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.