| Author |
 Topic  |
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
 Posted - 04 Jul 2014 : 06:00:42
|
This is quoted from the rules
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 am sorta happy, that they thought of this and made the game more inclusive even if by a default.
|
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1845 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2014 : 10:01:56
|
| I don't see any reason for Wizbro to state this at all. Anyone who plays can design their PC/NPC as they see fit anyway without 'permission' from the designers. And, I think, they could just as easily drive some potential players away as draw some in with the sentiment. I could be wrong, of course, but I don't see this as 'good' for them...though I don't see it as 'bad' either. |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
 |
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6359 Posts |
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11746 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2014 : 10:42:22
|
| Um, why in the hell did they feel the need to waste paper and ink on this? Don't they know that stuff costs money and is less lore for the game? |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Garen Thal
Master of Realmslore
USA
1105 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2014 : 13:17:39
|
Guys, this is 82 words. For a long time, whether intentional or not, the 'default' in Dungeons & Dragons has been straight, white, male characters--just look at earlier edition rules limiting the Strength scores of female characters in the name of verisimilitude, or the number of non-European looking characters (in ANY setting) that weren't explicitly from a weird, non-white-people place (like Kara-Tur, for example) and the number of save-the-princess modules there are out there.
They felt the need include it because for years, there has been nothing in the art, almost nothing in their stories or adventures, to suggest that there are anything but heterosexual, cisgendered white people all over the place. People of all stripes very rightly complain that other groups are not truly represented, or if they are, it's frequently as caricatures or stereotypes. I've had people actually say to me that there are no LGBT people in the Realms. Of course, they're wrong, but because it wasn't in a rule book anywhere, they'd decided it was a 'rule.' Can you imagine, even for just one second, what it would be like to be told by someone that the rules say that you don't exist?
That's why the statement is necessary. It might be better-worded, certainly, but it's a start. |
|
|
|
Thieran
Learned Scribe
Germany
293 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2014 : 13:43:18
|
| I agree with Garen Thal. |
|
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1845 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2014 : 14:14:35
|
GT: There was no need to make the statement though. They could have just as easily created artwork that included whites, blacks, asians, males, females. Artwork that was alpha male, that was 'strong female warrior' or obviously androgynous. I've played characters of different races/colors, males and females and not all of them were hetero either. Granted, I usually don't go to deep with my PCs sexuality in game, but it does come up from time to time.
My point is there's no need to make a statement when artwork and actucal NPCs can just as easily get the point across. I don't need 'permission' from the company to play PCs as I wish. And just because things were a certain way 'in the past' doesn't mean they have to run all the way to the other end of the spectrum to make a point. They could just as easily offend people with that tact as well. I know you may consider that wrong, but honestly, I don't want political statements in my gaming. I'm already on the fence about buying thier products...I don't need more reasons to shy away from them. I get enough politics in my work...I don't want it in my gaming. |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
|
|
|
Garen Thal
Master of Realmslore
USA
1105 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2014 : 14:38:48
|
See, but it's not a political statement. It's a statement of fact. Homosexual people exist. Bisexual people exist. Transgender and intersex people exist. And they don't just exist in the real world; they exist in the fantasy world the game is framing, as well. Acknowledging that different kinds of people. And while it's true that you don't need permission to play your PC as you wish, I don't think you've ever been told by a member of your gaming group that your character can't really be transgender because there's no such thing in the rules, or that there are no gay people in the Realms. Other than by explicitly calling out the gender identity of specific characters--which invariably makes their inclusion 'about' their identity rather than any other facet of their character--there is no way to include them in the spectrum of characters represented in the game world.
Please note that I'm intentionally separating the question of inclusion of gender identity and sexual orientation from that of representation for people of color. These are two very different things. One needs to be addressed, in part, by artwork, and time will only tell how well the new edition handles that task. But gender identity and sexuality? There's no way to address that without doing so directly. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36784 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2014 : 14:56:12
|
| I'm with Garen on this one. It's a little blurb, but it's showing inclusiveness of all gamers. How is this a bad thing? |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6359 Posts |
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6359 Posts |
|
|
Thorn Illance
Seeker
53 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2014 : 15:12:14
|
| No, dazzlerdal that would not have been a better approach. The best approach was the one that was taken. |
|
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1845 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2014 : 15:13:34
|
I agree with you on all of that GT. That doesn't invalidate my point though. Since you bring up that various types of people exists I'll use your own logic. Various types of people with differing views exists as well. But, unlike the fantasy world of the Realms, the company has to take into account the real people who are purchasing their producst.
Of course, that includes people of differing sexualities and transgenders as well. But it also includes folks on the other end of the spectrum (what many like to call homophobes, for instance...a term I acually dislike though it is apt in many cases). So, do we risk alientating that group in favor in 'inclusiveness' (if that's what you want to call it). I'm not saying Wizbro should shy away from the issue, just that it can be done without being so overt about it.
Let me use an example. There's nothing in Harry Potter that overtly states that Dumbledore is gay...but he is. Someone figured it out and asked J.K. Rowling about it and she confirmed it as fact. I'm not saying she couldn't have or shouldn't have stated it overtly...just that she didn't. The book stood on it's own merits without it being 'in the face' (for lack of a better way to put it). All I'm saying is, create NPCs whose write ups may lead one to believe they are gay/lesbian/bi/transgender without being too overt about it. This, to me, seems a better way to handle the issue.
The (somewhat sad) fact is that the majority of people, and presumably the majority of folks purchasing Wizbro's products, identify as hetero. I wouldn't want to risk alienating that group. Whether it's right or wrong is another matter. I'm speaking from a business perspective. Most folks I know aren't going to be put off one way or the other (regardless of what camp they are in)...but some will. A less overt method of handling things is better, IMO.
So it was only about 90 words. In a recent thread someone 'shot down' my idea of including alternative names for deities as too much word count in favor of more lore. That's an opinion I can get behind...because, as sleyvas said, I too would rather have that ninety words go towards lore over attempting to sway a certain group to the game.
Let me put it this way. I don't think specifically making statements to market to the LGBT community is going to bring in significant numbers from that group and those that support it. I say that because those that play the game (from LGBT) will likely play it regardless of the statement...so long as Wizbro doesn't start issuing the 'We wish all LGBT to stay away from us' or 'LGBTs will all burn in the afterlife' types of statements they should be good on that front. Especially if they market to them in other ways.
I won't go too deep into my own business, but suffice it to say that I am quite supportive of LGBT...I just don't think overtly catering to any one group is good for business in the long run. It won't destroy Wizbro or DnD, but at a time when they are already reeling from the debacle of the last few years...now just isn't the time, though I personally don't think it should ever be an issue. It's a game, let gamers do what they do and keep personal views out of the marketing.
And, btw, the whole issue has been politicized for decades (and rightfully so). I just don't want it in my gaming. I don't want anything that is overtly pro/anti Amercian/Euro/Muslim/Jewish/Hetero/Gay etc. etc. But that's just me. Gaming is something of an 'escape' for me, I prefer not to deal with 'real-world' issues during play.
Enough of my soapbox (and man can I be preachy at times). Cheers. |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6359 Posts |
|
|
Thorn Illance
Seeker
53 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2014 : 15:23:13
|
Scribes of Candlekeep:
"I think all people should be reprrsented in the hobby. Just not where I can see them."
Classic Candlekeep! |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6359 Posts |
|
|
Garen Thal
Master of Realmslore
USA
1105 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2014 : 16:07:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
And, btw, the whole issue has been politicized for decades (and rightfully so). I just don't want it in my gaming. I don't want anything that is overtly pro/anti Amercian/Euro/Muslim/Jewish/Hetero/Gay etc. etc. But that's just me. Gaming is something of an 'escape' for me, I prefer not to deal with 'real-world' issues during play.
Again, it's not a matter of politics, in my opinion. It's a matter of reality. If you don't include this sort of language in the core, basic rules, there will always be someone in the community--no matter how wrong-headed other people might consider them--who say "nope, sorry; the rules don't allow for that kind of character." To make the statements covert or allusions suggests that there is something shameful about those identities. It tells people who are marginalized or invisible or worse in the real world that even in their fantasy world, in their own escapes, that they are invisible--or worse, against the rules--even in make-believe. The language isn't political. The decision to include any discussion of it all, however, certainly is.
If there is a political message at all in those 82 words, it's not that you can play whatever kind of character you want; it's the company that runs the game that, for better or worse, defines our hobby saying, "we see you. You are not invisible."
I'm not interested in soapboxing either. It's 82 words. If it makes one alienated kid feel like D&D is a safe place when there aren't any others to be found, I'm not really concerned about whether or not acknowledging the fact that gay people exist gives someone the squiggies. |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2014 : 16:16:10
|
| I found it very welcome and agree with Garen. Unfortunately, we don't yet live in a world where this can be taken as read, and plenty of people do assume that fantasy worlds are populated by heterosexual men and women until told otherwise. It might be subtler to just include the full sexual range in source materials, and not mention sexuality except when it was relevant, but then only people thoroughly read in a setting would know what the situation is. For the Realms, as with a number of matters this is clearly the case, or Ed's clarifications posted on this very site wouldn't have been needed and wouldn't have come as news to people. The Realms is not exactly the default setting of fifth-edition D&D, but this is one more case of its nature being adopted into the game, and anyone taking on board that passage in the Basic Rules will have a campaign both more humane and closer to the Realms. |
|
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1845 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2014 : 16:22:53
|
| Well, anyone who would say it's not in the rules would be an asshat. Of course, one could always counter that argument with the same argument (nothing would state one has to be hetero or whatever). But anyway. You're right it was only a short blurb...I just worry that it will escalate from there (because such things always seem to). In DnD, it started years ago with changing the convention of using the masculine during writing to feminine. Not that big of a deal, but now years later we have yet another example of political correctness escalating. Thanks but no thanks. It does nothing for the cause, IMO. It just politicizes the game. |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
|
|
|
Thorn Illance
Seeker
53 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2014 : 16:27:16
|
| Here-here Garen! Well put. |
|
|
|
Demzer
Senior Scribe
873 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2014 : 16:32:55
|
Well this may be a little step in the direction of inclusiveness but the reality of the problem is that if you happen to sit at the table with someone that insults/denigrates/makes fun of people with different sexual orientation then they'll keep at it in spite of whatever 82 words on a piece of paper say. The main issue is way out of the reach of gaming rules.
The Realms always had plenty of NPCs that were not "in your face" LGB (i honestly have no clue about transgender characters) but were such nonetheless, admittedly half hidden to remain under the radar of overzealous editors.
If this means that from now on writers and designers are free to write whatever they want with their characters/NPCs (like miss Evans and the "father" of her tiefling protagonists) without the risk of some editor axing it then it's a good improvement.
If this is just to try and please someone with 82 words but the editing process stays the same and writers and designers still have to drop hints and jump through hoops then this will be remembered as an horrible show of hypocrisy.
We shall see how things work out in the future.
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
The elf god Corellon Larethian is often seen as androgynous or hermaphroditic
Really? Hadn't he like 2 wives? Or 3, i'm sure about Lolth but then i can't remember if the other is Sehanine, Angarradh or both and the whole triadic deity thing always confuses me. Is this some kind of politically correct retcon?
On a more facetious note (and i offer my apologies for the above and the following if someone feels offended in some way) are we going to see people preaching that D&D makes you a satanist and LGBT now? |
Edited by - Demzer on 04 Jul 2014 16:36:14 |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2014 : 16:45:01
|
By no means a retcon: Deities & Demigods (1980) says 'Corellon is alternately male or female, both or neither.'quote:
On a more facetious note (and i offer my apologies for the above and the following if someone feels offended in some way) are we going to see people preaching that D&D makes you a satanist and LGBT now?
It was great publicity in the eighties! 'Sadly', likely less use these days. |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6359 Posts |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36784 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2014 : 17:52:53
|
I don't think that saying you can choose your character's sexual orientation is "overtly catering to any one group". It's a statement that D&D is not for just one group. Why is this such a bad thing?
I do agree that it's not going to cause a sudden surge in non-hetero players... But I fail to see how it's such a horrible thing to say that they're welcome.
And quite frankly, if this statement chases away potential straight players because they can't stand the idea of non-straight players, then I don't see that as a loss for the game.
Despite the stereotype of the socially maladjusted straight white male, I've encountered a lot of folks of different stripes among gamers, and I've always felt that gaming gave us more exposure to and thus more acceptance of that which is different from the societal norm.
A statement of inclusion shouldn't be necessary, but I don't think it's a bad thing. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
hashimashadoo
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1150 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2014 : 17:53:33
|
Speaking as a part of the LGBT community, I would prefer that they hadn't bothered with this. It singles those characters out instead of just letting one assume that they're already there.
Ed has always maintained that there isn't a significant amount of discrimination in the realms with the notable exception of royalty where male heads of state take precedence and heirs are expected to be sired. Even here, Azoun IV & Filfaeril are great examples of a male head of state having an equal partnership with his queen and there's plenty of evidence to suggest that European kings (european culture being the primary cultural basis for D&D) only had children because it was expected of them - if ya know what I mean.
You will always have asshats. So what's the point in telling them that they're wrong? It won't stop them from being wrong and all passages like that serve to do is make people feel like they're being treated differently.
I think those eighty two words would have put to better use as a tidbit of lore. |
When life turns it's back on you...sneak attack for extra damage.
Head admin of the FR wiki:
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/ |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6359 Posts |
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2014 : 20:45:18
|
asshats is rather old, I prefer the old phrase of
You are something your mom should have swallowed, myself. |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6359 Posts |
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2014 : 21:33:19
|
| You are something Mystra should have never chosen |
|
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1845 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2014 : 22:45:04
|
quote:
I don't think that saying you can choose your character's sexual orientation is "overtly catering to any one group". It's a statement that D&D is not for just one group. Why is this such a bad thing?
I do agree that it's not going to cause a sudden surge in non-hetero players... But I fail to see how it's such a horrible thing to say that they're welcome.
And quite frankly, if this statement chases away potential straight players because they can't stand the idea of non-straight players, then I don't see that as a loss for the game.
Despite the stereotype of the socially maladjusted straight white male, I've encountered a lot of folks of different stripes among gamers, and I've always felt that gaming gave us more exposure to and thus more acceptance of that which is different from the societal norm.
A statement of inclusion shouldn't be necessary, but I don't think it's a bad thing.
Just to clarify, I wasn't saying that the blurb was wrong in any way. I quite agree with the sentiment. I just don't see it as necessary. Ed has always stated (in one form or another) that the Realms was more sexually aware/accepting/evolved. I've never had a problem with that because it's a matter of what he created for his setting. I don't see its presence in the RULES as being necessary. But now that I think about it, since the Realms has become the default setting it actually has a certain logic to it.
Now I will say this directly Wooley. You say if it drives away straight players that it isn't a loss for the game. But I see the loss of ANY potential customer as a bad thing. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want such a player at my table. But I think Wizbro, DnD and the industry in general is better served by keeping things to a more neutral tone/standpoint. Let players play as they wish, include some NPCs and cultures that are 'inclusive' but keep the direct blurbs out of print. Just my two coppers. And one more thing, btw. How is potentially alienating the hetero's 'inclusive'? Inclusive means EVERYONE. Just saying.
I don't disagree with anyone in this regard, just on the method of delivery regarding the sentiment. That's all. Well that and my (personal) desire for certain issues to remain 'outside' when I enter the Realms. |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
|
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jul 2014 : 00:15:11
|
A different take I would like to add.
Just because Ed said it at some point in the past, in some post, I have never read except quoted here.
What makes you think those that are new to the setting would know? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
I think WOTC entered the modern age
Topic Locked
