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.