Quote from: tenbones;1109443So we have to like SJW shit in our peanut-butter too?

Like it? No. But much like the FDA forces us to accept that certain amounts of rodent shit, insect heads, maggots, mold, etc. are in the food we buy, it is quite likely that we have to accept that some things we don't like are going to make it into the games that we buy.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1109455Like it? No. But much like the FDA forces us to accept that certain amounts of rodent shit, insect heads, maggots, mold, etc. are in the food we buy, it is quite likely that we have to accept that some things we don't like are going to make it into the games that we buy.

Good point!

Quote from: Mistwell;1109450Because there never was anything meaningful to discuss after the first couple of comments. IT'S MEANINGLESS. That's my point! I am not going to "sell it" because there is nothing to sell. It had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ADVENTURE ITSELF, AND DOES NO HARM IN ANY WAY aside from poorly written nonsense - which isn't unique to SJW issues at all.  People are free to dislike it, particularly if it makes no sense or is poorly written. But your reaction in particular is clearly way past those kinds of objections and well into "SJW Apocolypse oh my God they're taking over run for your lives grab the pitchforks if we don't stop it now our entire lives will be ruined" level of hysteria.

Oh so you agree with me? Ok. I don't think *anyone* here, I'm certainly not, is saying there is an SJW Apocalypse. You said that. It literally *can't* be for me: I don't play D&D. I don't give WotC any of my money. It's a non-issue, but fun to talk about.  *I*, once again, have said many times now in this thread, to which you've called it "ironic" only in relation to your own shit-posting, that it's not a big deal. You seem to be more interested in insinuating that we believe otherwise. My gaming life is just fine. This one thing on its own *is* meaningless. But the incremental insertion of this stuff is on purpose. You know... *because* Crawford has *said so*, and is actively pushing for it in D&D.

https://kotaku.com/dungeons-dragons-promises-to-make-the-game-more-queer-1798401117
https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/1050444027282186240?lang=en
https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurenorsini/2019/04/17/wizards-of-the-coasts-new-lgbtq-merch-is-its-latest-push-for-inclusivity/#7d6b39d92a41
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKJhtdOd_ag&feature=youtu.be
https://www.themarysue.com/sexuality-and-gender-diversity-dungeons-and-dragons-next/

To examine these things without examining the quality or execution of this program seems stupid, don't you think?

I completely disagree that this stuff is harmless. The very people that rally behind this - for ulterior motives are the very people that *have* caused damaged to other people in this industry for simply not being Woke enough. But you already knew that. Me personally? Kinda sorta, but nothing that is going to affect me.

Quote from: Mistwell;1109450It's not like your reaction to this has been anything close to the tone you'd take to any other kind of poorly written or nonsense element of an adventure. If the gnomes were, say, posing as hobgoblins for no reason at all, you wouldn't be posting about it like this. You might make an off hand comment that it makes no sense or is poorly written, but you wouldn't go on and on like you are but-for the fact it's that they're GAY gnomes who are poorly written and make no sense. Add in the gay part and you freak your shit out.

Oh so now you're a mind-reader? How about you settle on just being a "reader" - you know, where I keep asking for my Asian Gnomes? Why are you not asking for my Asian Gnomes? Do you think two gay gnomish kings is the same thing as gnomes posing as hobgoblins? You know... because in a published work meant for all ages, where magic exists and posing as hobgoblins can happen... but implying that two male gnomes having sex (which is the only thing that sets apart two males gnomes from two gay male gnomes - that happen to have titles that do not exist in their culture, nor represented in the actual adventure) seems appropriate or even a quality representation of LGBT "virtues"? I'm a little scared you'd be happy if my Asian Gnome representation was a bunch of yellow-skinned buck-toothed gnomes doing the dopey-dance with rice-paddy pajamas and straw hats as "acceptable". Funny, but I'd shoot for higher standards myself, on either count.

Or better yet - not at all, since I don't think having Asian Gnome Kings is appropriate without good context. None of which is analogous to the shitshow they served up with the Gay Gnomes.

Quote from: Mistwell;1109450Which is why I am bashing you for it. Calm down Francis. It's no more meaningful than any other minor element of an adventure which is poorly written or makes no sense.

Well that's the funny thing. I don't feel bashed. I feel like you're projecting your own problems on me (and everyone else) - that don't really affect me the way you believe it does. I've found this thread quite funny. At no point have I ever been anything but amused by it. Which I attribute some of that to you. Francis isn't here, Dave. The point of the thread is the very thing that is meaningless. But to ignore the larger thing it speaks to says more about you than any of us.

So lets take this further assuming it is "make of it what you will".

Anyone have any thoughts on what this workshop dormitory place will become if the PCs can end the mimic threat? Because what it will become if they do not stop the mimic, or never visit the place, is another ruin dotting the landscape.

Honestly I am at a loss as they just seem too few and too lacking intelligence to survive long once the PCs are away. A small band of orcs or even a group of kobolds could probably wipe them out. The dormitory area is accessible from the outside! Adventures being adventurers. It is totally possible the party will get the task done at the place and then leave never knowing the fate if this place.

But some thoughts. Assuming the "king" comes back to his senses. I could see a push to beef up security. Or ask the PCs to talk to the local dwarves for advice and help in fortifying the place. This would tie the different locations together more and make things ongoing.

I'm catching up with this thread after being away the last three days. Following up on some earlier thoughts from S'mon and tenbones first.

My son is in the middle of running this currently with his friends at college. I'd like to check in with him about how it went before commenting specifically on that part.

Quote from: jhkimIn 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.

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.

On the one hand, I agree that toleration of homosexual couples is not the same thing as same-sex marriage. Still, this seems more like hair-splitting to me, because Forgotten Realms has never been historically plausible - and a couple like Lady Lord Yanseldara and Vaerana Hawklyn have no historical precedents that I can think of.

Ever since it first came out, I think Forgotten Realms has emphasized being a little more magical and strange than Greyhawk. It's clearly ahistorical, as shown by features like Yanseldara and Hawklyn. I feel that not explicitly calling them lesbian was an artifact of 1990s RPG publishing, not an in-game feature that lesbianism was taboo in the Realms. I think nearly everyone in this thread has agreed that Greenwood did always intend them to be gay, and that he's not lying or being revisionist when he says that they are now.

So at least, openly gay couples are an established part of the Realms, with the details of marriage being unclear.

Quote from: jhkimI 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.

Quote from: tenbonesBut 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.

As I said, I'm fine with 0% gay characters in a given module. And 0% gay is no more open than 15% gay. GMs can always do what they want with a module - add gays, remove gays, add left-handers, remove left-handers, etc. But I don't support sanitizing modules so that they don't offend people. If authors want to be middle-of-the-road / sanitized, that's fine. But not every module is for everyone.

Quote from: jhkim;1109581and a couple like Lady Lord Yanseldara and Vaerana Hawklyn have no historical precedents that I can think of.

The historical reality is that no one really cares if two women shack up together. At most you get a bit of sniggering.

As far as Forgotten Realms goes, well it'd feel like Crawford/Disney-style virtue signalling if Cormyr was suddenly ruled by two Queens or two Kings. But there are plenty of places where two same-sex rulers wouldn't be a big deal, at least if they were self made adventurer types. I'm going to assume neither Gnome Kning is Scion of A Proud And Ancient Dynasty.

That's the part that I squint at.

How is this... "offering" of SJW virtue... passing any kind of muster for those that care, in the LGBT arena, as "good"? WTF kinds of standards are in operation here where this is considered acceptable?

That only speaks worse of the situation.

Quote from: jhkim;1109581But I don't support sanitizing modules so that they don't offend people. If authors want to be middle-of-the-road / sanitized, that's fine. But not every module is for everyone.

My take is simple: if you're going to do "it" - make it matter or leave it open to interpretation. If it doesn't warrant making it matter - then don't pretend it doesn't and stuff it in there or worse - make a caricature of it, which undermines the whole point of inserting it in there in the first place for ulterior motives. It's either sloppy design, writing, or conceptualizing - and likely all three.

With Lady Lord Yanseldara and Vaerana Hawklyn, to me it was obvious but left open ended. It gave me the option to play with it, to contextualize it for my uses. And I did. And they were gay. And it played a big part of my campaign for years.

But I could add a lot of stuff around it without making a big mockery of it for meta-purposes to people that would never know because they didn't play with me. Which is what I think is happening here with the Gay Gnomish Kings.

The adventure is a throwaway. The gnomes are all described (including the two kings) by one NPC statblock called "gnomish recluse". So they are all considered interchangeable, effectively disposable.

Quote from: jhkimBut I don't support sanitizing modules so that they don't offend people. If authors want to be middle-of-the-road / sanitized, that's fine. But not every module is for everyone.

Quote from: tenbones;1109604My take is simple: if you're going to do "it" - make it matter or leave it open to interpretation. If it doesn't warrant making it matter - then don't pretend it doesn't and stuff it in there or worse - make a caricature of it, which undermines the whole point of inserting it in there in the first place for ulterior motives. It's either sloppy design, writing, or conceptualizing - and likely all three.

It's always open to interpretation -- because it's your own damn campaign. If someone didn't like Yanseldara and Hawklyn, maybe they change them into a Lord and Lady in their campaign. If you don't like that gnome kings are gay -- you can change them. The module is the module -- you can do with it whatever you like.

But I don't think that modules should be stripped of all color because someone might be offended or someone might think that the wrong motive was behind it.

Quote from: jhkim;1109612It's always open to interpretation -- because it's your own damn campaign. If someone didn't like Yanseldara and Hawklyn, maybe they change them into a Lord and Lady in their campaign. If you don't like that gnome kings are gay -- you can change them. The module is the module -- you can do with it whatever you like.

But I don't think that modules should be stripped of all color because someone might be offended or someone might think that the wrong motive was behind it.

But they can't be both. You don't get to add your personal shit into a game for the purposes extraneous to the setting and game itself - there are no Gnomish kings in the Realms, *and* demand by fiat of public shaming, it be considered acceptable to everyone regardless of context. There is no purpose to making them gay arbitrarily and then making them caricatures and pretend it's both serious and be extolled (maybe not by you) as some celebratory example of inclusion. Then castigate any that dare say "poor form" to it. Whether it's in execution or content is irrelevant to the ideologues that let it slide for either reason.

The difference no one is talking about here is the intent. Yanseldara and Hawklyn *may* have been intended for some ulterior motive - but it was handled fine and obviously open for consideration.

But today this is not why those two gnomes are gay. They're overtly gay for pandering purposes. And done poorly. Just as poorly as if you and I were to accept them as Asian Gnomes doing the ching-chong dance with buck-teeth slap-boxing one another with squinty-eyes like buffoons and having some white-liberal asshole tell us "See! Asian inclusivity!" and pat themselves on the back. Then have Kotaku, and the usual shit-sites all proclaim WotC for being so progressive.

What about the Realms? Yeah... what about it...

I'm sorry - I just have standards and I don't accept low-expectations as a general position of acceptability. And this is why I don't spend my money on WotC products, when otherwise I would. It's their money to take simply by not pandering to moronic ideas that renders their work shabby.

Edit: I'm not asking for sanitization - I'm asking for excellent quality free of ideological drivel. Not really too much to ask.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1109378What if they simply choose not to include dragonborn? Would the assumption be that they can not figure it out because they are not smart, or they allowed to make that choice without being attacked?

Yeah maybe you are running a world that only has Dwarves.

But thats not DnD, thats Dwarfland: The Digging.

Quote from: jeff37923;1109607The adventure is a throwaway. The gnomes are all described (including the two kings) by one NPC statblock called "gnomish recluse". So they are all considered interchangeable, effectively disposable.

That was something noticed too. They all ref that Rock Gnome Recluse stat block. Not even the more prominent of the gnomes is statted? But this is a starter and meant to be easy to parse by a mew GM. But a little variety would have been nice even if it is "bob the gnome has a WIS of 12 instead of the listed 10". Done have the box open at the moment but isnt there some notes on tweaking NPCs? I'll have to check later.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1109381Yep, lemme just let some fuckwit's marketing decisions run completely roughshod over 20+ years of my setting's development.

My table, my setting, fuck you. Don't like it, fuck off.

If the retard, I mean DM cant handle a Dragon born then damn right fuck off.  I have no interest in yet another unoriginal Tolkien rip off.

I'm currently listening to Dave Rubin's interview with Douglas Murray.  One of Mr. Murray's brilliant observations jarred something loose in my head relevant to our favorite gnay gnome thread.

If the authors were really attempting to build a more diverse and interesting fictional world for adventuring, then they did a piss poor job of it.

If, on the other hand, their real purpose was virtue signaling and tweaking the noses of their ideological opponents, then they succeeded.

Assuming the second motivation, there's no need to flesh out the particulars for the inclusion of TOPIC X within the world.  In fact, the more that TOPIC X stands out in a jarring manner, the more it has in fact served its purpose.  Anyone who notices that it doesn't fit the larger narrative context and is foolish enough to comment on it has in effect "outed" themselves as counter-revolutionary, or at least non-revolutionary which amounts to the same thing.

What we are assuming to be a bug from the standpoint of good writing / module design may actually be a feature, for those with a certain political agenda.