Quote from: Shasarak;1109706I dont even want one shit from you and if I did your world probably does not even have it!

The next time I have need for a Golgothan, it will be named Shasarak, in honor of you.

Quote from: tenbones;1109520I don't think *anyone* here, I'm certainly not, is saying there is an SJW Apocalypse.

It gets said entirely too much.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1106497Ithe RPG hobby becoming politicized by self-described SJWs

Quotethe SJW's takeover of our hobby pleases liberals

Apocalypse is not Armageddon. Apocalypse means the "unveiling". AKA, everyone's putting their cards on the table.

The staff of WotC, Paizo, Monte Cook, Green Ronin proudly self-describe themselves and their companies as Social Justice Warriors,  woke progressives, or other CTRL-left titles. These companies are increasingly shoving their politics into their products and any criticism of their woke crusade is decried as sexist, racist, phobic, blah blah blah.

And low and beyond, WHO are pleased about all the politics being shoved into our hobby? WHO are cheering for X-cards and "consent tools" at conventions, cons banning games by "deplorable" designers and declaring the RPG hobby was never "inclusive" until the woke brigade arrived?

Oh, that would be liberals.

So yes, the RPG hobby is becoming politicized by self described SJWs and the SJW's takeover of our hobby pleases liberals.

Not rocket science.

Quote from: Shasarak;1109375If a DM can not figure out how to include a Dragonborn into a DnD setting then they are not smart enough to even be allowed to DM in the first place

I like Dragonborn, but who and what goes into my own settings is decided by me. Exclusion of certain elements is a great way to personalize a setting and narrow the focus for the campaign.

BTW, I'd be totally down for an All-Saurian fantasy world.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1109381My table, my setting, fuck you. Don't like it, fuck off.

Exactly.

Players have the choice to play or not play. If a GM can't get a full table, then that GM gets to decide to either expand their setting options for PCs or just spend more time gathering interested players.

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.

Nope. We do not have to accept any politics in our RPGs. Zero.

There aren't a handful of RPG companies. WotC doesn't even control D&D. There are hundreds with new Kickstarters or DriveThru launches, plus there are thousands of "dead" games from the past 4 decades to be revisited.

We can absolutely vote with our dollars. We can absolutely say YES or NO to whatever we like or dislike.

Quote from: tenbones;1109602How 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?

It's a purity test. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
You either nod with the SJW choir, stay silent, or dissent and get labeled a bigot for not chowing down on the pandering.

Quote from: tenbones;1109618I'm not asking for sanitization - I'm asking for excellent quality free of ideological drivel. Not really too much to ask.

It IS too much to ask from WotC, Paizo, Monte Cook, Green Ronin or any other company dedicated to shoving their "ideological drivel" into the products.

But fortunately, we have HUNDREDS (maybe thousands) of other RPG games to support.

Quote from: rawma;1109735It gets said entirely too much.

For the record, I've had not-straight players and not-straight characters in my home games long before the "Virtuous Left" decided da gays were kewlio purse puppies and celebrity fashion accessories.

Why? Because everybody has always been welcome at my table and I've always had a wide variety of NPCs.

The sick joke about the Gay Gully Dwarves is they're nothing but a purity test. It's the exact throwaway tokenism that the "Virtuous Left" complained about when a minority or female character was tossed into a media product simply for optics. Hell, South Park literally has a black kid named Token to make fun of the trope, but their Token is actually a cool character.

It's the hypocrisy of "selective inclusion" and obvious political pandering that's the poison to the hobby. It's not about including homosexuals as players or NPCs. It's entirely about political pandering to create DIVISION among gamers. That's what sickens me about the SJW brigade.

I don't give a damn if you and I agree on anything ever, but I want a hobby where you and I can sit down together, make believe we're magical elves, toss dice and eat Cheetos, if only for a few happy hours at a convention without real world politics intruding in any manner.  

I can't speak for every game table, but fun players (regardless of other characteristics) were always welcome to my table and every table I've played at. I've met plenty of bad GMs and a few asshole GMs, but none who said "Not You!" to any player because of their sex junk or where they wanted to put their sex junk.  

And, again for the record, I don't want ANY politics in my RPGs. Zero. Nada. None. I spat at TSR for pandering to the Satanic Panic in 2e and caving into the Mommy Brigade in the 80s. That was utterly retarded. Just like WotC today.

I'm probably skipping Sine Nomine's Wolves of God Kickstarter because I doubt I'd ever run a "Christian Fantasy" game, even though I expect Kevin Crawford to do an excellent (and non-political) job with the game.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1109745Nope. We do not have to accept any politics in our RPGs. Zero.

There aren't a handful of RPG companies. WotC doesn't even control D&D. There are hundreds with new Kickstarters or DriveThru launches, plus there are thousands of "dead" games from the past 4 decades to be revisited.

We can absolutely vote with our dollars. We can absolutely say YES or NO to whatever we like or dislike.

You keep on voting with your dollars and see if that changes anything--whether that be less politics in game books or less nasty shit in our food. My bet is that all those "voting with out dollars" types don't even register. You can keep buying from the big companies or marginalize yourself to the tiny corner that makes it the way you want it (this applies to any particular corner that fits any particular "you") but it won't really change the directions of the industry. Now, it might change what you encounter in your locale if you get your group(s) to agree with you, but that's perhaps the best you can hope for on eliminating politics by buying from fringe companies or cutting yourself off and sticking to old products (with presumably fewer politics or at least fewer "offensive" politics if you think that everything is politics).

Me, I'll just buy what I find appealing and accept that it might have some icky stuff in it or be made by people with politics different from mine. Again, this applies to both games and food equally in my eyes.

Quote from: Mistwell;1109657No I am calling you a coward, for pretending you'd care equally about gnomes posing as hobgoblins as you do gnomes who are gay. You argue later why you think them being gay is so important, so you're both admitting this is a lie but for some bizarre reason proclaiming your innocence here. It's a mutually exclusive position you're taking here. No mind-reading necessary because you admit it IS that they're gay that's behind your protest - obviously!

Then you completely misinterpret the many times I've spelled it out here (and you're incapable of appreciating sarcastic humor - once again into the breach and Ill literally spell it out just for you) : I DO NOT CARE. AND NEITHER DO YOU - AND NEITHER DO THEY.

I'm saying it's a bullshit standard from the jump. It's *because* they pick and choose arbitrarily who is represented WITHOUT context to the exclusion of everything else they *pretend* is important.

NONE OF IT IS. That's what I'm pointing out in the larger picture. It doesn't belong. It's not inclusive. It's divisive. What do you not understand? If they made them Asian Gnomes in the same venal context I absolutely would say the same thing. That *you* and others accept this offering as somehow positive - again says more about you than me.

If you can get on your high-horse of bullshit fake morality and claim one is more important than the other - I'm down to hear it. Go for it. This should be fun.

Quote from: Mistwell;1109657Yes, *I* do. You obviously do not. Which is why it's so weird you accused me of mind-reading when I said that's what you appear to think. You're confirming it right here, you DO think being gay is a huge big difference from posing as Hobgoblins. I really do not in this context. Both would be just as meaningless to the adventure.

So you ratified my larger point - it's meaningless. It's amazing what lengths you have to go through to admit what we already know and see. If you think they're equivalent - then cite to me the amount of Hobgoblin material in the Forgotten Realms vs. male gay gnome material. I'll wait here.

Quote from: Mistwell;1109657NOBODY is having sex in the adventure. If they were a male and female, would you go right to "Implying they're having sex, in adventure intended for all ages!! Eeek!"? No of course not.

Which is more common - heterosexual relationships or homosexual relationships? Which is more prevalent in context of gaming material? Which is *required*? What context do you need to have a King and Queen? What context is required for a King and King? Among Gnomes? In a social ranking they don't USE. In a Kingdom that isn't actually a kingdom? In a setting that doesn't have them historically?

Asian Gnomes are sounding commensurately appropriate right about now.

It's meaningless because it's non-contextual. You know... that thing I keep repeating to you that you keep ignoring yet oddly get around to admitting upthread. Don't let my Asian Gnome thing fool you - it's a Target Dummy for Dummies you keep shooting at for the exact purposes I put it up. By SJW standards - would that make you a racist you're not advocating for Asian Gnomes when a POC that is Asian is asking for them? Go on... shoot at it some more. It's fun.

Quote from: Mistwell;1109657You're all concerned because of the possibility that somewhere off-screen people are having gay sex, but would be perfectly fine if that same implication were made of straight sex.

Nope. Have all the gay sex you want. I'm saying the gay gnomes are in there for pandering purposes - nothing more. And they're *bad* representations of gay characters. Did you miss that? Again?

Quote from: Mistwell;1109657And don't fucking deny it, because there ARE married straight characters in many WOTC adventures and you've never had an issue with a single one of them!

I wouldn't actually know... since I don't run modules. But I'm not going to deny heterosexual relationships on the surface don't require a lot in terms of context. You know... can you tell me many King/King gay relationships in history? Go look it up. I'll wait here. Yeah - that's called context.

Quote from: Mistwell;1109657Apparently just the thought of gay people having sex gets your knickers in a bunch.

Only if you're an idiot. Which my repeating of my position seems to be indicative of the real problem here. I've played gay characters before. I have gay male players, a furry, bi, lesbians, both as players. I really don't care who/what you put your genitalia in. I'm saying... yet again... and again... that this excuse for shitty representation is arbitrary and for pandering purposes.

That you presume your retarded stance on the worst possible standard without yourself trying to speak to any of the points made other than accusing people like the pussy that you are, of passive aggressively being homophobic (just say it) - ALL while by that same standard you refuse to support the need for Asian Gnomes - would likewise brand you a racist.

All of which is amusing to me. (no I don't think you're a racist - I think you're missing the thrust of bigger point on purpose, in which case you're a disingenuous twat. If you really believe the shit you're saying to me - you might be an actual racist by your own standards - not mine.)

Quote from: rawma;1109735It gets said entirely too much.

Or it does not get said enough.

When company reps are spouting SJW hate speeches and getting patted on the back for it. Yes. There is a freaking problem that is escalating as it spreads like a malignant cancer.

Quote from: jhkim;1109670When I'm referring to wrong motives, I am discussing intent. From my view, you would like to say that it's the SJWs who have purity tests, and demand that authors not have any wrongthink on display. But here you're saying the equivalent -- authors should have only the proper intent for creating.

So here's the purity test for you. How would you portray slavery in Forgotten Realms? Is Maztica and colonial issues that were portrayed in it, racist? How many Asian Gnomes are required to show Asian Diversity? I'm being specific here because male Gay Gnomes Kings is *pretty specific* and being held up as representational of the SJW Progressive showcase. It's someone's "pet charade" that we are hamfistedly being expected to accept OR ELSE (by else, I mean publicly being passive-aggressively called a homophobe by SJW/leaning/adjacent/allies/lol for calling the spade a spade.) This is not diversity. This is pandering. This is not good representation. It doesn't need to be there.

When *I* am claiming that if you're going to do it - make it contextual and make it "GOOD". Children rarely assume that same-sex relationships are inherently sexual - because they're kids. So it's arbitrary in this attempt at forcing diversity, in these absurd examples - two gay gnome kings - why not make them two gay gnomes that have some legitimate issue where their outlier status is part of that issue to be dealt with in the adventure in a meaningful manner - rather than as a cheap thumb-in-the-eye for virtue points.

It's putting the ideology ahead of the product. Fuck that. Christian Rock sucks ass for the same reason - despite the often excellent skills of the musicians (lookin at you Stryper). Have some standards.

Besides what depth of obligation am I supposed to give the personal interests of someone willing to muck up the conceits of something established for their OWN purposes? No more than anyone here is supposed to agree to seeing Asian Gnomes as Kings of Cormyr. I have YET to see a single person ratify that. Why do you think that is, jhkim, my fellow half-Asian? Why do you think that is Asian Gnomes can't be kings of Cormyr? What are they saying by not saying that? /sarcasm off

Quote from: jhkim;1109670I have no idea of the true reasons why either Yanseldara/Hawklyn or the gnomes were created. And I don't feel I have to know.

That's RIGHT. You don't know, I don't know. But the presentation is enough for us to decide AT the table without someone having decided FOR US.

Quote from: jhkim;1109670What matters to me is how well the module plays. I'm still waiting to hear from my son about how well that part of the adventure went. I only know Yanseldara and Hawklyn through mentions -- and I know they are in the novel "The Veiled Dragon". Are they featured in an adventure module?

They're not mentioned heavily anywhere in modules - they're just a blurb with inferences in the regional writeup. Not sure about the novel. I read the module (a friends copy) - it's

Quote from: Spinachcat;1109745It's a purity test. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
You either nod with the SJW choir, stay silent, or dissent and get labeled a bigot for not chowing down on the pandering.

Well I still have my tattered POC-card (Asian flavored... which means dick in the SJW world... but it's what I got), and clearly as Mistwell's posts indicate - I'm a homophobe for being on the thread pointing out the pandering... So I guess I'm in good company.

but it would make him a racist since I'm an oppressed minority... and he's oppressing me. Shit that makes me a transphobe... because I may have misgendered him... shit I did it again. This Intersectionality shit is hell on communication.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1109745It IS too much to ask from WotC, Paizo, Monte Cook, Green Ronin or any other company dedicated to shoving their "ideological drivel" into the products.

But fortunately, we have HUNDREDS (maybe thousands) of other RPG games to support.

Yep. That's why none of this really bothers me. I'm only speaking on the topic of the thread. All of those companies lost my support years ago, and it is all unnecessary.

Oh well - my moneys go elsewhere.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1109763Me, I'll just buy what I find appealing and accept that it might have some icky stuff in it or be made by people with politics different from mine. Again, this applies to both games and food equally in my eyes.

Yes, this is my attitude.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1109756I don't give a damn if you and I agree on anything ever, but I want a hobby where you and I can sit down together, make believe we're magical elves, toss dice and eat Cheetos, if only for a few happy hours at a convention without real world politics intruding in any manner.  

I can't speak for every game table, but fun players (regardless of other characteristics) were always welcome to my table and every table I've played at. I've met plenty of bad GMs and a few asshole GMs, but none who said "Not You!" to any player because of their sex junk or where they wanted to put their sex junk.  

And, again for the record, I don't want ANY politics in my RPGs. Zero. Nada. None. I spat at TSR for pandering to the Satanic Panic in 2e and caving into the Mommy Brigade in the 80s. That was utterly retarded. Just like WotC today.

I would prefer that people of different political views be able to sit at the game table together and play. But for me, that means accepting that not everything will be done exactly the way you do it. So liberal players don't cry about sexism or racism in another person's game -- and also that conservative players don't cry about tokenism or virtue signaling in another person's game.

If someone likes D&D2e material, I'll play in that game and not spit at them or otherwise complain. I'll play and try to have fun. Maybe it won't be to my taste, but I'll give it a fair shot.

For some people, the inclusion of minorities is not a political act; it's just reflecting the world that they see.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1109851For some people, the inclusion of minorities is not a political act; it's just reflecting the world that they see.

Or... you know... politically convenient to be excluded. The world they see is quite clear: it's the internal bubble of their minds wracked with self-loathing and guilt over shit that only exists there, and they demand everyone else kowtow to it. Or else.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1109851For some people, the inclusion of minorities is not a political act; it's just reflecting the world that they see.

*rolls eyes*

Quote from: jhkim;1109844Yes, this is my attitude.


I would prefer that people of different political views be able to sit at the game table together and play. But for me, that means accepting that not everything will be done exactly the way you do it. So liberal players don't cry about sexism or racism in another person's game -- and also that conservative players don't cry about tokenism or virtue signaling in another person's game.

If someone likes D&D2e material, I'll play in that game and not spit at them or otherwise complain. I'll play and try to have fun. Maybe it won't be to my taste, but I'll give it a fair shot.

So why not have the Woke zealots make their Woke settings and win people over with their good works? Why co-opt other established settings if they already derisively feel it's too "white, patriarchal, and sexist"? You know why - it's for petty "revenge" against people that won't buy into their own belittling sexist, racist views they hold over minorities and whomever they can co-opt into their weird little Alphabet Oppression Hierarchy which only exists to pad their numbers. It's not like any of these people have *anything* in common with one another aside from the Oppression Narrative.

Edit: But many of us already know the answer to this... I just like hearing other people say it but continue to refuse to acknowledge it.