Again, I think the whole topic about "gays" in RPG's is not the real issue. I don't even think it's something we're really debating. No one is saying there shouldn't/can't be gay representation in RPGS. It's an issue because it's one of many fake issues used to drive the narrative SJW's use to paint their ideological enemies with that they have invented.

You have those that have bought into this ideology as it preys on people's internal guilt. The means by which they seek to ameliorate the problem is rather grotesque to me. Because by them fighting for "social justice" it is an tacit *affirmation* by mostly white leftists that these groups they use to box people into as victims are in fact victims that need the SJW's to "fight back".

I find it grotesque because it is, itself,  they condescend to label everyone that isn't a cis-white-male into some camp of victimhood where they claim any form of agency of those people they're trying to "save". This is the "soft bigotry of low expectations."

This is an ideology that has all the hallmarks of the worst parts of western theological practices contextually used to reinforce its own narratives.

Original Sin - White Privilege. Everyone is assumed to be racist/homophobic/mysogynist due to your culture. Evil white colonialist, patriarchal culture. This also goes well with the guilt-complex that you see in western religious traditions. Only now you know why: your evil ancestors.

Conditional Salvation - Woke! You too can be saved, if you're woke! Get woke. You just need to realize you've been victimized or your Privilege is what needs to be leveraged to save all the other victims.

Moral Superiority - Actions, thoughts and words that defy the ideology are evil. Even if they don't hurt anyone. This comes with a host of ecclesiastical rules where if you're Woke then you're *better* than those who aren't. And the irony of this is it says nothing of the fact that if you're White and woke, it puts you, still, on superior footing than us poor people of color who will always be suffering as slobbery victims to the white patriarchal majority. And hey! They're Social Justice Warriors - they're fighting for Justice like an evil Paladin that think's they're good and don't realize their powers come from Asmodeus... or the Golgothan.

Commandments - All women must be believed. White Male Privilege is Evil, Words are Violence, etc etc.

Rules for Confession - If you have a thought crime you need to confess your sins publicly for stepping over the line which could lead to Excommunication (see below). But the truth of course is whatever you confess to is never good enough, which goes back to the guilt in Original Sin. And if you're adopted by those outside of the ideology because you realize the ideology is bullshit, then you go straight to Excommunication and maybe even Apostasy.

Excommunication - If you disagree with the SJW narrative at all, you're censured and badmouthed on as many platforms they can muster, and no rules for decency are observed. Threats, attacks on friends, family, places of business, are fair game and encouraged.

Apostasy - Oh and if you were formerly a member of the SJW tribe... there is special poison for you. All swindling and behind the scenes chat-logs, and private interactions you had with your former cultists start getting leaked to everyone. It's made worse because there's a good chance they're more deeply connected to your private life than others, so it's easier.

and honestly - these people in this cult don't really care about people of color, nor do they care about women's issues, or anything else other than their ideology where they can use it to abuse those who don't believe, speak, feel or think as they do, and feel righteous as fuck about it. "Diversity" for them is merely a weapon to use to inject into everything in order to deconstruct it to flush out new prey. It's a means for them to feel like the "Chosen ones" and lord it over everyone else not of their cult.

So Sean Patrick Fannon is the latest witch to be burned at the stake.

Quote from: Thornhammer;1039626No big deal, mistakes like that are a diamond dozen.

I like that one. Nice!

Quote from: tenbones;1039636Again, I think the whole topic about "gays" in RPG's is not the real issue. I don't even think it's something we're really debating. No one is saying there shouldn't/can't be gay representation in RPGS. It's an issue because it's one of many fake issues used to drive the narrative SJW's use to paint their ideological enemies with that they have invented.

I think there is significant disagreement about having gay NPCs in D&D play. Some responses from this thread below show several differing views on the subject -

Quote from: Silas1066;1038602I think we have to remember that not everyone is down with homosexuality. Many people have an objection to it on either religious grounds (mainstream Christians and Muslims alike reject it), or ideological/philosophical. That doesn't mean they are out to persecute gays, or even deny them the ability to marry, but they aren't going to tacitly accept the gay lifestyle, and they don't feel any need to "include" something they object to in their activities.

A lot of people likewise believe that transgenderism is a mental health issue, not an identity issue. I'm not going to debate that here, but I will point out that LBG doesn't belong with "T" --those are different issues entirely, and have spoken with gay men that don't like the "T" to be included. Not all gays are leftist Democrats that embrace postmodernism, etc. Some are a lot more centrist or practical in their thinking.

So why is this important? Because gay issues are controversial, polarizing, and don't belong in a mainstream RPG game that has been traditionally directed towards teens and even younger kids. You can say I am being to rigid or conservative here, but that is what I think on this matter. It belongs outside the game.

Quote from: KingCheops;1038617Why not leave "core" D&D as devoid of sex and then open up the space through community/third party work?  How about a LGBTQ category on DM's Guild where you can see all the products that creators have flagged as LGBTQ in a quick to find category?  Let's see how big that market is.

LGBTQ doesn't want to pay "extra" to get their special butterfly content then make up some shit that they think is cool just like the fucking rest of us.

Quote from: John Scott;1038717From my personal experience most gay people are obsessed with sex to an unhealthy level just like mentally ill sexomaniac, so it's natural to them to seek sex in everything including rpgs.

Quote from: GameDaddyAfter some consideration, I can't think of any good reasons to overtly include sexual orientation in my RPGs, for the npcs, or making it excessively relevant as part of our fantasy RPGs, as it never really was relevant when I was younger, and we didn't discuss it much. There is actually very good reasons for keeping our fantasy worlds separate from the real world, not to protect the real world from our fantasies, but to protect our fantasies from the poisons and ills that are prevalent in the real world.

Quote from: NYTFLYR;1039322Right, as you say, its there in the title... its Dungeons and Dragons, not Butt-sex and Barbarians. In my 35 years of gaming I have never seen a player's or an NPC's sexual orientation come into play...

Quote from: Haffrung;1039634Of course they did. I'm not claiming otherwise. But it was rarely open. And other than monks, homosexuals still carried on with their social responsibilities to mate and raise a family. Want to ogle the young men at the agora and charm them into your bed? Fine. Whatever. You still have a wife at home to carry out the property and inheritance functions of marriage contracts, provide citizens for the city or king, and provide an heir to carry on the family prestige. How many senators, dukes, chiefs, or kings said "nah, I'm gonna pass on the whole marriage and family thing and live with Marcus here instead."

And that isn't just a Christian thing. Family - necessary for marriage alliances, the stable inheritance of property, generating labour, and carrying on family status - is central to pretty much every culture we know of. Some were more tolerant then Christian Europe of how you got your sexual kicks, but opting out of the basic unit of society was rarely an option.

Family is central, I agree, and was the norm - but it was never 100% of all people. People can and did opt out. In medieval Europe, this was often by being clergy, monk, or nun - but even aside from those, bachelors and spinsters existed. In other cultures, it is the same. Marriage is the most common lifestyle, but there were vestal virgins in Rome, winkte in Lakota, and so forth. And, of course, it isn't necessary for gays to opt out of family. Cultures like the ancient Greeks had open homosexual relationships in combination with marriage and raising a family.

Quote from: tenbones;1039636This is an ideology that has all the hallmarks of the worst parts of western theological practices contextually used to reinforce its own narratives.

Pretty much. And I don't think it's a coincidence that it's most ardent champions come from the most religious country in the West.

To bring this back to D&D, where did we see the Christian fundamentalist backlash against D&D in the 80s? In the USA. And where have we seen identarian zealots carry out a cultural coup against D&D's "toxic white masculinity?" In the USA. Purity crusades, shaming, conformity, moral panics. It must be something in the water down there.

Quote from: tenbones;1039636Again, I think the whole topic about "gays" in RPG's is not the real issue. I don't even think it's something we're really debating. No one is saying there shouldn't/can't be gay representation in RPGS. It's an issue because it's one of many fake issues used to drive the narrative SJW's use to paint their ideological enemies with that they have invented.

"Representation" is another word that's been poisioned to me. Does a gay character in a module represent conservative gays? Or black gays? Or flaming queers? Or, or, or...

Quote from: Haffrung;1039646Pretty much. And I don't think it's a coincidence that it's most ardent champions come from the most religious country in the West.

To bring this back to D&D, where did we see the Christian fundamentalist backlash against D&D in the 80s? In the USA. And where have we seen identarian zealots carry out a cultural coup against D&D's "toxic white masculinity?" In the USA. Purity crusades, shaming, conformity, moral panics. It must be something in the water down there.

My guess, and it is only a guess, is it might seem more wide-spread in the US because we don't have the same Government mechanisms in place to do for the people. You're not going to be arrested and prosecuted for posting a rap lyric in the US as a "hate crime". We don't have a Canadian-like Human Rights Commission to use the force of law to force proper gender pronouns. But hey, at least they have self-reflective newspapers to talk about the evils of white privilege. Remember, don't judge folks based on their race or ethnicity... unless they are white and especially male.

Quote from: NYTFLYR;1039393Drop Dead Gorgeous is a trait, like lock-picking, its not Bob the barbarian has a secret fetish where he dreams of bubble-baths being administered by well oiled teen male halflings wearing studded leather thongs. that is nothing more than the author projecting how they want you to run your game. with the example "She is Dick Rentsch's lover", that makes it a tidbit of information that the GM could work in if he wanted to, but unless its actually part of the information needed for the game its unnecessary, I mean why should we care that she is his lover?

Nobody in the games I've played cared who was bedding who (or what). if that's important to your game, go right ahead, but that's it, its YOUR game, you shouldn't have to have every finite unrelated tidbit of information written out for you, unless you have the imagination of a snail....

You miss a few points then.

A: Its a bit of clarification on the characters. They arent just partners working together. They are lovers.
B: This could become more relevant to the DM or players by various means. It could be something the players can exploit at some point. Or it could give the GM the idea that if one of the pair is killed the other might flip out or plot serious vengance on the PCs if he or she escapes. One little sentance allows all that.
C: This is stuff for the DM to ponder and is a tiny example of world in motion type play. Similar to that room in Keep on the Borderlands where the two orc chiefs are meeting secretly.

Quote from: tenbones;1039636So Sean Patrick Fannon is the latest witch to be burned at the stake.

We had no choice. He weighs the same as a duck!

[video=youtube;zrzMhU_4m-g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g[/youtube]

Quote from: jhkimPersonally, I care about the results, not about their motives. If they signal a bunch but also write a good adventure, then I don't care.

Quote from: tenbones;1039590Are they, in fact doing that? I'm asking because I don't actually know. Like many older gamers, I don't really do modules. But when I see them adding content into rulebooks or settings that fly in the face of what I consider traditional, I'm pretty much out. Especially if those things are blatant attempts at pushing an ideology that is extraneous to the setting or game.

Otherwise I totally agree. I think there is a way to thread the needle. But you don't do it with a jackhammer.

I don't own any D&D modules that include homosexual characters, though there is one mention in a setting book I have (see below). I have Blue Rose, plus some modern RPGs like Cyberpunk. Even if there exist some badly-written modules with homosexual characters, though, that doesn't prove that it's wrong to have such characters. It just says that they should be better written.

What I'm curious about, though, is the part I bolded above. What does that mean?

So, let's take the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book. In its 3rd edition, it has an entry,

QuoteElversult is the least Dragon Coast-ish city on the Dragon Coast. Its present ruler, a former adventurer named Yanseldara (NG female human Ftr11/Sor8) led a brilliant rebellion against the previous necromantic regime. Centuries of smuggling and intrigue cannot be undone in a decade, but those seeking dishonest deals now think twice before taking their business to Yanseldara's city, particularly since she leaves law enforcement to her consort and adventuring companion, Vaerana Hawklyn (CG female human Rgr20 of Mielikki).

Do you feel that this flies in the face of what you consider traditional?

Quote from: jhkim;1039594My solution is ignore it, because it's not a real problem.

Motorskills seems not to agree with you. Perhaps you have something to discuss.

Quote from: jhkim;1039594The gaming world is not, in fact, overrun with gay police who are forcing publishers to put gay characters in every module, and forcing GMs to include gay characters or suffer.

I never suggested it was.

Quote from: jhkim;1039594The oppressed group you're protecting is GMs who are not homophobic, but who are facing false accusations of homophobia solely because they ran a module written with a gay NPC and changed that NPC to not being gay

Actually I just wanted to avoid that situation altogether. Why would one not not wish to avoid this?

Quote from: jhkim;1039594- let alone that we should change the standards of all module-writing to help them.

That's not what I suggested at all. My suggestion would require less than a paragraph in the appendix or a sidebar.

There is a practical side to this that I think is ... not exactly being missed (especially by tenbones), but it's being circled rather than pinned to the wall:  With all kinds of things that are irrelevant to a particular user, the questions are, how easy is it to ignore, and how easy from the presentation do they think it will be to ignore?

I'll use me as an example.  I'm just not all that interested in any sexuality in my gaming material, as presented by any writer that I know of, because frankly they lack the subtlety and ambiguity that I'm going to use when using such material--or are writing in something that I'm not interested in for other reasons, so unaware of.  So anything like that (e.g. heterosexual, homosexual, cross-species elf/dragon sexual, "close friends" as euphemism, etc.) is going to be changed by me anyway.  And to use a related thing, I feel exactly the same way about "weird magic tech" in my games.  I'm aware that other people like it.  I can understand why some of it gets in the game.  But it just isn't for me.

I'm a grown adult that can discern what works for me and what doesn't.  I can tolerate things that aren't so useful to me, in order to get at other, more useful material.  So that's the practical question of how much of the material is useful and how much isn't and how easy it is to ignore what isn't.  It's a business decision, related to the signal to noise ratio for my purposes.

Now, given that context, if you start a big marketing push about how your game material is all about "weird magic tech," then I'll take you at your word.  Your product isn't for me.  I don't even need to check it out more.  I'll be a little more skeptical about a marketing push that is more targeted to my wants, but usually you can trust people when they say they carefully built something to not appeal to you.  About the only thing that will convince me otherwise at that point is a bunch of reviews that indicate that the material is substantially different (in a good way to me) than what the marketing push says.  

I suspect a lot of people feel exactly the same way about the sexuality aspects (whatever they are).  OK, you say the game is all about X?  Fine, I believe you.  I hope you did a great job, and the people interested in that sort of thing enjoy it.  And I'll keep on feeling that way right up until the moment that I sense that someone is trying to ensure that, "I'm being made to care."  Then I'm not interested in any products by said person any longer.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1039691We had no choice. He weighs the same as a duck!

Heh.  That's one big duck.  It must have been eating the twinkie from Ghostbusters.

Quote from: jcfiala;1039724Heh.  That's one big duck.  It must have been eating the twinkie from Ghostbusters.

That's a big Twinkie.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1039721I suspect a lot of people feel exactly the same way about the sexuality aspects (whatever they are).  OK, you say the game is all about X?  Fine, I believe you.  I hope you did a great job, and the people interested in that sort of thing enjoy it.  And I'll keep on feeling that way right up until the moment that I sense that someone is trying to ensure that, "I'm being made to care."  Then I'm not interested in any products by said person any longer.

Steven - I almost never read marketing material.  I'll read reviews for stuff that I'm interested in.  Is there marketing material that says some game is all about sexuality that you're referring to here?