Quote from: Omega;1108733Someone did! Half Kobolds in Malatra wayyyyyy back. We try to not think of the kobolds now. :eek:

WTF! :eek: I choose not to wrack my brain over the reasoning on that one.

Quote from: tenbones;1108537And now you make my point for me: THE VAST MAJORITY OF US ARE NOT L-G-B-or-T.

That's right. We're just elves, gnomes, halflings, half-orcs, and dwarves, gamers all minding our business.

As I mentioned earlier, an overall summary of my position - which might have gotten lost in the back-and-forth.

In general, I'd usually want gay characters to be handled just like any other characters, like being left-handed or green-eyed. It shouldn't be a political point either way. They would just exist because such people exist within the setting. In settings with accepted same-sex marriage like modern-day U.S., or Blue Rose's Aldis, or Forgotten Realms - then I'd expect to see a few same-sex married couples if there are other married couples. In historical or pseudo-historical settings, there would still be gay people, but they would typically (but not always) be hidden or closeted.

I don't have any particular expectation about how often I'd see such characters. Modules aren't demographic treatises, and I don't have any demand that gay people exist in precisely the proportion they are in real life or the fictional setting. That means I don't have a problem with 0% gay but I also don't have a problem with 15% gay.


I don't generally care about the politics of module authors, not because I don't care about politics, but because I don't feel like RPGs are an important battleground for politics. I don't have any purity tests for authors. It could be that a module has 0% gay characters because the module author is actually a homophobe. I don't particularly care to probe that. Conversely, maybe a gay couple is included because the author is a gay-rights advocate. That's doesn't influence me either way to get the module.

What I care about is how well the module plays for me. Are the characters interesting, the background cool, and the challenges dynamic? Most of the times, modules will fail. A random NPC from a random module won't be particularly cool. Likewise, a random gay NPC from a random module won't be particularly cool. That doesn't mean I want to block gay NPCs from appearing - it means I'm going to be selective in my module buying regardless of whether NPCs are gay or not.

Quote from: jhkim;1108801In settings with accepted same-sex marriage like modern-day U.S., or Blue Rose's Aldis, or Forgotten Realms - then I'd expect to see a few same-sex married couples if there are other married couples.

Accepted same sex marriage as an institution wasn't really mentioned as part of the Forgotten Realms though. Really this only started about 3 years ago with Crawford getting control of the productions. A queen or king with a homosexual consort who is tolerated by the public, which has historical precedents and is fairly easy to conceive of, really is not the same thing as gay marriage as an actual societal institution.

Even with Golarion, gay marriage as an actual recognised thing only started appearing around 2012-13.

Quote from: jhkim;1108801In general, I'd usually want gay characters to be handled just like any other characters, like being left-handed or green-eyed. It shouldn't be a political point either way. They would just exist because such people exist within the setting. In settings with accepted same-sex marriage like modern-day U.S., or Blue Rose's Aldis, or Forgotten Realms - then I'd expect to see a few same-sex married couples if there are other married couples. In historical or pseudo-historical settings, there would still be gay people, but they would typically (but not always) be hidden or closeted.

And the arbiter of that is whom? If you look at the history of my posts - I'm the "CONCEIT" guy. If it's established conceit in the setting, then there is NO issue. Why? Because there is NO issue. If you want it at your table - no problem. But in publication those items should be put in there from the jump. And if you're going to insert it in there - you damn well better put some context around it. Otherwise you're just pandering.

And I'm not saying it *can't* be done. I'm saying if you're going to introduce it, to it within context. Don't just do it and pretend no one notices.

"Gee - the King of Cormyr is suddenly a Left-handed Asian guy, with a bone in his nose."
"Oh well haven't you noticed that Tenbones is now the Lead Dev on The Realms and he's trying to give more representation to Jungle Asian savages." /eyeroll

Because yeah, that really is the intent of the setting... and in everyone's interests. Please.

Whereas some honest attempt might be a very risky adventure path which Realms adventurers get sent to a newly discovered island - and I populate it with tons of Jungle Asian shit and the bone-in-the-nose rehabilitated cannibal headhunting chieftan is a new convert to because a missionary found their way there, and the adventure is surviving and dealing with the fallout of "discovery". Rather than sticking my personal pet-interests in everyone elses shit and putting it in their face with zero context.

Honor the material first.

Quote from: jhkim;1108801I don't have any particular expectation about how often I'd see such characters. Modules aren't demographic treatises, and I don't have any demand that gay people exist in precisely the proportion they are in real life or the fictional setting. That means I don't have a problem with 0% gay but I also don't have a problem with 15% gay.

But that's exactly what you're saying - you want a demographic quota. My question is WHY? Why not just leave it open? GM's can add whatever suits their fancy at their table. LESS is MORE. When you put non-sequitur material (yes, Left-Handed Jungle Asian Cannibal Headhunters as NON-SEQUITUR as Gay Gnomish Kings) into a setting without proper context, you might turn away potential GM's that would otherwise use that material. The problem is for people perhaps more strident in your passive-aggressive position that are probably unwilling to have this discussion as you do - are more willing to say "those people" are racist/phobes for simply not needing/wanting their special interests.

Quote from: jhkim;1108801I don't generally care about the politics of module authors, not because I don't care about politics, but because I don't feel like RPGs are an important battleground for politics.

And yet... you are subject to them every bit as we are. We are having that discussion *because* of those very politics.

Quote from: jhkim;1108801I don't have any purity tests for authors. It could be that a module has 0% gay characters because the module author is actually a homophobe. I don't particularly care to probe that. Conversely, maybe a gay couple is included because the author is a gay-rights advocate. That's doesn't influence me either way to get the module.

So you're dancing around these things completely free of calling the spade a spade. If the setting doesn't outright have these things as a conceit, then they're not conceits of the setting. If you want to put them into your game at your table. FEEL FREE. If you're going to add them to a setting as a "new thing" - then honor the importance of that thing (whatever it is, because CLEARLY it means that much to you), with having the decency to put it into context with the setting that heretofore didn't have it in the first place.

I find it hypocritical and/or bizarre that you would jump to the furthest worst position for someone NOT including gays in their setting overtly, by implying that such author might be an actual homophobe. When by implication - any NPC in any game can be *whatever the fuck you want* it to be at your table as a GM. When I don't see *ANYONE* mentioning the lack of White or Black people in Bushido, the lack of Asian NPC's in Dragon Coast, - are those authors racists? There are more fucking Asians than gays in the world, jhkim, you know. There aren't any because it's not a conceit. But there can be as many as you need or want at your table. Why is this even needing to be explained?

Quote from: jhkim;1108801What I care about is how well the module plays for me. Are the characters interesting, the background cool, and the challenges dynamic? Most of the times, modules will fail. A random NPC from a random module won't be particularly cool. Likewise, a random gay NPC from a random module won't be particularly cool. That doesn't mean I want to block gay NPCs from appearing - it means I'm going to be selective in my module buying regardless of whether NPCs are gay or not.

Right, so who is all the virtue signalling for? If modules mostly fail (which I agree, and why I don't use them) - who is it for? Who does it serve IN GAME? Precisely no one. It's designed for SJWS to feel good and pat each other on the back for pretending they're doing something real in the real-world for us poor marginalized minorities. <--- The Spade is a Spade.

Quote from: S'mon;1108854Accepted same sex marriage as an institution wasn't really mentioned as part of the Forgotten Realms though. Really this only started about 3 years ago with Crawford getting control of the productions. A queen or king with a homosexual consort who is tolerated by the public, which has historical precedents and is fairly easy to conceive of, really is not the same thing as gay marriage as an actual societal institution.

Even with Golarion, gay marriage as an actual recognised thing only started appearing around 2012-13.

So?  Accepted same sex marriage as an institution wasn't really a part of the United States until four years ago.  

The Forgotten Realms isn't a real place - it doesn't have a real history.  Lots of people take liberties with it, altering it to suit their needs.  But because it is a fantasy place, there's no reason our own biases should have been part of the social fabric; most people added them because they didn't specifically choose to leave them out.  Now maybe the folks in the Forgotten Realms oppose having Kobold spouses, but maybe not.  There's not really any reason why same-sex unions should be controversial when unions between species are so common...

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108949But because it is a fantasy place, there's no reason our own biases should have been part of the social fabric; most people added them because they didn't specifically choose to leave them out.

sarc/ I agree with you. And I happen to know this zoophiliac, who likes to fuck dogs in the ass - real dogs, with wet muzzle and hairy butts.

I'm gonna lobby for him to join WotC and take over Mearls as creative director. When he will be in that position, he intends to reveal that the paladin who is the spokeman for the Lords of Waterdeeep (I forgot his name) has been in an intimate relationship for 20 years with an adorable Boston Terrier (well... it was adorable 20 years ago, but now, it shows its age. It's a real heartbreaker ;-(

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108949There's not really any reason why same-sex unions should be controversial when unions between species are so common...

I totally agree with you, deadDMwalking. It's time we put to bed this specist attitude towards man-dog relationship.

Ho, and my buddy zoophiliac is totally prepared to deal with whiners who will cry he's sabotaging their precious Forgotten Realms. He will call them bigots, racists, specists and finally - for having the audacity of criticizing him for trying to paint a fantasy world anew in the colours of his minority - he will brand them Nazis.

I can't wait for all this to happen ! We will all sing kumbaya, except the totally mean nazi people who disagree with us ! /sarc

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108949So?  Accepted same sex marriage as an institution wasn't really a part of the United States until four years ago.  

The Forgotten Realms isn't a real place - it doesn't have a real history.

Except that it does. The moment it was published. And it's been maintained in a certain manner within various parameters that is pretty normal "D&D fantasy" until fairly recently.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108949Lots of people take liberties with it, altering it to suit their needs.

... *at* their tables.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108949But because it is a fantasy place, there's no reason our own biases should have been part of the social fabric; most people added them because they didn't specifically choose to leave them out.

...*at* their tables. And in the published world the conceits of their various fantasy cultures are fairly well laid out from Greybox until today. The social fabric of most major cultures in the Realms is fairly established. Whatever biases we bring to that fabric is for us to jack around with. If you're going to introduce new conceits - like Cormyr suddenly has devil-worship and slavery, because the new writer is into BDSM and Devil worship... you damn well better make some attempt at convincing people why this is now a thing, and more importantly - why I would want to engage in this "thing" and pay money for it. Sell us on it.

NO one is under some obligation to accept things that are not the "norm" to be "normal". The way it's done in entertainment is like some kind of revenge fantasy.

Let's make Captain America a Nazi! Let's make Thor a weepy bitch, and make the new Thor a female. - Those are some HARD sells. SELL me on it. Well they failed. But if you don't like it, you're suddenly a homophobe, Nazi-sympathizer *because* you don't like how they failed to deliver.

Two gay gnome "kings" trying to hire presumably mostly heterosexuals to kill the other? That is somehow a good representation of LGBT representation?

At no point do these "creators" take responsibility for the MANNER in which they try to introduce their ideas. Worse - they tend to do it so badly that they disrespect the whole intent of representation and the material which they're trying to insert it into.

Best case - don't do it. You're not that good and/or the idea is superfluous to the whole point trying to be made.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108949Now maybe the folks in the Forgotten Realms oppose having Kobold spouses, but maybe not.  There's not really any reason why same-sex unions should be controversial when unions between species are so common...

Except it's not "normal". Just because it exists doesn't make it normal. It means it CAN happen - it's still not common. So that means if you're going to do it - give it some meaningful context. And further - let's not pretend that Kobolds, Orcs, Hobgoblins, Goblins do not have cultural significance in the Forgotten Realms. They're evil and they're the enemies of "good" races. Having a kobold spouse would be an extreme outlier. If you wanna conflate LGBT issues with established evil monsters hooking up with standard PC's races and pretending it *shouldn't* have any contextual significance in your games - that's on you.

Pretending otherwise in published material based on the history of the Realms would be silly... at best if I'm charitable. Otherwise it sounds like moral relativism to me, which sounds like a stupid way to game. But YMMV.

Quote from: tenbones;1108967Except that it does. The moment it was published. And it's been maintained in a certain manner within various parameters that is pretty normal "D&D fantasy" until fairly recently.

I disagree.  Consistency in the Realms is your imagination.  Are you completely disregarding 4th edition?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108971I disagree.  Consistency in the Realms is your imagination.  Are you completely disregarding 4th edition?

At my table. Yes. Partially. I've been running the Realms since around '87, in the same campaign. It's virtually impossible to keep anything canon in line with your campaign(s) at the table.

Why? What's your point? Are you insinuating that when 4e dropped, LGBT representation magically happened in the Realms?

Quote from: tenbones;1108975Why? What's your point? Are you insinuating that when 4e dropped, LGBT representation magically happened in the Realms?

Well pieces of another world along with their inhabitants did replace chunks of the FR world. Most of those lands went away in 5e, but the left people and their ideas behind. No, I'm not trying to suggest this as a serious answer, but if you want it to be, then go ahead and use it as such.

Quote from: tenbones;1108975Why? What's your point? Are you insinuating that when 4e dropped, LGBT representation magically happened in the Realms?

My point is that the setting is provided by someone other than yourself, and they do what they want with it when they want to.  They can (and do) claim that things are different than they said and they've always been different.  Sometimes Drow items stop dissolving in the sun and sometimes a new race that never existed before suddenly has always existed.  It's usually termed 'retconning' and it's silly to complain about it.  If you don't like Dragonborn in the Forgotten Realms, you can say 'not in my version', but you should ask yourself why what you want automatically trumps what a player might want.  If your answer boils down to 'even though it is a fictional world designed to be a fun place to play in, in my mind it's a REAL PLACE DAMMIT and I can't bear the thought of inconsistent changes', well, the insane one might be you.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108981you should ask yourself why what you want automatically trumps what a player might want.  

Emphasis on the might.

I do remember making some of my liberal, female players happy when I made two of my male NPCs gay in my 4e FR campaign. I don't recall any demands that Gay Marriage Has Always Been A Thing (And We Have Always Been At War With Thay) though.

Quote from: S'mon;1108988Emphasis on the might.

There clearly are players that have asked for increased representation of people that they identify with.  That's why we're where we are.  Holding some line that says, Dragonborn are okay, but GAYS??? just strikes me as awfully silly.  For lots of good reasons the default of D&D worlds is that men and women are equally capable adventurers without regard to historical norms; especially if magic is equally innate and generally BETTER than martial power, that makes a lot of sense.  

Likewise, when your most immediately pressing problem is whether your village is prepared to survive the next scheduled dragon assault, stoning people for putting their private parts inside people with the same private parts doesn't seem like it makes sense.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108981My point is that the setting is provided by someone other than yourself, and they do what they want with it when they want to.  They can (and do) claim that things are different than they said and they've always been different.  Sometimes Drow items stop dissolving in the sun and sometimes a new race that never existed before suddenly has always existed.  It's usually termed 'retconning' and it's silly to complain about it.  If you don't like Dragonborn in the Forgotten Realms, you can say 'not in my version', but you should ask yourself why what you want automatically trumps what a player might want.  If your answer boils down to 'even though it is a fictional world designed to be a fun place to play in, in my mind it's a REAL PLACE DAMMIT and I can't bear the thought of inconsistent changes', well, the insane one might be you.

Certainly. And again - this is my larger point: the conceits of the setting matter. If you want me to continue to support a published product, everytime you produce something for that setting, you're selling me those conceits. If you change them - you're risking me not liking whatever those changes were. The beauty of RPG's are that if those changes are minimal - then you can ignore them.

The point becomes when you as a consumer decides the product is something you want to consume. For me - the moment a product ceases to be useful, and that includes when it becomes intentionally political extraneous to any need I have for the product - then I'm out. Using my previous example - if a Devil-Worshipping developer started putting his pet ideology into the Realms, I'd feel the same way, if handled at the level current Woke ideology is being handled.

As for what the "players" want at my table. LOL that's easy. Don't play. It's a two-way street. I don't run stuff I don't have an interest in. Likewise my players don't have to play in *anything* I offer up. And that's our social contract. I am the primary GM of my group. But when it's time to do a new campaign - it requires *me* to do a sales-pitch to my players. They absolutely get to tell me what they're interested in playing or not. They don't get to tell me how to do it - otherwise *they* can GM that thing, and make the sales pitch to us. No one is obligated to do anything or have some vested interest in playing a certain way.

Sell me on it. Or GTFO.

Edit: On the FLIPSIDE of that coin - if Woke Ideology is so "good", why do they not simply make an entire setting based on those ideals and flesh it out, and PUBLISH it, with every Woke Conceit covered, representational requirement met, genders galore, politics scrubbed clean of anything remotely "offensive" - and let it sink or swim on its own?

WHY co-opt what is already established? We both know why that is. Again this is why I respect Blue Rose. They had the balls to try.