Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, transgender, gender identity, etc. in 5e

[Warthur]

I said it in the other thread, I'll repeat it here: this just seems like a marketing gimmick to appeal to some politically correct agenda. It has no place in a roleplaying game. I want to play wizards and elves in a fantasy realm, not worry about some minority opinion being pushed down my throat 24/7 by the media.

Subject is addressed in a short paragraph in a section of the rulebook most people probably won't even reread on a regular basis = pushed down your throat 24/7. Riiiiight.

What exactly about this would you characterise as a minority opinion, by the way?

[Necrozius]

It DOES seem a little ham-handed, but I'm okay with it. Either it is attempting to further normalize this subject into the medium (which is totally fine) or it IS just a cynical publicity grab. Possibly both.

[Larsdangly]

If you find you are mildly repulsed or sort of put off by this paragraph, or find yourself questioning the motives of the authors for rubbing your face in this issue in a PC way ...

... then you are mildly bigoted, sort of a cunt, and, if you check, you will find yourself with your head up your ass.

Do you know that you sound like some 1950's Stepford wife wrinkling her nose at 'all that new fangled nonsense about the coloreds'? If you can only deal with diversity when it is invisible, then you really can't deal with it.

So, go ahead and splutter whatever inevitable flaccid responses you feel obliged to type ('PC-blah, blah, cynical, blah'). Thankfully, we are on a forum where people can speak their minds. But as you type, realize you are just being a dick.

[Sacrosanct]

I find it funny that some folks are trotting out, "Won't anyone think of the children!" when they're the same ones whose preferred edition contained nudity and prostitution tables.

It's one paragraph of the entire game.  A paragraph I didn't even notice because that section of the book held no interest to me.  The parts about races, classes, monsters, and the actual rules of the game did.

[Steerpike]

You don’t need to be confined to binary notions of
sex and gender. The elf god Corellon Larethian is often
seen as androgynous or hermaphroditic, for example,
and some elves in the multiverse are made in Corellon’s
image. You could also play a female character who
presents herself as a man, a man who feels trapped in a
female body, or a bearded female dwarf who hates being
mistaken for a male. Likewise, your character’s sexual
orientation is for you to decide.

I see this paragraph not as something offered as genuine, good-faith roleplaying advice for a medieval fantasy roleplaying game.

Honestly not trying to be a SJW here, but one could make the argument that apart from pleasing a certain segment of the audience, the quoted text really isn't especially inconsistent either with mythology or the fantasy literature that D&D has always drawn from.

Myth, both Greco-Roman and Northern European, is full of androgynous characters and gender-swapping.  Tiresias, Loki, and medieval Succubi all come to mind immediately as figures that switch sexes.  So the idea of an androgynous god, like Corellon Latherien, is not that unusual.

Characters who present themselves as different genders are absolutely classic in literature, both fantasy and otherwise (Shakespeare has several cross-dressing characters).  And of course there's Eowyn, whose entire arc in The Lord of the Rings is literally about circumventing patriarchal norms by presenting herself as a man in order to fulfill what she feels is her patriotic and moral duty.

While the concept of "sexual orientation" is anachronistic given the period, medieval concepts of sexuality were probably a lot more fluid than the normative ones those that emerged in the 18th and 19th century.  Sexual acts were something you performed, not a component of your identity per se.  While sodomy was punishable by death, it was rarely enforced outside of a few religious contexts, and was usually brought up only as a kind of "add-on" to other crimes.  Some famous figures in the Early Modern period, notably Christopher Marlowe, for example, were (in)famous for their love of boys and men.  Notably, the passage says nothing about the social tolerance or lack thereof of society at large in the game-world.

A necessary passage?  Perhaps not, but a harmless one, and not really that far off-base in relation to literature, myth, and history.

[Necrozius]

If you find you are mildly repulsed or sort of put off by this paragraph, or find yourself questioning the motives of the authors for rubbing your face in this issue in a PC way ...

I'm always a bit cynical about the motives of big companies. I 100% support inclusivity within this hobby. Like I said, I'm glad that they covered this subject.

[1989]

I find it funny that some folks are trotting out, "Won't anyone think of the children!" when they're the same ones whose preferred edition contained nudity and prostitution tables.

It's one paragraph of the entire game.  A paragraph I didn't even notice because that section of the book held no interest to me.  The parts about races, classes, monsters, and the actual rules of the game did.

hahaha. That's a good point, too. Never thought of that.

But, I'm sure Basic D&D was fine back in the day.

[Sacrosanct]

hahaha. That's a good point, too. Never thought of that.

But, i'm sure basic d&d was fine back in the day.

nipples in chain mail!!!!

[Panjumanju]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned at all is that there *are* gaming groups out there, and GMs, who will dissuade, discourage, or downright prohibit players from stepping outside their obvious visual gender roles when they portray a character.

I have encountered "You can't play a girl, you're a guy!". Erm?

These are the same people who have no imagination beyond the rules, so putting something in the game itself is a bit of a big deal for solving conflicts of this type. "Yes I can play a girl, it's in the rules" goes a long way with some people.

Clearly, these are not people who are fun to play with regardless, but they're out there.

//Panjumanju

[mcbobbo]

I almost noted it in the 5e surprises thread.  It certainly wasn't anywhere to be found in prior editions, AFAIK.  Sign of the times, as it were.  No harm in it, and should honestly be expected in 2014 for any modern mainstream publication.

Besides, the only group that might feel alienated by such a statement (Bible thumping, hate-the-gays baptists, etc) would just as soon burn D&D as play it.

[Steerpike]

The passage may also be an attempt to keep pace with Pathfinder's general social inclusiveness.

[mcbobbo]

The passage may also be an attempt to keep pace with Pathfinder's general social inclusiveness.

I think that's what Rincewind1 was referring to about the quotas.  Or if not, it certainly applies to Pathfinder.  They make a conscious effort to make their published material include all types, and there ARE players who keep score.

[Saplatt]

... I admit I myself just assume since it's fantasy, the gods make sure everyone gets born in the right body...

These are the same gods who made ear seekers, rot grubs and black puddings. The same ones who let people get reincarnated as gnolls, troglodytes or badgers.  But they draw the line at gender confusion?

[One Horse Town]

If you find you are mildly repulsed or sort of put off by this paragraph, or find yourself questioning the motives of the authors for rubbing your face in this issue in a PC way ...

... then you are mildly bigoted, sort of a cunt, and, if you check, you will find yourself with your head up your ass.

Do you know that you sound like some 1950's Stepford wife wrinkling her nose at 'all that new fangled nonsense about the coloreds'? If you can only deal with diversity when it is invisible, then you really can't deal with it.

So, go ahead and splutter whatever inevitable flaccid responses you feel obliged to type ('PC-blah, blah, cynical, blah'). Thankfully, we are on a forum where people can speak their minds. But as you type, realize you are just being a dick.

Hee.

Actually i see this thread as cynical.

It's already being discussed in another thread, but no! It must have it's own thread just in case no-one noticed and oh, aren't they icky?

I'm tempted to close the thread in a fit of RPGnet mod fascism.

[Obeeron]

One paragraph I didn't notice made some people extremely happy - seems like a win to me.  And the people that are unhappy about it are almost entirely made up of people I'm ok with being unhappy.