Quote from: Antiquation!;1108316You poor thing! You've hopelessly internalized your own marginalization! As a white guy who finds this deeply disturbing, let me tell you why you're part of your own non-problem - and how that is a real problem!

I want to thank Antiquation for being an ally. When will people realize that words are violence? And because of my POC-status... I'm at the mercy of the supremacy of the CIS-hetero vaginally-challenged. Thankfully WotC is focusing on more common Intersectional tiers of the Pyramid. One day they'll get to my Unicorn herd. One day...

Until then... I will listen to more Survivor.

Quote from: jhkim;1108306During the series, Aragorn is frickin 87 years old -- never been married, no children. In a world without birth control, this would normally be interpreted as being flamingly gay. In fact, the entire fellowship is like this. Frodo is 50 years old, never been married, no children. The youngest among them is Pippin at 28 -- but all were unmarried with no children.

I think what you suggest would actually be far more normal than what is portrayed in Lord of the Rings.

Moreover, you're comparing to a hypothetical of *every* character is gay -- as opposed to what's seen in the module, which is a *single couple* being gay.

Quote from: tenbones;1108310Nah - it's the fact that it's not necessary at all to have every Intersectional Denomination of Identity in every piece of fiction for the ulterior purposes to the fiction itself. Which is true the *vast* majority of the time.

I don't think that every module has to have every identity, or that every module has to have LGBT characters.

However, I think it's fine if some modules have LGBT characters -- with some having 4% LGBT and some having 12% LGBT and some having 0%.

In August, I just ran the original Ravenloft module (I6) using 5E rules, which had no LGBT characters. On the other hand, my son is running the 5E Essentials adventure now for his friends at college, and it sounds like it's going pretty well. When last I heard, the PCs had just arrived at Gnomengard.

Quote from: jhkim;1108340I don't think that every module has to have every identity, or that every module has to have LGBT characters.

However, I think it's fine if some modules have LGBT characters -- with some having 4% LGBT and some having 12% LGBT and some having 0%.

For whose benefit is this? I'm not being facetious. I'm seriously asking - for WHOM does this benefit? If *I* do not have nor need any particular identity representation requirement of my own to be present within the context of any given RPG I myself don't write - what purpose does it serve other than the emotional virtue signalling of those in the majority denomination?

And is there *anything* that backs this up as being good or that it makes for a better product? Because it seems to me the a priori assumption of SJW's is that THEY assume that heterosexual relationships are the norm despite nothing in D&D in particular being overtly *for* sex. Heterosexuals and homosexuals can appreciate the form of their preferred sex-partners without explicitly showing them inflagrante. Can we agree on that? At *no* point in any game I've ever run with all my NPC's across decades - gay,straight,bi, whatever - has there ever been some express point to show any kind of sexuality that didn't involve actual assumptions of sex-in-play as part of the game or for some reason important to the NPC. And that's in the privacy of campaign play where these things are meant to mean something contextual. I've never known anyone, including one of my bi-sexual GM's back in LA, to do anything different. In precisely *zero* of my published stuff have I ever written material for my own personal identifications, mainly because they have nothing to do with the conceits of the worlds I've written for.

In published adventures - why would this ever need to be a thing at all? Who is it serving? Children that might pick up and play? The insinuation by not producing these kinds of material for non-adults (since adults should be able to make up their own minds) - that its somehow creating "homophobes" as defined by SJW's. That pretty much the re-skinned Satanic Panic for the new generation.

I'm certainly not saying Never do it. I'm saying - it's not being done in service to the product. It's being done precisely for ulterior motives that frankly are people projecting their issues.

Quote from: tenbones;1108320I want to thank Antiquation for being an ally.

I can feel the social reward points coursing through my veins. Time to go self-congratulate on Twitter! It's just not the same in private...

Quote from: tenbones;1108320Until then... I will listen to more Survivor.

:cool: Rock on!

Quote from: jhkim;1108306During the series, Aragorn is frickin 87 years old -- never been married, no children. In a world without birth control, this would normally be interpreted as being flamingly gay. In fact, the entire fellowship is like this. Frodo is 50 years old, never been married, no children. The youngest among them is Pippin at 28 -- but all were unmarried with no children.

No, it wouldn't. Aragorn is the heir to the throne of Gondor, if he were a historical figure he wouldn't have any choice about who he marries. He's also a Numenorean, who live about three times as long as humans. On top of that, he's directly descended from Elros Half-Elven, the first King of Numenor (and brother to Elrond; yes Aragon ultimately marries his great-to-the-X uncle's daughter), so his life expectancy is even greater than that thanks to his elf blood. So that 87 could mean nearly anything. And Legolas is the son of King Thranduil, and immortal. Gandalf is also immortal, a spirit who has taken (elderly) human form. We can go through the rest of the fellowship that way.

The exceptions are the Hobbits. Especially since they are basically little rural English gentlemen, we can probably assume there would be some speculation about Frodo (cf. all the Frodoo/Sam internet memes for a modern example). But gossip isn't certainty; it's a big stretch to say the majority of historical English bachelors were gay. But that's really only Frodo, because Hobbits are also longer-lived than humans, and don't officially come of age until they're 33. Merry and Pippin are still lads about town.

Though I don't think Chris24601 realizes how enormously improbable 33 triplets in row would be. Triplets occur in 1 in 200,000 births, and (0.000005)^3... well, let's just say you'd need about 175 digits to write it out. Even if triplets tend to run in families so we can reduce those odds a bit, it's safe to say it's still a lot less common than anything else being discussed.

Quote from: tenbones;1108309Who gets to decide that? If you knew damn well why he used it, and I backed it up since the word "rape" comes across your ocular sensory organs like a cheesegrater - I used Murder - for the INTENT of staying on Razor's more valid point, then why did you shift the point to comparing Rape to Murder vs. the real point he was making?

It appears the only person making *any* analogy a conversation ender is you. I'm game to use, Rape, Murder, Incest, Genocide, -cide, Drug use - whatever - a discussion point that stays on topic of pandering. You are the one making exceptions. /shrug

I, very softly and indirectly, pointed out that rape tended to be a conversation ender. You're the one who turned my prediction into reality, not me. My initial response was mild, it's was your reply that whipped out the cheesegrater. I did reply to that using strong wording, but if you actually paid attention, it was aimed at your lies about what I said. Not the rape that has you so discombobulated.

And you seem to be under the delusion that when someone responds to a post, they are obligated to respond directly to the main thrust of the other person's argument. Oh wait, no, it's clear you don't actually believe that. You're just being a hypocrite. Because while I didn't address Razor's central thesis in any way (nice that you finally noticed that, BTW), you're ignoring that Razor did it first. This started with my post on the nature of fiction.

Quote from: SHARK;1108296What the hell is the stupid obsession with rape, and the constant posturing of "Rape Inclusion" or whatever as some kind of moral badge?

In my campaigns, *Rape* is a pretty common and ordinary activity--for conquering armies, barbarian hordes, and mass assaults and invasions by wicked, evil humanoids. Much like the news, Bards and other people in the campaign world reference rape of various individuals as appropriate, or unfortunate populations, again as appropriate to the situation and events at hand.

Villainous characters also engage in rape, brutal torture, murder and sacrifice, among other horrific atrocities.

Do so many of you actually have *player characters* that go around raping women? In my campaigns, such activity would earn most such characters a villainous reputation, with a likely judicial or communal judgement of being executed, tortured, or maimed in some compacity.

1: Where? I have bot seen anyone defending rape as a justifiable action for a PC to take unless they were an evil one? And even then its vanishingly rare.

2: In mine it may happen. But is allways seen as an evil, or at least not nice act.

3:  Varies from table to table massively. Everyone has their threshold. I've games with people who were ok with torture, but not with rape, or sex at all. And with players who were ok with sex, but not rape or torture, and so on. You handle each on a case by case basis and how reasonable or not a request is.

4: Never have. Dont recall anyone who ever has. A PC pulling that would be in potentially serious trouble, as would attacking merchants and citizens. Which so far have not ever had anyone try to pull. But I have a long standing and very hard rule forbidding Chaotic Evil and Neutral Evil PCs as they are invariably too disruptive. Lawful Evil PCs are allowed. But if they start terrorizing the populace then that PC isnt long for this world likely.

x: I agree some posters way over-react to just the mere mention of the word rape. You missed the whole blowup here and especially over on BGG over Tournament of Rapists. That was a 52 car trainwreck of often willfull stupidity.

All of this though is wayyy off topic.

Back on topic. I think it is rather bemusing that so far all the examples of gay NPCs in the modules I have, have been male. Haven't spotted a single lesbian pairing yet.

Quote from: Pat;1108346I, very softly and indirectly, pointed out that rape tended to be a conversation ender. You're the one who turned my prediction into reality, not me. My initial response was mild, it's was your reply that whipped out the cheesegrater. I did reply to that using strong wording, but if you actually paid attention, it was aimed at your lies about what I said. Not the rape that has you so discombobulated.

I thought it was patently obvious that *I* don't consider "Rape" as a conversation-ender (mainly because no one is actually being raped either in discussion nor in context of the conversation). The point being I think it's disingenuous to the larger point Razor was making - which I fully agree is worth discussing, not shutting down over some subjective minutiea. But I will admit - when you said "Fuck you." to me... that was the softest "fuck you" I've ever experienced. Props for that.

Quote from: Pat;1108346And you seem to be under the delusion that when someone responds to a post, they are obligated to respond directly to the main thrust of the other person's argument.

Well. No. But I do seem to think it's more productive to having a discussion in terms of being in good faith. Case in point - even now - you still aren't addressing it. I'm *on point*. I'm in directly point with the OP. The Title of the Thread. Razor's larger and pertinent claim. You are the one obsessed with parsing the rules of what words can/can't be used to have a discussion that you aren't really interested in having. And let's be clear that while you don't seem to get my chiding about cheesegraters as mild jest - you certainly seemed to be taking it personal and are pissed off because you don't get that I am/are/going to be talking about this topic because I find it interesting - you'll resort to simply saying "fuck you" and call me a "hypocrite" etc. free of context further avoiding the discussion.

You should note: I specifically went out of my way to not call you any names - even an SJW - which you may/may not actually be, I'm speaking directly to the conversation. Period. But if it means this much to you to be riled up and talk shit-  have at it. /shrug.

Quote from: Pat;1108346Oh wait, no, it's clear you don't actually believe that. You're just being a hypocrite. Because while I didn't address Razor's central thesis in any way (nice that you finally noticed that, BTW), you're ignoring that Razor did it first. This started with my post on the nature of fiction.

Yeah because I think the central thesis of his idea is more important than you, me, or him. That's why I'm still on it. Why are you diverting? In fact - why do you even care at this point? You seem to care more about the  very self-admitted lesser point - which you concocted rhetorically - then the obvious <---third time I keep saying it germane idea.

Here, I'll do you a favor so you can feel good. "Rape is off limits for Pat to engage in discussion without ad-hominem attacks." Okay everyone. Do not say the R-word. We calm now?

Okay - "MURDER" is worse than being Gay, and it's a common thing in RPGs. Why is that not evil? (and we know why - it's political pandering).

Quote from: jhkimI don't think that every module has to have every identity, or that every module has to have LGBT characters.

However, I think it's fine if some modules have LGBT characters -- with some having 4% LGBT and some having 12% LGBT and some having 0%.

Quote from: tenbones;1108342For whose benefit is this? I'm not being facetious. I'm seriously asking - for WHOM does this benefit? If *I* do not have nor need any particular identity representation requirement of my own to be present within the context of any given RPG I myself don't write - what purpose does it serve other than the emotional virtue signalling of those in the majority denomination?

And is there *anything* that backs this up as being good or that it makes for a better product?

I'm not claiming that LGBT characters make for a better product. That should be absolutely clear from what I wrote. I do not have any problem with a module having 0% LGBT characters - I just ran one.

You're the one claiming that there is a problem here. Is there anything to back up the idea that editing LGBT characters out of modules will make for a better product?

Quote from: tenbones;1108342I'm certainly not saying Never do it. I'm saying - it's not being done in service to the product. It's being done precisely for ulterior motives that frankly are people projecting their issues.

So, if you're not saying never do it -- then can you give some examples of how you would prefer it to be done? What are good examples of LGBT characters in RPG modules, and how do they differ from what's in the Essential Kit?

Quote from: Omega;1108352Back on topic. I think it is rather bemusing that so far all the examples of gay NPCs in the modules I have, have been male. Haven't spotted a single lesbian pairing yet.

Nor do I see any left-handed LGBT males or heteros with left-hands represented either. We're 10% of the population!!!!

It almost feels like they're trying to show us something from a personal bias?

Quote from: jhkim;1108355I'm not claiming that LGBT characters make for a better product. That should be absolutely clear from what I wrote. I do not have any problem with a module having 0% LGBT characters - I just ran one.

You're the one claiming that there is a problem here. Is there anything to back up the idea that editing LGBT characters out of modules will make for a better product?

I have PRECISELY zero proof that in RPG's virtue-signalling SJW's will ruin the game. But that's why I made the claim in the Get Woke/Go Broke thread - that's because RPG's are such a small industry, that SJW's and their virtue-signalling Intersectional Religious activities can go on forever without repercussions.

Quote from: jhkim;1108355So, if you're not saying never do it -- then can you give some examples of how you would prefer it to be done? What are good examples of LGBT characters in RPG modules, and how do they differ from what's in the Essential Kit?

And I quote...

QuoteI'm certainly not saying Never do it. I'm saying - it's not being done in service to the product. It's being done precisely for ulterior motives that frankly are people projecting their issues.

Care to take a do-over?

Which is why I'm wondering where my Left-handed representation is? Where is my Filipino representation? My people were slaves for 350 years. Left handed people are probably the most oppressed minority that have made GIGANTIC contributions to our species directly out of proportion to other minority groups... and yet... we're so left out. Why do you think that is?

We just don't seem to rise very high in the Oppression Stack of the Woke. It's curious. Or it's like people among the SJW's don't care that Left handed people and non-blacks suffered under slavery too. It's almost like we're invisible. I guess we just don't rate the political capital you get from the Alphabet Herd. OH WELL!!!... I guess I'll just have to Survive Gloria Gaynor style.

Quote from: tenbones;1108353I thought it was patently obvious that *I* don't consider "Rape" as a conversation-ender

Yet you ended it, anyway.

Quote from: tenbones;1108353Well. No. But I do seem to think it's more productive to having a discussion in terms of being in good faith.

Yes, but good faith involves applying the same standards to everyone. You're attacking me for not directly addressing Razor's point, but you're not going after Razor for not directly addressing my point, which happened first. That's you acting in bad faith.

Quote from: tenbones;1108353And let's be clear that while you don't seem to get my chiding about cheesegraters as mild jest - you certainly seemed to be taking it personal and are pissed off because you don't get that I am/are/going to be talking about this topic because I find it interesting - you'll resort to simply saying "fuck you" and call me a "hypocrite" etc. free of context further avoiding the discussion.

I said fuck you to make it clear this isn't an abstract disagreement. You behaved poorly, exhibiting all those words you've been throwing around like disingenuous, or cheesegrater. It's not an emotional reaction, it's clarity. I'm making it very explicit that I'm finding fault in you.

And I did call you a hypocrite, but it was not free of context. I explained exactly why you're a hypocrite.

Quote from: tenbones;1108353You should note: I specifically went out of my way to not call you any names - even an SJW - which you may/may not actually be, I'm speaking directly to the conversation. Period. But if it means this much to you to be riled up and talk shit-  have at it. /shrug.

You put words in my mouth, told me what emotions I was feeling, and made backhanded accusations, but you didn't use any of the 7 magic words so you're the innocent?

Fuck that. I respond in kind, but I avoid all that backhanded shit. If I think you're acting like an asshole, I'll say it. I won't imply you're a SJW, make up arguments for you just so I can rebut them, claim you're secretly seething, and all this other passive aggressive shit.

Quote from: tenbones;1108353Here, I'll do you a favor so you can feel good. "Rape is off limits for Pat to engage in discussion without ad-hominem attacks." Okay everyone. Do not say the R-word. We calm now?

SWOOOSH

That's the sound of you completely, utterly missing the point.

Quote from: Pat;1108360Yet you ended it, anyway.


Yes, but good faith involves applying the same standards to everyone. You're attacking me for not directly addressing Razor's point, but you're not going after Razor for not directly addressing my point, which happened first. That's you acting in bad faith.


I said fuck you to make it clear this isn't an abstract disagreement. You behaved poorly, exhibiting all those words you've been throwing around like disingenuous, or cheesegrater. It's not an emotional reaction, it's clarity. I'm making it very explicit that I'm finding fault in you.

And I did call you a hypocrite, but it was not free of context. I explained exactly why you're a hypocrite.


You put words in my mouth, told me what emotions I was feeling, and made backhanded accusations, but you didn't use any of the 7 magic words so you're the innocent?

Fuck that. I respond in kind, but I avoid all that backhanded shit. If I think you're acting like an asshole, I'll say it. I won't imply you're a SJW, make up arguments for you just so I can rebut them, claim you're secretly seething, and all this other passive aggressive shit.


SWOOOSH

That's the sound of you completely, utterly missing the point.

Okay fine - *I* am a fucker. Hypocrite. Asshole. Who cares?

Well... I'm still having the conversation, with others. Join us if you want. Or not. /shrug.

Quote from: tenbones;1108361Well... I'm still having the conversation, with others. Join us if you want. Or not. /shrug.

Not terribly interested. You're just talking past each other, anyway.

Are there any modern examples of Trans NPC's from WotC or Paizo?

I used to have a bunch of NPC's in my Spelljammer game that were from that race the Reigar - and they're all Trans.

Quote from: tenbones;1108356Nor do I see any left-handed LGBT males or heteros with left-hands represented either. We're 10% of the population!!!!

It almost feels like they're trying to show us something from a personal bias?

I know! They keep UN-Left handing Warduke! Those Monsters!:mad:

(No. Im not joking. Well ok its still a joke. But a serious joke! Honest! About every other depiction of Warduke flips his sword and shield to the wrong hands. Tim Trueman and the old D&D storybooks got it right (though even the storybooks occasionally flubbed it) WOTC seems hellbent on consistently getting it wrong.)