| Author |
 Topic  |
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1845 Posts |
 Posted - 05 Jul 2014 : 00:40:54
|
There are numerous examples in various novels (not all of them written by Ed) and sourcebooks as well as his answers here at the Keep. It's surprising that you haven't stumbled across examples of this. Some of the Volo's Guides have examples, in fact. Granted personal sexuality isn't the focus of such novels and sourcebooks (and shouldn't be) but examples do exist.
As to how someone new to the setting would know: It's common sense that LGBT would exist in the Realms population and, in time, new readers/players would come across instances of their existence. I just don't see a need to 'spell it out' one way or the other.
Anyway, Wizbro made its decision and put it in print so all of this is moot anyway. I don't see a need to hash this out any further.
Cheers. |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
 |
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jul 2014 : 01:02:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
This is quoted from the rules
I'm glad they put this in. It should be the default for all self-respecting game systems going forward. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4686 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jul 2014 : 01:26:40
|
| I am not sure why this scroll has become so long. Someone new to realms would likely not care that much about what the OP claims is written in the rules. As the OP has posted claims of other things in proposed rules and then later said the claim was false (it was a joke scroll the OP later posted). That said, I am not sure why the "claimed" words were considered necessary and some of it like female dwarfs having beards was required. With all the half-elves, half orcs, demon spawn and half dragons clearly D&D was always more accepting of something that would not be considered normal or accepted in RW. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jul 2014 : 02:02:46
|
| page 76 , Kenitial |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jul 2014 : 02:32:38
|
I still often hear people say that there are no atheists in the Forgotten Realms, even right here on Candlekeep. (Maybe it's a variation on the "no atheists in foxholes" lie?) They say that the reports of so much divine magic about make it impossible for a Realmsian to not believe in the existence of gods. (This is especially directed at the repeated agnostic-sounding statements from Drizzt in his diaries, but it comes up from time to time elsewhere.)
So I think it's a GREAT thing for TPTB to positively acknowledge persons of alternative viewpoints/lifestyles. Their (our) lifestyles are STILL all too often summarily ruled out of the question, otherwise.
I don't see that it hurts anything for them to be sure to insert inclusive language. So I don't understand why there seems to be such a kneejerk reaction of resentment/irritation/annoyance to such overt inclusion. Inclusion is a virtue, is it not? |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
Edited by - BEAST on 05 Jul 2014 02:34:34 |
|
|
|
farinal
Learned Scribe
Turkey
270 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jul 2014 : 03:35:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Garen Thal
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.
I don't think this is true about the art and "white people". It wasn't the case for the 3rd edition. Also the new player's handbook of 5e seems to have some cover art with "eastern" vibes to it. I didn't really liked it. I don't get why European style armor, and characters are considered boring or bad nowadays by certain people. |
Edited by - farinal on 05 Jul 2014 03:39:56 |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11746 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jul 2014 : 04:26:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo
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.
Thank you for stating this. We all understand the concept of roleplaying, so OF COURSE you can roleplay whatever the freaking kind of sexually oriented, male or female or androgynous, or freaky alien type of being. Stating it as they did was just for some politically correct reason... and I'd rather lore..... political correctness is getting too widespread. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Shemmy
Senior Scribe
USA
492 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jul 2014 : 04:28:37
|
It's only a few lines, but it makes me happy* to see WotC providing some small acceptance and acknowledgement for LGBT folks in 5e. Now they need to follow up on this with some representative characters shown in future modules or sourcebooks - which is something that other RPG companies -and particularly Paizo- have done in the past few years in a big way. If that happens, I'll be even happier.
*I'm on the trans* spectrum. |
Shemeska the Marauder, King of the Crosstrade; voted #1 best Arcanaloth in Sigil two hundred years running by the people who know what's best for them; chant broker; prospective Sigil council member next election; and official travel agent for Chamada Holiday specials LLC.
|
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jul 2014 : 05:06:35
|
I take offense to that line.. and not the way one would think, if that line allows for a 5e fantasy sexbook, that we dnders will get of you're a dnd player, you are nothing but a satanic super pervert asshat,, and should be ashamed of yourself.... or forcing one player to roleplay being the target of another player's character of the same gender, when the one player doesnt want to mess with it. Risks breaking a table and lawsuits abroad....
anyway, sex and sexuality have their place, and listed in a tabletop game rules isnt one of them.
and on that note, I really dont care how people play their characters so long as it is 2 things, their choice and they are okay with it......
on that note: only one of paizo's characters is a lesbian; one is married, one is a transgendered and the others are all bi from what I understand..... dont know about the advanced class ones....
oh and also, I am a pessimist...... but then a realistic on the fact that here in the usa, nearly everyone is a stupid child when it comes to the lawsuits people make....
|
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
Edited by - sfdragon on 05 Jul 2014 05:12:55 |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jul 2014 : 05:48:32
|
Not much more lore you can fit in a free PDF showcasing the new rules...
This is D&D core, as much as it's tied to the Realms, the specific view on this matter in the Realm has little to do with the actual reality the game exist in.
|
|
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jul 2014 : 08:17:42
|
| eh screw it, lets just call it dungeon & perverts, I can see the anti dnd tag line now. |
|
|
|
Scars Unseen
Acolyte
Japan
16 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jul 2014 : 09:15:09
|
Whether the paragraph is necessary or not, it is obviously welcomed. On some other RPG forums there have been several people that were sitting on the fence in regards to 5E that decided to buy into the edition based on that paragraph. Whether it matters to you or not, inclusiveness is an important issue to many whom this paragraph targets, and that in itself justifies the decision in my eyes.
To put it another way, would you be as understanding if an RPG explicitly detailed every NPC and every character option as homosexual with absolutely no reference to heterosexual relationships as though such an option didn't exist? |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jul 2014 : 12:22:14
|
I was also impressed and pleased by the paragraph. Plus, this is the core rules; the "crunch." There isn't any lore in the book, or at least not in the sections I've been able to read so far. So complaining that they spent page space on rules clarifications (which is basically what this is: "Hey! The game supports characters on the whole spectrum!") in the rules sourcebook is, to me, rather silly.
Plus, as someone who started D&D during the late 1e/early 2e days, it's a relief seeing how far the game and society in general have come in a couple of decades. Can you imagine what it would have been like if this had shown up in, say, the original Unearthed Arcana? |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jul 2014 : 15:31:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
Plus, as someone who started D&D during the late 1e/early 2e days, it's a relief seeing how far the game and society in general have come in a couple of decades. Can you imagine what it would have been like if this had shown up in, say, the original Unearthed Arcana?
Something along the lines of:
"D&D is the devils game, a very queer devil. All those young boys spending all that time indoors, together, alone, unsupervised. To say nothing of the horrific things they do to the girls. Their 'Dungeon Master', or DM as the lingo tries to hide it, initiates them in their masochistic Satanic rituals with pacts sealed with blood and fluids where the innocent souls are sworn to eternal servitude to Baphomet the s/he-goat demon. Fear for our youth. Save our children. Only Hell awaits for those who play the game of D&D, in truth short for Devils & Demons."
/sarcasm (in case that escaped anyone). |
Edited by - Dark Wizard on 06 Jul 2014 20:54:38 |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jul 2014 : 20:00:20
|
Arcanamach, I don't see how any such issues can remain 'outside' without ignoring love, sex and sexuality entirely in play. As for driving away some players, if corporate Hasbro's not worried, I wouldn't be concerned.
Again, this paragraph is not too obvious to need stating because many readers will bring a range of assumptions from popular ideas of medieval history, twentieth-century fantasy fiction, or modern society. Since neither the Realms nor the vague assumed setting of fifth-edition D&D matches all these contradictory assumptions, I think it's just the kind of thing that needs clarifying for newcomers. In any case, statements of the relatively obvious -- like a lot of material in the personality section -- belong in an introductory work.
As for 'political correctness': treating people decently is not, for most of us, just an externally imposed obligation. |
|
|
|
xaviera
Learned Scribe
Canada
149 Posts |
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jul 2014 : 23:39:23
|
Let me first say, that I'm thrilled to see that Corellon appears to actually be gravitating back to his original nature. A very androgynous deity that may be both male and female. This was lore that was established in 1E, but was downplayed and outright ignored in subsequent editions.
I always found that it made Corellon a much more interesting deity. Additionally, I've always found it a helpful explanation of why things are the way they are in the Realms regarding gender and sexuality.
Basically, it boils down to the influence Corellon has had over the Elves, and the cultural influence Myth Drannor had over humans. Values regarding gender equality and the like naturally spread outward from there. If you look out across the Realms, it's easy to trace where Elves have had a significant influence and where they have not based on gender equality. In places like Mulhorand, where Elves have had very little influence, women (in 3E) were still struggling to gain equality with men. The same is true in Calimshan.
Now, setting all the lore relevance aside, I'm not sure why people are getting their panties in a twist about a handful of words. I'm not even sure why people are assuming that it's even specifically directed at the LGBT community. Sure, it's easy to take it as a token mention of inclusiveness, but it is equally valid to read it as a clear statement to cis-gender straight guys: "Hey, you can play whatever type of character you want - you're only limited by your imagination here. The game encourages creativity and is fully capable of supporting characters outside of the traditional fantasy tropes."
If someone is going to take offense at the simple acknowledgement that non-hetero and non-gender binary people exist - then they are looking to be offended. There is nothing WotC can do to avoid offending them. If it wouldn't be a statement like this, it would be something else. We've dealt with those types in the past when it came to demons and devils in the game. They'll always find something to bitch about, and WotC should never have the goal to please such individuals. TSR made that mistake in the past, the legacy of that appeasement left a horrible stain on the Realms.
So many of the problems that face the Realms can be traced back to the old TSR policy on evil. If you understand that policy, and what it did to the Realms; then you can see how it indirectly influenced design decisions particularly under WotC.
And for the record, the inclusion of this statement actually increases the likelihood that I purchase the product. I'd rather spend money on a company that values inclusiveness and equality, than a company that doesn't... or a company that believes that entire groups of people should be marginalized, shoved into the closet, all to avoid offending another group of people by mentioning the mere fact that such a group exists. In fact, if I learned that a company was actively catering their products and services to a group that seeks to marginalize others, I'm all but guaranteed not to spend money on their products. They would lose me as a customer. |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11746 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jul 2014 : 03:48:53
|
| all I gotta say is, you let political correctness creep in, and all of a sudden there's fight about political correctness. Then there's fights about who is more politically correct than the next person. I have too much of that BS in real life. I already know that if I want to play some off the wall character I can.... the very nature of this game states it (take on a role and act like someone else). So, when I see statements like this, I can only see the writing on the wall that someone feels its time to run around and continually "push the boundaries". I'm here for a game, not listen to someone's political agenda. Whether its lore, whether its rules, whether its a silly chart of wand of wonder effects, I'd welcome any of them more than this if its a sign that my game is becoming someone's personal political soapbox. You want to show that you can play a gay character.... produce an NPC who is such AND make it relevant to the adventure. You want to showcase some alien race that reproduces without sex? Ok, make it relevant to the adventure at hand. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
silverwolfer
Senior Scribe
789 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jul 2014 : 04:11:51
|
Ummm... so a god is a hermroodite, nothing new, although usually it tends to be the god or goddess of reproduction and sexual things, (like sune or whatever. If you don't like your gods or goddess being unique Sleyvas, I suggest you try talking to them, instead of railing against the mortals habits of political correctness. Ed is only writing down what elimister tells him about the hidden fantasy world, that has weird things like flying sunflower monsters.
Or those other political correct things, like the orcs gaining a kingdom instead of just being viewed as evil by birth , I would really suggest you take it up with the fantasy world, am sure they will listen to your complaints, while the every day dnd player will try arguing about the laws of physics when it comes to a fantasy world filled with magic.
*shrugs* who knew 80 some odd words, would make folks so mad, when they already state they ignore various things anyways, from various editions if it doesn't fit in with their world. Maybe you can do that on this one also Sleyvas. You already act like the sundering never happened; so now you can act like the elven god doesn't accept mixed genders. There all good? Nothing to cry about, if you follow your own logic? |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jul 2014 : 12:38:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
all I gotta say is, you let political correctness creep in, and all of a sudden there's fight about political correctness. Then there's fights about who is more politically correct than the next person. I have too much of that BS in real life. I already know that if I want to play some off the wall character I can.... the very nature of this game states it (take on a role and act like someone else). So, when I see statements like this, I can only see the writing on the wall that someone feels its time to run around and continually "push the boundaries". I'm here for a game, not listen to someone's political agenda. Whether its lore, whether its rules, whether its a silly chart of wand of wonder effects, I'd welcome any of them more than this if its a sign that my game is becoming someone's personal political soapbox. You want to show that you can play a gay character.... produce an NPC who is such AND make it relevant to the adventure. You want to showcase some alien race that reproduces without sex? Ok, make it relevant to the adventure at hand.
I don't really see it as being politically correct at all. Merriam Webster defines being politically correct as follows: "agreeing with the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people."
I'm unaware of any instance where people who are part of the LGBT community would have been angered or upset had this text not been included. There has been a push for more inclusive characters and stories, as well as a push for more diversity within the artwork regarding people of color. However, I don't think anyone was outright looking for a matter-of-fact statement within the text of the game itself.
In fact, this entire discussion has revolved around why it shouldn't have been added at all. Namely, because a group of individuals would become offended that LGBT character possibilities were even presented or offered at all. If you're going by the Merriam Webster definition, and you're following this discussion - then what WotC did was the opposite of political correctness. They were not trying to appease the people who would be offended that this was included in the game, on the contrary, they put it there knowing full well that some people would bitch about it.
Honestly, I don't even follow the argument you're making at all. You're accusing WotC of having some overt political agenda, but I'm not seeing it. What is that agenda, exactly? To try and market their product to as diverse audience as possible in order to gain more customers? Isn't that the goal of every business that desires to make money?
I find it bizarre that people are even upset about a tiny blurb, that amounts to - in the grand scheme of things - a throw away line. A token gesture. The least that can be done to show inclusiveness within their games and other products. I find it odd that some of the people who have a problem with this are also saying that they think WotC should create and market a gay or trans character. Really? REALLY? If people can't tolerate a throw away blurb, how are they going to handle and manage an openly gay main character in a novel? A character who talks about his husband, and is basically treated no different than a straight character would be treated with the exception that he happens to be gay... I think people would flip their lid.
So, I think people are talking out of both sides of their mouth here. Either people believe WotC should strive to be inclusive in their marketing and products or they do not.
I find the complaints a bit silly. What's next? Are people going to begin complaining that there is a black character portrayed in the artwork? Will there be accusations of political correctness then? Are we going to see WotC attacked because they dare show a female warrior who isn't in a chain mail bikini? 
Really, how ridiculous are things going to get? |
|
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1845 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jul 2014 : 13:25:39
|
I'm not even bothering to read posts anymore. I for one am not 'getting my panties in a wad' or angry the way some are suggesting. The only thing that has offended me so far is the insinuation that I am.
Bottom line I think there's a better way to handle it...and I'm not going to rehash that anymore.
Someone above just said that certain friends of theirs were going to buy the game because of that 82 word statement. I just found out that my step daughter's boyfriend and another member of his group aren't going to buy 5e now. I know some of you are thinking 'good we don't want them anyway' (because that also was said above). But the point is that statement, good as it actually is, wasn't the best way to handle it. So some will be more apt to buy it and some will not...all because of the same statement. Not exacltly what Wizbro was hoping for I think.
I've been playing DnD for over 30 years. I've seen the game go through hell in the 80s, the backlash it lead to in the 90s (with some of TSRs policies) etc etc etc. And you know what? It survived...because it's the people that make the game fun. The friendships forged through gaming that help it survive. And none of them needed anyone to tell them what kind of personalities they could play.
Personally, as a NON-HETERO I find it a little isulting that Wizbro decided to let 'me' know I could play my PCs as non-hetero. I didn't need them to tell me that and neither does anyone else.
Think of me as an ass if you want, but there are some things that I just know about because experience has taught me a thing or two. DnD will survive, but it could have had better sales with a different tact. Period.
Because a certain individual is actually making personal accusations as to the reason behind some posts and 'putting words into their moutths' I really think this thread should be locked. Not for the difference of opinions, but simply because some people don't like the opposing viewpoint and think it's right to make personal attacks.
Cheers. |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
|
|
|
Garen Thal
Master of Realmslore
USA
1105 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jul 2014 : 14:42:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
I'm not even bothering to read posts anymore. I for one am not 'getting my panties in a wad' or angry the way some are suggesting. The only thing that has offended me so far is the insinuation that I am.
....
Because a certain individual is actually making personal accusations as to the reason behind some posts and 'putting words into their moutths' I really think this thread should be locked. Not for the difference of opinions, but simply because some people don't like the opposing viewpoint and think it's right to make personal attacks.
Cheers.
I'm in total agreement, here. We can rationally and politely disagree about the composition or the inclusion of the statement, but there is positively no justification for name-calling, for attributing broad, sweeping statements to people that did not make them (or anything like them), or anything other that polite, respectful disagreement. Any thread that descends into that kind of behavior deserves to be locked.
|
|
|
|
Demzer
Senior Scribe
873 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jul 2014 : 16:58:53
|
Eh, well, where to start?
Okay, first off, congratz on the superb show of inclusiveness directed at someone that simply said "Maybe they could have done it better" ... really?
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
Ummm... so a god is a hermroodite, nothing new, although usually it tends to be the god or goddess of reproduction and sexual things, (like sune or whatever. If you don't like your gods or goddess being unique Sleyvas, I suggest you try talking to them, instead of railing against the mortals habits of political correctness. Ed is only writing down what elimister tells him about the hidden fantasy world, that has weird things like flying sunflower monsters.
Or those other political correct things, like the orcs gaining a kingdom instead of just being viewed as evil by birth , I would really suggest you take it up with the fantasy world, am sure they will listen to your complaints, while the every day dnd player will try arguing about the laws of physics when it comes to a fantasy world filled with magic.
*shrugs* who knew 80 some odd words, would make folks so mad, when they already state they ignore various things anyways, from various editions if it doesn't fit in with their world. Maybe you can do that on this one also Sleyvas. You already act like the sundering never happened; so now you can act like the elven god doesn't accept mixed genders. There all good? Nothing to cry about, if you follow your own logic?
What's this about? Have you even read what sleyvas wrote? Do you realize that I was the one surprised about the statement on Corellon (because i don't own the old Deities & Demigods and this notion came as news to me, since it isn't repeated in Realmsian sourcebooks detailing gods)? And there at the end who is mad? Who is crying? What are you talking about?
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
Basically, it boils down to the influence Corellon has had over the Elves, and the cultural influence Myth Drannor had over humans. Values regarding gender equality and the like naturally spread outward from there. If you look out across the Realms, it's easy to trace where Elves have had a significant influence and where they have not based on gender equality. In places like Mulhorand, where Elves have had very little influence, women (in 3E) were still struggling to gain equality with men. The same is true in Calimshan.
Whoa, such a big and false statement. Myth Drannor had negligible influence on the human Realms society since the vast majority of humans are of Chondathan/Jhaamdathan, Calishite/Tethyrian and Illuskan breed. These are the human cultures that colonized all the places without previous human influence all over Faerun and none of these cultures is famous for it's acceptance of the tree huggers or of their deities or philosophies.
A lot of people aroud here are clinging to these 82 words like some kind of "Bible of Modern Gaming Inclusiveness", the reality is that those aren't that. Those are just ink on a piece of paper and people stating that things could be handled better have all the rights to do so without this absurd piling on from "open minded" folks.
A lot of people is getting it's own pants in a twist trying to protect these few words from some kind of imaginary attack that never came. I realize this is kind of an automatic reaction prompted by how bad our societies can be sometimes with people but this forum isn't like the savage world outside and so far for me it was a nice place of civil debate. So don't burst my bauble and behave properly, alright?
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
... they dare show a female warrior who isn't in a chain mail bikini? ...
HANDS OFF! 
Truth be told, if every 5e succubus is like that thing on page 29 of Dreams of the Red Wizards: Dead in Thay then no amount of chain mail bikini awesomeness may save the art of this new edition.  |
|
|
|
redking
Learned Scribe
135 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jul 2014 : 17:03:10
|
Why not a dwarf that has body dysmorphia, and believes itself to be a human, goblin, or a giant trapped inside the body of a dwarf?
Who is to say that a cleric can't cure a condition like that, assuming the condition has at it's root a biological cause (for example, homosexuality, or body-brain gender mismatch in some transsexuals)?
It has always been the case that players have been able to design their characters whatever way they wanted to, since original D&D. This seems like a throw away shout out to LGBT people rather than a realistic handling of identity in a fantasy setting with fantastic creatures. Stuff like homosexuality and gender dysmorphia would be the least of potential controversial lifestyles.
I am throwing my hand up to say I am against this block of text. If they want to deal with sexuality and identity in a fantasy setting properly, then I would welcome that. |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jul 2014 : 17:15:49
|
I'm just going to outright ignore some of the things written, because if you don't have anything nice to say then you shouldn't say it at all.
Instead, I want to circle back to an earlier discussion. I was curious as to how the wider D&D community outside of Candlekeep responded to this token display of inclusiveness. I did a Google search, and found this thread on RPG.net.
So, it appears, at least outside of Candlekeep that quite a number of people have welcomed this move by WotC. I haven't read every post, but I noticed at least five or six people who weren't considering buying the product actively changing their minds. An even larger number of people who weren't even sitting on the fence, moving to sit on the fence.
I believe WotC knows exactly what they are doing, and they're doing exactly what any good business should be doing... attempting to attract as many customers as possible. I don't know why people have to read anything more into it than that - instead of accusing them of having some secret evil political agenda, accusing them of being politically correct, and any number of other accusations that have been falsely hurled at them. |
|
|
|
Demzer
Senior Scribe
873 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jul 2014 : 17:49:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
So, it appears, at least outside of Candlekeep that quite a number of people have welcomed this move by WotC.
Yeah because inside Candlekeep this move wasn't welcomed, right?
Nice way to disrespect both those with a different viewpoint on how things were handled AND those that are supporting that statement and are happy about it, all lumped together in evil Candlekeep ... |
|
|
|
Demzer
Senior Scribe
873 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jul 2014 : 17:56:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by redking
Who is to say that a cleric can't cure a condition like that, assuming the condition has at it's root a biological cause (for example, homosexuality, or body-brain gender mismatch in some transsexuals)?
?
Wait .. are you really suggesting that in D&D homosexuality should be cure-able like a disease ... ?
Please tell me i've misunderstood ... |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jul 2014 : 18:04:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Demzer
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
So, it appears, at least outside of Candlekeep that quite a number of people have welcomed this move by WotC.
Yeah because inside Candlekeep this move wasn't welcomed, right?
Nice way to disrespect both those with a different viewpoint on how things were handled AND those that are supporting that statement and are happy about it, all lumped together in evil Candlekeep ...
I have no idea why you are actively reading more into my words than were there. I linked to the thread on RPG.net because it is identical to this one here on Candlekeep, and over there the response has been overwhelmingly positive. Where here, on Candlekeep, it has received a lukewarm (if not cold by some) reception.
There have been people on Candlekeep who've welcomed it, and there have been people who haven't welcomed it. It also received a more overwhelmingly positive response elsewhere by a larger diverse selection of people. These are factual statements, not an attack.
And I am posting it in response to the previously made statement that including this token mention in the text will chase people away from the game - that it will hurt the product. I refuted that fact, first by pointing out that it makes me much more likely to buy it, and then in my last post linking to a thread where other people are openly stating that they're more likely to buy it as well.
So, do you care to retract your statement that I am somehow implying that everyone at Candlekeep is somehow evil? I don't believe that. I only think some people at Candlekeep are evil, not everyone.  |
|
|
|
Demzer
Senior Scribe
873 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jul 2014 : 18:12:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
So, do you care to retract your statement that I am somehow implying that everyone at Candlekeep is somehow evil? I don't believe that. I only think some people at Candlekeep are evil, not everyone.
Since you explained yourself, i happily retract it and admit that i've read in your previously posted "at least outside of Candlekeep" more than was written. I'm glad you expanded and explained your point and i offer you my apologies. |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jul 2014 : 18:23:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Demzer
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
So, do you care to retract your statement that I am somehow implying that everyone at Candlekeep is somehow evil? I don't believe that. I only think some people at Candlekeep are evil, not everyone.
Since you explained yourself, i happily retract it and admit that i've read in your previously posted "at least outside of Candlekeep" more than was written. I'm glad you expanded and explained your point and i offer you my apologies.
Apology accepted. And if it makes you feel any better, Demzer, I don't think you're one of the evil ones.  |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
I think WOTC entered the modern age
Topic Locked
