110916Sadly, WotC has demonstrated that this level of inclusion is for attention and not just a reflection of the world we live in. And I'm torn if this adventure, which makes a gay character a villain and mentally ill, should be presented in a Starter set. Imagine being a young member of the LGBT and this game you are hearing about as inclusive, casts someone you identify with as mentally ill and the bad guy.
Imagine being an old white guy with a beard that suffers from anxiety & depression and discovering that that they've cast an old white guy with a beard as a crazy necromancer... Same shit, different labels.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1110925Imagine being an old white guy with a beard that suffers from anxiety & depression and discovering that that they've cast an old white guy with a beard as a crazy necromancer... Same shit, different labels.
Your strawman is showing.
Quote from: Omega;1110963Your strawman is showing.
Sure is!
My only point is that anyone should be able to be the bad guy. Just because a character (or NPC) is identifiable as LGBT doesn't mean they must be represented as LG.
Quote from: Sunsword;1110916Sadly, WotC has demonstrated that this level of inclusion is for attention and not just a reflection of the world we live in. And I'm torn if this adventure, which makes a gay character a villain and mentally ill, should be presented in a Starter set. Imagine being a young member of the LGBT and this game you are hearing about as inclusive, casts someone you identify with as mentally ill and the bad guy.
If a character
can't be the bad guy, it isn't representation, it's pandering.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1110925Imagine being an old white guy with a beard that suffers from anxiety & depression and discovering that that they've cast an old white guy with a beard as a crazy necromancer... Same shit, different labels.
Gonna try to keep this short, because I think I suspect it won't be super new ideas to anyone here: I think this is actually the crux of the problem: when you make a big deal about how "Inclusive!" a character/game is, the character ceases to be its own thing and becomes a representative of the whole group. Its flaws are the group's flaws, its failures are the group's failures. This is why they all tend to be Mary Sues.
I'm not an Old White Guy With a Beard, but I would be grumpy and suspicious if I picked up a piece of media that advertised itself on being "Inclusive!" of Old White Guy With a Beard Tribe, and then saw that said "included" character was shitty. The selling point is that this Tribe is "Represented!" and "Included!", and then the Token Inclusion is a frickin' jerk?
But it could also be that my perception is biased by the zeitgeist of "Inclusive!" meaning "Old White Guys Are The Literal Worst!" and "Exclude People!".
Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1111061Gonna try to keep this short, because I think I suspect it won't be super new ideas to anyone here: I think this is actually the crux of the problem: when you make a big deal about how "Inclusive!" a character/game is, the character ceases to be its own thing and becomes a representative of the whole group. Its flaws are the group's flaws, its failures are the group's failures. This is why they all tend to be Mary Sues.
I'm not an Old White Guy With a Beard, but I would be grumpy and suspicious if I picked up a piece of media that advertised itself on being "Inclusive!" of Old White Guy With a Beard Tribe, and then saw that said "included" character was shitty. The selling point is that this Tribe is "Represented!" and "Included!", and then the Token Inclusion is a frickin' jerk?
But it could also be that my perception is biased by the zeitgeist of "Inclusive!" meaning "Old White Guys Are The Literal Worst!" and "Exclude People!".
A very good insight, and I agree. I couldn't give two shits about a couple of gay gnomes in an RPG setting, but there's so much identity politics surrounding the issue, it's nearly impossible to ignore and just get on with the gaming.
Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1111061I'm not an Old White Guy With a Beard, but I would be grumpy and suspicious if I picked up a piece of media that advertised itself on being "Inclusive!" of Old White Guy With a Beard Tribe, and then saw that said "included" character was shitty. The selling point is that this Tribe is "Represented!" and "Included!", and then the Token Inclusion is a frickin' jerk?
First of all, has WotC actually advertised the Essentials Kit as being inclusive of gays because of the gnome kings? I haven't seen such claimed earlier.
Second, even if they did, then the problem would be the tokenism. It shouldn't be that gay characters should never appear in modules or can't be the villain/opponent. Would you agree?
Quote from: jhkim;1111079First of all, has WotC actually advertised the Essentials Kit as being inclusive of gays because of the gnome kings? I haven't seen such claimed earlier.
Second, even if they did, then the problem would be the tokenism. It shouldn't be that gay characters should never appear in modules or can't be the villain/opponent. Would you agree?
I noted this before in various threads. So far all of these instances are stealth inserts. I do not think a single one has been crowed.
WOTC has been busy crowing elsewhere, and sometimes loudly. But the modules? Not a peep.
I am betting each module has at lease one gay insert that is totally meaningless and maybee one insert that has at least a little background. Bemusingly so far all but one, maybee two have been either villains or of questionable sanity. I would in no way call the gnome king a villain. He is just in a panic state and not thinking.
Quote from: jhkim;1111079First of all, has WotC actually advertised the Essentials Kit as being inclusive of gays because of the gnome kings? I haven't seen such claimed earlier.
I was writing about a general problem with the ideas of representation and of tokenism, and using HappyDaze's example in specific, not about the Essentials Kit. I don't know anything first hand about its contents or its marketing. That said, I think it's correct to state that WotC and D&D have both marketed heavily on "inclusion and diversity" in general, though.
Mea culpa, in retrospect, that might make it off topic, though I think it's relevant to the overall related-to-gnome-kings discussion of how to effectively develop characters in general and with "representative" aspects in particular.
Quote from: jhkim;1111079Second, even if they did, then the problem would be the tokenism. It shouldn't be that gay characters should never appear in modules or can't be the villain/opponent. Would you agree?
I agree, though I find it interesting that you wanted to raise that over what I said.
I want interesting characters developed as flawed, inspiring individuals, not box tickers. To me, finding universal humanity even in characters/individual very different from me is an appealing and inspiring part of reading and storytelling. I can't comment on the EK directly since I haven't read it.
Do you think the EK representation is box tickers, or genuinely developed, true-to-lore gnomes and setting with a coherent backstory, or somewhere in between? Or perhaps something else entirely?
Edit: Could also be none of the above, I suppose
Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1111130I want interesting characters developed as flawed, inspiring individuals, not box tickers. To me, finding universal humanity even in characters/individual very different from me is an appealing and inspiring part of reading and storytelling. I can't comment on the EK directly since I haven't read it.
Do you think the EK representation is box tickers, or genuinely developed, true-to-lore gnomes and setting with a coherent backstory, or somewhere in between? Or perhaps something else entirely?
Edit: Could also be none of the above, I suppose
I'd say none of the above. They aren't great characters -- but they're also not advertised as "look at how great these gay characters are", nor are they gay stereotypes.
I'm no mind-reader, so maybe they were carefully placed as part of a planned gay invasion of D&D. However, from what I can see, this is indistinguishable from just randomly rolling 4% for different NPCs to see if they're gay.
My son just GMed that segment of the module with his group at college. He upped the opposition from one mimic to two mimics - plus a baby mimic distraction. It sounds like it went pretty well, with some amusing player antics about trying to light on fire the baby mimic that was stuck to his hand. ( Players always do the weirdest shit. :confused: ) The gnome kings apparently didn't evoke any comment.
Quote from: jhkim;1111136I'd say none of the above. They aren't great characters -- but they're also not advertised as "look at how great these gay characters are", nor are they gay stereotypes.
I'm no mind-reader, so maybe they were carefully placed as part of a planned gay invasion of D&D. However, from what I can see, this is indistinguishable from just randomly rolling 4% for different NPCs to see if they're gay.
My son just GMed that segment of the module with his group at college. He upped the opposition from one mimic to two mimics - plus a baby mimic distraction. It sounds like it went pretty well, with some amusing player antics about trying to light on fire the baby mimic that was stuck to his hand. ( Players always do the weirdest shit. :confused: ) The gnome kings apparently didn't evoke any comment.
Sounds like you've taught your son to GM well. :D
Otherwise, I'm still not sure why you're replying this way -- it reads to me like you're arguing against a point I'm not attempting to make. I'm glad that the kings read as merely meh, and not cringey. God knows it's hard enough to try to make anything resembling art even before all this polarizing political stuff gets factored in.
Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1110220WTBF, so someone has to run modules to be an RPG player
Hold on there sparky. I never said he's not a player.
I said in the context of THIS KIND OF CONTENT, he doesn't play it. Or buy it. Or read it. Or interact with it in any way other than this thread where he is white room bitching. So why would I give a fuck what he thinks about it? He is entitled to his opinion, but he's not entitled to anyone caring what his opinion is about something he literally knows nothing about other than this thread. I am dismissing his opinion because he's declared his opinion is utterly vapid and dismissable. It's like he has an opinion about professional Basketball when he's never watched a game and calls it sportsball, and now he's whining that Basketball doesn't include his favorite kind of players when nobody would give a shit what a non-fan thinks about Basketball.
Quote from: jhkim;1111136I'm no mind-reader, so maybe they were carefully placed as part of a planned gay invasion of D&D.
I think Jeremy Crawford has been pretty explicit about that being his intent; to gay-ify the adventures in particular. I see it as more a political fetish than a sexual fetish, where Ed's sex stuff in FR is definitely sexual, without any real political agenda.
Quote from: Mistwell;1111162Hold on there sparky. I never said he's not a player.
I said in the context of THIS KIND OF CONTENT, he doesn't play it. Or buy it. Or read it. Or interact with it in any way other than this thread where he is white room bitching. So why would I give a fuck what he thinks about it?
But since your telepathic abilities suck. You're really good at projecting and making shit up in your mind and presenting disingenuous narratives for your own motives. I *only* said I don't
run modules. I never said I don't purchase them. I never said I don't read them. I never said I don't interact with them. I said *I don't run them*.
You inserted all the other bullshit to support whatever retarded point you're trying to make. But let's face it, you're not trying to discuss any of this in good faith, so the reason you shouldn't care about my opinion is the really the same reason we shouldn't care about yours: you're not interested in talking about this topic. You're building some effigy of me to move in rent-free. I'm cool with it tho. It's roomy in here with all this air.
Quote from: Mistwell;1111162He is entitled to his opinion, but he's not entitled to anyone caring what his opinion is about something he literally knows nothing about other than this thread.
Says the idiot that can't read and projects his own narratives into a discussion he's not actually having. LOL dude you could have just asked me why I don't run modules. Instead you've concocted this fanciful bullshit fairytale to further divert from the point of the thread and pretend you're somehow rhetorically discrediting me. You're a retard.
Quote from: Mistwell;1111162I am dismissing his opinion because he's declared his opinion is utterly vapid and dismissable.
Are you standing like Captain Morgan when you said this out loud to yourself to test its tenor?
Quote from: Mistwell;1111162It's like he has an opinion about professional Basketball when he's never watched a game and calls it sportsball, and now he's whining that Basketball doesn't include his favorite kind of players when nobody would give a shit what a non-fan thinks about Basketball.
It's like... you know me in your own mind. Because I've never written modules, adventures, articles, campaign books, etc. in publication and know nothing about any of this stuff. LOL this is great.
Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1111141it reads to me like you're arguing against a point I'm not attempting to make.
Yep, you figured him out.
Quote from: tenbones;1111188You're really good at projecting and making shit up in your mind and presenting disingenuous narratives for your own motives.
Another perceptive poster!
Quote from: jhkim;1111079It shouldn't be that gay characters should never appear in modules or can't be the villain/opponent. Would you agree?
What if I say I don't want to have gay characters in modules I run at all because I'd rather not inject real-world issues into my fantasy campaign? Does that mean I'm a terrible person?
Quote from: Brad;1111206What if I say I don't want to have gay characters in modules I run at all because I'd rather not inject real-world issues into my fantasy campaign? Does that mean I'm a terrible person?
According to the New Order, yes, because you're discriminating by not likewise excluding straight characters, and thus denying the premise that all forms of consensual (and preferably sterile) sex are morally equal and must be treated and represented equally by any social order that is not to be condemned as irredeemably corrupt and worthy of destruction.
Quote from: Brad;1111206What if I say I don't want to have gay characters in modules I run at all because I'd rather not inject real-world issues into my fantasy campaign? Does that mean I'm a terrible person?
I think it's safe to say that you were already a terrible person. Correlation doesn't mean causation.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1111219I think it's safe to say that you were already a terrible person. Correlation doesn't mean causation.
How many Asian Gnomes are in your game? Stand and be counted for the Yellow Devil Purity Test!
As an example of this very phenomenon we're discussing here...
https://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article236518313.ece
Are we to then say 25 of 26 black focus-group members are homophobes by Intersectional Woke Standards?
If Yes Then that would imply the Intersectional Oppression Stack that implies all these groups are allies and have the same values and interests outside of their hobby of pretending to be oppressed isn't accurate.
... so therefore homophobe?
OR...
Maybe they just don't give a shit about other groups special interests?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1111219I think it's safe to say that you were already a terrible person. Correlation doesn't mean causation.
This is like a bipolar ex-girlfriend calling me abusive. Just gotta laugh.
Quote from: Brad;1111206What if I say I don't want to have gay characters in modules I run at all because I'd rather not inject real-world issues into my fantasy campaign? Does that mean I'm a terrible person?
>Insert long-winded pseudo-intellectual SJW rant about how "erasure" is destroying minorities and you are a homophobic Nazi here.<
Face it, unless all you do is virtue signal, you are one of the Bad Guys.
Quote from: jeff37923;1111238>Insert long-winded pseudo-intellectual SJW rant about how "erasure" is destroying minorities and you are a homophobic Nazi here.<
Face it, unless all you do is virtue signal, you are one of the Bad Guys.
I wonder if Socrates was ever called a Nazi bigot when he asked questions...
Quote from: Brad;1111244I wonder if Socrates was ever called a Nazi bigot when he asked questions...
Definitely! Well, the contemporary equivalent. Mark Zuckerberg's SJW-Classicist sister wrote an article explaining how Socrates was a Shitlord oppressing people with his words-as-violence. The people who killed him were the Real Victims.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/whats-wrong-with-online-debate-me-culture/2019/08/29/c0ec8aa2-c9ca-11e9-8067-196d9f17af68_story.html
Quote from: S'mon;1111249Definitely! Well, the contemporary equivalent. Mark Zuckerberg's SJW-Classicist sister wrote an article explaining how Socrates was a Shitlord oppressing people with his words-as-violence. The people who killed him were the Real Victims.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/whats-wrong-with-online-debate-me-culture/2019/08/29/c0ec8aa2-c9ca-11e9-8067-196d9f17af68_story.html
That actually made my eye twitch. Wow.
Quote from: tenbones;1111220How many Asian Gnomes are in your game? Stand and be counted for the Yellow Devil Purity Test!
As an example of this very phenomenon we're discussing here...
https://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article236518313.ece
Are we to then say 25 of 26 black focus-group members are homophobes by Intersectional Woke Standards?
If Yes Then that would imply the Intersectional Oppression Stack that implies all these groups are allies and have the same values and interests outside of their hobby of pretending to be oppressed isn't accurate.
... so therefore homophobe?
OR...
Maybe they just don't give a shit about other groups special interests?
I would be more than happy to include cannibalistic Asian gnomes in my next game just for you, tenbones. I'll even make one an asexual cross-dressing half-Native chieftain of a band of famous Tibetan orc showgirls! *counts fingers* Damn, the queue gets longer all the time...
Quote from: S'mon;1111249[article]
"After all, a debate isn't a conversation -- an exercise in which people generously try to understand each other's point of view. A real conversation doesn't have a "winner." Debates are about scoring points and subjugating your opponent. Which means that, no matter what their opponents say, debaters have every reason to spin a confrontation as a victory. If I got angry or flustered in a debate, then I would lose by virtue of being emotional and irrational. If I used jokes or sarcasm, I'd lose by virtue of seeming unserious and smug. If I did take the debate seriously and even briefly entertained the points made by my opponent, I would seem conciliatory and weak. And no matter what, my opponent will have gotten my attention and sucked up my time. The only winning move is not to play."
Holy fucking shit.
Quote from: jhkimIt shouldn't be that gay characters should never appear in modules or can't be the villain/opponent. Would you agree?
Quote from: Brad;1111206What if I say I don't want to have gay characters in modules I run at all because I'd rather not inject real-world issues into my fantasy campaign? Does that mean I'm a terrible person?
Your personal taste is your personal taste. I'm not going to judge you on what games you like to play -- though it's likely that we disagree on real-world issues as well. Conversely, though, do you have any issues with me because I do have gay characters in the games I play and the modules I buy and run?
In general, I'm fine with there being some modules with gay characters and some without, which is how things are. It's not like all modules have to be one way or the other -- there can be different modules to different tastes.
Quote from: jhkim;1111258Conversely, though, do you have any issues with me because I do have gay characters in the games I play and the modules I buy and run?
Why would that matter to me whatsoever? The issue here is that some people said they aren't interested in modules that contain these sorts of topics (especially when poorly done) and are then called terrible, bigoted homophobes or whatever. To go even further, the writers are terrible, bigoted homophobes if they don't have gay characters in their modules. The whole thing is fucking ludicrous.
Quote from: Antiquation!;1111257Holy fucking shit.
I think it's worth understanding that people like the untalented Donna Zuckerberg (not actually Mark Zuckerberg himself, for all his faults) are like the aliens from Independence Day. The answer to "What do they want?" is "They want you to die." Her siding with the killers of Socrates, the greatest philosopher in world history, makes that abundantly clear.
Quote from: Brad;1111244I wonder if Socrates was ever called a Nazi bigot when he asked questions...
Since Socrates was tried, found guilty and sentenced to death for being a Nazi bigot, then yes. Yes he was.
Quote from: S'mon;1111249Definitely! Well, the contemporary equivalent. Mark Zuckerberg's SJW-Classicist sister wrote an article explaining how Socrates was a Shitlord oppressing people with his words-as-violence. The people who killed him were the Real Victims.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/whats-wrong-with-online-debate-me-culture/2019/08/29/c0ec8aa2-c9ca-11e9-8067-196d9f17af68_story.html
Now
THAT'S comedy! Thank you for linking that!
Quote from: jhkim;1111258Conversely, though, do you have any issues with me because I do have gay characters in the games I play and the modules I buy and run?
If they are there as tokens or parody stereotypes, then yes.
Quote from: jhkimConversely, though, do you have any issues with me because I do have gay characters in the games I play and the modules I buy and run?
Quote from: Brad;1111262Why would that matter to me whatsoever? The issue here is that some people said they aren't interested in modules that contain these sorts of topics (especially when poorly done) and are then called terrible, bigoted homophobes or whatever. To go even further, the writers are terrible, bigoted homophobes if they don't have gay characters in their modules. The whole thing is fucking ludicrous.
Who's been arguing that? Seriously - I haven't seen anyone say that in the conversation thus far. Is this something in another forum? If so, could you link to the discussion?
As I've seen it, this thread has been the opposite - people complaining about the Essentials Kit module because of the gay gnome kings.
As I said pretty clearly, I don't have a problem with a module that has no gay characters -- and I also don't have a problem with a module with gay characters.
Quote from: jhkimConversely, though, do you have any issues with me because I do have gay characters in the games I play and the modules I buy and run?
Quote from: jeff37923;1111270If they are there as tokens or parody stereotypes, then yes.
Fair enough. I mentioned before that I recently ran a Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG set in Santa Cruz where one of the pregenerated PCs was Ashley McBay, Gay Vegetarian Wiccan Rich Girl (http://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/buffy/chars/display.cgi?shortname=slayerbot/ashley). Does that count as a parody stereotype to you?
Personally, I don't have a problem with using stereotypes per se as long as they're also regularly broken.
Quote from: Brad;1111206What if I say I don't want to have gay characters in modules I run at all because I'd rather not inject real-world issues into my fantasy campaign? Does that mean I'm a terrible person?
Yes! You monster!
And I am horrible for not wanting this stuff just tossed in meaninglessly for agenda points.
Why is there a "planet of the lesbian bats" in Albedo? Because Paul thought it was funny and he knew people would come up to Steve at cons and ask him for the details on this planet hes never heard of. Its there as a joke in an otherwise deadly serious RPG. Why was the stealth assassin in the mini adventure gender flipped in the revised edition? Because Paul or Steve thought it would make the assassin more ubiquitous and less likely to be suspected. Its been a few decades since I worked on the stuff. The stuff is there for a reason, even in one case it is a silly reason. Rather than to score agenda points.
Same with the whole He-Man and She-Ra parody adventure in Macho Women With Guns. Its a joke. In a book made of joke. And who would not want to help the valiant SheHer put an end to the tyranny of the corrupt HeHim? :cool: But gasparoonies! They are one and the same? It is true. SheHer is really HeHer, man of indeterminate gender. Get me my fainting couch! :eek:
Quote from: jhkim;1111281Who's been arguing that? Seriously - I haven't seen anyone say that in the conversation thus far. Is this something in another forum? If so, could you link to the discussion?
As I've seen it, this thread has been the opposite - people complaining about the Essentials Kit module because of the gay gnome kings.
As I said pretty clearly, I don't have a problem with a module that has no gay characters -- and I also don't have a problem with a module with gay characters.
Fair enough. I mentioned before that I recently ran a Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG set in Santa Cruz where one of the pregenerated PCs was Ashley McBay, Gay Vegetarian Wiccan Rich Girl (http://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/buffy/chars/display.cgi?shortname=slayerbot/ashley). Does that count as a parody stereotype to you?
Personally, I don't have a problem with using stereotypes per se as long as they're also regularly broken.
No. However, your current argument does count as a parody stereotype.
Quote from: Omega;1111285Yes! You monster!
And I am horrible for not wanting this stuff just tossed in meaninglessly for agenda points.
Why is there a "planet of the lesbian bats" in Albedo? Because Paul thought it was funny and he knew people would come up to Steve at cons and ask him for the details on this planet hes never heard of. Its there as a joke in an otherwise deadly serious RPG. Why was the stealth assassin in the mini adventure gender flipped in the revised edition? Because Paul or Steve thought it would make the assassin more ubiquitous and less likely to be suspected. Its been a few decades since I worked on the stuff. The stuff is there for a reason, even in one case it is a silly reason. Rather than to score agenda points.
Same with the whole He-Man and She-Ra parody adventure in Macho Women With Guns. Its a joke. In a book made of joke. And who would not want to help the valiant SheHer put an end to the tyranny of the corrupt HeHim? :cool: But gasparoonies! They are one and the same? It is true. SheHer is really HeHer, man of indeterminate gender. Get me my fainting couch! :eek:
:mad: I have been informed by the Computer, er, the Consortium that humor in Imagination is now a high crime against
Progress! and must be purged for The Resistance, lest the flames of thought crimes, er, latent bigotry burst forth as conflagration upon the land.
:) Please bring said parody materials for correction at the nearest Love & Inclusion Camp. We will be anticipating your stay by increasing the carob rations from 8 oz. to 6 oz. Thank you for your cooperation, citizen! ;)
Quote from: S'mon;1111249Definitely! Well, the contemporary equivalent. Mark Zuckerberg's SJW-Classicist sister wrote an article explaining how Socrates was a Shitlord oppressing people with his words-as-violence. The people who killed him were the Real Victims.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/whats-wrong-with-online-debate-me-culture/2019/08/29/c0ec8aa2-c9ca-11e9-8067-196d9f17af68_story.html
Her central thesis, that internet debates are more about scoring points than anything substantive, and the best approach most of the time is to just avoid them, is valid. She's just wreathed it in hate.
Quote from: Pat;1111312Her central thesis, that internet debates are more about scoring points than anything substantive, and the best approach most of the time is to just avoid them, is valid. She's just wreathed it in hate.
Thanks for that summary, as I did not bother reading it. Sounded like generic "gotta fart a thesis paper now!" grad school salacious contrarianism. But it is nice to know somewhere amid the wading pool of shit there is a chocolate morsel! :D
Quote from: Opaopajr;1111314Thanks for that summary, as I did not bother reading it. Sounded like generic "gotta fart a thesis paper now!" grad school salacious contrarianism. But it is nice to know somewhere amid the wading pool of shit there is a chocolate morsel! :D
Wouldn't say that. Her central point is valid, but it's not an original idea, and most of the essay is just cheap shots trying to discredit those she hates -- in other words, she's doing exactly what she's pretending to oppose.
Quote from: Pat;1111312Her central thesis, that internet debates are more about scoring points than anything substantive, and the best approach most of the time is to just avoid them, is valid. She's just wreathed it in hate.
That seems a fair comment!
Quote from: Omega;1111285Same with the whole He-Man and She-Ra parody adventure in Macho Women With Guns. Its a joke. In a book made of joke. And who would not want to help the valiant SheHer put an end to the tyranny of the corrupt HeHim? :cool: But gasparoonies! They are one and the same? It is true. SheHer is really HeHer, man of indeterminate gender. Get me my fainting couch! :eek:
Quote from: Opaopajr;1111310:mad: I have been informed by the Computer, er, the Consortium that humor in Imagination is now a high crime against Progress! and must be purged for The Resistance, lest the flames of thought crimes, er, latent bigotry burst forth as conflagration upon the land.
:) Please bring said parody materials for correction at the nearest Love & Inclusion Camp. We will be anticipating your stay by increasing the carob rations from 8 oz. to 6 oz. Thank you for your cooperation, citizen! ;)
Heh. I love Macho Women With Guns.
And yeah, I don't get the whole humorless moral outrage over wrong stuff in modules.
Quote from: jhkim;1111357Heh. I love Macho Women With Guns.
And yeah, I don't get the whole humorless moral outrage over wrong stuff in modules.
Oh because 1) It's not humorous 2) I have *no* reason to believe it's intended to be humorless. 3) If someone that is not part of the Woke Church made a *parody* of homosexuals feuding and hiring PC's to kill one another off... am I to believe that somehow that would be well received as "humorous" on its face?
The whole point of thread is the injection of this material into the game/hobby in general is not for representation. It's for political purposes and corporate virtue signalling which today is passed off as marketing.
Which of course they have every right to do. And we have every right to point out how stupid it is, and not buy it, as well as chat about it online. /shrug
Its hard to say really with the gnomes. Its a drop in in a not really serious location. It makes it hard to pin down.
Its even possibly that originally this was a king and queen. And some exec had a SJW panic attack and decided that they could not have a man imprisoning a woman. So poof. Guy on guy. er Gny on gny? :D
Quote from: Omega;1111387Its hard to say really with the gnomes. Its a drop in in a not really serious location. It makes it hard to pin down.
You'd think that. But then it demands "why do it at all?" If the whole representation thing is "important" - is this the level that oh-so-important "representation standard" rises to? On it's face... that's pretty laughable. If it's supposed to be "serious" - then it's kinda insulting. Maybe both? Either way it doesn't stop it from being pandering dogshit *because* the writer isn't even trying to take their flagship setting serious.
It's like watching a *bad* SNL skit with Jimmy Fallon laughing at their own joke WHILE in the joke... ruining it, then demanding we take their stupid shit "seriously". Can't have it both ways. But then that won't stop them from demonizing you in either take that doesn't simply agree with their stance of the moment.
That's what makes it especially hilarious to watch people on this thread run their excuses for it... it really is funny to me.
Quote from: Omega;1111387Its even possibly that originally this was a king and queen. And some exec had a SJW panic attack and decided that they could not have a man imprisoning a woman. So poof. Guy on guy. er Gny on gny? :D
That could be true. And equally as disrespectful to the audience, and the spirit of the work. Which brings us back to "pandering dogshit".
Quote from: jhkim;1111357Heh. I love Macho Women With Guns.
And yeah, I don't get the whole humorless moral outrage over wrong stuff in modules.
Maybe you really enjoy being pandered to like you're an idiot? Mind you - I'm not calling you an idiot. I'm saying THEY are. Of course they're assuming you accept the quality of what they're offering as "good". If not, then hey, fair play. Some people really believed that "Every Breath You Take" is a love song from the Police... not a song about obsessive scary creep stalking his object of desire as Sting intended. Doesn't stop people from playing it at their weddings.
I do think WotC are idiots however.
Quote from: tenbones;1111418You'd think that. But then it demands "why do it at all?" If the whole representation thing is "important" - is this the level that oh-so-important "representation standard" rises to? On it's face... that's pretty laughable. If it's supposed to be "serious" - then it's kinda insulting. Maybe both? Either way it doesn't stop it from being pandering dogshit *because* the writer isn't even trying to take their flagship setting serious.
That's what makes it especially hilarious to watch people on this thread run their excuses for it... it really is funny to me.
That could be true. And equally as disrespectful to the audience, and the spirit of the work.
1: Why? That one is obvious in the other modules. Its the bone for the dog to shut it up. Hasborg, or at least someone in dewsign with some leverage, seems to be catching on that going woke is bad for business. Their more supposedly SJW positive recent games have been clever mocking. Meanwhile WOTC desperately wants on the woke wagon like half the industry seems to. I suspect we'd be seeing far worse and very blatant pandering if Hasbro didnt have a tight leash on WOTC.
2: I think some are just unsure due to the total vagueness of the insertions. Or haven't actually read the modules to see just how meaningless nearly all these have been so far. I mean really. Why is this guys son crossdressing as a girl? Or is a girl who wants to be called son, or is a son transformed into a girl or
who the fuck knows because it is 100% lacking any explanation?
3: To the SJW cultists everything is disrespectful. It will never be enough no matter if the whole book was wall to wall gay and all the NPCs and their dog fire their Gayzor Eyebeams at the PCs. incinerating them in the self annihilating rainbow of wokeness.
(https://i.imgur.com/ME1E3N4.gif?noredirect)
Quote from: Omega;11114331: Why? That one is obvious in the other modules. Its the bone for the dog to shut it up. Hasborg, or at least someone in dewsign with some leverage, seems to be catching on that going woke is bad for business. Their more supposedly SJW positive recent games have been clever mocking. Meanwhile WOTC desperately wants on the woke wagon like half the industry seems to. I suspect we'd be seeing far worse and very blatant pandering if Hasbro didnt have a tight leash on WOTC.
2: I think some are just unsure due to the total vagueness of the insertions. Or haven't actually read the modules to see just how meaningless nearly all these have been so far. I mean really. Why is this guys son crossdressing as a girl? Or is a girl who wants to be called son, or is a son transformed into a girl or who the fuck knows because it is 100% lacking any explanation?
3: To the SJW cultists everything is disrespectful. It will never be enough no matter if the whole book was wall to wall gay and all the NPCs and their dog fire their Gayzor Eyebeams at the PCs. incinerating them in the self annihilating rainbow of wokeness.
(https://i.imgur.com/ME1E3N4.gif?noredirect)
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/10/23/kmart-removes-childrens-bride-halloween-costume-backlash-australia-store/23845794/
This article is about Kmart Australia pulling a wedding dress costume for kids because 250 angry people felt it was "beyond inappropriate", due to being insensitive to "12 million children" being "sold or married off without their consent" each year. It's unclear whether the people complaining think that the children or parents are attempting to mock child slavery and / or arranged marriages, or whether they think perhaps these costumes will be purchased by those people purchasing enslaved child brides, or if perhaps they're just excessively sensitive a-holes ignoring context and intent, but my money's on that last one. How DARE a child want to wear a wedding dress for Halloween, or their parent allow such an offensive costume.
Never mind that their statistic is off by an order of magnitude (it's 1.2 million globally, not 12 million, and more accurately it's Estimated at being between .5 and 4 million with 1.2 being their best extrapolated figure), never mind that in Australia they have definitively identified roughly 20 human trafficking victims per year and ZERO cases of the trafficking of children in the last 15 years, how dare a child want to wear a pretty wedding dress like her aunt, older sister, or some other loved one, or a parent allow their 4-8 year old child to wallow in ignorance regarding the fate of children in 3rd world countries around the world.
I just thought this nearly the perfect example of how literally anything can be offensive in the mind of the right person.
Quote from: Giant Octopodes;1110430I will say I am not a huge fan of how prudish most media, including generic RPGs, tend to be. Sexual content is intrinsically tied to the existence of biological life. We don't need to spell out what the PCs do in regards to that any more than we need to spell out them eating or sleeping or breathing or relieving themselves, but it like any biological function CAN be a point of interest, and it makes as little sense to me to gloss over that aspect of life as it does to try to dance around eating and drinking and hide what goes on when they stop at a tavern. Maybe I'm alone in this, let me know. Fundamentally my guiding principle is, are my players expressing interest in it, and is it just one or two players while the rest of the PCs fall silent, or are they all interested, and if they are all interested, let them explore whatever they want to explore, whether that's trade negotiations, drinking contests, crafting, sexual activity, or whatever else.
Quote from: Giant Octopodes;1111458https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/10/23/kmart-removes-childrens-bride-halloween-costume-backlash-australia-store/23845794/
This article is about Kmart Australia pulling a wedding dress costume for kids because 250 angry people felt it was "beyond inappropriate", due to being insensitive to "12 million children" being "sold or married off without their consent" each year. It's unclear whether the people complaining think that the children or parents are attempting to mock child slavery and / or arranged marriages, or whether they think perhaps these costumes will be purchased by those people purchasing enslaved child brides, or if perhaps they're just excessively sensitive a-holes ignoring context and intent, but my money's on that last one. How DARE a child want to wear a wedding dress for Halloween, or their parent allow such an offensive costume.
So do you have an opinion on the OP topic of gay characters appearing in a module?
Do you think it's a problem and should be stopped?
Or is it OK to have such content in a module?
Quote from: jhkim;1111466So do you have an opinion on the OP topic of gay characters appearing in a module?
Do you think it's a problem and should be stopped?
Or is it OK to have such content in a module?
No, as I thought was clear from the first post you quoted, I have no qualms in anything and everything appearing in modules, including but not limited to sexual content, so as one would expect I have no qualms with sexual orientation appearing in modules as well. As you had posted in the quote I quoted when indicating I agreed with it to an extent, it is largely a minor background detail which shouldn't need to be danced around. It is also something that if folks don't like, generally speaking can be gender swapped out of existence. There is no reason either of the kings referenced by the OP can't just be a woman if they or their players are going to be uncomfortable for some reason or have their enjoyment diminished by it being presented in the manner published. The same could be said of almost all 'controversial' content, but even in cases where it is not, it's a matter of different strokes for different folks. If a module is centered around a plot which is inextricably tied to a theme you or your players will struggle with, whether that's sexual orientation, slavery, religion, alien invaders, or Anything else, you can always just not buy it or not play it. It's perfectly fine, who am I to judge, but under no circumstances would I support content not being made or limitations being put on free expression due to the fact that someone, somewhere may be offended by it or struggle with it, as I attempted to express with my second post.
As a private company, certainly WotC and any other RPG developer is free to limit the themes or content they produce in an attempt to avoid alienating or offending people. They are also free to go out of their way to include specific content or themes in an attempt to avoid alienating or offending people or to make people feel included. They can do whatever they want, and typically will go with whatever they feel gives the best business result, as I posted elsewhere. But should they choose to include content that folks have qualms with, I'll always stand by their right to produce such content in a free market, and their decision to avoid censorship for the sake of appeasement. This applies regardless of whether or not I personally agree with the content in question, and again for the record I personally have zero qualms of any kind with the existence of a pair of gay gnomes, it seems to me to be one of the tamest things possible for someone to have qualms with.
Quote from: Giant Octopodes;1111458https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/10/23/kmart-removes-childrens-bride-halloween-costume-backlash-australia-store/23845794/
This article is about Kmart Australia pulling a wedding dress costume for kids because 250 angry people felt it was "beyond inappropriate", due to being insensitive to "12 million children" being "sold or married off without their consent" each year. It's unclear whether the people complaining think that the children or parents are attempting to mock child slavery and / or arranged marriages, or whether they think perhaps these costumes will be purchased by those people purchasing enslaved child brides, or if perhaps they're just excessively sensitive a-holes ignoring context and intent, but my money's on that last one. How DARE a child want to wear a wedding dress for Halloween, or their parent allow such an offensive costume.
Never mind that their statistic is off by an order of magnitude (it's 1.2 million globally, not 12 million, and more accurately it's Estimated at being between .5 and 4 million with 1.2 being their best extrapolated figure), never mind that in Australia they have definitively identified roughly 20 human trafficking victims per year and ZERO cases of the trafficking of children in the last 15 years, how dare a child want to wear a pretty wedding dress like her aunt, older sister, or some other loved one, or a parent allow their 4-8 year old child to wallow in ignorance regarding the fate of children in 3rd world countries around the world.
I just thought this nearly the perfect example of how literally anything can be offensive in the mind of the right person.
And how does this relates to gaming?
Quote from: jeff37923;1111491And how does this relates to gaming?
And how does this relates to gaming?
When asking if someone has contributed anything meaningful to a discussion, you might want to take a moment to self reflect, and ask if, by doing so, you are contributing anything meaningful to the discussion yourself. Otherwise it just REEKS of hypocrisy and lack of self awareness. To answer your question, though, it relates in that content providers (in this case stores, but similarly applicable to conventions, publishers, or any other content provider) will bend to the will of folks who are outraged at the content being provided far too readily in my opinion, and engage in self censorship for the sake of avoiding offense, no matter how ridiculous that offense may be. It's a direct parallel to the idea of not producing content which involves sexual orientation for the sake of avoiding offending those who might find such content problematic, as well as a direct response to the claim #3 of the quoted post which indicated that "Everything is disrespectful" to certain people. The hint, by the way, might be in the final line of the quoted post ;-)
Tangental? Sure! But it adds *something* to the conversation, and even if only tangentially relates to gaming and the topic at hand. How about your post, how does it hold up in that regard?
If this thread goes on any longer, the gnomes will have already gotten a divorce!
BTW, any mention of the gnomes' having a wedding cake in the module?
Quote from: Spinachcat;1111495If this thread goes on any longer, the gnomes will have already gotten a divorce!
BTW, any mention of the gnomes' having a wedding cake in the module?
Now that would've been an ironic place to put the mimic.
"At this wedding, the cake takes a bite of you!"
Kinda tempting to actually try that, now...
Note that the cake would of course have to be of sufficiently lavish proportions to satisfy Jeff's Rules of Mimic Mass and Volume. :D :)
Quote from: Spinachcat;1111495If this thread goes on any longer, the gnomes will have already gotten a divorce!
BTW, any mention of the gnomes' having a wedding cake in the module?
This is also tangential, but related to gaming as well. In the historical world, death tended to be pretty common. Blended families (like from Cinderella) were very common because first one spouse would die, there would be a remarriage, then another would die. The 'til death do us part' of wedding tended to be a matter of a relatively short time for at least one half of the happy couple.
It's speculated that one reason that divorce is so common now is that we tend to live much longer - as people change over time the things that brought you together become less relevant and you might grow apart.
I wonder if something like that would be reflected in the marriage/mating rituals of more long-lived races. For example, perhaps Elves would be more likely to consider a 'pairing' for the specific purpose of having/raising a kid but staying with someone for centuries might be considered crazy. In terms of making demihuman cultures more distinct, it might be something to consider. For myself, I do like to make demihumans different
among themselves, so the dwarves of one region will have different cultural practices from the dwarves of another region (for example, one might have long braided beards and the other have short or NO BEARDS).
Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1111497Note that the cake would of course have to be of sufficiently lavish proportions to satisfy Jeff's Rules of Mimic Mass and Volume. :D :)
.
I have a PhD in Mimic Volumetrics! :D
Quote from: Giant Octopodes;1111494And how does this relates to gaming?
When asking if someone has contributed anything meaningful to a discussion, you might want to take a moment to self reflect, and ask if, by doing so, you are contributing anything meaningful to the discussion yourself. Otherwise it just REEKS of hypocrisy and lack of self awareness. To answer your question, though, it relates in that content providers (in this case stores, but similarly applicable to conventions, publishers, or any other content provider) will bend to the will of folks who are outraged at the content being provided far too readily in my opinion, and engage in self censorship for the sake of avoiding offense, no matter how ridiculous that offense may be. It's a direct parallel to the idea of not producing content which involves sexual orientation for the sake of avoiding offending those who might find such content problematic, as well as a direct response to the claim #3 of the quoted post which indicated that "Everything is disrespectful" to certain people. The hint, by the way, might be in the final line of the quoted post ;-)
Tangental? Sure! But it adds *something* to the conversation, and even if only tangentially relates to gaming and the topic at hand. How about your post, how does it hold up in that regard?
A sword is just a dagger on steroids.
Just because you add *something* to the conversation, doesn't mean that it enriches it.
You missed the entire point. It isn't that people are homophobic or sex phobic, it is that when those subjects are shoved in to 5E adventures, it has been done poorly with characters written badly and completely disregards the people who are sitting around the table about to play that game (you know, the consumers). Some don't want anything about uncommon sexual orientations at all in their games, there are those who want their freak flags to fly in full rainbow colors in their games, but the tone of that should be decided by the individual game group and not by the publisher.
Yes, WotC can choose to put whatever they want in their products. Just as people can choose not to buy those products.
In fact, if you want since I'm done with it, I will send you my copy of the Essentials Kit. Free. I'll keep the dice and rulebook, the rest is pretty substandard IMHO and should to someone who likes it.
Quote from: jeff37923;1111517In fact, if you want since I'm done with it, I will send you my copy of the Essentials Kit. Free. I'll keep the dice and rulebook, the rest is pretty substandard IMHO and should to someone who likes it.
If that's a serious offer, I have a friend in Knoxville that can pick it up from you...
Quote from: HappyDaze;1111529If that's a serious offer, I have a friend in Knoxville that can pick it up from you...
Serious offer. Going to Giant Octopodes first, though. If he doesn't want it, then you can have it.
If that were a heterosexual couple the same author would have had the female ruler going mad and the male ruler would be down in the dungeon every night enforcing his conjugal rights just to highlight how all women are victims.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1111498This is also tangential, but related to gaming as well. In the historical world, death tended to be pretty common. Blended families (like from Cinderella) were very common because first one spouse would die, there would be a remarriage, then another would die. The 'til death do us part' of wedding tended to be a matter of a relatively short time for at least one half of the happy couple.
It's speculated that one reason that divorce is so common now is that we tend to live much longer - as people change over time the things that brought you together become less relevant and you might grow apart.
I wonder if something like that would be reflected in the marriage/mating rituals of more long-lived races. For example, perhaps Elves would be more likely to consider a 'pairing' for the specific purpose of having/raising a kid but staying with someone for centuries might be considered crazy. In terms of making demihuman cultures more distinct, it might be something to consider. For myself, I do like to make demihumans different among themselves, so the dwarves of one region will have different cultural practices from the dwarves of another region (for example, one might have long braided beards and the other have short or NO BEARDS).
Elves in my setting are supposed to be serially monotonous, I mean monogamous. That is, they pair up for a few centuries and raise a child. Some couples stay together longer and one couple in the Westwood keep marrying one another and have had three kids. That's scandalous. Elves keep to their vows more often than not but the exceptions are spectacular.
Well I have been working through Tomb slowly and I may be coming to a sort of realization here...
So far the module/campaign has been consistently spartan with describing its NPCs. Even what should be major ones. And this is true in the other ones I have so far.
I am starting to suspect that what we are seeing is a design choice or mandate of somesort. And it harkens back to early D&D modules which were sometimes also rather spartan with their descriptions of NPCs and monsters. Yes there is a little more on a few NPCs in the back of the module. But some of that is more or less recaps or collections of what is in the module proper. So my impression is that for the modules at least they have adapted more or less a "make of it what you will" approach to NPCs. Just like in older modules.
One of the odd omissions in the back though is Valindra. Her background in the module amounts to a paragraph or two that mostly just pertains to the situation. Any DM not allready knowing who she is will walk away from this one knowing still pretty much nothing about her past a few salient details.
So the odd lack of detail on the gnomes in Essentials may just be a continuation of this spartan NPC approach. Essentials has that same vibe for NPCs. They tend to get a sentence at best. A half paragraph if lucky.