Quote from: Libertad;1110137All you nerds overanalyzing WotC's decision in Faerun of all settings need to read up on yer Reamslore. Ed Greenwood's original campaign had a lot more sexually liberal social mores all over the place (non-monogamous families, legalized sex work, homophobia being rare to the point of nonexistence, etc)

Yeah, I'm well aware of that. I always applied a kind of liberal 1980s sensibility to my FR, though I probably toned down some stuff like polyamory compared to Ed's version. I certainly never ran it as Real Medieval Land. In my Loudwater FR campaign, when 2 homosexual couples (1 gay, 1 lesbian, 3 of the 4 being 'official' NPCs) came out at the Midsummer Ball ca 2012 IRL, everyone applauded more or less enthusiastically and thought they were Stunning & Brave (TM). There was never any question of the couples being legally 'married', though.

Quote from: jhkim;1109995Inserting historical assumptions that clash with previously-established material about the Realms would be revisionist. Personally, I'd prefer that such revisionism be done in an explicit reboot. Or just work with a more historically accurate setting like Harn, rather than trying to change the Realms.

This is commensurate with the intent and presentation of that material in the setting. Comparing the Realms then, to now, taking into account all the permutations of insertions of various stuff - some good, some horrible, is a sketchy affair. Which is why I default to Greybox+2e.

Quote from: jhkim;1109995It's not about current politics, but rather about the established setting. I think it's fair to say that as established in the 1980s and 1990s, the Forgotten Realms had a trend of modernism where they more reflect the social values of the authors rather than medieval values. But that's how the setting was created, so it's the truth in that world. If you don't like how Ed Greenwood created the Realms, then fine -- you're free to change it at your own table. But the original books as published don't have historically accurate medieval attitudes.

I disagree a bit. Today it's less about the setting than it is about politics. I mean - the whole point of many of the threads around here is evidence of that. A lot of people do not agree with 1) the assertions of modern Woke politics 2) do not agree with their presentation in D&D - or do not want them at all.

I'd submit the conceits of Greybox Realms as big sandbox. There are no analogs to the political state of the time circa late-80's that inform the setting. No more than any evidence of the Realms prior to publication as an official setting can you find any real-world political intents in the pages of Dragon Magazine where it first appeared - regardless of whether editorial removed it, or Greenwood intended it. What emerged is what was consumed and ingested by the populace.

It would be like Christopher Tolkien writing more Middle-Earth material and saying Gandalf and Saruman were lovers, and his father always intended that. And that he had a discussion with his father who privately admitted that Mordor was really inspired by Franco Spain... and Southron's were really Hispanics.

Yeah - that's not what the world thinks of with Lord of the Rings. More to the point, those desires, however personal to their creator, adds *nothing* to the setting. The meal has been cooked, presented, and dined upon and ingested. You don't get to force-feed extra ingredients after the fact and expect *everyone* to accept it. If you'll permit me to extend the analogy - This doesn't mean you don't get to re-serve the dish with new flourishes or ideas (new editions). But it doesn't mean that it's qualitatively good either.

It's all in the crafting. So with the presentation of Woke Politics into D&D - for many it's like pairing Jello-Brand Gelatin with Wagyu steak. It's discordant. Unnecessary. And just like there are ghetto-ass people that think Kool-Aid and Spam is wtf-delicious (me), you trying to rebrand it as "Fine Dining" flies in the face of reality.

Worse: castigating people for disagreeing all while trampling on the meal - it's like hiring McDonald's fry-cooks to go into a Michelin-starred restaurant and demanding the customers treat the ghetto-meal they're served with the same credence they would if Eric Ripert cooked it on pain of censure or worse.

Quote from: jhkim;1109995Not all setting are or need to be historically realistic. I enjoy playing in historical settings and in some more grounded settings like Harn. But I also enjoy playing in non-historical settings like Narnia or Diskworld.

And even in Narnia and Diskworld there are *social norms* of Eurocentric fantasy well established. You may not like it. But then you shouldn't consume what you don't like. That's the whole point of the subversion - to re-purpose established properties for ulterior purposes, however benignly intended... (which I believe is rare - given the insane levels of virtue signalling and gaslighting of people on the left) when rejected becomes the excuse to reveal the real ideological desire for EXCLUSION. Erring on the side of special-interest - be they me calling for Asian Gnomes, is stupid. That's why I keep saying it. It's an outlier to the conceits of what is already established.

You change it at your peril. And no one is obligated to *like* what you like. And just because someone doesn't like your outlier thing - Asian Gnomes for example - doesn't really mean they hate them. Yet people on the Left that have invaded all our favorite pastimes have become the useful idiots for people with darker agendas beyond just this. Entitlement to ones pet-ideology does not make for good gaming.

WE all are the casualties of this insipid mode of thinking.

Quote from: jhkim;1109995If you want to make your case for what attitudes towards gay couples should be in the Realms, then please offer them -- but the case should be judged on how well it fits with previously established material.

*I* don't care about gay couples in my games. I care about people doing interesting things that will be of interest to my games. I don't need or require publishers deciding those things for me. I don't require Asian representation - and I'm Asian. But if you're going to DO it... do it GOOD. Don't reskin the fucking King of Cormyr to be Asian just to pander to me.

And there is a reason why you don't see Kara-Tur products on the market for Forgotten Realms - it DOESN'T SELL. It doesn't mean that people are racist. There's a lot of people that love Kara-Tur (I think the boxset is one of the best things TSR ever put out - hats off to Mike Pondsmith for writing it). But it's an outlier culture to the mainstream market of consumers. That's reality. Same with Al-Qadim - something dear to my heart (which I wrote material for). Al-Qadim, if I'm going to be brutally honest - might be better than Kara-Tur. Tough call. It DIDN'T SELL.

Those were honest attempts at creating actually diversity of culture in D&D. They were extremely high-quality in their attempts for what they were. But they largely weren't sustainable (and we can discuss the manifold reasons for that - racism would probably not even make the list).

Today? It's nothing but pandering. Before you ask me how "attitudes" should be reflected in the Realms - one has to explain to me WHY IT SHOULD MATTER IN PUBLICATION over what you can do at your own table?

If I want Asian Gnomes in my game - I can populate the world to my heart's content with Asian Gnomes. Gay Asian Gnomes. Trans-Dragon Furries. Whatever I want.

IF these ideas had value - why can't you create a new setting where we could see all these Woke ideas in *practice*. Honestly - what do these worlds look like? I'll warrant the answer is already well known - Blue Rose wasn't a huge seller, and that was about as honest as a shot at this as there's been. And I'll put up Kara-Tur and Al-Qadim against any Woke-inspired setting *any* day... but the results will be the same...

The goal here is not sustainability - it's political pandering and retribution by petty selfish people that put their own interests ahead of the material. This transcends just gaming... Look around.

Quote from: Mistwell;1110015Ohhhh. Here I was bothering to respond to you, and had been typing a response to your full post. But now I get it. You're just like one of those internet RPG kids who read books and talk about them and pretend that makes them part of the game. I see now - you don't actually buy and play the thing we're discussing anyway. So it's all just white room theory to you. You're just the right-leaning Internet warrior version of all those left-leaning SJW Internet warriors who also don't play the stuff they complain about. All you care about is ideas and motives because there IS NO ACTUAL PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE for you involved in this topic.

It all becomes clear now.

Enjoy your Critical Role fandom, tenbones. Or don't. What do I care - you're not actually a player of the RPG material we're discussing so why would I even care what you think about it in theory?

This is the most meta-nonsensical retarded response yet. Keep'em flying.

Quote from: Omega;1110067Since I run most of my campaigns and adventures in a offshoot of Karameikos/Known World. Gnomes are not a PC race normally unless the players make an effort to open up talks and trade with them.

Well now you're on the radar for not being Gnome-inclusive as a default. The next step is in weighing and measuring *how* much diversity *actually* exists in your alleged Karameikos/Known World game... you know... because those settings were created by CIS-White-Men.

The Inquisition is watching you now.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1110111WASP makes the best Christian rock!

Ahh Blackie... there was a point where all I ever wanted was to wear a codpiece with a rip-saw blade in it. Then I "grew up". Now, I'm an old man and all I want is to strut around with a cod-piece with a rip-saw blade jutting out of it. Everything is cyclical.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1110111Because you're one of the coloreds! You have a "POC force field" against SJW criticism. [OMG, 2019 is so insane. I've written more WTF sentences this year than in the last decade.]

It's why I always advocate for "big tents" because sometimes you need an Asian Gnome Cannibal to kick some ass.

Yeah! I have magical moral authoritarial wisdom that stems from the epicanthic folds of my eyes, the pigmentation of my skin, and the ninja-like reflexes and Confucian wisdom mixed with heightened math-skills coded into my DNA that automatically enables me to be better than mere CIS-White Men, who are POC-card deficient.

Although I admit... the Asian POC-card is pretty low in the Woke Oppression Stack... I've heard it's going to be removed from it altogether soon. Soon Asians won't be a race... we'll be this odd looking brand of White Male. Off-White Male.

Quote from: Libertad;1110137All you nerds overanalyzing WotC's decision in Faerun of all settings need to read up on yer Reamslore. Ed Greenwood's original campaign had a lot more sexually liberal social mores all over the place (non-monogamous families, legalized sex work, homophobia being rare to the point of nonexistence, etc) but TSR sensors at the time reigned in some of these things. Like brothels being renamed festhalls.

He's made some responses on the matter even back in pre-5e days, like lesbian dating circles using steel roses as a signifier of sexuality.

Quote from: tenbones;1110168There are no analogs to the political state of the time circa late-80's that inform the setting. No more than any evidence of the Realms prior to publication as an official setting can you find any real-world political intents in the pages of Dragon Magazine where it first appeared - regardless of whether editorial removed it, or Greenwood intended it. What emerged is what was consumed and ingested by the populace.

It would be like Christopher Tolkien writing more Middle-Earth material and saying Gandalf and Saruman were lovers, and his father always intended that. And that he had a discussion with his father who privately admitted that Mordor was really inspired by Franco Spain... and Southron's were really Hispanics.

Yeah - that's not what the world thinks of with Lord of the Rings.

I think the closer parallel would be J.R.R. Tolkien himself still being alive, and truthfully saying that editors censored his version of Middle Earth. By parallel, you're insisting that the censored Middle Earth is the "real" version -- that any new publishing should conform to 1980s censorship standards because that's what people are used to, and anyone who doesn't want to conform to 1980s censorship is revisionist and injecting politics.

I think this is exactly backwards. I believe that wanting to impose 1980s censorship standards is a politically-motivated imposition on the fantasy world.

If some other 1980s writer had canonically written in that gay couples were discriminated against in the Realms, then you could argue that it was an established truth about the world. But instead, the censors just took out any mentions of gayness one way or the other. With that as a void, I think the most consistent way forward is the lack of prejudice that Greenwood intended. I don't think that sticking to 1980s censorship standards is required in order to be true to the setting as written.

D&D publishes a module with a minority: Conservative snowflakes are triggered and lose their shit because SWMs are under attack and are being oppressed.

D&D publishes a module without any minorities: Liberal snowflakes are triggered and lose their shit because minorities are under attack and are being oppressed.

*yawn*

Quote from: Mistwell;1110015Ohhhh. Here I was bothering to respond to you, and had been typing a response to your full post. But now I get it. You're just like one of those internet RPG kids who read books and talk about them and pretend that makes them part of the game. I see now - you don't actually buy and play the thing we're discussing anyway. So it's all just white room theory to you. You're just the right-leaning Internet warrior version of all those left-leaning SJW Internet warriors who also don't play the stuff they complain about. All you care about is ideas and motives because there IS NO ACTUAL PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE for you involved in this topic.

It all becomes clear now.

Enjoy your Critical Role fandom, tenbones. Or don't. What do I care - you're not actually a player of the RPG material we're discussing so why would I even care what you think about it in theory?

WTBF, so someone has to run modules to be an RPG player and to have an opinion on these issues? Well, I ran "Keep on the Borderlands" back when it came out. Therefore, I have a right to an opinion and I think your idea here is full of shit. In my opinion, running modules is a step on the way to setting up your own setting and running your own adventures. Sure, I have read some modules and mined them for ideas but I only ran the one.  Other people love modules and that's ok too but it does not mean that they have more of a right to an opinion.

Quote from: jhkim;1110202I think the closer parallel would be J.R.R. Tolkien himself still being alive, and truthfully saying that editors censored his version of Middle Earth. By parallel, you're insisting that the censored Middle Earth is the "real" version -- that any new publishing should conform to 1980s censorship standards because that's what people are used to, and anyone who doesn't want to conform to 1980s censorship is revisionist and injecting politics.

But that's just it - *editorial* matters. This is why I keep drawing the distinction between publication and what you do at the table. Publication is for mass-consumption. You're selling a product. The moment you politicize it - you're immediately being exclusionary. And worse - unless the product is designed to be political in its consumption, then you're putting those politics ahead of the product itself.

I need a /random table roll - a Cereal-Bowl. Not a Gay Cereal Bowl. Or a Nazi Cereal Bowl.

It's not "censorship standards" to market to the broadest appeal for the given culture. The insertion of extraneous shit for the purposes of virtue-signalling happens at the expense of the product. As Michael Jordan has said with great wisdom - "Republican's wear Nikes too."

That people demand their individual interests be "represented" - is fine. The question is "in what manner?" If you're going to repurpose something for special interests - it is stupid to think your special interests aren't niche, which by definition they are. Does this mean you can't introduce those things? Not at all. But you have to do it in a way that makes sense for the purposes of publication and consumption.

Putting chocolate chips in vanilla ice-cream doesn't keep the flavor "vanilla". Nor does removing chocolate chips from the ice-cream make it suddenly "vanilla" either. Consumers buy what they are interested in.<--- see that?

You don't get to force people to be interested in stuff they don't want. THAT is the point. LGBT, race, colonialism and all the favorite topics of the Woke are *not* what D&D is about. If it were - we wouldn't be having this discussion. WotC is putting their ideology ahead of their product. The irritating thing is they're doing it like Marvel is doing it: they're using the years of cache the brand has built up, rather than creating their vision whole of cloth and trying to insert their ideas peacemeal into those established works. The quality of such attempts has been atrocious. I'll grant that WotC has been nowhere near as bad as Marvel in terms of the product, but in terms of social media? They're pretty much in lockstep.

Quote from: jhkim;1110202I think this is exactly backwards. I believe that wanting to impose 1980s censorship standards is a politically-motivated imposition on the fantasy world.

Then you should be able to clearly illustrate HOW obliged am I to be interested in your pet-issues? Editing standards when done correctly are for the benefit of the product. I know because I help my wife with it every single day. Unless you're telling me that you believe D&D exists as a marketing tool for Woke Ideology... you then need to be able to explain *why* I should be okay with it and why I should monetarily support and consume it? And can you do so without calling me a bigot?

Quote from: jhkim;1110202If some other 1980s writer had canonically written in that gay couples were discriminated against in the Realms, then you could argue that it was an established truth about the world.

Or they can do as they DID - and not say anything and leave such conflicts to be used at the table as the GM sees fit? Otherwise you have unspoken claims about the purposes of depictions of *anything* without explicit instructions from the authority of the authors. That is a *horrible* way to game. Your litmus test to your own assertion would be: What if they did say that gay couples were discriminated against? Do you think that would have been censored away by those dreaded 80's Editorial Censors? Or what if they said gay couples could only be shown in a positive light? Would that be okay with you? Does it imply that something is being put in front of the game itself?

What else can we extrapolate with your logic? Coprofilia- eating of shit, IS in the game. Otyughs eat "waste". So by extension can we now make that a thing so we have shit-eating positivism represented? Sounds silly and stupid - but in the 1980's no one thought we'd be having these kinds of demands today either. The exclusion of the norm and the degree to which people pretend to be outraged over it and *exclusionary* is the troubling thing. Hell this site exists because of that phenomenon.

There are reasons why homosexuality is treated differently historically, much like being left-handed, or being from another culture, or appearing differently. It's not a castigation to pretend there isn't cultural norms or preferences. But you don't get to club people over the head for not being into "your thing" if all they wanna do is play elf-games their way. If you want to change those opinions - well that's on you to stick the landing. That's not happening because the reality is they're not really trying to sell people on these ideas. They're slap-dashing them in there free of context and demanding we like it. Or else.

Quote from: jhkim;1110202But instead, the censors just took out any mentions of gayness one way or the other. With that as a void, I think the most consistent way forward is the lack of prejudice that Greenwood intended. I don't think that sticking to 1980s censorship standards is required in order to be true to the setting as written.

Then create the setting that SHOWS that. Don't insert it into something already accepted and established and do it in a half-ass manner and then get angry that people don't like it.

SELL YOUR IDEAS. If it's good. It'll be accepted. If it's not. It won't. NO one is obliged to buy into another person's issues or desires.

The irony here is that the Book of Erotic Fantasy and the Book of Unlawful Carnal Knowledge handled this so much better. BoUCN included sections on how to integrate sexual minorities for those who cared for such things.

I think the cries of better representation are selective. D&D has never done heterosexual representation well, so why would you expect them to do homosexual representation any better? Seriously, when was the last time you played an adventure with a memorable heterosexual relationship that didn't involve extraneous melodrama like interspecies relations, arranged marriage, implied rape, or becoming pregnant with the antichrist?

WotC can't write relationships, so they shouldn't try. It makes the most sense to simply describe all NPCs as gender neutral if it isn't relevant to the plot and allow the GM to decide their sex/gender/orientation as desired.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1110258I think the cries of better representation are selective. D&D has never done heterosexual representation well, so why would you expect them to do homosexual representation any better? Seriously, when was the last time you played an adventure with a memorable heterosexual relationship that didn't involve extraneous melodrama like interspecies relations, arranged marriage, implied rape, or becoming pregnant with the antichrist?

D&D isn't a relationship drama. The only time someone's sexuality comes up is because it's an implied part of the background (peasant man and peasant woman live in the same house, they have kids, there might or might not be a "husband" or "wife" reference somewhere), or because it's part of a usually clumsy plot point, or there's a light reference to someone's magical realm (festhalls, all those Charisma 16-18 bar wenches, etc.).

It's just not important. That's why attempts at "representation" stand out, because they're explicitly highlighting something the rest of the game almost completely ignores.

Quote from: Pat;1110260all those Charisma 16-18 bar wenches

That does sound like my magical realm ...and my local pub. :cool:

Quote from: S'mon;1110296That does sound like my magical realm ...and my local pub. :cool:

:mad: I'm not jealous. I'm not.

Quote from: tenbones;1110170Well now you're on the radar for not being Gnome-inclusive as a default. The next step is in weighing and measuring *how* much diversity *actually* exists in your alleged Karameikos/Known World game... you know... because those settings were created by CIS-White-Men.

The Inquisition is watching you now.

In mine gnomes are red skinned as I based them off of local legends of the "little people" that have been passed down. Years later TSR does the Atruaghin gazeteer for Mystara and it is native american & aztec/mayan themed. Great illustrations in that by Fabian by the way. His and Tim Trueman's NA depictions actually look NA.

Quote from: Kael;1110216D&D publishes a module with a minority: Liberal snowflakes are triggered and lose their shit because minorities are under attack and are being oppressed.

D&D publishes a module without any minorities: Liberal snowflakes are triggered and lose their shit because minorities are under attack and are being oppressed.

Fixed that for you. :cool: