Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1108589But this idea that every example of that type fits the modern preconceptions just isn't logical or consistent with the full portrayal of those societies.

Now Ed Greenwood being still alive and on the record, his particular example probably does fit the pattern you've set here.  I imagine quite a few written examples do, in games or otherwise.  More so than reality.

Yes, I agree with this. I'm only talking particularly about Ed Greenwood, and in particular, that idea that he's being revisionist for saying that there were always openly gay couples in the Forgotten Realms. I scoffed along with most at, say, Rowling's claim that Dumbledore is gay. But in this case, it seems to me that here Greenwood is on the level.

I mean, the two of them living together in the "Ladytowers"?? Plus his other examples, like Elminster changing sex for years. After that, the case for him being revisionist is pretty thin.

Quote from: Pat;1108592Why is that clear? All it says is they work together, they live in the same mansion, and they're friends. I agree they were probably always intended to be lesbian, but the text as written merely leaves open the possibility. That you assume it means they're clearly lesbians is you reading your own prejudices and assumptions into the text.

I remember when we got that book (it's a lovely book, I still use it as a reference today) - literally everyone in both my groups read into it the same way. And I don't recall any of us being freaked out by it - but that's largely because it literally doesn't overtly say it. We just figured okay, and they happened to be major NPC's in a location that was our hub.

"Prejudice" is pretty strong - none of us had any antipathy towards the idea. Two of my players were gay, they didn't give a shit. I wouldn't even say we were particularly sophisticated thinkers back then. I just found it to be interesting to use as a gaming fodder. I have a special place in my heart for those NPC's to this day.

The gay Gnomish Kings thing? Sloppy and dumb premise.

Quote from: jhkim;1108596Yes, I agree with this. I'm only talking particularly about Ed Greenwood, and in particular, that idea that he's being revisionist for saying that there were always openly gay couples in the Forgotten Realms. I scoffed along with most at, say, Rowling's claim that Dumbledore is gay. But in this case, it seems to me that here Greenwood is on the level.

I mean, the two of them living together in the "Ladytowers"?? Plus his other examples, like Elminster changing sex for years. After that, the case for him being revisionism is pretty thin.

This is Old News - literally almost 30-years old.

The new stuff they're churning out isn't even *trying* to make it contextual. By your standard - you're saying just because a godlike Archmage changes shape it's a nod to LGBT representation? Are you kidding me? That's like saying the movie the Howling is representative of Furry Representation.

There is a distinct difference between what Greenwood plays at his table and what was printed. Any deviation from that established fact is by definition "revisionism" even if he meant for there to be Gay Pride Events in Shadowdale all along. Chromatic Spray was invented for closeted LGBT representation too? Maybe the Silverfire is really a metaphor for Brony magic too?

Dragonblooded are clearly for Dragon-kin self-identified.

Yellow Dragons - are representative of Golden Shower enthusiasts? You know what that means for Brown Dragons....

Ambiguity is often a positive quality in art for a host of reasons.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1108602Ambiguity is often a positive quality in art for a host of reasons.

Are you saying Brown Dragons AREN'T allegorical?

Quote from: jhkim;1108596I mean, the two of them living together in the "Ladytowers"?? Plus his other examples, like Elminster changing sex for years. After that, the case for him being revisionist is pretty thin.

That's still applying your prejudices, like you did before with Aragorn. You were wrong about Tolkien, and you're right about Greenwood, but that's not the point. The point is the text alone gives you no basis for drawing a firm conclusion either way. The reason you were sure in both cases is because you were reading the text as if it's a secret code for LGBT characters. Which it sometimes is, it depends on the author and context. But most of the time, it's not a secret code. It's just what it says it is. The reason we can read that text and go lesbians! is because 1) we apply our own prejudices indiscriminately (like you did), or 2) we have metatextual information that supports that conclusion. Which we do in 2019, but in 1990, we didn't. This was before Greenwood's libertine predilections were public knowledge, before festhalls were explained, before Elminster became a manslut, and before he made any statements about homosexuality in the Realms. There were a couple hints -- I think it was Greenwood's first novel, Spellfire, which talked a bit about how some adventurers slept around. But that was a minor aside, the main character had a more traditional romance, and there was really nothing about gay or lesbian characters.

Quote from: tenbones;1108604Are you saying Brown Dragons AREN'T allegorical?

It would certainly help explain why I think the Forgotten Realms setting is such a pile.

Quote from: tenbones;1108593yeah... "It's never enough".  I'm feeling victimized. I need those Asian Gnomes... STAT!

/reaches for his Emotional Support Tarrasque

You better be reaching with your left hand!

Quote from: Antiquation!;1108606It would certainly help explain why I think the Forgotten Realms setting is such a pile.

It wasn't always so. Once when the world was grey and rectangular. Before the 3rd age of D&D has risen from the depths, there was a boxset of high adventure!!!

Quote from: jhkim;1108596Yes, I agree with this. I'm only talking particularly about Ed Greenwood, and in particular, that idea that he's being revisionist for saying that there were always openly gay couples in the Forgotten Realms. I scoffed along with most at, say, Rowling's claim that Dumbledore is gay. But in this case, it seems to me that here Greenwood is on the level.

I mean, the two of them living together in the "Ladytowers"?? Plus his other examples, like Elminster changing sex for years. After that, the case for him being revisionist is pretty thin.

The bolded part makes as much sense as claiming that Burne and Rufus must be gay since they live together in a tower in Hommlet.....

Quote from: tenbones;1108608It wasn't always so. Once when the world was grey and rectangular. Before the 3rd age of D&D has risen from the depths, there was a boxset of high adventure!!!

Yeesh! Cool it with the dusty old war stories, gramps!

Quote from: Pat;1108605That's still applying your prejudices, like you did before with Aragorn. You were wrong about Tolkien, and you're right about Greenwood, but that's not the point. The point is the text alone gives you no basis for drawing a firm conclusion either way.

Dude, I didn't actually think that Aragorn was flamingly gay. In retrospect, I didn't put a smiley on it, but at the time I thought it was clear enough. If you want to call me revisionist and think that I'm trying to wriggle out of something, fine.

I think maybe I'm posting a little too quickly. I'll try to post a summary of my position a little later.

Quote from: jhkim;1108625Dude, I didn't actually think that Aragorn was flamingly gay. In retrospect, I didn't put a smiley on it, but at the time I thought it was clear enough. If you want to call me revisionist and think that I'm trying to wriggle out of something, fine.

I think maybe I'm posting a little too quickly. I'll try to post a summary of my position a little later.

I don't have the necessary qualities to play Jeff Bridges.

If you meant the flaming ranger and the Ladytowers comment in jest, that's fine. I wasn't trying to attack you, I was just pointing out a flaw in reasoning, and using it an illustration of a wider issue, i.e. how we tend to impose our modern preconceptions and knowledge on past events. This seems to be happening more and more, and makes it hard to engage with the past, whether the past is 35 years ago when D&D became a fad, or the Middle Ages.

Quote from: tenbones;1108593yeah... "It's never enough".  I'm feeling victimized. I need those Asian Gnomes... STAT!

/reaches for his Emotional Support Tarrasque

Just didtch the Korobokuru dwarves and replace them with more traditional and accurate koro-pok-guru which cleave closer to certain types of gnomes. Like 5e's Forrest Gnomes.

Quote from: tenbones;1108604Are you saying Brown Dragons AREN'T allegorical?

Yes. They arent black, ENOUGH!
And if they are black, enough. Then it is RACIST! :mad:

And round and round we go with these sociopaths.

We have gone from "make of it what you will" to "If you don't state it is then It IS!" and "If you dont state it is, then it ISNT!" Leaning to the ISNT! side because that allows these nuts to bitch more.

And if you do state some NPCs are gay or black or eat their bread butter side down. Then it is never, ever, ENOUGH!

And if you do have representation and its all perfect. Guess what? They will concoct some insane reason to bitch anyhow.

Now back to the topic of Gnay Gnarden Gnomes.
Havent a fucking clue! Still reading through.