TheRPGSite

This is really the newest #dnd5e woke subclass, not a parody. Though I guess you could say WoTC's game is becoming a Parody of #dnd itself.

(https://i.imgur.com/b0bb0xt.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/hFpm666.png)

The creator of the Chronic Fatigue Barbarian, is simply making fun of D&D.

Perhaps covertly, but they are still doing so.

"Hey, you know what we need in D&D?  A Chronic Fatigue Barbarian!!!"

One certainly hopes so because it's downright sad if it is meant either as an actual cynical social/cultural hack that will change the world and contribute to bringing about a new post-stimuli simulacrum that will bind up ever mind and serve as a new baseline for normality or was the earnest product of a deranged tortured homunculus mind that can only be related to most other minds via seeing it as a parody, grotesque, and/or travesty. 

But if WOTC actually falls for that crap, shame on them for being so stupid.

If you intimidate the editor you can sell them crap. If you intimidate the editor's boss because they might be called a bigot if they push the editor to not buy crap then you can't be fired unless maybe you attempt homicide or steal money and leave a trail. That seems to be the play. You get your weirdos in the chain as a concession as part of a shakedown, you get them immunity from performance metrics and then they will use the company to produce propaganda drek and attack the customers. That's how it worked at Marvel and DC anyway.

OK, I haven't seen the video, but as far as I can see, this is a free writeup that someone put on their Google Drive -- and you're calling that a "real" class? That's not even third party published - and commercial published works have classes ranging from the clown to the pest controller to the ghetto fighter and mouseburglar.

But I guess the point is to get all outraged that such a thing could appear anywhere.

This is absurd, cringey and hurts my soul.  I wonder what the typical player confined to a wheelchair would like to play - do they want to see themselves expressed in the world as they are or do they want to play someone that doesn't share their burden?  If the latter I'd find a way to let them play themselves at the table without injecting a crude anachronism into the world.  I'd like to think in a world soaking in magic there are better options than a wheelchair.  Wizard with Tenser's Disc so well-practiced that it's a cantrip for them? Go for it.  And yup I'd anti-magic zone their behind at some point and put them in a situation where they had to move fast, forcing them to improvise some solution.  As Pundit said, dealing with your disadvantage is cool and interesting.  Pretending it doesn't exist when it plainly does, is not.

Good video, although I can't shake the suspicion there is some Uruguayan equivalent of April Fools' Day going on...

It nailed the central idea of the SJWs - to achieve equality of outcomes through collective, socially-enforced effort.

Possibly getting well beyond elfgames is the question of motive. I'm sure plenty of rank and file SJWs genuinely want to try and make things better for people who seem to have had a rough deal one way or another.

What people who think like this rarely seem to realise until it's too late is that some actual individuals need to decide what form the socially-enforced effort should take and do the enforcing. And human nature is such that those people inevitably end up using their power to entrench themselves in power (or they get pushed aside by others who will). Refer to every single leftist revolution ever.

The truly scary thing about the SJWs to me is that they are out to destroy the ideas we could use to call out the abuses when they happen. Even Stalin and Hitler didn't manage that. They pretended the bad stuff wasn't happening, or they argued it was necessary for some higher purpose. They didn't quite manage to abolish the notion of right and wrong. The SJW says, you are not even allowed to describe what I am doing as bad because your opinion, and in a way your whole existence, is illegitimate because of your privilege. And that, as they say, is some next-level shit.

I'm sure the bulk of SJWs are just well-intentioned and misguided. But without going full-on tinfoil hat, I am sure there are plenty of SJWs who know exactly what they are doing and what they could get out of it.

Quote from: jhkim on September 03, 2021, 02:12:26 AM
OK, I haven't seen the video, but as far as I can see, this is a free writeup that someone put on their Google Drive -- and you're calling that a "real" class? That's not even third party published - and commercial published works have classes ranging from the clown to the pest controller to the ghetto fighter and mouseburglar.

But I guess the point is to get all outraged that such a thing could appear anywhere.

Fuck off with your usual limp dick defense.

Quote from: jhkim on September 03, 2021, 02:12:26 AM
OK, I haven't seen the video, but as far as I can see, this is a free writeup that someone put on their Google Drive -- and you're calling that a "real" class? That's not even third party published - and commercial published works have classes ranging from the clown to the pest controller to the ghetto fighter and mouseburglar.

But I guess the point is to get all outraged that such a thing could appear anywhere.

Agreed. This is some real Chicken Littling.

It's no less deserving of mockery. But if it's on piss take classes I like the Simp warlock or the Crackhead monk

Quote from: jhkim on September 03, 2021, 02:12:26 AM
OK, I haven't seen the video, but as far as I can see, this is a free writeup that someone put on their Google Drive -- and you're calling that a "real" class? That's not even third party published - and commercial published works have classes ranging from the clown to the pest controller to the ghetto fighter and mouseburglar.

But I guess the point is to get all outraged that such a thing could appear anywhere.

Given that this "someone" got their original wheelchair added to official D&D, what makes you think they won't do the same with the update, including the Chronic Fatigue Barbarian? Especially since if they don't now, the SJWs will accuse the WoTC of bigotry?

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 03, 2021, 10:13:38 AM

Quote from: jhkim on September 03, 2021, 02:12:26 AM
OK, I haven't seen the video, but as far as I can see, this is a free writeup that someone put on their Google Drive -- and you're calling that a "real" class? That's not even third party published - and commercial published works have classes ranging from the clown to the pest controller to the ghetto fighter and mouseburglar.

But I guess the point is to get all outraged that such a thing could appear anywhere.

Given that this "someone" got their original wheelchair added to official D&D, what makes you think they won't do the same with the update, including the Chronic Fatigue Barbarian? Especially since if they don't now, the SJWs will accuse the WoTC of bigotry?

If Thompson got her original combat wheelchair added to official D&D, then yes, I would be wrong. Can you give a link or reference that the original combat wheelchair was added to official D&D?

I don't know how many might remember, but back in the day TSR lawyers would go after anyone who put up fan made material in the bulletin board/early net days. It really stifled a lot of creativity. So anyone being able to post their content without having lawyers sicced on you is a good thing.

But the thing is, back then we mocked stupid stuff. The difference now is if you mock stupid stuff to you, you're judged and executed by the sjw's. Almost as worse are those who say, eh what's the big deal? Even more worrisome is here is WotC, the makers of one of the most popular iterations of the game, putting wheelchairs in everything. It's like WotC knows that they will be attacked or they are already infiltrated by the sjw's.

So yeah, I can tell any player that you can't play a wheelchair bound player, you can't play a centaur, you can't play an kenku, etc in my game. The difference I see now is the entitlement a seeming (notice I said seeming) majority of players have. Every time I post a type of game I want to gm I get no responses or a how come you're limiting stuff questions.

It's the main reason I run DCC now. Because the implied setting and with the core rulebook classes only sets the tone of my games.

What's up with the underwater tuba guy?

Quote from: Aglondir on September 03, 2021, 01:41:52 PM
What's up with the underwater tuba guy?

I kind of assumed that that is a dig at "sO rAnDoM!" characters and the people who claim that expecting any level of system mastery is gatekeeping.

The Chronic Fatigue Barbarian would make for a great villain in a comic book, supers game... He/She would be like an evil Professor Xavier.

Quote from: jhkim on September 03, 2021, 10:47:20 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 03, 2021, 10:13:38 AM

Quote from: jhkim on September 03, 2021, 02:12:26 AM
OK, I haven't seen the video, but as far as I can see, this is a free writeup that someone put on their Google Drive -- and you're calling that a "real" class? That's not even third party published - and commercial published works have classes ranging from the clown to the pest controller to the ghetto fighter and mouseburglar.

But I guess the point is to get all outraged that such a thing could appear anywhere.

Given that this "someone" got their original wheelchair added to official D&D, what makes you think they won't do the same with the update, including the Chronic Fatigue Barbarian? Especially since if they don't now, the SJWs will accuse the WoTC of bigotry?

If Thompson got her original combat wheelchair added to official D&D, then yes, I would be wrong. Can you give a link or reference that the original combat wheelchair was added to official D&D?

The wheelchair is in Candlekeep, and EVERY dungeon for official D&D from Candlekeep onwards has been wheelchair-accessible. Also, every D&D product from candlekeep onward has featured the wheelchair in art.

The official D&D online show/game Idle Champions of the Forgotten Realms has a paid employee they call a "player" acting out a PC in a combat wheelchair.
Incidentally Critical Role (which unlike ICFR is not official D&D, but is the biggest of all the Fake-online-game shows) has used the wheelchair too.

Strata Miniatures has made Combat wheelchair miniatures.

Sara Thompson, creator of the wheelchair, has appeared in multiple shows created by Wizards, where she was treated as the most important person in gaming ever, and was also a special guest panelist at D&D Celebration.

Every single establishment "game urinalist" website (polygon, nerdist, etc etc) made articles about how important the wheelchair is and how evil and completely misguided anyone who has the slightest doubt about the wheelchair must be.

Isn't there a new book on the DMs Guild all about the combat wheelchair, with new subclasses for each of the D&D classes?

Quote from: RebelSky on September 03, 2021, 04:38:08 PM
Isn't there a new book on the DMs Guild all about the combat wheelchair, with new subclasses for each of the D&D classes?

Yes (though not on the DMs Guild site, because sara thompson is trying to show off how much of a communist she is). And yes, the Chronic Fatigue Barbarian is one of those subclasses.

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 03, 2021, 04:35:00 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 03, 2021, 10:47:20 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 03, 2021, 10:13:38 AM

Quote from: jhkim on September 03, 2021, 02:12:26 AM
OK, I haven't seen the video, but as far as I can see, this is a free writeup that someone put on their Google Drive -- and you're calling that a "real" class? That's not even third party published - and commercial published works have classes ranging from the clown to the pest controller to the ghetto fighter and mouseburglar.

But I guess the point is to get all outraged that such a thing could appear anywhere.

Given that this "someone" got their original wheelchair added to official D&D, what makes you think they won't do the same with the update, including the Chronic Fatigue Barbarian? Especially since if they don't now, the SJWs will accuse the WoTC of bigotry?

If Thompson got her original combat wheelchair added to official D&D, then yes, I would be wrong. Can you give a link or reference that the original combat wheelchair was added to official D&D?

The wheelchair is in Candlekeep, and EVERY dungeon for official D&D from Candlekeep onwards has been wheelchair-accessible. Also, every D&D product from candlekeep onward has featured the wheelchair in art.

The official D&D online show/game Idle Champions of the Forgotten Realms has a paid employee they call a "player" acting out a PC in a combat wheelchair.
Incidentally Critical Role (which unlike ICFR is not official D&D, but is the biggest of all the Fake-online-game shows) has used the wheelchair too.

Strata Miniatures has made Combat wheelchair miniatures.

Sara Thompson, creator of the wheelchair, has appeared in multiple shows created by Wizards, where she was treated as the most important person in gaming ever, and was also a special guest panelist at D&D Celebration.

Every single establishment "game urinalist" website (polygon, nerdist, etc etc) made articles about how important the wheelchair is and how evil and completely misguided anyone who has the slightest doubt about the wheelchair must be.

So her impact on 5e now exceeds yours?  ;)

What kind of mental retard would make a Chronic Fatigue Barbarian?



It obviously should be a Chronic Fatigue Wizard.

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 03, 2021, 05:17:34 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 03, 2021, 04:35:00 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 03, 2021, 10:47:20 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 03, 2021, 10:13:38 AM

Quote from: jhkim on September 03, 2021, 02:12:26 AM
OK, I haven't seen the video, but as far as I can see, this is a free writeup that someone put on their Google Drive -- and you're calling that a "real" class? That's not even third party published - and commercial published works have classes ranging from the clown to the pest controller to the ghetto fighter and mouseburglar.

But I guess the point is to get all outraged that such a thing could appear anywhere.

Given that this "someone" got their original wheelchair added to official D&D, what makes you think they won't do the same with the update, including the Chronic Fatigue Barbarian? Especially since if they don't now, the SJWs will accuse the WoTC of bigotry?

If Thompson got her original combat wheelchair added to official D&D, then yes, I would be wrong. Can you give a link or reference that the original combat wheelchair was added to official D&D?

The wheelchair is in Candlekeep, and EVERY dungeon for official D&D from Candlekeep onwards has been wheelchair-accessible. Also, every D&D product from candlekeep onward has featured the wheelchair in art.

The official D&D online show/game Idle Champions of the Forgotten Realms has a paid employee they call a "player" acting out a PC in a combat wheelchair.
Incidentally Critical Role (which unlike ICFR is not official D&D, but is the biggest of all the Fake-online-game shows) has used the wheelchair too.

Strata Miniatures has made Combat wheelchair miniatures.

Sara Thompson, creator of the wheelchair, has appeared in multiple shows created by Wizards, where she was treated as the most important person in gaming ever, and was also a special guest panelist at D&D Celebration.

Every single establishment "game urinalist" website (polygon, nerdist, etc etc) made articles about how important the wheelchair is and how evil and completely misguided anyone who has the slightest doubt about the wheelchair must be.

So her impact on 5e now exceeds yours?  ;)

No, that will probably happen when she's part of the Super Diversity Team that is hired to design 6e.

But it's very clear that the original vision that Mike Mearls and I had for 5e, which had a good run and lasted longer than the original intent for earlier editions, is becoming more and more distorted.

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 03, 2021, 05:30:13 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 03, 2021, 05:17:34 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 03, 2021, 04:35:00 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 03, 2021, 10:47:20 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 03, 2021, 10:13:38 AM

Quote from: jhkim on September 03, 2021, 02:12:26 AM
OK, I haven't seen the video, but as far as I can see, this is a free writeup that someone put on their Google Drive -- and you're calling that a "real" class? That's not even third party published - and commercial published works have classes ranging from the clown to the pest controller to the ghetto fighter and mouseburglar.

But I guess the point is to get all outraged that such a thing could appear anywhere.

Given that this "someone" got their original wheelchair added to official D&D, what makes you think they won't do the same with the update, including the Chronic Fatigue Barbarian? Especially since if they don't now, the SJWs will accuse the WoTC of bigotry?

If Thompson got her original combat wheelchair added to official D&D, then yes, I would be wrong. Can you give a link or reference that the original combat wheelchair was added to official D&D?

The wheelchair is in Candlekeep, and EVERY dungeon for official D&D from Candlekeep onwards has been wheelchair-accessible. Also, every D&D product from candlekeep onward has featured the wheelchair in art.

The official D&D online show/game Idle Champions of the Forgotten Realms has a paid employee they call a "player" acting out a PC in a combat wheelchair.
Incidentally Critical Role (which unlike ICFR is not official D&D, but is the biggest of all the Fake-online-game shows) has used the wheelchair too.

Strata Miniatures has made Combat wheelchair miniatures.

Sara Thompson, creator of the wheelchair, has appeared in multiple shows created by Wizards, where she was treated as the most important person in gaming ever, and was also a special guest panelist at D&D Celebration.

Every single establishment "game urinalist" website (polygon, nerdist, etc etc) made articles about how important the wheelchair is and how evil and completely misguided anyone who has the slightest doubt about the wheelchair must be.

So her impact on 5e now exceeds yours?  ;)

No, that will probably happen when she's part of the Super Diversity Team that is hired to design 6e.

But it's very clear that the original vision that Mike Mearls and I had for 5e, which had a good run and lasted longer than the original intent for earlier editions, is becoming more and more distorted.

Not surprised. Everything suffers from mission creep, especially as more and more heads & hands get involved. The exception are properties that are totally dominated by their sole creator. Your own games being an example. However, even that can go off track; Cyberpunk Red may be (almost) all Pondsmith, but my Drivethrurpg.com copy of the core book has added a few files I never asked for--including the Cyberpunk Red version of the combat wheelchair. At least it doesn't have photos of dolls in the wheelchair...

Heh. One of my players lost his arm in a fight. I had no idea how he'd take it. A week later on game night he was chomping at the bit to see what his one-armed swordsman would do.

How nice of the villains, to accommodate heroes with handicaps.

What a load of manure.

Quote from: Jason Coplen on September 03, 2021, 06:18:14 PM
Heh. One of my players lost his arm in a fight. I had no idea how he'd take it. A week later on game night he was chomping at the bit to see what his one-armed swordsman would do.

The exact same thing happened with one of my Lion & Dragon PCs.

Why don't they just release a new line called Disableds and Dragons and be done with it? Normal people can technically play as well, but they must play someone with a crippling disability.

I'd buy it! it'd be fun...

I want to play an iron Lung Dwarf. But he can magically float about in his tube (+5 AC), and has little robotic arms to wield swords, etc.

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 03, 2021, 04:35:00 PM

The wheelchair is in Candlekeep, and EVERY dungeon for official D&D from Candlekeep onwards has been wheelchair-accessible. Also, every D&D product from candlekeep onward has featured the wheelchair in art.

WTF? 😀

By the way, I also think that Tolkien should have made Mordor wheelchair-accessible. I mean seriously, this just shows how non-inclusive this most influential fantasy work of fiction is. We must do better!

Quote from: Jam The MF on September 03, 2021, 08:16:53 PM
How nice of the villains, to accommodate heroes with handicaps.

FFG one ups them a bit on this one. When they introduced a trans character to Arkham Horror, the flavor text made a clear point to show that the evil Lovecraftian horrors didn't dead name her. Trying to wipe out all life on Earth is less evil than using the wrong pronouns.

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 03, 2021, 04:35:00 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 03, 2021, 10:47:20 AM
If Thompson got her original combat wheelchair added to official D&D, then yes, I would be wrong. Can you give a link or reference that the original combat wheelchair was added to official D&D?

The wheelchair is in Candlekeep, and EVERY dungeon for official D&D from Candlekeep onwards has been wheelchair-accessible.

I'm 99% sure this is pure bullshit. I don't have Candlekeep Mysteries yet, but from reviews, the only thing is one of the Candlekeep authors is a wheelchair user whose dungeon design is a pyramid that has ramps rather than stairs (just like historical pyramids did).

I'm going to Pacificon this weekend and I'll see if I can pick up a copy to confirm.

Quote from: jhkim on September 04, 2021, 12:21:44 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 03, 2021, 04:35:00 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 03, 2021, 10:47:20 AM
If Thompson got her original combat wheelchair added to official D&D, then yes, I would be wrong. Can you give a link or reference that the original combat wheelchair was added to official D&D?

The wheelchair is in Candlekeep, and EVERY dungeon for official D&D from Candlekeep onwards has been wheelchair-accessible.

I'm 99% sure this is pure bullshit. I don't have Candlekeep Mysteries yet, but from reviews, the only thing is one of the Candlekeep authors is a wheelchair user whose dungeon design is a pyramid that has ramps rather than stairs (just like historical pyramids did).

I'm going to Pacificon this weekend and I'll see if I can pick up a copy to confirm.

Why are you trying to pretend that the Combat Wheelchair is not a thing that was UNIVERSALLY PRAISED BY WoTC, it's employees, EVERY GAMING MEDIA, all of SJW Twitter and Tumblr, and many common websites? That the ENTIRE ESTABLISHMENT has united to try to ram this down every gamer's fucking throat?

https://www.polygon.com/2021/1/12/22225381/dungeons-dragons-candlekeep-mysteries-wheelchair-accessible

https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2021/01/dd-candlekeep-features-wotcs-first-wheelchair-accessible-dungeon.html

https://boundingintocomics.com/2021/02/12/dungeons-dragons-to-introduce-first-wheelchair-accessible-adventure/

https://hypebeast.com/2021/1/dungeons-dragons-wheelchair-accessible-candlekeep-mysteries-news

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/931-jen-kretchmer-teases-her-candlekeep-mysteries

https://nerdist.com/article/dungeons-and-dragons-wheelchair-accessible-adventure/

https://boingboing.net/2021/01/19/dds-new-candlekeep-mysteries-includes-the-first-quest-for-adventurers-in-wheelchairs.html

Every one of these plus 37000 other results talk about Candlekeep, WoTC, D&D, and the fucking Combat Wheelchair.

You want to pretend this isn't because a fake fucking poser with massively disproportionate influence in a communist social media network made a Totalitarian Manifesto disguised as a rules supplement? That this being in Candlekeep and Critical Role and will now be FORCED TO APPEAR in every art and every dungeon of every new WoTC book FOR EVER?

What the fuck are you actually even trying to claim? "It's not a big deal"?

It's obviously a very fucking big deal. I have, right now, people on twitter trying to destroy my career and have me blacklisted from gaming forever (and would probably cheer and publicly gloat if I was literally murdered) BECAUSE I dare to question the fucking Combat Wheelchair.

So yes, it's a big fucking deal. It's a group of FUCKING STALINISTS trying to FORCE their views not just on the rest of gaming but on ALL of Society, to LITERALLY seek to create a Harrison Bergeron Society. Given ongoing power over enough time, they will eventually try to make a prison-worthy Hate Crime Offense for you to be able to run faster than other people.

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 04, 2021, 12:58:05 PMWhat the fuck are you actually even trying to claim? "It's not a big deal"?

It's obviously a very fucking big deal. I have, right now, people on twitter trying to destroy my career and have me blacklisted from gaming forever (and would probably cheer and publicly gloat if I was literally murdered) BECAUSE I dare to question the fucking Combat Wheelchair.

It's not a big deal. The combat wheelchair isn't causing WotC to go woke and the people trying to cancel you were trying to do so for years already. The combat wheelchair is accepted because 5e is woke and 5e has always been woke.

When the 5e PH says, "You can play as a male or female character without gaining any special benefits or hindrances" it mean that the GM must accept ANY character concept as valid and may not provide any hindrances to that character based on those choices.

There is no difference between 5e saying "You don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender." and saying that you don't need to be confined to the notions of what is healthy or viable for an adventurer.

1d4 old school combat wheelchair variants:

1. Your combat wheelchair is a 4'x4' gelatinous cube, modified to have a seat. It's trained to not eat the person while they're sitting in it, and it's really nice that any monster that touches your chair gets paralyzed (save allowed), but there's a 20% chance per night that an uncontained wheelchair will try to eat its rider while they're sleeping.

2. Your combat wheelchair is a golem, composed of a random collection of household items like lamps, wagon wheels and whisks. There's a 1% cumulative chance per combat the golem goes berserk, and starts driving full speed around the area, cutting it very close when it comes to cliffs or doorways (natural 1 on d20 means a miss), and frequently spinning out (1 in 4 chance per round of being dazed).

3. Your combat wheelchair is a juggernaut. This it the D&D juggernaut, which means it's a chair-shaped lump of roughly carved stone, with an animal head (1d6: 1 horse, 2 dragon, 3 kobold, 4 wolf, 5 squid, 6 faceless human) and 1d6 protrusions that look like random animal parts such as hooves, claws, or beaks. It's slow to get up to speed (1" move + 1" move/round when moving in a straight line), but very hard to stop (current speed in inches on d6 for breaking down doors). The projections are also able to shoot out and strike creatures within 1" for 1d4 damage.

4. Your combat wheelchair is just a wheelchair. If you're extremely healthy and fit and have no encumbrance, you might be able to go up stairs, just like in all those Youtube videos.

Quote from: Pat on September 04, 2021, 02:30:35 PM
1d4 old school combat wheelchair variants:

1. Your combat wheelchair is a 4'x4' gelatinous cube, modified to have a seat. It's trained to not eat the person while they're sitting in it, and it's really nice that any monster that touches your chair gets paralyzed (save allowed), but there's a 20% chance per night that an uncontained wheelchair will try to eat its rider while they're sleeping.

2. Your combat wheelchair is a golem, composed of a random collection of household items like lamps, wagon wheels and whisks. There's a 1% cumulative chance per combat the golem goes berserk, and starts driving full speed around the area, cutting it very close when it comes to cliffs or doorways (natural 1 on d20 means a miss), and frequently spinning out (1 in 4 chance per round of being dazed).

3. Your combat wheelchair is a juggernaut. This it the D&D juggernaut, which means it's a chair-shaped lump of roughly carved stone, with an animal head (1d6: 1 horse, 2 dragon, 3 kobold, 4 wolf, 5 squid, 6 faceless human) and 1d6 protrusions that look like random animal parts such as hooves, claws, or beaks. It's slow to get up to speed (1" move + 1" move/round when moving in a straight line), but very hard to stop (current speed in inches on d6 for breaking down doors). The projections are also able to shoot out and strike creatures within 1" for 1d4 damage.

4. Your combat wheelchair is just a wheelchair. If you're extremely healthy and fit and have no encumbrance, you might be able to go up stairs, just like in all those Youtube videos.

Make it a d8 with the following additions...

5. Your combat wheelchair is a well-trained donkey that doesn't panic in confined underground areas. Roll 1d6 again, if 4+ you have a custom saddle that allows you to employ full leverage for weapon attacks and lifting.

6. You do not have combat wheelchair, a wandering high level cleric restored the use of your legs in exchange for a tithe; reduce your starting or current gold by 10%.

7. As 6 above, but the cleric felt pity for you and restored your legs at no charge. Local sick people aware of the healing routinely try to touch you hoping that some of the cleric's residual magic will rub off on them.

8. As 6 above, but your sleep is regularly disturbed by dreams of the cleric's god imploring you undertake some task (ex. converting to the cleric's faith, becoming a cleric of the same faith if your wisdom is high enough or undertaking a quest or pilgrimage associated with the faith) that do not subside until you have followed the god's command.

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 04, 2021, 12:58:05 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 04, 2021, 12:21:44 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 03, 2021, 04:35:00 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 03, 2021, 10:47:20 AM
If Thompson got her original combat wheelchair added to official D&D, then yes, I would be wrong. Can you give a link or reference that the original combat wheelchair was added to official D&D?

The wheelchair is in Candlekeep, and EVERY dungeon for official D&D from Candlekeep onwards has been wheelchair-accessible.

I'm 99% sure this is pure bullshit. I don't have Candlekeep Mysteries yet, but from reviews, the only thing is one of the Candlekeep authors is a wheelchair user whose dungeon design is a pyramid that has ramps rather than stairs (just like historical pyramids did).

I'm going to Pacificon this weekend and I'll see if I can pick up a copy to confirm.

Why are you trying to pretend that the Combat Wheelchair is not a thing that was UNIVERSALLY PRAISED BY WoTC, it's employees, EVERY GAMING MEDIA, all of SJW Twitter and Tumblr, and many common websites? That the ENTIRE ESTABLISHMENT has united to try to ram this down every gamer's fucking throat?

I haven't said anything about SJW Twitter or Tumblr. Your claim was that the Combat Wheelchair is official D&D and specifically that it is in Candlekeep Mysteries. I picked up a copy of Candlekeep Mysteries today while playing at Pacificon.

1) Sara Thompson's combat wheelchair is not in the book.

2) There are no wheelchairs of any kind in the book - combat or otherwise, as far as I can tell.

3) The adventures are not generally wheelchair accessible. There are stairs in most of the 17 adventures. Even "The Canopic Being" - by wheelchair-using author Jennifer Kretchmer - isn't generally wheelchair accessible. There are ramps inside the pyramid, but there are points that require using a ladder and climbing.


I haven't read the links that you posted yet, but I never claimed anything about what was happening in SJW Twitter or Tumblr or such. Your point about Candlekeep Mysteries is simply false.

If there are zero wheelchairs in official D&D, but there is a bunch of positive noise on Twitter and Tumblr, that sounds to me like WotC is simply telling certain people online whatever they want to hear, while making virtually no change to their official publications.

S.O.C.O.M. Mobile All Terrain Fire Support Wheel Chair

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/83/bd/f4/83bdf41237b74000f5c5d19f48a4e0e4.jpg)

Quote from: hedgehobbit on September 04, 2021, 01:48:23 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 04, 2021, 12:58:05 PMWhat the fuck are you actually even trying to claim? "It's not a big deal"?

It's obviously a very fucking big deal. I have, right now, people on twitter trying to destroy my career and have me blacklisted from gaming forever (and would probably cheer and publicly gloat if I was literally murdered) BECAUSE I dare to question the fucking Combat Wheelchair.

It's not a big deal. The combat wheelchair isn't causing WotC to go woke and the people trying to cancel you were trying to do so for years already. The combat wheelchair is accepted because 5e is woke and 5e has always been woke.

When the 5e PH says, "You can play as a male or female character without gaining any special benefits or hindrances" it mean that the GM must accept ANY character concept as valid and may not provide any hindrances to that character based on those choices.

There is no difference between 5e saying "You don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender." and saying that you don't need to be confined to the notions of what is healthy or viable for an adventurer.

There is a huge difference between saying "you can have any sort of characters you want in your campaign" and "you MUST create a campaign setting that reflects modern 21st century leftist theory of 'diversity' with the appropriate quotas, all our products will essentially demand that, and we will not let you get away from it".

Quote from: jhkim on September 05, 2021, 02:50:11 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 04, 2021, 12:58:05 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 04, 2021, 12:21:44 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 03, 2021, 04:35:00 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 03, 2021, 10:47:20 AM
If Thompson got her original combat wheelchair added to official D&D, then yes, I would be wrong. Can you give a link or reference that the original combat wheelchair was added to official D&D?

The wheelchair is in Candlekeep, and EVERY dungeon for official D&D from Candlekeep onwards has been wheelchair-accessible.

I'm 99% sure this is pure bullshit. I don't have Candlekeep Mysteries yet, but from reviews, the only thing is one of the Candlekeep authors is a wheelchair user whose dungeon design is a pyramid that has ramps rather than stairs (just like historical pyramids did).

I'm going to Pacificon this weekend and I'll see if I can pick up a copy to confirm.

Why are you trying to pretend that the Combat Wheelchair is not a thing that was UNIVERSALLY PRAISED BY WoTC, it's employees, EVERY GAMING MEDIA, all of SJW Twitter and Tumblr, and many common websites? That the ENTIRE ESTABLISHMENT has united to try to ram this down every gamer's fucking throat?

I haven't said anything about SJW Twitter or Tumblr. Your claim was that the Combat Wheelchair is official D&D and specifically that it is in Candlekeep Mysteries. I picked up a copy of Candlekeep Mysteries today while playing at Pacificon.

1) Sara Thompson's combat wheelchair is not in the book.

2) There are no wheelchairs of any kind in the book - combat or otherwise, as far as I can tell.

3) The adventures are not generally wheelchair accessible. There are stairs in most of the 17 adventures. Even "The Canopic Being" - by wheelchair-using author Jennifer Kretchmer - isn't generally wheelchair accessible. There are ramps inside the pyramid, but there are points that require using a ladder and climbing.


I haven't read the links that you posted yet, but I never claimed anything about what was happening in SJW Twitter or Tumblr or such. Your point about Candlekeep Mysteries is simply false.

If there are zero wheelchairs in official D&D, but there is a bunch of positive noise on Twitter and Tumblr, that sounds to me like WotC is simply telling certain people online whatever they want to hear, while making virtually no change to their official publications.

This is the nice little motte and bailey argument you're setting up. What are you trying to actually prove? Wizards has cheered the wheelchair ceaselessly, it has appeared on their Twitch shows, every book after Candlekeep has had combat wheelchair art, every leftist games media is publishing it, and literally thousands of wheelchair-minis that will mostly never sell have been created all as sacrifice on the altar of Leftist dementia.

So what you're trying to claim is "yes, the flames are surrounding the entire house but so far no one has been burnt alive"? 
You're literally the "this is fine" meme, except we all know you don't believe it. You're a cheerleader for this bullshit and you would piss your pants with joy if the Combat Wheelchair could be made obligatory in every game session everywhere, forever. So all you're doing here is pure sophistry at trying to suggest that what is clearly a massive social movement of ENFORCED SPEECH is nothing anyone should be allowed to resist.

As a disabled person I find the combat wheelchair and the fatigue barbarian to be an insult to the disabled. I do not and never will care about politically correct terms I call a spade a spade.

Is the blind swordsman/archer/martial artist part of this same line of thinking? I know they were considered cook back when I was a kid (and Daredevil still is cool). OTOH, the villain from the Will Smith Wild West movie was never cool.

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 05, 2021, 04:37:53 AMThere is a huge difference between saying "you can have any sort of characters you want in your campaign" and "you MUST create a campaign setting that reflects modern 21st century leftist theory of 'diversity' with the appropriate quotas, all our products will essentially demand that, and we will not let you get away from it".

If the rules say, as they do in 5e, that a character of any gender, even non-binary genders, cannot be given any special hindrance because of that gender choice, then that is 100% exactly the same as saying all 5e campaigns must reflect 21st century gender ideology. And it's only a tiny step to go from "DMs must allow characters of all 157 genders without giving them hindrances" to "DMs must accept characters with any sort of physical or mental disability without giving them hindrances".

But that still avoids the main issue. Why does it matter that people who play a woke RPG use woke character classes or woke magic items?

Thank you, jhkim, for inserting some actual facts into the discussion. Facts are more helpful than raving vitriol. That being said, I think dungeon crawling or wilderness trekking in a wheelchair is ridiculous. I'd never allow it in my D&D game or play at a table that did.

Dumb ideas for player-created classes have been around for as long as D&D has. Chronic fatigue barbarian sounds like just the latest dumb idea for a player-created class. It may spring from woke sentiments, but it doesn't signal the end of the hobby. D&D survived the dumb classes my friends and I created back in the day. It will survive this too.

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 05, 2021, 04:50:02 AM
every book after Candlekeep has had combat wheelchair art,

  Technically true, I believe, but framed in a confusing way--there's only been one new book since Candlekeep, Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft, and Ravenloft's always been a bit anachronistic to begin with. In fact, wheelchairs in Ravenloft go back to I10 Ravenloft II: The House on Gryphon Hill.

   It's definitely gotten a lot of cheering from the Enlightened Gamers, but there is arguably insufficient evidence as to how much impact it's had on the official D&D product line as of yet. And that requires one to care about WotC and official D&D products to begin with. :)

Quote from: Vidgrip on September 05, 2021, 11:11:45 AM
Thank you, jhkim, for inserting some actual facts into the discussion. Facts are more helpful than raving vitriol. That being said, I think dungeon crawling or wilderness trekking in a wheelchair is ridiculous. I'd never allow it in my D&D game or play at a table that did.'''

So what are the actual facts? Are there wheelchairs in D&D books nowadays or no?

I'm really tired of this...

So Google is only turning up the combat wheelchair when I search for chronic fatigue barbarian. Not sure how real and present it actually is. I thought I might read it to see if it was a joke but I'm not finding it anywhere except as mentioned in Pundit's video.

I took the time to read the Combat Wheelchair doc. I don't see anything wrong with it if that's what other folks want at their table. I kinda take issue with a lot of the doodads you can attach and make yourself better than any able person could be without a combat wheelchair, so I don't know why abled people wouldn't want to get them too? Beats a horse... And then there's the fact that they expressly say dispel magic absolutely will not work on it. So it's a big nope for my table. Too much of a Mary Sue magic item and character creator for my tastes.

Edited to add: it really bugs me now that I read it again that they say the magic used for the creation of the wheelchair isn't even first level, and then want to throw out the defining portion of how dispel magic works. If it's under 3rd level, it's dispelled, period.

All this kinda makes me wonder about the actual text for this barbarian though.

Quote from: Dropbear on September 05, 2021, 04:59:10 PM
So Google is only turning up the combat wheelchair when I search for chronic fatigue barbarian. Not sure how real and present it actually is. I thought I might read it to see if it was a joke but I'm not finding it anywhere except as mentioned in Pundit's video.

I took the time to read the Combat Wheelchair doc. I don't see anything wrong with it if that's what other folks want at their table. I kinda take issue with a lot of the doodads you can attach and make yourself better than any able person could be without a combat wheelchair, so I don't know why abled people wouldn't want to get them too? Beats a horse... And then there's the fact that they expressly say dispel magic absolutely will not work on it. So it's a big nope for my table. Too much of a Mary Sue magic item and character creator for my tastes.

All this kinda makes me wonder about the actual text for this barbarian though.

For equality,, anything that can be attached to the chair should be able to be attached to functional legs. Sure, it'll be ridiculous, but that barrier has already been breached.

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 05, 2021, 05:03:55 PM

Quote from: Dropbear on September 05, 2021, 04:59:10 PM
So Google is only turning up the combat wheelchair when I search for chronic fatigue barbarian. Not sure how real and present it actually is. I thought I might read it to see if it was a joke but I'm not finding it anywhere except as mentioned in Pundit's video.

I took the time to read the Combat Wheelchair doc. I don't see anything wrong with it if that's what other folks want at their table. I kinda take issue with a lot of the doodads you can attach and make yourself better than any able person could be without a combat wheelchair, so I don't know why abled people wouldn't want to get them too? Beats a horse... And then there's the fact that they expressly say dispel magic absolutely will not work on it. So it's a big nope for my table. Too much of a Mary Sue magic item and character creator for my tastes.

All this kinda makes me wonder about the actual text for this barbarian though.

For equality,, anything that can be attached to the chair should be able to be attached to functional legs. Sure, it'll be ridiculous, but that barrier has already been breached.

Hell, just add in Iron Man suits into D&D, and call the inclusivity there?

Quote from: Dropbear on September 05, 2021, 05:08:15 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 05, 2021, 05:03:55 PM

Quote from: Dropbear on September 05, 2021, 04:59:10 PM
So Google is only turning up the combat wheelchair when I search for chronic fatigue barbarian. Not sure how real and present it actually is. I thought I might read it to see if it was a joke but I'm not finding it anywhere except as mentioned in Pundit's video.

I took the time to read the Combat Wheelchair doc. I don't see anything wrong with it if that's what other folks want at their table. I kinda take issue with a lot of the doodads you can attach and make yourself better than any able person could be without a combat wheelchair, so I don't know why abled people wouldn't want to get them too? Beats a horse... And then there's the fact that they expressly say dispel magic absolutely will not work on it. So it's a big nope for my table. Too much of a Mary Sue magic item and character creator for my tastes.

All this kinda makes me wonder about the actual text for this barbarian though.

For equality,, anything that can be attached to the chair should be able to be attached to functional legs. Sure, it'll be ridiculous, but that barrier has already been breached.

Hell, just add in Iron Man suits into D&D, and call the inclusivity there?

Wouldn't rust monsters be a problem?

Quote from: GriswaldTerrastone on September 05, 2021, 05:11:02 PM

Quote from: Dropbear on September 05, 2021, 05:08:15 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 05, 2021, 05:03:55 PM

Quote from: Dropbear on September 05, 2021, 04:59:10 PM
So Google is only turning up the combat wheelchair when I search for chronic fatigue barbarian. Not sure how real and present it actually is. I thought I might read it to see if it was a joke but I'm not finding it anywhere except as mentioned in Pundit's video.

I took the time to read the Combat Wheelchair doc. I don't see anything wrong with it if that's what other folks want at their table. I kinda take issue with a lot of the doodads you can attach and make yourself better than any able person could be without a combat wheelchair, so I don't know why abled people wouldn't want to get them too? Beats a horse... And then there's the fact that they expressly say dispel magic absolutely will not work on it. So it's a big nope for my table. Too much of a Mary Sue magic item and character creator for my tastes.

All this kinda makes me wonder about the actual text for this barbarian though.

For equality,, anything that can be attached to the chair should be able to be attached to functional legs. Sure, it'll be ridiculous, but that barrier has already been breached.

Hell, just add in Iron Man suits into D&D, and call the inclusivity there?

Wouldn't rust monsters be a problem?

My best answer to this would be "Why yes, yes they would!"

As a note, I found the updated chair doc, with the fatigue thing. Reading. Laughing. Fuck no.

"Beginning at 6th level, your experience with chronic pain means you have a pain threshold higher than most and know how to manage it in ways that work best for you – whether these methods be mental or physical. Your pain hasn't subsided, you don't hurt any less, but your pain management has now also become useful in combat."

Uh no. The people I know personally who claim to suffer from chronic pain and fatigue are too busy whining about it to actually harness shit in combat, and wouldn't even begin to know how to fight. Even if they did, they are not in any condition to do battle.

I mean whatever makes these folks feel better about themselves, okay, this game is all about the wish fulfillment and I recognize that but they can definitely find another table with this drivel. I don't want to play with this nonsense.

Quote from: Dropbear on September 05, 2021, 05:08:15 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 05, 2021, 05:03:55 PM

Quote from: Dropbear on September 05, 2021, 04:59:10 PM
So Google is only turning up the combat wheelchair when I search for chronic fatigue barbarian. Not sure how real and present it actually is. I thought I might read it to see if it was a joke but I'm not finding it anywhere except as mentioned in Pundit's video.

I took the time to read the Combat Wheelchair doc. I don't see anything wrong with it if that's what other folks want at their table. I kinda take issue with a lot of the doodads you can attach and make yourself better than any able person could be without a combat wheelchair, so I don't know why abled people wouldn't want to get them too? Beats a horse... And then there's the fact that they expressly say dispel magic absolutely will not work on it. So it's a big nope for my table. Too much of a Mary Sue magic item and character creator for my tastes.

All this kinda makes me wonder about the actual text for this barbarian though.

For equality,, anything that can be attached to the chair should be able to be attached to functional legs. Sure, it'll be ridiculous, but that barrier has already been breached.

Hell, just add in Iron Man suits into D&D, and call the inclusivity there?

Artificer does it with a subclass in Tasha's Crock of Excrement.

Quote from: Dropbear on September 05, 2021, 05:19:58 PM
"Beginning at 6th level, your experience with chronic pain means you have a pain threshold higher than most and know how to manage it in ways that work best for you – whether these methods be mental or physical. Your pain hasn't subsided, you don't hurt any less, but your pain management has now also become useful in combat."

Uh no. The people I know personally who claim to suffer from chronic pain and fatigue are too busy whining about it to actually harness shit in combat, and wouldn't even begin to know how to fight. Even if they did, they are not in any condition to do battle.

I mean whatever makes these folks feel better about themselves, okay, this game is all about the wish fulfillment and I recognize that but they can definitely find another table with this drivel. I don't want to play with this nonsense.

Not to go too far off-topic, but this is entirely correct. Chronic pain geneally reduces the ability to deal with acute pain; it does not increase it except in certain cases of uncommon neural damage.

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 05, 2021, 05:22:50 PM

Quote from: Dropbear on September 05, 2021, 05:08:15 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 05, 2021, 05:03:55 PM

Quote from: Dropbear on September 05, 2021, 04:59:10 PM
So Google is only turning up the combat wheelchair when I search for chronic fatigue barbarian. Not sure how real and present it actually is. I thought I might read it to see if it was a joke but I'm not finding it anywhere except as mentioned in Pundit's video.

I took the time to read the Combat Wheelchair doc. I don't see anything wrong with it if that's what other folks want at their table. I kinda take issue with a lot of the doodads you can attach and make yourself better than any able person could be without a combat wheelchair, so I don't know why abled people wouldn't want to get them too? Beats a horse... And then there's the fact that they expressly say dispel magic absolutely will not work on it. So it's a big nope for my table. Too much of a Mary Sue magic item and character creator for my tastes.

All this kinda makes me wonder about the actual text for this barbarian though.

For equality,, anything that can be attached to the chair should be able to be attached to functional legs. Sure, it'll be ridiculous, but that barrier has already been breached.

Hell, just add in Iron Man suits into D&D, and call the inclusivity there?

Artificer does it with a subclass in Tasha's Crock of Excrement.

There's apparently one in this doc too, so I spoke too soon about that lol.

I'm honestly all for people playing the way they want to. There's a table for this stuff somewhere, and I am not going to grind them down for taking it to that table. Just not mine is all I would ask. I don't care to play this way.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on September 04, 2021, 01:48:23 PM
... The combat wheelchair isn't causing WotC to go woke ...

Because WOTC is already there.


FWIW - We saw a combat wheelchair art in Ravenloft. And there was a big social media push around candlekeep (documented by Pundit – read the links!) about the wonderful wheelchair accessible dungeon therein.

And while jhkim does point out that there are ladders and climbing in the 'wheelchair accessible' dungeon...  You need to understand the mindset of these people for why that dungeon is still considered 'wheelchair accessible':
You can find multiple arguments on another forums/social media, with people claiming that in D&D ladders and climbing will pose no issues whatsoever for a Centaur PC... 

That is the mentality we are dealing with, what more needs to be said?

IMHO we will see combat wheelchair art in almost every WOTC book going forward.

For those who say: "So what? Not a big Deal!"

My response would be: "So you agree with them that there are five lights now? Ok..."

The Fact is that the mere concept of the "combat wheelchair" in D&D is so absurdly ridiculous that in any sane world the idea would be laughed out of the hobby. (Yes, even for an elfgame, it is utterly ridiculous.)

The fact that it isn't, and that you have groups defending it to the point that it has made its way into the flagship game of the hobby is a Big Red Flag.

They are literally now able to get you to accept the patently absurd.

What will you accept next?

Quote from: palaeomerus on September 05, 2021, 03:42:11 AM
S.O.C.O.M. Mobile All Terrain Fire Support Wheel Chair

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/83/bd/f4/83bdf41237b74000f5c5d19f48a4e0e4.jpg)

His class?  AMERICA!!!!!  FUCK YA!!!!!

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on September 05, 2021, 11:47:13 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 05, 2021, 04:50:02 AM
every book after Candlekeep has had combat wheelchair art,

  Technically true, I believe, but framed in a confusing way--there's only been one new book since Candlekeep, Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft, and Ravenloft's always been a bit anachronistic to begin with. In fact, wheelchairs in Ravenloft go back to I10 Ravenloft II: The House on Gryphon Hill.

   It's definitely gotten a lot of cheering from the Enlightened Gamers, but there is arguably insufficient evidence as to how much impact it's had on the official D&D product line as of yet. And that requires one to care about WotC and official D&D products to begin with. :)

Their upcoming book, the one based on the college setting where your characters are a "hot mess" and you go to the prom, also has it.

Quote from: Dropbear on September 05, 2021, 04:59:10 PM
So Google is only turning up the combat wheelchair when I search for chronic fatigue barbarian. Not sure how real and present it actually is. I thought I might read it to see if it was a joke but I'm not finding it anywhere except as mentioned in Pundit's video.

I took the time to read the Combat Wheelchair doc. I don't see anything wrong with it if that's what other folks want at their table. I kinda take issue with a lot of the doodads you can attach and make yourself better than any able person could be without a combat wheelchair, so I don't know why abled people wouldn't want to get them too? Beats a horse... And then there's the fact that they expressly say dispel magic absolutely will not work on it. So it's a big nope for my table. Too much of a Mary Sue magic item and character creator for my tastes.

Edited to add: it really bugs me now that I read it again that they say the magic used for the creation of the wheelchair isn't even first level, and then want to throw out the defining portion of how dispel magic works. If it's under 3rd level, it's dispelled, period.

All this kinda makes me wonder about the actual text for this barbarian though.

The actual text is in v3.0 of the combat wheelchair supplement.

Quote from: Dropbear on September 05, 2021, 05:08:15 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 05, 2021, 05:03:55 PM

Quote from: Dropbear on September 05, 2021, 04:59:10 PM
So Google is only turning up the combat wheelchair when I search for chronic fatigue barbarian. Not sure how real and present it actually is. I thought I might read it to see if it was a joke but I'm not finding it anywhere except as mentioned in Pundit's video.

I took the time to read the Combat Wheelchair doc. I don't see anything wrong with it if that's what other folks want at their table. I kinda take issue with a lot of the doodads you can attach and make yourself better than any able person could be without a combat wheelchair, so I don't know why abled people wouldn't want to get them too? Beats a horse... And then there's the fact that they expressly say dispel magic absolutely will not work on it. So it's a big nope for my table. Too much of a Mary Sue magic item and character creator for my tastes.

All this kinda makes me wonder about the actual text for this barbarian though.

For equality,, anything that can be attached to the chair should be able to be attached to functional legs. Sure, it'll be ridiculous, but that barrier has already been breached.

Hell, just add in Iron Man suits into D&D, and call the inclusivity there?

That would be 'erasure' and would get the ire of the jobless art majors on Twitter.

You see, D&D MUST have people in wheelchairs everywhere, but those people are never allowed to be able to get OUT of wheelchairs also. For diversity.

I never even liked the 3E barbarians with their anger management problems.

I get that the "Rage" ability is allowing you to make a berserker. Classes by their nature are generic archetypes. Berserkers are very culturally specific. Barbarian rage is an attempt to take something specific and make it generic, and it kind of becomes a worst of both worlds thing. It sounds goofy to my ears. And implies that primitive and indigenous peoples have anger issues. Which could be offensive on SJW grounds. But even someone who doesn't care about that but takes their campaign world seriously, it's just a nonsensical cliche.

A similar thing happened to Rangers after 1E when players got to choose a "hated race." Great. Racist characters codified right into the game. And apparently racism makes you powerful. And again, hated race just sounds goofy to my ear.

This is just more of the same. Taking something very specific and attempting to make it generic through the class structure. It sounds goofy to the hear. And how are most gamers going to even play a Chronic Fatigue Barbarian? By hamming up a silly caricature in a way that might be offensive to someone who suffers from chronic fatigue? Great. Now we're going to make fun of differently abled people.

My mother had chronic fatigue.

On good days she was able to walk about 500m a day. any serious climbing was out. Most days she would be bedridden. How the heck could you play such a character in a dungeon crawl??!!!

I can only conclude that the Chronic Fatigue Bed is equivalent to the combat wheelchair, but also sentient so that the user doesn't have to remain awake to actually use it. My mother's thinking some day's was very shaky. The longer she went without rest, the less lucid she became.

I can see TPK friendly fire death occuring via the Chronic Fatigue Bed, unless the bed is sentient.

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 05, 2021, 09:54:14 PM

Quote from: Dropbear on September 05, 2021, 04:59:10 PM
So Google is only turning up the combat wheelchair when I search for chronic fatigue barbarian. Not sure how real and present it actually is. I thought I might read it to see if it was a joke but I'm not finding it anywhere except as mentioned in Pundit's video.

I took the time to read the Combat Wheelchair doc. I don't see anything wrong with it if that's what other folks want at their table. I kinda take issue with a lot of the doodads you can attach and make yourself better than any able person could be without a combat wheelchair, so I don't know why abled people wouldn't want to get them too? Beats a horse... And then there's the fact that they expressly say dispel magic absolutely will not work on it. So it's a big nope for my table. Too much of a Mary Sue magic item and character creator for my tastes.

Edited to add: it really bugs me now that I read it again that they say the magic used for the creation of the wheelchair isn't even first level, and then want to throw out the defining portion of how dispel magic works. If it's under 3rd level, it's dispelled, period.

All this kinda makes me wonder about the actual text for this barbarian though.

The actual text is in v3.0 of the combat wheelchair supplement.

I found it after searching a bit. I know a lot of the Twitterati will be impressed with it. I was less than.

If you guys don't stop being mean to the sjws I'm going to bring out the x-card.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on September 06, 2021, 06:42:34 AM
If you guys don't stop being mean to the sjws I'm going to bring out the x-card.

I don't allow its use at my table, sorry. But you can draw a line or veil. Across the doorway you exit through :P

Quote from: Dropbear on September 06, 2021, 06:46:42 AM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on September 06, 2021, 06:42:34 AM
If you guys don't stop being mean to the sjws I'm going to bring out the x-card.

I don't allow its use at my table, sorry. But you can draw a line or veil. Across the doorway you exit through :P

Harumph! Well, I'll just take my copy of Thirsty Sword Lesbians and go home to play with myself.  8)

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 05, 2021, 09:53:10 PM
Their upcoming book, the one based on the college setting where your characters are a "hot mess" and you go to the prom, also has it.

  Good point, I forgot about the Strixhaven art. That's at least two out of four, then. Strong indications that this is the latest step down the slope. It might arguably be mitigated by the fact that the two settings we've seen it in are non-traditional and more modern, but then again, it has also been noted that WotC has been pushing the game's art direction several centuries ahead of where it was in the old days, leading me to characterize 5E as "Seattle swashbuckling romance." :)

   I'd call this part of the overall trend towards 'DEI in D&D', but I don't know if it merits attention as a distinctive thing in itself unless one shows up in the more 'traditionally D&D' oriented Fizban's Treasury of Dragons. :)

Quote from: Jaeger on September 05, 2021, 06:13:37 PMThe Fact is that the mere concept of the "combat wheelchair" in D&D is so absurdly ridiculous that in any sane world the idea would be laughed out of the hobby. (Yes, even for an elfgame, it is utterly ridiculous.)

The fact that it isn't, and that you have groups defending it to the point that it has made its way into the flagship game of the hobby is a Big Red Flag.

They are literally now able to get you to accept the patently absurd.

What will you accept next?

5e players have already accepted a long list of absurd facts:

-Only an Asian player should be allowed to play an Asian character.
-Orcs are black people, so if your orcs are evil you think black people are evil
-If your dark elves have black skin, you think black people are evil.
-If you have slavery in your game, you support slavery
-If 50% of your NPCs aren't female, you are a sexist
-if 50% of your NPCs aren't gay, you are a homophobe

Compared to these things, the wheelchair assessable dungeons and Chronic Fatigue Barbarians are downright reasonable.

But these items are just a natural outcome of the inclusion mindset. The 5e player base demands more inclusion and WotC gives them what they want. After that, their need for virtue signal Likes causes them to demand even more inclusion, and then even more. At some point I thought that the 5e player base would have enough and stop buying. But that doesn't seem like that's ever going to happen, as each time they say "you can just ignore that part of the game" as they keep buying and playing.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on September 06, 2021, 01:19:38 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on September 05, 2021, 06:13:37 PMThe Fact is that the mere concept of the "combat wheelchair" in D&D is so absurdly ridiculous that in any sane world the idea would be laughed out of the hobby. (Yes, even for an elfgame, it is utterly ridiculous.)

The fact that it isn't, and that you have groups defending it to the point that it has made its way into the flagship game of the hobby is a Big Red Flag.

They are literally now able to get you to accept the patently absurd.

What will you accept next?

5e players have already accepted a long list of absurd facts:

-Only an Asian player should be allowed to play an Asian character.
-Orcs are black people, so if your orcs are evil you think black people are evil
-If your dark elves have black skin, you think black people are evil.
-If you have slavery in your game, you support slavery
-If 50% of your NPCs aren't female, you are a sexist
-if 50% of your NPCs aren't gay, you are a homophobe

Compared to these things, the wheelchair assessable dungeons and Chronic Fatigue Barbarians are downright reasonable.

But these items are just a natural outcome of the inclusion mindset. The 5e player base demands more inclusion and WotC gives them what they want. After that, their need for virtue signal Likes causes them to demand even more inclusion, and then even more. At some point I thought that the 5e player base would have enough and stop buying. But that doesn't seem like that's ever going to happen, as each time they say "you can just ignore that part of the game" as they keep buying and playing.

You say "accepted" but that is not the correct word for uniformly describing the reactions to the bullshit you mention. Many either reject or simply ignore this nonsense rather than accepting it. And they still go on playing 5e...

Quote from: Jaeger on September 05, 2021, 06:13:37 PM

5e players have already accepted a long list of absurd facts:

-Only an Asian player should be allowed to play an Asian character.
-Orcs are black people, so if your orcs are evil you think black people are evil
-If your dark elves have black skin, you think black people are evil.
-If you have slavery in your game, you support slavery
-If 50% of your NPCs aren't female, you are a sexist
-if 50% of your NPCs aren't gay, you are a homophobe

Compared to these things, the wheelchair assessable dungeons and Chronic Fatigue Barbarians are downright reasonable.

If anyone actually believes in those principals it tells me immediately, that they have no idea what a role playing game actually is. And that they are incapable of any critical thinking.

I truly hope there are very few players who actually adhere to this utter nonsense.

As far as I'm concerned, Orcs are not black people. But they are all evil. They were designed that way in my game (and most others). Oh, and they take human slaves too! And eat the weaker ones they can't use. Mmmm.... man flesh.

Remember peeps, it's only a little game of 'make-believe'. It can't hurt you...

I made an account just to reply to this thread.

Just started a new D&D Twitch channel, where myself (The DM) and two of the players are disabled. One is confined to a wheelchair.

We've all put shit on the "Combat Wheelchair" concept. Honestly, I get why it could be really cool for a child in a wheelchair, being introduced to D&D, to see themselves more or less as the chairbound badass taking names and kicking ass. But, with the way the adults are going off about it, you'd think that each copy of the wheelchair access dungeon Candlekeep book sold somehow magically created a wheelchair ramp in a games store, or bought a van to help disabled D&D players get to and from their games.

I'm going to be writing in an important NPC that has been confined to a wheelchair specifically to explore this whole shit show, and it will be up to the characters to work out why the NPC is still in the chair after all the healing spells in Waterdeep have been unable to heal them. There may or may not be a chase sequence involving a steep hill and a runaway wheelchair.

While you're at it - since you're giving your time, energy and money (unless you went sailing on the High Seas for it) to WotC using their products, could you also test out:

1) The Hypertension Mage
2) The Obese Ranger (hates Druids for being Vegan and pushing their healthy lifestyle on them)
3) The Vegan Druid - (see above)
4) The Restitution Thief - Black thieves that can steal with impunity because of slavery in real life or anywhere else, in any dimension.
5) The Thalidomide Bard - Since they can't manipulate most instuments, they merely whistle, or play a harmonica on a neck-brace.
6) The Child Sacrifice Cleric - Because all beliefs are equal. Because if they believe its "good" who are we to question it?
7) The Beta-Male White Fighter - Does half damage to any other sentient species that isn't a white male. If they're female, they must Save or Simp.
8) The new Abortionist Class - they can abort people post-birth or any other time because it's their right. They use a Vacuum Aspirator Sword. It vacuums up parts of your body on a Critical. Saline Injection darts are also part of their kit.
9) The Anti-Colonist Sorcerer - your bloodline is the Oppressed.
10) The Outrage Barbarian - your natural state is to be Enraged. Your special ability is to be calm when you pop your "magic pills". When it's over you succumb to Fatigue.

Excuse me while I clip that and put it in the project discord server.

11) The Anti-Orientalist monk - Gets massive bonuses against classes and creatures displaying Orientalism.
12) The ADHD Mage - Aka the sorcerer
13) The Post Traumatic Stress Paladin - Triggered by demons. So heroic, when not cowering.
14) The Postmodernist Bard - With a few choice words, can deconstruct the abilities of monsters and other classes.
15) The Your Body, My Choice Cleric - You don't get to choose what spells the cleric casts on you. They're a divine mandate.
16) The Handicapable Warlock - You can choose either sickly and bedridden, or a quadruple amputee. Fortunately, your pacts compensate for your physical shortcomings! And yes, by not embracing your limitations, you must choose an evil alignment.
17) The Bipolar Berserker - Sometimes you sulk and refuse to do anything useful, sometimes you're so full of energy you literally chew on the scenery.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on September 06, 2021, 01:19:38 PM
5e players have already accepted a long list of absurd facts:

-Only an Asian player should be allowed to play an Asian character.
-Orcs are black people, so if your orcs are evil you think black people are evil
-If your dark elves have black skin, you think black people are evil.
-If you have slavery in your game, you support slavery
-If 50% of your NPCs aren't female, you are a sexist
-if 50% of your NPCs aren't gay, you are a homophobe

Can I be informed as to when I accepted these? Any time in the last six years I would guess, but I am curious.

Quote from: Aglondir on September 03, 2021, 01:41:52 PM
What's up with the underwater tuba guy?

I thought that was "examples of worthless character classes".

A "wheelchair-accessible dungeon" should be one of two things:
1) A location in which there is a ramp for carts of supplies to get to a lower level. But the rest of the dungeon has stairs and such.
2) A dungeon in which a ramp is placed, which probably goes around a lot of corners, getting 1 degree steeper every time it does, eventually becoming a straight vertical drop.

Sorry, but in my day (damn, I sound like a greybeard, but whatever), ramps happened when stairs collapsed, and ended in 10ft pits with spikes.

Quote from: WillyDJ on September 07, 2021, 05:24:56 AM

Quote from: hedgehobbit on September 06, 2021, 01:19:38 PM
5e players have already accepted a long list of absurd facts:

-Only an Asian player should be allowed to play an Asian character.
-Orcs are black people, so if your orcs are evil you think black people are evil
-If your dark elves have black skin, you think black people are evil.
-If you have slavery in your game, you support slavery
-If 50% of your NPCs aren't female, you are a sexist
-if 50% of your NPCs aren't gay, you are a homophobe

Can I be informed as to when I accepted these? Any time in the last six years I would guess, but I am curious.

You are assumed to have accepted those by WotC. If you don't believe us - go to any of the other forums and post that you don't support any of these ideas and merely watch what happens.

We'll see you back here in a few.

@Pat - you and I need to make the Newly Unearthed Arcana for 5e...

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 06, 2021, 01:25:00 PM
...
You say "accepted" but that is not the correct word for uniformly describing the reactions to the bullshit you mention. Many either reject or simply ignore this nonsense rather than accepting it. And they still go on playing 5e...

This shouldn't have to be spelled out, but:

No one is saying that if you already have the 5e books, that you should stop playing 5e D&D.

The point is now that you know that WOTC has openly taken the side of the totalitarian left, why would you continue to buy their products, and keep giving money to someone that hates you?

Hmm... Got me thinking about doing a small source book to emulate real world disabilities or character flaws if you will for RPGs. These could be through environmental factors, birth, injury or even a curse (remember it's a fantasy game). Of course, this isn't new per se, but it could be good for inclusivity purposes. :)

It could be done like a random roll thing, or a player could choose a specific character flaw. And a bit like vampire in the 90s, they could get some points to put into something new, or beef up another skill to compensate. Now, as it would be for the OSR, there would be no high-fantasy magical contrivances allowed. It just wouldn't work.

Of course, this would offend quite a few of the twitter crowd for being tone deaf. But it really shouldn't. One, it's only a fantasy game. Two, I apply this standard to myself. I mean, I suffer from severe depression. I consider it to be a personal flaw or disability. And I'm alright with calling it a personal character flaw. Why, because it is. But it does'nt make me any less of a person. Same can be said, for other people with disabilities. They are no less than anyone else.

It's about realism not ridicule. If people found the 'old' lingo too offensive. You could easily change the words to be more euphemistic or palatable. Then you could sell it on drivethru and donate the proceeds to a charity for disabled people.

Edit: PS - I think this a far better way to portray disabilities in a low fantasy game. Sure, they can go the uber magical floating disk route (for very high fantasy) or just play a normal character. But with something like this, one would have an option to play it emulating semi-real life. Assuming they wanted to of course.

Quote from: Jaeger on September 07, 2021, 01:21:06 PM
This shouldn't have to be spelled out, but:

No one is saying that if you already have the 5e books, that you should stop playing 5e D&D.

The point is now that you know that WOTC has openly taken the side of the totalitarian left, why would you continue to buy their products, and keep giving money to someone that hates you?

I get what you are saying and agree with you.  However, I want to point out that I went from not buying to not playing over the course of about a year, because it went from "OK, WotC is putting out even more stupid stuff but I can work with what I already have," to "not wasting anymore mental time and effort on their products."  For me, continuing to spend time and effort on their products would be the classic "sunk cost" fallacy.  I've been a lot happier now that I'm doing my own thing.  It's more work up front, but now it is paying off in my gaming.  There are some other short-term versus long-term considerations in there, too.  How do I know how bad WotC is going to be a year from now?

Everyone has to draw that line for themselves (on any optional activity, really).  However, I am saying that some people really should stop playing WotC games, if only to quit worrying about it.

Quote from: Jaeger on September 07, 2021, 01:21:06 PM
No one is saying that if you already have the 5e books, that you should stop playing 5e D&D.

The point is now that you know that WOTC has openly taken the side of the totalitarian left, why would you continue to buy their products, and keep giving money to someone that hates you?

I buy products based on what is fun for me and my friends to play, not based on the politics of the creators. I'll generally buy from either left-leaning or right-leaning authors.

Quote from: Jaeger on September 05, 2021, 06:13:37 PM
For those who say: "So what? Not a big Deal!"

My response would be: "So you agree with them that there are five lights now? Ok..."

The five lights reference (from Star Trek TNG) applies directly to the discussion here. Pundit has claimed basic untruths like these:

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 03, 2021, 04:35:00 PM
The wheelchair is in Candlekeep, and EVERY dungeon for official D&D from Candlekeep onwards has been wheelchair-accessible.

I checked this. It is completely false. But when I pointed this out, he instead came back and accused me of making "motte and bailey argument" and made more claims.

What bugs me most is that in the world of Internet outrage, the truth doesn't matter. If someone points out a falsehood, then they're the problem and need to be attacked more, because clearly they're not loyal enough to the cause.

I have fun playing 5E, and while I may be liberal, I don't conform to what some posters are claiming here, like hedgehobbit's list of absurd facts.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on September 06, 2021, 01:19:38 PM
5e players have already accepted a long list of absurd facts:

-Only an Asian player should be allowed to play an Asian character.
-Orcs are black people, so if your orcs are evil you think black people are evil
-If your dark elves have black skin, you think black people are evil.
-If you have slavery in your game, you support slavery
-If 50% of your NPCs aren't female, you are a sexist
-if 50% of your NPCs aren't gay, you are a homophobe

As for the combat wheelchair -- I've been playing D&D 5E for years, and I never would have heard of the combat wheelchair if it weren't for the noise being made over it here on theRPGSite.

https://www.google.com/search?q=D%26D+combat+wheelchair&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2vZ6K5O3yAhUDCjQIHU4qDY4Q_AUoBHoECAEQBg&biw=1229&bih=608&dpr=1.56

Quote from: jhkim on September 07, 2021, 03:56:37 PM
...
I buy products based on what is fun for me and my friends to play, not based on the politics of the creators. I'll generally buy from either left-leaning or right-leaning authors.
...

I have fun playing 5E, and while I may be liberal, I don't conform to what some posters are claiming here, like hedgehobbit's list of absurd facts.
...

To be clear:

You do not buy into the SJW agenda.

And you ignore politics, sjw or otherwise, entirely as a value judgement in your purchases of rpg material.

Would that be accurate to your position?

Quote from: Jaeger on September 07, 2021, 05:29:45 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 07, 2021, 03:56:37 PM
...
I buy products based on what is fun for me and my friends to play, not based on the politics of the creators. I'll generally buy from either left-leaning or right-leaning authors.
...

I have fun playing 5E, and while I may be liberal, I don't conform to what some posters are claiming here, like hedgehobbit's list of absurd facts.
...

To be clear:

You do not buy into the SJW agenda.

And you ignore politics, sjw or otherwise, entirely as a value judgement in your purchases of rpg material.

Would that be accurate to your position?

Saying "the SJW agenda" is too vague to define. Some people here have accused me of being an SJW at times. I don't agree with any of hedgehobbit's list - but they sound more like parody or hyperbole to me. I'm happy to give positions on particular issues.

And yeah, I ignore politics of the creator in my purchases of rpg material.

Common sense from Clownfish. :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wysD6BBxml0

Quote from: jhkim on September 07, 2021, 06:05:07 PM
Saying "the SJW agenda" is too vague to define. Some people here have accused me of being an SJW at times. I don't agree with any of hedgehobbit's list - but they sound more like parody or hyperbole to me.

For the *years* you have been discussing these issues on this very forum, for you to pretend that "the SJW Agenda" is *vague* paints you as being pretty obtuse don't you think?

I've already stated the litmus test for hedgehobbit's list: Go post something contrary to any of these on the other RPG forums and watch what happens. How hyperbolic is it? Or are you just being ignorant for the purposes of bad-faith discourse? This is why people have accused you of being an SJW, since the level of cognitive dissonance required to make such a statement is kinda ridiculous, which is a very prominent... no... *mandatory* trait to be an SJW. (Which I'm not sure you're an actual SJW... more like a chameleon that hangs around with them and picked up their behaviors.)

Normies even talk about this bullshit...

https://www.wired.com/story/dandd-must-grapple-with-the-racism-in-fantasy/

literally dozens of blogposts and articles referencing "problematic" issues for SJW's with their perception of D&D and its history.

I mean WotC cites it right here:
https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/diversity-and-dnd

What is hyperbolic about these claims? They're not necessarily specific, but hyperbolic? Not at all. Again - go to any place where the SJW's gather and post any of those claims and you'll get mobbed. Do it rather than pretend we're just wrong, or being hyperbolic.

Quote from: jhkim on September 07, 2021, 06:05:07 PMI'm happy to give positions on particular issues.

Speaking for myself, I don't personally care what you, or anyone else's politics are as long as you're discussing things in good faith. I'll grant that some people are incapable or at least have a lot of problems putting themselves in another's shoes for the purposes of understanding their position. But the point of the discussion is to figure that out.

Quote from: jhkim on September 07, 2021, 06:05:07 PMAnd yeah, I ignore politics of the creator in my purchases of rpg material.

And maybe this is what blinds you to the things being discussed here? Just saying it's a possibility.

Quote from: jhkim on September 07, 2021, 06:05:07 PM
And yeah, I ignore politics of the creator in my purchases of rpg material.

I do too, right up to the moment where the creator makes it impossible to do so any longer.  That exact moment varies, but the stimulus is always coming from them, not me.

Quote from: tenbones on September 08, 2021, 10:49:41 AM

Quote from: jhkim on September 07, 2021, 06:05:07 PM
Saying "the SJW agenda" is too vague to define. Some people here have accused me of being an SJW at times. I don't agree with any of hedgehobbit's list - but they sound more like parody or hyperbole to me.

For the *years* you have been discussing these issues on this very forum, for you to pretend that "the SJW Agenda" is *vague* paints you as being pretty obtuse don't you think?

I've already stated the litmus test for hedgehobbit's list: Go post something contrary to any of these on the other RPG forums and watch what happens. How hyperbolic is it? Or are you just being ignorant for the purposes of bad-faith discourse? This is why people have accused you of being an SJW, since the level of cognitive dissonance required to make such a statement is kinda ridiculous, which is a very prominent... no... *mandatory* trait to be an SJW.

Quote from: tenbones on September 08, 2021, 10:49:41 AM
What is hyperbolic about these claims? They're not necessarily specific, but hyperbolic? Not at all. Again - go to any place where the SJW's gather and post any of those claims and you'll get mobbed. Do it rather than pretend we're just wrong, or being hyperbolic.

I've actively talked to and gamed with people called SJWs for ages - in person, on Facebook, and in other places. I will go ahead and post in another forum as you say, but I'm pretty sure what the results will be. I still think that hedgehobbit's list is hyperbole or parody. For example, I'd guess roughly 5 to 10% of my NPCs are gay. According to hedgehobbit, this means that all 5E players will consider me homophobic because that is much less than 50%. I don't find that to be the case in my experience.

I feel like this is completely obvious, but you're insisting that it's not at all hyperbole.

Quote from: jhkim on September 08, 2021, 02:07:28 PM
For example, I'd guess roughly 5 to 10% of my NPCs are gay. .

I've always been pro gay rights myself. At the same time, I don't ever have gay npcs per se. Sure, there are gay folks in the world, but I find it far easier just to keep everything hetero. Personally, Ive no interest in ticking boxes (not saying that you are of course man, but just for the wokies). I just don't go in for that whole, 'you must be diverse' thing. I've no real interest in it... I like to play the boring old shit I've been playing and it's also easier and familiar. I'm not going to do any extra work for anyone. I'm also pretty lazy (unless I'm getting paid).

But if a PC wanted to be gay, and then seek out gay npcs to interact with, that's fine by me. But I'm not going to do it, just because some woke ephemeral force says we should. I'll do it for the sake of the player but not the game (or the hobby as a whole). If I want to make the world better I'll use my left-wing vote in the real world.

Quote from: jhkim on September 08, 2021, 02:07:28 PM
...

I've actively talked to and gamed with people called SJWs for ages - in person, on Facebook, and in other places. I will go ahead and post in another forum as you say, but I'm pretty sure what the results will be. I still think that hedgehobbit's list is hyperbole or parody. For example, I'd guess roughly 5 to 10% of my NPCs are gay. According to hedgehobbit, this means that all 5E players will consider me homophobic because that is much less than 50%. I don't find that to be the case in my experience.

I feel like this is completely obvious, but you're insisting that it's not at all hyperbole.

I get the impression that you don't like talking in broad generalities, which is why I think that you bounce off a lot of these discussions.

What I don't think that you are getting here is this:

It doesn't matter that hedgehobbit's list is a bit hyperbolic, or that you think it is absurd.

It is close enough to the mark that you will still get backlash for saying that it is all nonsense on certain forums.



Go to ENWorld and RPG.net and Post something similar to:

Quote from: jhkim takes the dare? - Props to him if he does!  on September 08, 2021, 02:07:28 PM
"I was told on another forum that 5e players actually believe this nonsense.

This is pure hyperbole, no way 5e players have actually accepted these absurdities:

-Only an Asian player should be allowed to play an Asian character.
-Orcs are black people, so if your orcs are evil you think black people are evil
-If your dark elves have black skin, you think black people are evil.
-If you have slavery in your game, you support slavery
-If 50% of your NPCs aren't female, you are a sexist
-if 50% of your NPCs aren't gay, you are a homophobe

I don't see how on either forum, a minimum of a thread lock will not be forthcoming. Which will be sufficient to prove our point.

And when the pile on starts before the mods lock the thread - Don't be wishy washy in your replies to the backlash or try any nuanced "I see where you are coming from" replies: Treat each item on the list with the same distain you do here.

Good Luck.

Quote from: Jaeger on September 08, 2021, 02:40:05 PM
What I don't think that you are getting here is this:

It doesn't matter that hedgehobbit's list is a bit hyperbolic, or that you think it is absurd.

It is close enough to the mark that you will still get backlash for saying that it is all nonsense on certain forums.

It sounds like you're saying that hedgehobbit's list is not true and is hyperbolic just like I said. But now you're trying to say that the intent is some other point.

I prefer to say what I actually think. If something is hyperbolic, I'll call it hyperbolic. If someone wants to know what I think, I'll say what I actually think.

That will still be true when I go to another forum. Regardless of the specific claims -- if someone comes into a gaming forum declaring "X Y and Z political opinions are nonsense" -- then they're going to be taken as somebody with a chip on their shoulder looking for a fight. I'd go in there and discuss games and give my actual opinions when they're relevant.

Quote from: jhkim on September 08, 2021, 06:57:39 PM
...
I prefer to say what I actually think. If something is hyperbolic, I'll call it hyperbolic. If someone wants to know what I think, I'll say what I actually think.

Ahh, the way you reply is much clearer now.

Something infused with a bit of hyperbole does not mean that it is not generally correct.

I have seen SJW's on different forums advocate for each of hedgehobbit's points at one time or another. And if there starts to be the slightest blowback you see threads locked and posters banned for being non-inclusive for disagreeing with them.

Hedgehobbit just puts them all on a single list.

Has he taken the most absurd stances? Sure.

But that is the point: Even the most absurd stances get a pass. You will be subject to locked threads and outright bans if you try to pushback against them.

Quote from: jhkim on September 08, 2021, 06:57:39 PM
That will still be true when I go to another forum. Regardless of the specific claims -- if someone comes into a gaming forum declaring "X Y and Z political opinions are nonsense" -- then they're going to be taken as somebody with a chip on their shoulder looking for a fight.

The difference is that if you do that here: The debate will be allowed to go on.

If you do it on other forums: You will be silenced just for having the wrong opinions...

Quote from: Jaeger on September 08, 2021, 07:51:49 PM
I have seen SJW's on different forums advocate for each of hedgehobbit's points at one time or another. And if there starts to be the slightest blowback you see threads locked and posters banned for being non-inclusive for disagreeing with them.

Hedgehobbit just puts them all on a single list.

Has he taken the most absurd stances? Sure.

But that is the point: Even the most absurd stances get a pass. You will be subject to locked threads and outright bans if you try to pushback against them.

But the original topic wasn't about how Internet boards get moderated -- it was about D&D players playing D&D. hedgehobbit claimed that 5E players believed all of the points on his list. That's not true. It's hyperbole. I'll buy that there's someone somewhere who may believe each of those points, but it is not universal or even typical of 5E players.

Likewise, when Pundit claims that the combat wheelchair is official D&D and that it's in Candlekeep Mysteries -- that's also not true.

I'm not saying that no one should ever use hyperbole. I've used it millions of times. But if asked, I'm willing to admit it and am capable of talking about actual reality.

" hedgehobbit claimed that 5E players believed all of the points on his list. That's not true. "

The problem with this tack is that literalism and pedantry aren't much of a convincing rebuttal of anything.

When I say "you always interrupt me" and someone else says " he doesn't always interrupt you" it does very little to blunt the idea being conveyed that the party in question interrupts quite a lot and more than the first party appreciates. People are having a spirited discussion with a bit of tension, they are not composing technical writing by committee or presenting a forensic case for peer review. This is a bit like a detective Columbo imitator pouncing on trivial irrelevant inconsistencies instead of finding an important relevant contradiction that would actually invalidate anything important.

I can't wait to play D&D 5E as Aragorn, charging the black gates of Mordor in his combat wheelchair of diversity and representation!!!  The wheelchair gives him a +19 to all Diversity Checks.  That's right, a guaranteed 20 every time!!!  This is so awesome, and diverse!!!

Quote from: Jam The MF on September 09, 2021, 02:34:54 PM
I can't wait to play D&D 5E as Aragorn, charging the black gates of Mordor in his combat wheelchair of diversity and representation!!!  The wheelchair gives him a +19 to all Diversity Checks.  That's right, a guaranteed 20 every time!!!  This is so awesome, and diverse!!!

I will follow you, masked and SEVEN FEET behind you (because 7 is more than 6), as Gimli, the OSHA inspector, rapidly writing fines for all non-ADA accessible areas, as well as for all violation of local Covid Mandates. Together, we will bankrupt Mordor!

You have my (constantly sanitized) axe!

Quote from: jhkim on September 08, 2021, 02:07:28 PM
I've actively talked to and gamed with people called SJWs for ages - in person, on Facebook, and in other places. I will go ahead and post in another forum as you say, but I'm pretty sure what the results will be. I still think that hedgehobbit's list is hyperbole or parody. For example, I'd guess roughly 5 to 10% of my NPCs are gay. According to hedgehobbit, this means that all 5E players will consider me homophobic because that is much less than 50%. I don't find that to be the case in my experience.

I feel like this is completely obvious, but you're insisting that it's not at all hyperbole.

Then you do not understand the agenda. You're talking about people at your table. We're talking about the people setting the agenda FOR THE PEOPLE AT YOUR TABLE, which may or may not include you.

It's completely performative. What you keep in your head is meaningless to WotC/Paizo/Green Ronin/TBP and the rest of the SJW's pushing their agenda into the gaming-sphere. They *assume* you're following the agenda, clearly because you're not saying or doing anything against it, and you're rightfully consuming their products, and engaging in their spaces by their rules etc.

The moment you say, or perform an act of sedition like "I'm running a game set in jungle where the PC's are part of a colonial settlement that uses slave labor comprised of kobolds and goblins they've captured locally and I'd like some advice on treating them humanely and generating game-content out of this... " the usual fireworks will fly.

The agenda is engineer everyone's reactions into silence and complicity. If you feel enough heat, you will not have undesireable content (as delineated by them) in your game. And it *may* not work on you - that's okay for them too - they'll just poison the well for future players.

And they'll do it by filling the game with silly representational shit like Combat Wheelchairs, and non-contextual LGBT characters, polemics in their books about How to Play, Consent Forms, and the usual thousands of papercuts made from the Gate of Corralling they've erected around their flock.

Don't know if you noticed... it's a popular topic around forums nearly impossible to talk about gaming without the politics poisoning the industry to be brought up.

I was a member of of TBP from late 2001ish. I was a solid decade and half in watching all the insanity of the mods deepen. I was banned when they accused Paizo of being racist (because of how they treated Orcs in their game) and as a former freelancer for Paizo - I came to their defense because you know... Orcs aren't real etc. etc.

I was Permabanned for answering a question from a user that asked "I'm running an authentic WWII game. Is it okay for me to let my players use the term 'Jap'?"

My response was: Do whatever you want at your table.

Then suddenly everyone dogpiled me about being a racist. That I'm spreading racism. That not all white people called Japanese people 'Japs' back then, and of course the mob grew and grew...

My counter responses were: I'm part Japanese, I rather love my Asian side, I'm hardly racist (but that's a meaningless term by today's standards). And I posted the newspoll in the NYT circa WWII, where 60% of Americans (according to the poll) believed Japanese should be rounded up and executed. So, no, not all Americans probably used the term "Jap". But in the interest of having an 'Authentic WWII campaign' it's probably not an issue for the use of that language at your table if everyone is game.

Permabanned.

It's so common there at the TBP - and I know fully well that sentiment of oversensitivity is now practically religious in most corners of the TTRPG Publishing sphere, that calling it "hyperbole" in that there isn't an SJW Agenda seems far more hyperbolic in reality.

Quote from: Jam The MF on September 09, 2021, 02:34:54 PM
I can't wait to play D&D 5E as Aragorn, charging the black gates of Mordor in his combat wheelchair of diversity and representation!!!  The wheelchair gives him a +19 to all Diversity Checks.  That's right, a guaranteed 20 every time!!!  This is so awesome, and diverse!!!

Black gates? Do you even hear yourself? This is supposed to be fantasy not the Turner Diaries. Mordor is a diverse multiethnic developing nation that has their own culture and religion despite the best efforts of Gondor to wipe that out.  Stop pandering to the colonialism and genocide porn crowd. Has the Palantir taught you nothing? Gandalfianism is unacceptable. DO BETTER!

Quote from: palaeomerus on September 09, 2021, 04:01:27 AM

Quote from: jhkim on September 09, 2021, 03:43:29 AM
hedgehobbit claimed that 5E players believed all of the points on his list. That's not true.

The problem with this tack is that literalism and pedantry aren't much of a convincing rebuttal of anything.

Fair enough. But the problem is, I don't even know what I'm rebutting here, or to what extent I disagree.

I don't use Sara Thompson's combat wheelchair writeup, nor does any 5E player I know. As I said, I don't think I ever would have heard of it if not for the noise here. It apparently has gotten a round of mentions on some Twitter feeds and on some blogs, but I don't read any of those.

Still, even though I don't use it, I don't have any problem with it existing. I think people here disagree and have a problem with it existing -- but I can't tell where we disagree because of the hyperbole. I don't object to disabled PCs in general. I've had a number of those in my games, especially from using game systems with disadvantages like Hero System and GURPS.

Quote from: tenbones on September 09, 2021, 03:36:38 PM
What you keep in your head is meaningless to WotC/Paizo/Green Ronin/TBP and the rest of the SJW's pushing their agenda into the gaming-sphere. They *assume* you're following the agenda, clearly because you're not saying or doing anything against it, and you're rightfully consuming their products, and engaging in their spaces by their rules etc.

From my view,

1) I don't think RPGs have significant power as activism. They are too active a medium. Overtly liberal RPG material will mostly sell to other liberals, and is thus preaching to the converted. The same for conservative games. I think television and especially children's media can have a big cultural effect, but RPGs don't seem like something to fight over.

2) Even if I did want to fight, my politics broadly are aligned with other liberals - even if we differ on specific issues. I've had some deep discussions with several of the people who now write for Wizards and Green Ronin, and they didn't seem to have a problem with my positions.

Quote from: tenbones on September 09, 2021, 03:36:38 PM
Don't know if you noticed... it's a popular topic around forums nearly impossible to talk about gaming without the politics poisoning the industry to be brought up.

Well, yeah. Since this is my main gaming forum, I notice how politics has totally polluted the gaming discussion here on this forum.

Quote from: jhkim on September 09, 2021, 04:24:19 PM
From my view,

1) I don't think RPGs have significant power as activism. They are too active a medium. Overtly liberal RPG material will mostly sell to other liberals, and is thus preaching to the converted. The same for conservative games. I think television and especially children's media can have a big cultural effect, but RPGs don't seem like something to fight over.

Well given we're talking about the primary gaming companies pushing the agenda - the ones with populations of gamers that spans generations suddenly finding a singular agenda which has been inserted into their content. Preaching to the converted at the expense of the non-converted flies in the face that it's not the proper place to have the sermon being given in the first place. This is the guy talking about the Bible at the party while everyone is trying to have fun, they're handing out pamphlets damning many of those at the gathering and running people off.

Comparing TTRPGs to culture writ-large is a dodge. We are the ones in that arena talking about what is happening in the arena. The degree to which it impacts culture is only relevant to US. The agenda is to follow the larger establishment line - and here it is at our respective doorstep. But I'll indulge you below if you really think this...

Quote from: jhkim on September 09, 2021, 04:24:19 PM2) Even if I did want to fight, my politics broadly are aligned with other liberals - even if we differ on specific issues. I've had some deep discussions with several of the people who now write for Wizards and Green Ronin, and they didn't seem to have a problem with my positions.

They are not liberal. And without specificity I don't know what this means. I used to write for Paizo as a feature writer - I'm familiar with most of the folks there. I've seen many of them say shit in modern times that I'd *never* have imagined them saying when I was writing for them. People change. I haven't - they most certainly have.

What that says about your views on "liberalism" is meaningless without context. I generally hold that I can sit and have a beer with anyone, and talk about politics, religion, sex, and anything else without much concern about causing a ruckus. But these days... I'm not confident that's true. Again the proverbial Devil is in the details.

The question is - do you think *any* of these political insertions from the publishing teams are *necessary*? It goes both ways to your argument about "I don't think RPGs have significant power as activism" - if you believe that, why do you think they push it?

And I have no idea what a "conservative" RPG is.

Quote from: jhkim on September 09, 2021, 04:24:19 PMWell, yeah. Since this is my main gaming forum, I notice how politics has totally polluted the gaming discussion here on this forum.

And why do you think that is? Do you not recognize how many of the people here are refugees from many of the other sites for simply speaking of things we speak of here? It's because of the politics pushed on those forums which have infiltrated the TTRPG companies that this place exists in the first place. Are we not The Hate-Filled Cesspool to them? Why do you think that is? And do you think it's true?

And is that "Liberal" thinking?

Quote from: tenbones on September 09, 2021, 05:42:56 PM
Preaching to the converted at the expense of the non-converted flies in the face that it's not the proper place to have the sermon being given in the first place. This is the guy talking about the Bible at the party while everyone is trying to have fun, they're handing out pamphlets damning many of those at the gathering and running people off.

If people want to play an explicitly Christian RPG like Dragonraid, that may be their idea of having fun. I have fun at my church parties - they're nice people and I enjoy discussion with them (though as UU's we're not very Bible-thumping).

As far as chasing people off, D&D is more popular now than it ever was as far as I can see. There are some people who are turned off by it, but that's as it have always been. Fundamentally, I think there should be games of all different sorts that appeal to different people. There can be both a Tales of Gor RPG and a Thirsty Sword Lesbians RPG, and different people will play them.

Quote from: tenbones on September 09, 2021, 05:42:56 PM
The question is - do you think *any* of these political insertions from the publishing teams are *necessary*? It goes both ways to your argument about "I don't think RPGs have significant power as activism" - if you believe that, why do you think they push it?

1) Nothing is *necessary* in RPGs. People put into their RPG designs stuff that they like. It's not necessary to have gay characters, or elves, or humans, or straight characters in an RPG. Some designers may insert straight characters into their games, but that's not necessary. It's their choice, which they're welcome to do.

2) Some people believe that RPGs do have significant power to sway people's politics. I don't agree with them, but that doesn't stop them from trying.

Quote from: jhkim on September 09, 2021, 07:14:49 PM

If people want to play an explicitly Christian RPG like Dragonraid, that may be their idea of having fun. I have fun at my church parties - they're nice people and I enjoy discussion with them (though as UU's we're not very Bible-thumping).

But D&D has no such narrow parameter in terms of how it's played. Did you not understand the example? That someone is proseltyzing their religion isn't itself an issue. To do so in a place where it is unnecessary and for a large population of established players: unwanted.

the more important point below... again you seem to miss.

Quote from: jhkim on September 09, 2021, 07:14:49 PMAs far as chasing people off, D&D is more popular now than it ever was as far as I can see. There are some people who are turned off by it, but that's as it have always been. Fundamentally, I think there should be games of all different sorts that appeal to different people. There can be both a Tales of Gor RPG and a Thirsty Sword Lesbians RPG, and different people will play them.

So was the "chasing off" necessary? You can't have it both ways. You can't say "There is no agenda" then ignore the fact they're doing it for the agenda.

YES by all means Thirsty Sword Lesbians can and should exist for those that want it. That doesn't mean those elements which are not traditional to D&D need to be infiltrated into D&D. And it's being done so for an agenda. D&D is popular now because when 5e dropped - those elements weren't in the game. The SJW's hadn't fully taken over.

You're doing the obtuse thing again. You already know this. Practically no one here gives a flying crap about what people like personally at their table - only SJW's seem to care.

You know those companies that make Thirsty Sword Lesbians with their rules on who can play their game and how the game should be played and the fact that politics matters to them and if you don't like them - don't buy their products, and when people start pointing it out, they start screaming (because deep down they know the mathematical reality of their words they use in small social circles).

You'll notice the new faces around here that probably until the Streisand Effect took place in the Red List that probably had no idea we even existed.

Conversely if these elements didn't exist in 5e currently or the public context of WotC, Paizo  and their ilk publicly over social media, do you think we'd even be *having* this conversation? It would just be 5e with Pundit and Zak's name still in the book, we'd be talking about modules, lack of content, etc. and the usual gaming stuff, people wouldn't have their jobs threatened, or their products.

There clearly has been a political poisoning of the well - it's been illiberal, intentional and persistant to the point of nihilistic. D&D as a brand is existing on the good graces of people that came before it. That bubble will burst too.

Just like people said World of Warcraft would never go down... at some point people will get tired of the Kool Aid.

Quote from: jhkim on September 09, 2021, 07:14:49 PM
1) Nothing is *necessary* in RPGs. People put into their RPG designs stuff that they like. It's not necessary to have gay characters, or elves, or humans, or straight characters in an RPG. Some designers may insert straight characters into their games, but that's not necessary. It's their choice, which they're welcome to do.

Nothing is necessary? That is the fence you're going to sit on? Disingenuous response. You can do better. Stop being a coward. I'm not even  being political. Do I literally have to spell it out: D&D doesn't need politics inserted into it. It doesn't need "conservative", "liberal" or "communist" politics put into it. How hard was that? Stop being a coward.

If you wanna make a game overtly political - fair play. Do it. You really strain a lot of credit with me when you run for the outliers (unsurprisingly like SJW's do) when you want to cherry pick points. You knew exactly what I meant. Or just say "sorry I'm obtuse and I can't hold good faith discourse" and I'll be fine with that and chalk it up for future purposes.

Quote from: jhkim on September 09, 2021, 07:14:49 PM2) Some people believe that RPGs do have significant power to sway people's politics. I don't agree with them, but that doesn't stop them from trying.

Way to point out the obvious. You do realize that's what we're talking about here, right?

Quote from: tenbones on September 09, 2021, 08:25:53 PM
YES by all means Thirsty Sword Lesbians can and should exist for those that want it. That doesn't mean those elements which are not traditional to D&D need to be infiltrated into D&D. And it's being done so for an agenda. D&D is popular now because when 5e dropped - those elements weren't in the game. The SJW's hadn't fully taken over.

Quote from: tenbones on September 09, 2021, 08:25:53 PM
Nothing is necessary? That is the fence you're going to sit on? Disingenuous response. You can do better. Stop being a coward. I'm not even  being political. Do I literally have to spell it out: D&D doesn't need politics inserted into it. It doesn't need "conservative", "liberal" or "communist" politics put into it. How hard was that? Stop being a coward.

It sounds like you're saying that D&D can't contain any elements that it didn't traditionally have. But from my view, games change. AD&D wasn't the same as OD&D, and contained a lot of new elements, and that was in the space of just a few years. Over decades, I'd expect to see changes.

For example, there were no gay characters traditionally in D&D modules or setting books. As I read your view, it is infiltration for any new D&D modules to contain gay characters - inserting politics into D&D where it wasn't before, and shouldn't be. Is that a fair interpretation of this?

---

From my view, having a complete lack of gay characters was a political choice. For D&D, it was bowing to the censors and cancel culture of the 1970s and 1980s, that demanded gay people not be portrayed, that gay people be kicked out of the military, that gay teachers be fired, and so forth. You complain about the inclusion of non-contextual LGBT characters - but it's not like traditional D&D had contextual gay characters. It had none.

Canceling gay people was the norm when I was growing up and playing D&D. Those weren't my values, though. I learned as a kid from my church to include gay people, like when a same-sex couple brought their baby in for baptism. Still, I played D&D and just accepted that there was a political difference.

Quote from: jhkim on September 10, 2021, 02:04:20 PM
From my view, having a complete lack of gay characters was a political choice. For D&D, it was bowing to the censors and cancel culture of the 1970s and 1980s, that demanded gay people not be portrayed, that gay people be kicked out of the military, that gay teachers be fired, and so forth. You complain about the inclusion of non-contextual LGBT characters - but it's not like traditional D&D had contextual gay characters. It had none.

Canceling gay people was the norm when I was growing up and playing D&D. Those weren't my values, though. I learned as a kid from my church to include gay people, like when a same-sex couple brought their baby in for baptism. Still, I played D&D and just accepted that there was a political difference.

This is the problem with people like you: you assume that your personal failings are universal to all people.   I'm sure you see the inclusion of gay people as political; you said as much above.   Therefore you can't imagine the inclusion or absence of gay people can be apolitical.  The rest of us are not bound by your shortcomings.

The absence of gay people is NOT synonymous with "exclusion."  Exclusion requires the removal of gay people from situations or places where they already exist.  Were I to set my campaign in ancient Athens and have no gay relationships,  an observer might have a point if they felt I had excluded gay people or relationships.   But,  were I to set the campaign in a Southern Baptist seminary, the absence of overt gay relationships would be expected and not "exclusionary at all.

Context matters.  That's why extremists like SJWs are so abhorrent.  They lack the capacity for nuance.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 10, 2021, 03:34:01 PM
The absence of gay people is NOT synonymous with "exclusion."  Exclusion requires the removal of gay people from situations or places where they already exist.  Were I to set my campaign in ancient Athens and have no gay relationships,  an observer might have a point if they felt I had excluded gay people or relationships.   But,  were I to set the campaign in a Southern Baptist seminary, the absence of overt gay relationships would be expected and not "exclusionary at all.

So from its origin to the 1980s, the U.S. military has basically always had a policy of not admitting any gay people and court-martialing anyone found to be gay. It sound like you're saying that this wasn't "exclusion" because they never allowed gay people. Likewise, if a school fires any teacher found to be gay, that isn't exclusion as long as it didn't previously allow gay teachers. Is that your argument?

That sounds semantically suspect to me, but the more important point is that those policies were wrong. Teachers should not have been fired for being gay, nor should soldiers have been court-martialed. My cousin Jordan is a veteran of the Air Force, and he is gay. If he had been in a previous generation, he might have been court-martialed for that. I think that was a stupid and reprehensible policy.

The reason why fictional game material of the 1970s and 1980s didn't have gay characters is because of these same policies and attitudes.

The life of a Gay is far too precious to risk in the military.  In fact the last article that I saw suggested sacrificing a ratio of 9 soldiers to protect every Gay.

Quote from: jhkim on September 09, 2021, 07:14:49 PM

1) Nothing is *necessary* in RPGs. People put into their RPG designs stuff that they like. It's not necessary to have gay characters, or elves, or humans, or straight characters in an RPG. Some designers may insert straight characters into their games, but that's not necessary. It's their choice, which they're welcome to do.

2) Some people believe that RPGs do have significant power to sway people's politics. I don't agree with them, but that doesn't stop them from trying.

So you're okay with "exclusion" or  not?

Seems to me you're arguing both sides at the same time

Quote from: jhkim on September 10, 2021, 05:40:15 PM
So from its origin to the 1980s, the U.S. military has basically always had a policy of not admitting any gay people and court-martialing anyone found to be gay. ...
BLAH BLAH
That sounds semantically suspect to me, but the more important point is that those policies were wrong. Teachers should not have been fired for being gay, ...

The reason why fictional game material of the 1970s and 1980s didn't have gay characters is because of these same policies and attitudes.

My memory might be suspect; I was really young back then.

Anyone else remember there being anti-gay RPG policies in place that publishers all adhered to?

Because I'm drawing a total blank...

Man does tenbones have you pegged.


What possible reason could there be for anything in that screed to be part of Gygax or Arneson's thought process in any way when they invented the first elfgame?

Here's a hint: None.

The world must be a horrible place when you see only the worst intentions for any and everything that doesn't overtly support your worldview.

Quote from: Jaeger on September 10, 2021, 08:27:53 PM
Here's a hint: None.
The world must be a horrible place when you see only the worst intentions for any and everything that doesn't overtly support your worldview.

There's definitely a couple of weird non-logical issues going on with these woke scolds.

They seem to purport that, if you don't have gay characters (or black characters, or whatever) then you are somehow a 'phobe or a racist'. Fuck them says I. That's a very disingenuous position in my view, and blatantly untrue. As I've said before, I'm pro gay rights. Love is love as they say, and if someone has found someone else regardless of sex, then that's great.

However, what I'm not interested in, is being coerced into injecting 'real world American woke issues' into my gaming. I'm not going to change RPGs to play politics to the song of some woke scold fascists. They can inject anything they want to, on their time and dime. But at no juncture will I bow to that faux political or manipulative pressure. It's only an elf game for fuck sake. LOL So, I don't subscribe to that 'theory' at all.

Secondly, when did sexual orientation become so important in RPGs? Never was before... And no one was ever explicitly stopping you from playing a non-hetero character. Knock yourselves out! As Jaeger said, I've yet to se it. And saying that a 'bad table experience' equates to 'most of the hobby' being homophobic (or whatever) is utterly preposterous and blatantly untrue.  ::)

For example, I've been training in and out of Martial Arts for over 35 years. And guess what, I've met some baaaad people in that time. Does that make me think, that all martial artists or clubs are homophobic or are full of evil doers? Of course not. but assholes like to have hobbies as well. That does'nt mean you have to interact with them or sit at the same table. I left several MA clubs before I found the right teacher.

Of course, the woke scolds can do whatever they want. Live and let live as my late mother taught me. But I wouldn't touch a wotc product with an asbestos glove, or any product that tries to indoctrinate one into thinking you're a bad person for essentially being pro-gay rights, anti-racist and egalitarian (etc.). And most of the conservatives here, are pretty decent too - Just pissed off, like my lefty self.

As long as the OSR, and some others are here, the hobby is essentially untouchable.  ;D By the way, if I wanted a sermon, I'd go to church (but, I wouldn't because I'm a raving atheist).

Ice-T (Body Count) said it better than I ever could:

"Tell us what to do? Fuck you!"


PS - Apologies for any spelling errors n' shit (more than usual). I had fek all sleep last night. ;D

Lythande in the Thieve's World Box for D&D was a gay woman wizard disguised as a man because that somehow was the secret that was the root of her power. She was created by Marion Zimmer Bradley. Look her up. Meanwhile who did Warduke like to fuck? It's a silly way to think.

Quote from: palaeomerus on September 09, 2021, 03:51:43 PM
Black gates? Do you even hear yourself? This is supposed to be fantasy not the Turner Diaries.

My goddamn sides are in orbit...  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

So obviously, in the attempts of being rational with someone with self-ascribed "liberal" leanings, it reverts back to anecdotal assumptions and projections.

The lack of Filipino-Japanese/Cajuns has been 100% absent from D&D and pretty much every single RPG that I know of. Am I to assume that there is some agenda that to gatekeep me from participating in largely Eurocentric flavored RPG's from people that were raised in those cultures that invented the hobby?

What kind of moronic logic is that?

Does everyone have some endemic right to have "representation" in a thing, in order to enjoy it? That is narcissistic at best, bigoted and culturally self-loathing at worst - maybe both.

It's pathetic and obvious that SJW's don't hold non-white people to these standards in their respective cultures. And we all know why. Reality is a motherfucker - it'll bite that ass.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on September 10, 2021, 09:36:24 PM
However, what I'm not interested in, is being coerced into injecting 'real world American woke issues' into my gaming. I'm not going to change RPGs to play politics to the song of some woke scold fascists. They can inject anything they want to, on their time and dime. But at no juncture will I bow to that faux political or manipulative pressure. It's only an elf game for fuck sake. LOL

I understand about not wanting to be coerced. That's exactly what I did in the 1980s. At the time, there were lots of conservative moralizing scolds who said that homosexuality was evil, that D&D was evil, and more. I ignored them and I did what I wanted.

For me, that meant playing D&D as well as other RPGs. I had a wide variety of characters in my games: elf, dwarf, male, female, gay, straight. I played fantasy games, historical games, superhero games, and horror games among others.

At the same time, I wasn't going to let them control me in reverse. I wasn't going to jump if they said sit, or sit if they said jump.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on September 10, 2021, 09:36:24 PM
They seem to purport that, if you don't have gay characters (or black characters, or whatever) then you are somehow a 'phobe or a racist'. Fuck them says I. That's a very disingenuous position in my view, and blatantly untrue. As I've said before, I'm pro gay rights. Love is love as they say, and if someone has found someone else regardless of sex, then that's great.

I'm not saying anything about you or any individual. If a single module has no gay characters, it doesn't show anything about the author. But when all of the hundreds of D&D modules in the 1970s and 1980s have zero gay characters -- then yes, I believe that at least some people involved were biased against gay people. I hardly think that's a stretch, given that gay people were blatantly and legally discriminated against at the time by most of society.

Specifically within RPG publishing, I know that Lee Gold said that all of the RPG publishers she worked with would have deleted any mention of homosexuality. Lee Gold was author of Land of the Rising Sun (1980, FGU), GURPS Japan (1988, SJG), and Vikings (1989, ICE). She noted in an essay -

QuoteEventually it occurred to me to wonder whether I'd been wrong to ignore cultural attitudes towards homosexuality. So when I next spoke to management people at my various publishers, I asked them. They said they were very glad I hadn't included the material, and -- yes, indeed -- if I had, it would have been deleted. RPG publishers don't boggle at gaming material featuring amoral bloodshed, torture, drug addiction, vampires, succubi (all strictly heterosexual, in every piece of artwork I've seen), and even demons -- but homosexuality seems to be beyond the pale.

Source: https://www.conchord.org/xeno/censorship.html

I think that just confirms what is perfectly obvious.

Quote from: palaeomerus on September 10, 2021, 09:52:13 PM
Lythande in the Thieve's World Box for D&D was a gay woman wizard disguised as a man because that somehow was the secret that was the root of her power. She was created by Marion Zimmer Bradley. Look her up. Meanwhile who did Warduke like to fuck? It's a silly way to think.

OK, I looked her up in my copy. Here's the text I see (page 5 of the personalities book):

QuoteLythande - a tall, slender, grey-haired priest of the Sect of the Blue Star. She rarely uses her powers openly but is capable of any known magic through the use of the blue star tatooed on her forehead. She must hide the fact that she is female, for if anyone discovers the fact, her power becomes theirs. She has sworn never to eat or drink in front of men and substitutes smoking tobacco, marijuana, or whatever else instead.

She may be gay in the Marion Zimmer Bradley story, but that isn't in the game book.

As for Warduke, I don't have a description of him in my books - but on the web, I see in several places that according to the Shady Dragon Inn, he was loved by a woman - a formerly good cleric named Raven. I don't have the full text description, though.

Quote from: Mithgarthr on September 10, 2021, 11:54:37 PM

Quote from: palaeomerus on September 09, 2021, 03:51:43 PM
Black gates? Do you even hear yourself? This is supposed to be fantasy not the Turner Diaries.

My goddamn sides are in orbit...  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

That's a sign that your middle has excessive mass.

Quote from: jhkim on September 11, 2021, 02:41:16 AM
I understand about not wanting to be coerced. That's exactly what I did in the 1980s. At the time, there were lots of conservative moralizing scolds who said that homosexuality was evil, that D&D was evil, and more. I ignored them and I did what I wanted.

I'm not saying anything about you or any individual. If a single module has no gay characters, it doesn't show anything about the author. But when all of the hundreds of D&D modules in the 1970s and 1980s have zero gay characters -- then yes, I believe that at least some people involved were biased against gay people. I hardly think that's a stretch, given that gay people were blatantly and legally discriminated against at the time by most of society.

Specifically within RPG publishing, I know that Lee Gold said that all of the RPG publishers she worked with would have deleted any mention of homosexuality. Lee Gold was author of Land of the Rising Sun (1980, FGU), GURPS Japan (1988, SJG), and Vikings (1989, ICE). She noted in an essay -

QuoteEventually it occurred to me to wonder whether I'd been wrong to ignore cultural attitudes towards homosexuality. So when I next spoke to management people at my various publishers, I asked them. They said they were very glad I hadn't included the material, and -- yes, indeed -- if I had, it would have been deleted. RPG publishers don't boggle at gaming material featuring amoral bloodshed, torture, drug addiction, vampires, succubi (all strictly heterosexual, in every piece of artwork I've seen), and even demons -- but homosexuality seems to be beyond the pale.

Source: https://www.conchord.org/xeno/censorship.html

I think that just confirms what is perfectly obvious.

That's it exactly... In the 80s we had those staunch religious freaks saying how evil RPGs were. Again, that was to us just more weird American nonsense. We in Europe pretty much just carried on as normal.

We were dealing with other problems with the Catholic Church, who incidentally, also detested homosexuality and still do today, sadly. But times have changed, and gay marriage was legalized here in Ireland. With 69% in favor of it. And that's a fucking landslide considering the views we had back in the 80s. And that's also despite the Catholic Church's intervention for everyone to vote against it. Haw haw... It was priceless.

So nothing wrong with going against the grain. In fact, we should all do it. It makes creativity thrive. Art should always push buttons!

So fast forward to 2021. And instead of things floating around in some peaceful middle-ground. We have woke scold fascists who say, you are the evil white dudes, if you do not do 'this or that'. And how today, every product has to be full of gender swaps, race swaps and sexual orientation swaps. AKA - Ravenwoke (or scooby do) and such other titles. Or wotc bullshit like having to apologize to the likes of Danial 'no mark' Kwan for Orientalism in a 40 year old product where they even said, in the intro of said product (I'm paraphrasing here):

"Sorry, we are not trying to be accurate and apologize if we lump all the cultures together. It's only for gaming purposes."

I know you not talking about me as an individual, man. And I'm not denying that there was no bias per se. But around those times in the 80s, homosexuality was something that was swept under the carpet, and not really talked about. It also wasn't really a big part of the collective consciousness either though, and some when it came to media in general.

So while I accept that there was 'some' bias back then, I also think that it's something that 'most' heterosexuals weren't interested in either. I mean, most of the creators were hetero, so why even think about the other side? I certainly didn't, I just wanted to play games and have fun. That bias, that is bandied about today by the woke scolds as 'deliberate homophobia' is disingenuous in my opinion.

For me, it's all about 'the intention' behind the art. If you 'deliberately' set out to create a game (or comic, movie or whatever) which portrays people in a bad light, then you are being an ass. And BTW, people may create something that may offend people, by accident, I don't think that should be a punishable act by the woke scolds.

Same goes for the whole racism thing. Back in the day these games were mainly created by white guys, so that's what they were writing about - self-insertion, etc. I don't believe there was any bad intention or malice behind it (aside from the odd a-hole which you get in everything as I discussed already).

Again, back in the day, no one ever said you couldn't play a gay character. Times have changed, and now gay people are far more accepted, which is Fantastic. Unless you happen to live in an islamist country, where they might throw you off a roof.

Slight tangent here for a moment... And speaking of gay acceptance in modern times, why do these woke scolds morons never criticize islam? Now, with all this inclusion business, we often see women in hijabs playing rpgs. Why is one of the most homophobic religions, islam, never criticized? There was a survey done in Britain recently, and it turned out that over 54% of 'moderate' muslims thought it was unacceptable to be gay. I'm sure it would be a similar figure over in the US, and far far higher in Pakistan or any other Islamic country. Funny that... Or do the deliberately hand wave it away.

Until it switches back to a nice middle ground between the two, where everyone is welcome without all this woke scolding and overt political correctness baby shit. I say fight the good fight against censorship and woke thought police fascists. The left have always fought against that type of 'wrong think' under the cosh enforcement.

And to any woke scolds reading this. Don't say, I'm islamophobic. I'm merely stating facts (check them out!). That, and I hate all religion. So, I refer to myself as 'religiophobic'.

Quote from: tenbones on September 11, 2021, 01:59:20 AM
It's pathetic and obvious that SJW's don't hold non-white people to these standards in their respective cultures. And we all know why. Reality is a motherfucker - it'll bite that ass.

Yep!!! Facts over feelings.

Well said Rob.

The inversion of the "Satanic Panic" to the "White-CIS-Hetero-Patriarchy Panic" is not only brands SJW's as hypocrites, it shows what anti-social nerds given some power does. And these are not people outside our hobby as it was in the 80's. Back then we were all in the same boat knowing fully well the moralizers were wrong, and we battened down the hatches and soldiered on.

Some didn't make it - and they left hobby for various reasons.

But since the SJW Cult subsumed by fiat everyone that isn't an "ally" and took their queues from the Marxists further afield in the culture and started applying it in our hobby - unlike in the 80's where the detractors were external to our hobby, now they were inside the hobby. And the Alinsky tactics served them well, and those turds floated to the top.

Imagine if Hasbro was purchased by the Catholic Church and they started proseltyzing their faith in the D&D brand. Breadcrumbing the Sacraments, pre-game session prayers to St. Gygax (His miracle of course that earned him sainthood was rolling 7 natural-20's in a row), then public skorning of non-believers, after session sin-shaming for whatever "bad things" your PC's did, and then the GM Confessional etc. etc.

Yeah I don't want that ideology inserted into my gaming products either unless it's a game specifically about that.

This is what makes it so insidious. The anti-historical and antisocial understanding that cultures are self-defining - "western culture" is what created all this. This pathological need to nurse ones victim-status as clout is gross. What's grosser is the people that play along with it as if it's okay.

Only a loser needs "representation" in a medium to feel validated. No game yet in nearly 50+ years of gaming (jesus...) or even in popular fiction outside of Starship Troopers has come close to representing me (Johnny Rico, you badass na nanay/i]). The fact that these losers currently are pushing their issues on the rest of us is the problem. I don't *need* to be invested in your problems and issues (to SJWs) and I don't want to game around them because well adjusted people can do that on the fly at their table.

@jhkim - One of your claims on this side-thread about believing TTRPG's don't have much impact on culture. Do you feel just because you stand with the SJW's (whether you claim to be one or not is irrelevant) that it's okay in terms of what they're doing to gaming writ large? Because the Satanic Panic people were minorities too relative to the rest of us - and they felt that same righteousness SJW's are claiming. Is it the message you approve of at the expense of us, or methods? Or both?

And further in light of your past with the Satanic Panic, does the passive participation in the current Cult Orthodoxy give you any pause?

Quote from: tenbones on September 11, 2021, 03:37:23 PM
Well said Rob.

The inversion of the "Satanic Panic" to the "White-CIS-Hetero-Patriarchy Panic" is not only brands SJW's as hypocrites, it shows what anti-social nerds given some power does. And these are not people outside our hobby as it was in the 80's. Back then we were all in the same boat knowing fully well the moralizers were wrong, and we battened down the hatches and soldiered on.

Some didn't make it - and they left hobby for various reasons.

But since the SJW Cult subsumed by fiat everyone that isn't an "ally" and took their queues from the Marxists further afield in the culture and started applying it in our hobby - unlike in the 80's where the detractors were external to our hobby, now they were inside the hobby. And the Alinsky tactics served them well, and those turds floated to the top.

Imagine if Hasbro was purchased by the Catholic Church and they started proseltyzing their faith in the D&D brand. Breadcrumbing the Sacraments, pre-game session prayers to St. Gygax (His miracle of course that earned him sainthood was rolling 7 natural-20's in a row), then public skorning of non-believers, after session sin-shaming for whatever "bad things" your PC's did, and then the GM Confessional etc. etc.

Yeah I don't want that ideology inserted into my gaming products either unless it's a game specifically about that.

This is what makes it so insidious. The anti-historical and antisocial understanding that cultures are self-defining - "western culture" is what created all this. This pathological need to nurse ones victim-status as clout is gross. What's grosser is the people that play along with it as if it's okay.

Only a loser needs "representation" in a medium to feel validated. No game yet in nearly 50+ years of gaming (jesus...) or even in popular fiction outside of Starship Troopers has come close to representing me (Johnny Rico, you badass na nanay/i]). The fact that these losers currently are pushing their issues on the rest of us is the problem. I don't *need* to be invested in your problems and issues (to SJWs) and I don't want to game around them because well adjusted people can do that on the fly at their table.

@jhkim - One of your claims on this side-thread about believing TTRPG's don't have much impact on culture. Do you feel just because you stand with the SJW's (whether you claim to be one or not is irrelevant) that it's okay in terms of what they're doing to gaming writ large? Because the Satanic Panic people were minorities too relative to the rest of us - and they felt that same righteousness SJW's are claiming. Is it the message you approve of at the expense of us, or methods? Or both?

And further in light of your past with the Satanic Panic, does the passive participation in the current Cult Orthodoxy give you any pause?

My one disagreement with the above is the notion that the Satanic Panic was in some way conservative.

Tipper Gore led the "moral majority" and every member of the panic pushers I've ever met was what today is called a "Karen"; a holier-than-thou moral busybody who over the years championed whichever cause earned them the most virtue points.

[side-bar: my Catholic priest actually stood up for one of my friends that I played D&D with against his Satanic Panic mother. The conservatives around here never cared about D&D; my mom liked that it fostered reading and math in a format kids would actually read.].

These leeches used religion (still quite a strong influence at the time) as a vehicle because points could be earned by excoriating others for perceived sins (while ignoring their own), but these days it's the SJW/Woke that offers the best vehicle for scoring virtue points for not adhering to the virtues of the Left.

It's the same crew of screeching harridans; literally in some cases (my friend's mom; now in her 70's; who was full blown in the Satanic Panic still goes to my Church, but has since gone full Woke and constantly complains about its refusal to allow gay "marriage", women priests, the need to more flexible about abortion, etc.). It's the same holier-than-thou mindset; building themselves up by tearing others down; just now firmly ensconced in the secular religion of Woke.

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 11, 2021, 04:51:11 PM

Quote from: tenbones on September 11, 2021, 03:37:23 PM
Well said Rob.

The inversion of the "Satanic Panic" to the "White-CIS-Hetero-Patriarchy Panic" is not only brands SJW's as hypocrites, it shows what anti-social nerds given some power does. And these are not people outside our hobby as it was in the 80's. Back then we were all in the same boat knowing fully well the moralizers were wrong, and we battened down the hatches and soldiered on.

Some didn't make it - and they left hobby for various reasons.

But since the SJW Cult subsumed by fiat everyone that isn't an "ally" and took their queues from the Marxists further afield in the culture and started applying it in our hobby - unlike in the 80's where the detractors were external to our hobby, now they were inside the hobby. And the Alinsky tactics served them well, and those turds floated to the top.

Imagine if Hasbro was purchased by the Catholic Church and they started proseltyzing their faith in the D&D brand. Breadcrumbing the Sacraments, pre-game session prayers to St. Gygax (His miracle of course that earned him sainthood was rolling 7 natural-20's in a row), then public skorning of non-believers, after session sin-shaming for whatever "bad things" your PC's did, and then the GM Confessional etc. etc.

Yeah I don't want that ideology inserted into my gaming products either unless it's a game specifically about that.

This is what makes it so insidious. The anti-historical and antisocial understanding that cultures are self-defining - "western culture" is what created all this. This pathological need to nurse ones victim-status as clout is gross. What's grosser is the people that play along with it as if it's okay.

Only a loser needs "representation" in a medium to feel validated. No game yet in nearly 50+ years of gaming (jesus...) or even in popular fiction outside of Starship Troopers has come close to representing me (Johnny Rico, you badass na nanay/i]). The fact that these losers currently are pushing their issues on the rest of us is the problem. I don't *need* to be invested in your problems and issues (to SJWs) and I don't want to game around them because well adjusted people can do that on the fly at their table.

@jhkim - One of your claims on this side-thread about believing TTRPG's don't have much impact on culture. Do you feel just because you stand with the SJW's (whether you claim to be one or not is irrelevant) that it's okay in terms of what they're doing to gaming writ large? Because the Satanic Panic people were minorities too relative to the rest of us - and they felt that same righteousness SJW's are claiming. Is it the message you approve of at the expense of us, or methods? Or both?

And further in light of your past with the Satanic Panic, does the passive participation in the current Cult Orthodoxy give you any pause?

My one disagreement with the above is the notion that the Satanic Panic was in some way conservative.

Tipper Gore led the "moral majority" and every member of the panic pushers I've ever met was what today is called a "Karen"; a holier-than-thou moral busybody who over the years championed whichever cause earned them the most virtue points.

[side-bar: my Catholic priest actually stood up for one of my friends that I played D&D with against his Satanic Panic mother. The conservatives around here never cared about D&D; my mom liked that it fostered reading and math in a format kids would actually read.].

These leeches used religion (still quite a strong influence at the time) as a vehicle because points could be earned by excoriating others for perceived sins (while ignoring their own), but these days it's the SJW/Woke that offers the best vehicle for scoring virtue points for not adhering to the virtues of the Left.

It's the same crew of screeching harridans; literally in some cases (my friend's mom; now in her 70's; who was full blown in the Satanic Panic still goes to my Church, but has since gone full Woke and constantly complains about its refusal to allow gay "marriage", women priests, the need to more flexible about abortion, etc.). It's the same holier-than-thou mindset; building themselves up by tearing others down; just now firmly ensconced in the secular religion of Woke.

Yes, Tipper Gore was a Democrat, but if you don't remember how balls deep the religious right was in the Satanic Panic of the '80s, then either you weren't there, or you were on better drugs than I was. And my drugs were pretty damn good.

Quote from: Tubesock Army on September 11, 2021, 05:47:33 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 11, 2021, 04:51:11 PM

Quote from: tenbones on September 11, 2021, 03:37:23 PM
Well said Rob.

The inversion of the "Satanic Panic" to the "White-CIS-Hetero-Patriarchy Panic" is not only brands SJW's as hypocrites, it shows what anti-social nerds given some power does. And these are not people outside our hobby as it was in the 80's. Back then we were all in the same boat knowing fully well the moralizers were wrong, and we battened down the hatches and soldiered on.

Some didn't make it - and they left hobby for various reasons.

But since the SJW Cult subsumed by fiat everyone that isn't an "ally" and took their queues from the Marxists further afield in the culture and started applying it in our hobby - unlike in the 80's where the detractors were external to our hobby, now they were inside the hobby. And the Alinsky tactics served them well, and those turds floated to the top.

Imagine if Hasbro was purchased by the Catholic Church and they started proseltyzing their faith in the D&D brand. Breadcrumbing the Sacraments, pre-game session prayers to St. Gygax (His miracle of course that earned him sainthood was rolling 7 natural-20's in a row), then public skorning of non-believers, after session sin-shaming for whatever "bad things" your PC's did, and then the GM Confessional etc. etc.

Yeah I don't want that ideology inserted into my gaming products either unless it's a game specifically about that.

This is what makes it so insidious. The anti-historical and antisocial understanding that cultures are self-defining - "western culture" is what created all this. This pathological need to nurse ones victim-status as clout is gross. What's grosser is the people that play along with it as if it's okay.

Only a loser needs "representation" in a medium to feel validated. No game yet in nearly 50+ years of gaming (jesus...) or even in popular fiction outside of Starship Troopers has come close to representing me (Johnny Rico, you badass na nanay/i]). The fact that these losers currently are pushing their issues on the rest of us is the problem. I don't *need* to be invested in your problems and issues (to SJWs) and I don't want to game around them because well adjusted people can do that on the fly at their table.

@jhkim - One of your claims on this side-thread about believing TTRPG's don't have much impact on culture. Do you feel just because you stand with the SJW's (whether you claim to be one or not is irrelevant) that it's okay in terms of what they're doing to gaming writ large? Because the Satanic Panic people were minorities too relative to the rest of us - and they felt that same righteousness SJW's are claiming. Is it the message you approve of at the expense of us, or methods? Or both?

And further in light of your past with the Satanic Panic, does the passive participation in the current Cult Orthodoxy give you any pause?

My one disagreement with the above is the notion that the Satanic Panic was in some way conservative.

Tipper Gore led the "moral majority" and every member of the panic pushers I've ever met was what today is called a "Karen"; a holier-than-thou moral busybody who over the years championed whichever cause earned them the most virtue points.

[side-bar: my Catholic priest actually stood up for one of my friends that I played D&D with against his Satanic Panic mother. The conservatives around here never cared about D&D; my mom liked that it fostered reading and math in a format kids would actually read.].

These leeches used religion (still quite a strong influence at the time) as a vehicle because points could be earned by excoriating others for perceived sins (while ignoring their own), but these days it's the SJW/Woke that offers the best vehicle for scoring virtue points for not adhering to the virtues of the Left.

It's the same crew of screeching harridans; literally in some cases (my friend's mom; now in her 70's; who was full blown in the Satanic Panic still goes to my Church, but has since gone full Woke and constantly complains about its refusal to allow gay "marriage", women priests, the need to more flexible about abortion, etc.). It's the same holier-than-thou mindset; building themselves up by tearing others down; just now firmly ensconced in the secular religion of Woke.

Yes, Tipper Gore was a Democrat, but if you don't remember how balls deep the religious right was in the Satanic Panic of the '80s, then either you weren't there, or you were on better drugs than I was. And my drugs were pretty damn good.

Yes, Tubesock Army. We know that you have to be medicated. No shush and let the adults talk.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on September 11, 2021, 11:05:22 AM
I'm not denying that there was no bias per se. But around those times in the 80s, homosexuality was something that was swept under the carpet, and not really talked about. It also wasn't really a big part of the collective consciousness either though, and some when it came to media in general.

So while I accept that there was 'some' bias back then, I also think that it's something that 'most' heterosexuals weren't interested in either. I mean, most of the creators were hetero, so why even think about the other side? I certainly didn't, I just wanted to play games and have fun. That bias, that is bandied about today by the woke scolds as 'deliberate homophobia' is disingenuous in my opinion.

I just want to play games and have fun too. I'm straight, and I've had fun by having a variety of characters (PC and NPC) of lots of different types - from a flamboyant gay strategist to a calculating straight cyborg assassin. For me, one of the joys of role-playing is having characters that are different than me.

I had a thread two years back, "Favorite Gay Characters" (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/favorite-gay-characters/) where a bunch of people chimed in with fun gay characters they had in their campaigns. That included Pundit and other regulars here.

From my view, there are a lot of jerks and assholes out in the world - both liberal and conservative. I would say to not play your games based on what they say or don't say.

Quote from: tenbones on September 11, 2021, 03:37:23 PM
@jhkim - One of your claims on this side-thread about believing TTRPG's don't have much impact on culture. Do you feel just because you stand with the SJW's (whether you claim to be one or not is irrelevant) that it's okay in terms of what they're doing to gaming writ large? Because the Satanic Panic people were minorities too relative to the rest of us - and they felt that same righteousness SJW's are claiming. Is it the message you approve of at the expense of us, or methods? Or both?

And further in light of your past with the Satanic Panic, does the passive participation in the current Cult Orthodoxy give you any pause?

I don't quite understand the question. I definitely disapprove of some methods -- especially using hyperbole and/or slander to lie about one's political opponents - or worse harassing and/or doxing them. I try to speak out against these in the communities that I'm in. Among my liberal friends I think I've got some reputation as a pain-in-the-ass stickler for facts.

I think the Satanic Panic succeeded in making a lot of kids miserable - and I opposed it for that. I just don't think it helped its own political cause - I think in the long term, it damaged the moralizing movement that it represented. How I opposed the Satanic Panic was by being open and public about my role-playing and how it was a good thing. I played publicly and spoke openly about my gaming - later putting together web resources like listing psychological studies of RPGs that showed no sign of them being unhealthy.

I feel like that's something I'd support here. I'd love to see more positive talk about what's good about people's OSR games and how the criticisms made of them are mistaken. But it seems like most of the furor around here is over, say, someone publishing a combat wheelchair writeup - and I don't have any problem with that.

Quote from: tenbones on September 11, 2021, 03:37:23 PM
Imagine if Hasbro was purchased by the Catholic Church and they started proseltyzing their faith in the D&D brand. Breadcrumbing the Sacraments, pre-game session prayers to St. Gygax (His miracle of course that earned him sainthood was rolling 7 natural-20's in a row), then public skorning of non-believers, after session sin-shaming for whatever "bad things" your PC's did, and then the GM Confessional etc. etc.

If true, there'd be a ton of new people introduced to role-playing who didn't consider it before. That sounds like a fine thing to me. They have fun with their game, and maybe a percentage of them would come over to a style of role-playing that I'm interested in. I guess this hinges on the idea of the Catholic Church buying Hasbro. Would you be fine with it if the Catholic Church just came up with their own branch of D&D like Pathfinder?

I guess that's about brand loyalty and buying new material. I don't have any loyalty to Hasbro. If they stopped producing stuff I was interested in, I'd just switch to some other publisher. There were plenty of D&D imitators even before the OGL and retro-clones.

Quote from: tenbones on September 11, 2021, 03:37:23 PM
Well said Rob.

The inversion of the "Satanic Panic" to the "White-CIS-Hetero-Patriarchy Panic" is not only brands SJW's as hypocrites, it shows what anti-social nerds given some power does. And these are not people outside our hobby as it was in the 80's. Back then we were all in the same boat knowing fully well the moralizers were wrong, and we battened down the hatches and soldiered on.

Some didn't make it - and they left hobby for various reasons.

But since the SJW Cult subsumed by fiat everyone that isn't an "ally" and took their queues from the Marxists further afield in the culture and started applying it in our hobby - unlike in the 80's where the detractors were external to our hobby, now they were inside the hobby. And the Alinsky tactics served them well, and those turds floated to the top.

Imagine if Hasbro was purchased by the Catholic Church and they started proseltyzing their faith in the D&D brand. Breadcrumbing the Sacraments, pre-game session prayers to St. Gygax (His miracle of course that earned him sainthood was rolling 7 natural-20's in a row), then public skorning of non-believers, after session sin-shaming for whatever "bad things" your PC's did, and then the GM Confessional etc. etc.

Yeah I don't want that ideology inserted into my gaming products either unless it's a game specifically about that.

This is what makes it so insidious. The anti-historical and antisocial understanding that cultures are self-defining - "western culture" is what created all this. This pathological need to nurse ones victim-status as clout is gross. What's grosser is the people that play along with it as if it's okay.

Only a loser needs "representation" in a medium to feel validated. No game yet in nearly 50+ years of gaming (jesus...) or even in popular fiction outside of Starship Troopers has come close to representing me (Johnny Rico, you badass na nanay/i]). The fact that these losers currently are pushing their issues on the rest of us is the problem. I don't *need* to be invested in your problems and issues (to SJWs) and I don't want to game around them because well adjusted people can do that on the fly at their table.

@jhkim - One of your claims on this side-thread about believing TTRPG's don't have much impact on culture. Do you feel just because you stand with the SJW's (whether you claim to be one or not is irrelevant) that it's okay in terms of what they're doing to gaming writ large? Because the Satanic Panic people were minorities too relative to the rest of us - and they felt that same righteousness SJW's are claiming. Is it the message you approve of at the expense of us, or methods? Or both?

And further in light of your past with the Satanic Panic, does the passive participation in the current Cult Orthodoxy give you any pause?

Cheers man. I think you've really nailed it here, though. The woke scolds are indeed a cult. It's a bit like scientology or some such. Make everyone your enemy who has different views or worse yet, is apolitical (the heresy!). LOL I mean we are all on their enemy list.

I just adore their logic:
"You have no gays in your game".
"You have no black people in the art in your game".
"You haven't enough women".
"How dare you create a list!? Waaaah...."
"You only want free speech just to say nasty things"
"You can't enjoy the games you played years ago, because the world has changed."
"A game can't be apolitical"

So, you are totally homophobic, racist, sexist, and therefore a 'suppressive person', and must be attacked at all costs. Just one quick message to the woke scolds. You do know, we don't care if you want to make games with good looking naked men holding up their swords. Just make the games you want. Portray white men, as weak sickly Gollums, and have 7ft women in full tactical armour. Whatever floats your boat! Nobody cares, except you guys... Again, just sod off and do your own thing.

Indeed we don't need ideology in a game - unless it's specifically part of it (exactly, as you said Ten). We are adults, and don't need any clockwork orange rehabilitation. :)

Indeed, how these woke dweebs got into the hobby I don't really know, and then suddenly became part of the zeitgeist of modern gaming. Back in the 80s (beyond the odd few assholes) everyone was not only welcomed but nearly grabbed off the street and then virtually nailed to the table. Players were like gold dust! A thing they forget to tell you conveniently.

So all this dubious rhetoric, that gaming was somehow intentionally racist, sexist or homophobic is a  pile of shite, as far as I'm concerned, pure lies!

A lot if it seems to be about American white guilt, and righting the wrongs of their past. Do I deny, that some European countries invaded other countries (cough, Irish)? Nope, and it was terrible. But am I responsible for it? The fuck I am... In fact, no one is. And not white Americans either. I do not accept responsibility for the sins of others, no matter what skin colour they have.  And especially actions that happened 400 years ago. Or 700 years ago if you want to go the Irish oppression route.

My partner is English. Is she, with her white skin, somehow responsible for the raping of Irish resources that effectually led to the death of 1 million Irish with the famine outbreak? Nope... And when our country was divided up, and given to rich English families who then forced the Irish to work themselves to death on their own land. Do we blame the 'modern day' English? No we don't. Believe it or not, I hate talking about Ireland, but it shows the woke fascists that skin colour means fuck all. It didn't help us one iota, having snow white skin when they wanted the little resources we had.

The next time any of these shit ball woke scolds visits Ireland. Please take time out of your poxy holiday, and go and visit the mass grave site in skibbereen, county Cork. And tell an Irish person why they should bear YOUR American white guilt, because of their filthy white skin. You might want the number of a dentist on speed dial, however.

You can only be guilty for your own actions and no one else's. Never let anyone tell you otherwise. No matter what type of emotional coercive and manipulative tactics they try.

Are there problems with racism today? Yes, and they need to be dealt with, harshly. Same with sexism, homophobia or anything that causes harm to another (real harm that is, not at an elf game table). Do we forget the past? Of course not, nobody has ever forgotten WWII. The thing you do, is move forward while trying to set things right. I'm not saying that these are easy fixes btw, they are for bigger and better people than me (or any woke scold) to fix.

What these real issues have to do with an elf games RPGs I still don't exactly know. Simply find another table where folks are nice, and take your slacktivisim out into the real world and do something truly useful.

It's their bizarre illogical notions they keep spewing out. Or blowing things waaaay out of proportion. It makes no sense and is not conducive to get people onboard to their position.

But back to my Punk roots now. Ian Macke from Minor Threat, had these wokes pegged way back in the 80's:

"I'm sorry
For something that I didn't do
Lynched somebody
But I don't know who
You blame me for slavery
A hundred years before I was born

Guilty of being white
Guilty of being white
Guilty of being white
Guilty of being white

I'm a convict (Guilty!)
Of a racist crime (Guilty!)
I've only served (Guilty!)
Nineteen years of my time"

Quote from: jhkim on September 11, 2021, 08:07:13 PM
I just want to play games and have fun too. I'm straight, and I've had fun by having a variety of characters (PC and NPC) of lots of different types - from a flamboyant gay strategist to a calculating straight cyborg assassin. For me, one of the joys of role-playing is having characters that are different than me.

I know what you mean... But which side? The one that does'nt really care what you do, or the one that calls you every name under the sun if you don't like their nu way of gaming. But I know what you are trying to say.

I've never played a gay character. Mainly because, I can do anything you mentioned with a straight character well, nearly anything ;). My point is, that I never saw someone's sexual orientation as remotely interesting or character defining (that may be different from others). Basically, unless it's important or baked into the system it's not really talked about in game. At best it's, I flirt with the barmaid, we go upstairs and fade to black. As I said before, if a player wants to be gay, that's totally cool, I'll run with it as a GM. But box ticking, for the sake of it. I just can't bring myself to do that, just because woke skolds are saying  'you must!'.

I like playing women the odd time. Mainly because, of some cool women in movies and tv shows, etc. In merp I loved playing black orcs. It was fun hunting down humans. Yummy! :)

But this is it. Have fun and play whatever you want... There's no restrictions as long as everyone is having fun at the table. Just don't try and tell me what to do. :)

Quote from: jeff37923 on September 11, 2021, 06:35:47 PM

Yes, Tubesock Army. We know that you have to be medicated.

Only after your mom stays the night

Interestingly, one of the consequences of the Satanic Panic is that for decades after, in the RPG hobby, the hobby became kind of antagonistic to Christianity, especially the fundamentalist variety, for understandable reasons. Game designers pushed back by having more strongly anti-christian or pro-pagan elements in their products, and you had a lot of neo-pagans and witches and magicians and taoists or whatever talking proudly about their beliefs at gaming tables while Christians just had to kind of keep quiet or face questions like "how can you play, doesn't your church say D&D is satanist?"

Well, when the dam finally breaks and the SJWs get what they so fucking deserve, I certainly hope that in the gaming hobby thereafter being the slightest bit politically inclined in your gaming will be treated AT LEAST with that level of disdain, if not more, for years to come. Where if people even know you vote democrat they'll look at you like you're the enemy and ask "how can you play, doesn't your party say D&D is White Supremacy?"

Quote from: Tubesock Army on September 11, 2021, 10:36:26 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on September 11, 2021, 06:35:47 PM

Yes, Tubesock Army. We know that you have to be medicated.

Only after your mom stays the night

Oh, you're an all night mom fucker. I had no idea.

Quote from: palaeomerus on September 12, 2021, 12:30:44 AM

Quote from: Tubesock Army on September 11, 2021, 10:36:26 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on September 11, 2021, 06:35:47 PM

Yes, Tubesock Army. We know that you have to be medicated.

Only after your mom stays the night

Oh, you're an all night mom fucker. I had no idea.

You should have asked my mom........  ;D

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on September 11, 2021, 08:47:06 PM
Just one quick message to the woke scolds. You do know, we don't care if you want to make games with good looking naked men holding up their swords. Just make the games you want. Portray white men, as weak sickly Gollums, and have 7ft women in full tactical armour. Whatever floats your boat! Nobody cares, except you guys... Again, just sod off and do your own thing.

You might not care, but people do care - at least here on theRPGsite. There were 348 replies discussing "Thirsty Sword Lesbians", 202 replies concerning "Coyote & Crow", and so forth. The pattern is very clear that posters here do care, and they are really attached to getting outraged at all the details of liberal RPGs and RPG supplements. Outrage drives interest - as social media has proven.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on September 11, 2021, 09:05:43 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 11, 2021, 08:07:13 PM
I just want to play games and have fun too. I'm straight, and I've had fun by having a variety of characters (PC and NPC) of lots of different types - from a flamboyant gay strategist to a calculating straight cyborg assassin. For me, one of the joys of role-playing is having characters that are different than me.

I know what you mean... But which side? The one that does'nt really care what you do, or the one that calls you every name under the sun if you don't like their nu way of gaming. But I know what you are trying to say.

I've never played a gay character. Mainly because, I can do anything you mentioned with a straight character well, nearly anything ;). My point is, that I never saw someone's sexual orientation as remotely interesting or character defining (that may be different from others). Basically, unless it's important or baked into the system it's not really talked about in game. At best it's, I flirt with the barmaid, we go upstairs and fade to black.

Whatever works for you, but it sounds like you're implying that it's different for me. I don't think gayness has to be character defining - it's just a trait. For my favorite gay character in the thread I mentioned (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/favorite-gay-characters/), his gayness was only expressed through the equivalent of barmaid flirting. It was a James Bond 007 PC set in the 1980s, so for him, it was just meet a guy in a bar who introduces himself as "Ivan... Ivan Moorcock" -- and then we fade to black. But that was a fun bit of color that definitely added to the game.

Quote from: jhkim on September 12, 2021, 01:09:38 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on September 11, 2021, 08:47:06 PM
Just one quick message to the woke scolds. You do know, we don't care if you want to make games with good looking naked men holding up their swords. Just make the games you want. Portray white men, as weak sickly Gollums, and have 7ft women in full tactical armour. Whatever floats your boat! Nobody cares, except you guys... Again, just sod off and do your own thing.

You might not care, but people do care - at least here on theRPGsite. There were 348 replies discussing "Thirsty Sword Lesbians", 202 replies concerning "Coyote & Crow", and so forth. The pattern is very clear that posters here do care, and they are really attached to getting outraged at all the details of liberal RPGs and RPG supplements. Outrage drives interest - as social media has proven.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on September 11, 2021, 09:05:43 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 11, 2021, 08:07:13 PM
I just want to play games and have fun too. I'm straight, and I've had fun by having a variety of characters (PC and NPC) of lots of different types - from a flamboyant gay strategist to a calculating straight cyborg assassin. For me, one of the joys of role-playing is having characters that are different than me.

I know what you mean... But which side? The one that does'nt really care what you do, or the one that calls you every name under the sun if you don't like their nu way of gaming. But I know what you are trying to say.

I've never played a gay character. Mainly because, I can do anything you mentioned with a straight character well, nearly anything ;). My point is, that I never saw someone's sexual orientation as remotely interesting or character defining (that may be different from others). Basically, unless it's important or baked into the system it's not really talked about in game. At best it's, I flirt with the barmaid, we go upstairs and fade to black.

Whatever works for you, but it sounds like you're implying that it's different for me. I don't think gayness has to be character defining - it's just a trait. For my favorite gay character in the thread I mentioned (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/favorite-gay-characters/), his gayness was only expressed through the equivalent of barmaid flirting. It was a James Bond 007 PC set in the 1980s, so for him, it was just meet a guy in a bar who introduces himself as "Ivan... Ivan Moorcock" -- and then we fade to black. But that was a fun bit of color that definitely added to the game.

Hm... I think you're not quite getting what I mean by caring here. Most on this site, do not give a hoot if someone wants to create or play a game like, Thirsty Sword Thespians. And no one here would call for it to be banned (AFAIK). Now laughing about it on the other hand, with it's rather 'twee' concept, and the way Hicks presented its set of player per-requisites deserves plenty of ridicule. And that's what it got pages of folks taking the piss out of it. Bravo! Says I.

Now, on the other hand, the Woke Scolds are calling for bans or revisionist material left right and center. There's a huge difference between the two factions when it comes to gaming. Again, products like 'Ravenswoke' deserve ridicule. They are more than welcome to take the piss out of the 'red list' as well.
Fair is far after all. :)

We only begin to 'care' when it encroaches on the fabric of the game itself. Like D&D 5e. Personally, I couldn't a fig, as I'm not a D&D fan. But I do care somewhat that the guys at C7 pandered a bit for WFRP 4e. Of course, I can't really speak for other people on this site. So, they can feel free to chime in.

Bottom line is, I don't accept your statement as you presented it. Of course you're entitled to your opinion, unless you're wanted by the woke scolds. Like GJ, Venger or Pundit (and the others).

On to your Ivan Character:
So how do you define gayness then? What are you saying, that you have to 'camp it up' or something? If so, is that not a bit of a stereotype? I can already feel the woke scolds waging their virtual fingers at you. Tut...Tut...

Ivan Moorcock... could be applied to a woman as well, just saying.

Thing is, if you want sexual orientation to be a big part of the game that's totally cool. I've no problem with it at all. But I don't see it as character defining for 'my' games at least. Because when I GM my games tend to be about horror, darkness, violence, action and mystery. Humor, in the fashion of 'Are You Being Served" does not interest me. Black Adder and Alan Partridge was more my thing.

But again, you do you.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on September 12, 2021, 01:57:48 PM
Thing is, if you want sexual orientation to be a big part of the game that's totally cool. I've no problem with it at all. But I don't see it as character defining for 'my' games at least. Because when I GM my games tend to be about horror, darkness, violence, action and mystery. Humor, in the fashion of 'Are You Being Served" does not interest me. Black Adder and Alan Partridge was more my thing.

But again, you do you.

I feel like this is part of the disconnect here. You're reading "gay characters exist at all" to somehow that sexual orientation is a big part of all my games, which is absolutely not the case.

For example, my old James Bond 007 campaign was campy because it was based on 1980s James Bond movies. Still, it was focused on superspy action, gadgets, and mystery. The characters were all double-oh agents - but all with differences from Bond, doing over-the-top action like rooftop shootouts, car chases, and so forth.

My favorite PC from that was Quentin Falstaff III, who was more of an old-style English gentleman. While Bond was a slick urban gentleman who sipped his martini and used a petite little pistol, Quentin was a big horse-riding, shotgun-shooting, beer-drinking country aristocrat who was an action hero more like Rambo. I made sure to work in a horse-riding chase at one point to give him his spotlight.

My games vary a lot, though. I run and play a lot of Call of Cthulhu, which is generally very dark. The last campaign was Masks of Nyarlathotep, which had a lot of action and violence - it was more shotguns and dynamite than some of my other CoC games. I also play D&D (most recently 5E), Monster of the Week, Amber Diceless, and many other systems.

Quote from: jhkim on September 12, 2021, 04:00:40 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on September 12, 2021, 01:57:48 PM
Thing is, if you want sexual orientation to be a big part of the game that's totally cool. I've no problem with it at all. But I don't see it as character defining for 'my' games at least. Because when I GM my games tend to be about horror, darkness, violence, action and mystery. Humor, in the fashion of 'Are You Being Served" does not interest me. Black Adder and Alan Partridge was more my thing.

But again, you do you.

I feel like this is part of the disconnect here. You're reading "gay characters exist at all" to somehow that sexual orientation is a big part of all my games, which is absolutely not the case.

That's fair enough...

Quote from: jhkim on September 12, 2021, 04:00:40 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on September 12, 2021, 01:57:48 PM
Thing is, if you want sexual orientation to be a big part of the game that's totally cool. I've no problem with it at all. But I don't see it as character defining for 'my' games at least. Because when I GM my games tend to be about horror, darkness, violence, action and mystery. Humor, in the fashion of 'Are You Being Served" does not interest me. Black Adder and Alan Partridge was more my thing.

But again, you do you.

I feel like this is part of the disconnect here. You're reading "gay characters exist at all" to somehow that sexual orientation is a big part of all my games, which is absolutely not the case.

The disconnect is that no one here is saying that "gay characters existing" is political.  You are saying (in posts above) that having no overtly gay characters in a game is political.  And that is patently false.

Cleaning an error I made.  :-X

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on September 12, 2021, 09:04:12 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 12, 2021, 08:50:39 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 12, 2021, 04:00:40 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on September 12, 2021, 01:57:48 PM
Thing is, if you want sexual orientation to be a big part of the game that's totally cool. I've no problem with it at all. But I don't see it as character defining for 'my' games at least. Because when I GM my games tend to be about horror, darkness, violence, action and mystery. Humor, in the fashion of 'Are You Being Served" does not interest me. Black Adder and Alan Partridge was more my thing.

But again, you do you.

I feel like this is part of the disconnect here. You're reading "gay characters exist at all" to somehow that sexual orientation is a big part of all my games, which is absolutely not the case.

The disconnect is that no one here is saying that "gay characters existing" is political.  You are saying (in posts above) that having no overtly gay characters in a game is political.  And that is patently false.

Whut? Nope... That's not what I said at all.

I'll try again... There's nothing 'political' about having gay characters in a game, why would there be? If you'd read what I actually meant, I said from a woke scold's perspective by 'not' including gay characters, or black characters, or having a 50/50 ratio of women (and all that other mumbo jumbo) is a political stance. From their point of view that 'you' are taking even if you're not. And it is a negative one (from their perspective). AKA - They are trying to make any game that doesn't fit their woke criteria politically bad (for it's non-wokeness).

My personal view is, that I don't really give a shit about any of that. That is to say, I will not 'tick boxes' for the sjws. If anything, I go the other direction just just to be contrary, just for a laugh.

I was responding to jhkim.  Reread his posts in this thread.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 12, 2021, 09:16:37 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on September 12, 2021, 09:04:12 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 12, 2021, 08:50:39 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 12, 2021, 04:00:40 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on September 12, 2021, 01:57:48 PM
Thing is, if you want sexual orientation to be a big part of the game that's totally cool. I've no problem with it at all. But I don't see it as character defining for 'my' games at least. Because when I GM my games tend to be about horror, darkness, violence, action and mystery. Humor, in the fashion of 'Are You Being Served" does not interest me. Black Adder and Alan Partridge was more my thing.

But again, you do you.

I feel like this is part of the disconnect here. You're reading "gay characters exist at all" to somehow that sexual orientation is a big part of all my games, which is absolutely not the case.

The disconnect is that no one here is saying that "gay characters existing" is political.  You are saying (in posts above) that having no overtly gay characters in a game is political.  And that is patently false.

Whut? Nope... That's not what I said at all.

I'll try again... There's nothing 'political' about having gay characters in a game, why would there be? If you'd read what I actually meant, I said from a woke scold's perspective by 'not' including gay characters, or black characters, or having a 50/50 ratio of women (and all that other mumbo jumbo) is a political stance. From their point of view that 'you' are taking even if you're not. And it is a negative one (from their perspective). AKA - They are trying to make any game that doesn't fit their woke criteria politically bad (for it's non-wokeness).

My personal view is, that I don't really give a shit about any of that. That is to say, I will not 'tick boxes' for the sjws. If anything, I go the other direction just just to be contrary, just for a laugh.

I was responding to jhkim.  Reread his posts in this thread.

Sorry. I do apologize, my bad.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on September 12, 2021, 09:17:41 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 12, 2021, 09:16:37 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on September 12, 2021, 09:04:12 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 12, 2021, 08:50:39 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 12, 2021, 04:00:40 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on September 12, 2021, 01:57:48 PM
Thing is, if you want sexual orientation to be a big part of the game that's totally cool. I've no problem with it at all. But I don't see it as character defining for 'my' games at least. Because when I GM my games tend to be about horror, darkness, violence, action and mystery. Humor, in the fashion of 'Are You Being Served" does not interest me. Black Adder and Alan Partridge was more my thing.

But again, you do you.

I feel like this is part of the disconnect here. You're reading "gay characters exist at all" to somehow that sexual orientation is a big part of all my games, which is absolutely not the case.

The disconnect is that no one here is saying that "gay characters existing" is political.  You are saying (in posts above) that having no overtly gay characters in a game is political.  And that is patently false.

Whut? Nope... That's not what I said at all.

I'll try again... There's nothing 'political' about having gay characters in a game, why would there be? If you'd read what I actually meant, I said from a woke scold's perspective by 'not' including gay characters, or black characters, or having a 50/50 ratio of women (and all that other mumbo jumbo) is a political stance. From their point of view that 'you' are taking even if you're not. And it is a negative one (from their perspective). AKA - They are trying to make any game that doesn't fit their woke criteria politically bad (for it's non-wokeness).

My personal view is, that I don't really give a shit about any of that. That is to say, I will not 'tick boxes' for the sjws. If anything, I go the other direction just just to be contrary, just for a laugh.

I was responding to jhkim.  Reread his posts in this thread.

Sorry. I do apologize, my bad.

No problem.  It's easy to quick read on a message board and lose context.  I've done it many times myself....

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 12, 2021, 09:19:28 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on September 12, 2021, 09:17:41 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 12, 2021, 09:16:37 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on September 12, 2021, 09:04:12 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 12, 2021, 08:50:39 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 12, 2021, 04:00:40 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on September 12, 2021, 01:57:48 PM
Thing is, if you want sexual orientation to be a big part of the game that's totally cool. I've no problem with it at all. But I don't see it as character defining for 'my' games at least. Because when I GM my games tend to be about horror, darkness, violence, action and mystery. Humor, in the fashion of 'Are You Being Served" does not interest me. Black Adder and Alan Partridge was more my thing.

But again, you do you.

I feel like this is part of the disconnect here. You're reading "gay characters exist at all" to somehow that sexual orientation is a big part of all my games, which is absolutely not the case.

The disconnect is that no one here is saying that "gay characters existing" is political.  You are saying (in posts above) that having no overtly gay characters in a game is political.  And that is patently false.

Whut? Nope... That's not what I said at all.

I'll try again... There's nothing 'political' about having gay characters in a game, why would there be? If you'd read what I actually meant, I said from a woke scold's perspective by 'not' including gay characters, or black characters, or having a 50/50 ratio of women (and all that other mumbo jumbo) is a political stance. From their point of view that 'you' are taking even if you're not. And it is a negative one (from their perspective). AKA - They are trying to make any game that doesn't fit their woke criteria politically bad (for it's non-wokeness).

My personal view is, that I don't really give a shit about any of that. That is to say, I will not 'tick boxes' for the sjws. If anything, I go the other direction just just to be contrary, just for a laugh.

I was responding to jhkim.  Reread his posts in this thread.

Sorry. I do apologize, my bad.

No problem.  It's easy to quick read on a message board and lose context.  I've done it many times myself....

Cheers man.  :)

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 12, 2021, 08:50:39 PM
The disconnect is that no one here is saying that "gay characters existing" is political.  You are saying (in posts above) that having no overtly gay characters in a game is political.  And that is patently false.

Here is specifically what I said:

Quote from: jhkim on September 11, 2021, 02:41:16 AM
If a single module has no gay characters, it doesn't show anything about the author. But when all of the hundreds of D&D modules in the 1970s and 1980s have zero gay characters -- then yes, I believe that at least some people involved were biased against gay people. I hardly think that's a stretch, given that gay people were blatantly and legally discriminated against at the time by most of society.

Specifically within RPG publishing, I know that Lee Gold said that all of the RPG publishers she worked with would have deleted any mention of homosexuality. Lee Gold was author of Land of the Rising Sun (1980, FGU), GURPS Japan (1988, SJG), and Vikings (1989, ICE). She noted in an essay -

QuoteEventually it occurred to me to wonder whether I'd been wrong to ignore cultural attitudes towards homosexuality. So when I next spoke to management people at my various publishers, I asked them. They said they were very glad I hadn't included the material, and -- yes, indeed -- if I had, it would have been deleted. RPG publishers don't boggle at gaming material featuring amoral bloodshed, torture, drug addiction, vampires, succubi (all strictly heterosexual, in every piece of artwork I've seen), and even demons -- but homosexuality seems to be beyond the pale.

Source: https://www.conchord.org/xeno/censorship.html

I think that just confirms what is perfectly obvious.

Do you disagree with this? i.e. Are you saying that what Lee Gold saw in the industry wasn't political?

The fact that no RPG materials of the 70s and 80s (or very little - I haven't read it all, but then, neither have you) include explicit references to characters' sexuality tells me sweet FA about the political attitudes of the writers.

Another possible (and maybe more plausible) explanation is that society was less open to discussion of sexuality overall than it is now, and therefore publishers probably regarded it as a live rail best steered clear of for commercial reasons, particularly given RPGs as a newish medium were liable to be viewed with a degree of suspicion anyway.

There seems to be what econometricians call a Type 2 error, where the researcher fails to reject a hypothesis that is false.

Dataset: RPG materials of the 70s and 80s.
Hypothesis: lack of references to sexual orientation indicates prejudice on part of authors (supply side explanation)
Model: estimate "degree of prejudice of authors" as an inverse function of frequency of references to sexuality in product
Source of error: model is insufficiently specified as it omits demand side variables (people didn't really want to read about it)

Quote from: jhkim on September 11, 2021, 02:41:16 AM
If a single module has no gay characters, it doesn't show anything about the author. But when all of the hundreds of D&D modules in the 1970s and 1980s have zero gay characters -- then yes, I believe that at least some people involved were biased against gay people. I hardly think that's a stretch, given that gay people were blatantly and legally discriminated against at the time by most of society.

Its even worse then that jhkim, there were no Koreans in any of the hundreds of DnD modules.

So it goes without saying what the bias was against Koreans.

And honestly, fuck them for having no New Zealanders.

I have yet to have representation in gaming based on my ethnic makeup...

And yet I'm over 40+ years into this hobby. Someone tell me out outraged I should be? Whoever will be outraged on my behalf? I'm just a poor helpless POC. Won't someone white-knight me?

Quote from: Marchand on September 13, 2021, 01:38:09 AM
The fact that no RPG materials of the 70s and 80s (or very little - I haven't read it all, but then, neither have you) include explicit references to characters' sexuality tells me sweet FA about the political attitudes of the writers.

Another possible (and maybe more plausible) explanation is that society was less open to discussion of sexuality overall than it is now, and therefore publishers probably regarded it as a live rail best steered clear of for commercial reasons, particularly given RPGs as a newish medium were liable to be viewed with a degree of suspicion anyway.

American society in the 1970s and 1980s was full of heterosexuality - including in the tamest children's material. Disney films nearly all showed a man and a woman in romantic love, and even showed on-screen kisses.

D&D went beyond this, though, and had material like this:

(http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/random_harlot_table.jpg)

Along with the succubus, dryad, nymph, and sylph in the Monster Manual (not pictured because of pornography restrictions on posting).

Even aside from the more racy material, there are lots of casual references to heterosexuality. Village of Hommlet has dozens of heterosexual married couples as well as at least three unmarried romantic couples. That's just in the earliest D&D publications. Going throughout the 1970s and 1980s, there is of course a lot more.

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 12:30:02 PM

Quote from: Marchand on September 13, 2021, 01:38:09 AM
The fact that no RPG materials of the 70s and 80s (or very little - I haven't read it all, but then, neither have you) include explicit references to characters' sexuality tells me sweet FA about the political attitudes of the writers.

Another possible (and maybe more plausible) explanation is that society was less open to discussion of sexuality overall than it is now, and therefore publishers probably regarded it as a live rail best steered clear of for commercial reasons, particularly given RPGs as a newish medium were liable to be viewed with a degree of suspicion anyway.

American society in the 1970s and 1980s was full of heterosexuality - including in the tamest children's material. Disney films nearly all showed a man and a woman in romantic love, and even showed on-screen kisses.

D&D went beyond this, though, and had material like this:

(http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/random_harlot_table.jpg)

Along with the succubus, dryad, nymph, and sylph in the Monster Manual (not pictured because of pornography restrictions on posting).

Even aside from the more racy material, there are lots of casual references to heterosexuality. Village of Hommlet has dozens of heterosexual married couples as well as at least three unmarried romantic couples. That's just in the earliest D&D publications. Going throughout the 1970s and 1980s, there is of course a lot more.

Worth remembering is that if you're even semi- attempting historical accuracy then homosexuals will generally be "in the closet." In the days when welfare consisted of a large family to care for you in your old age only the wealthy could afford to forego a family and no matter what certain politicos will tell you, there's only one type of sexual activity that produces babies.

This is quite apart from any religious pressure or the fact that, prior to the modern era, marriages were typically arranged by parents for economic benefit rather than any sort of romantic feelings (which is not to say they didn't exist or didn't play some role, just that they were generally secondary and many are the stories of spouses growing affectionate of one another AFTER their marriage).

Throw one of the many apocalypses from various fantasy settings that wipe out vast swaths of the population on top and even heterosexual couples who fail to produce children to "repopulate the world" may be seen as not doing their part for the betterment of civilization.

This doesn't mean homosexual feelings/acts don't exist, just that culturally they are kept discreet and on the side rather than as the primary relationship that a society would recognize.

In short, open homosexuality just doesn't make sense in a lot of historic/faux-historic settings because, for the most part, its open indulgence is a First World luxury.

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 12:30:02 PM

Quote from: Marchand on September 13, 2021, 01:38:09 AM
The fact that no RPG materials of the 70s and 80s (or very little - I haven't read it all, but then, neither have you) include explicit references to characters' sexuality tells me sweet FA about the political attitudes of the writers.

Another possible (and maybe more plausible) explanation is that society was less open to discussion of sexuality overall than it is now, and therefore publishers probably regarded it as a live rail best steered clear of for commercial reasons, particularly given RPGs as a newish medium were liable to be viewed with a degree of suspicion anyway.

American society in the 1970s and 1980s was full of heterosexuality - including in the tamest children's material. Disney films nearly all showed a man and a woman in romantic love, and even showed on-screen kisses.

D&D went beyond this, though, and had material like this:

(http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/random_harlot_table.jpg)

Along with the succubus, dryad, nymph, and sylph in the Monster Manual (not pictured because of pornography restrictions on posting).

Even aside from the more racy material, there are lots of casual references to heterosexuality. Village of Hommlet has dozens of heterosexual married couples as well as at least three unmarried romantic couples. That's just in the earliest D&D publications. Going throughout the 1970s and 1980s, there is of course a lot more.

The bias toward sexualized female fey, demons, and nature spirits comes from mythology, not from the 1970s or 1980s.

In ancient and medieval times, especially when military-adjacent in a pseudo-realistic way (D&D qualifies), camp followers and other female prostitutes were common. Male prostitutes were far less so. Usually they were only referenced as part of a decadent empire, and there were no brothels.

That leaves marriage... and gay marriage wasn't legalized anywhere in the US until more than 25 years later. So of course there weren't any representations.

That's just a terrible argument. It wasn't exclusion, because sexuality simply wasn't a major part of D&D. The parts that slipped through were giggly titties for teenage boys, and one hur durr table with hookers, but that reflects the orientation of the writers and being edgy, rather than being an act of deliberate exclusion. That leaves only one consistent reference to sexuality: Marriage. In addition's to Chris24601's point about the concealed nature of homosexuality through most of history, it's also worth remembering at the time D&D was being written, marriage that involved anything except one man and one woman wasn't even on the mainstream's radar, and was restricted to things like Heinlein novels or Nero's fiddling.

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 13, 2021, 01:07:58 PM
In short, open homosexuality just doesn't make sense in a lot of historic/faux-historic settings because, for the most part, its open indulgence is a First World luxury.

Homosexuality was often restricted and had specific attitudes regarding it in many historical societies. However, there were examples of open homosexuality in many historical societies - from the Greek to the Norse to many others. In general, taking some men out of the gene pool was historically the norm. In Christian Europe that was done mainly via celibate monks and priests. In other societies, though, practices differed.

I linked Lee Gold's essay before. She wrote a number of historical sourcebooks, and in the essay for each, she had a section on their attitudes regarding homosexuality. However, she did not include those in the published sourcebooks - and indeed was told if she had submitted them, then they would have been deleted.

Deleting mention of actual historical attitudes regarding homosexuality doesn't create greater historical authenticity - it creates less.

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 01:27:29 PM
Deleting mention of actual historical attitudes regarding homosexuality doesn't create greater historical authenticity - it creates less.

But in a game like D&D (aka-fantasy) historical accuracy is not really a consideration.

If you wanted to play a 'historically accurate' game set in Europe then the Woke Scolds would spit the dummy. They can't handle the truth as the saying goes. :)

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 13, 2021, 01:07:58 PM
In short, open homosexuality just doesn't make sense in a lot of historic/faux-historic settings because, for the most part, its open indulgence is a First World luxury.

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 01:27:29 PM
Deleting mention of actual historical attitudes regarding homosexuality doesn't create greater historical authenticity - it creates less.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on September 13, 2021, 01:31:39 PM
But in a game like D&D (aka-fantasy) historical accuracy is not really a consideration.

Rob - it sounds like this is a clash between Chris24601 and you. Chris24601 argued that homosexuality wasn't mentioned in order to be true to historical / faux-historical settings. You're arguing that historical accuracy isn't a consideration for D&D. If what you say is correct, then historical accuracy is not a reason for lack of mention of homosexuality in D&D.

For what it's worth, I tend to agree with you, Rob -- I think historical accuracy wasn't a significant consideration for D&D in the 1970s and 1980s.

Quote from: Pat on September 13, 2021, 01:14:10 PM
It wasn't exclusion, because sexuality simply wasn't a major part of D&D. The parts that slipped through were giggly titties for teenage boys, and one hur durr table with hookers, but that reflects the orientation of the writers and being edgy, rather than being an act of deliberate exclusion. That leaves only one consistent reference to sexuality: Marriage. In addition's to Chris24601's point about the concealed nature of homosexuality through most of history, it's also worth remembering at the time D&D was being written, marriage that involved anything except one man and one woman wasn't even on the mainstream's radar, and was restricted to things like Heinlein novels or Nero's fiddling.

I agree that homosexual marriage was both illegal and not on the mainstream's radar at the time -- but I'd say the *reason* was because of widespread prejudice against homosexual people. It's not that homosexuality was completely unknown. If someone behaved in a homosexual manner, then most people would recognize it and quite likely punish it. That was the understood rule. My 11th grade English teacher was gay, for example, but I never knew at the time because he would be fired if it came out.

I also agree that sexuality isn't a major part of D&D - but that isn't a reason not to mention it ever. My claim is that if there were no prejudice against gay people at the time, then I'd expect to see to see some casual mentions of gay characters and/or homosexuality. Not that the game would fundamentally change - but just that there would be an occasional pair of NPCs mentioned as being a couple, or similar passing reference.

Indeed, heterosexuality is mentioned all over the place. I posted about the harlot table and the succubus as two prominent cases, but you're speaking as if those were the only two. There are many hundreds of references to heterosexuality throughout the many D&D books of the 1970s and 1980s. Do you actually doubt this? I can pull some random books off my shelf and post a few dozen more examples for you if you like, but I think you already know this.

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 01:27:29 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 13, 2021, 01:07:58 PM
In short, open homosexuality just doesn't make sense in a lot of historic/faux-historic settings because, for the most part, its open indulgence is a First World luxury.

Homosexuality was often restricted and had specific attitudes regarding it in many historical societies. However, there were examples of open homosexuality in many historical societies - from the Greek to the Norse to many others. In general, taking some men out of the gene pool was historically the norm. In Christian Europe that was done mainly via celibate monks and priests. In other societies, though, practices differed.

But homosexuality was virtually never the primary relationship; it was always on the side of traditional marriage or isolated in groups where reproduction was already not a factor in its survival. Even in places that tolerated it, like periods of ancient Greece, it was considered disordered if it became the exclusive focus of a man's sex drive.

Another way to put it is that those cultures didn't even have the modern concept that we could call homosexuality; they had certain homosexual practices that were acceptable in certain contexts, but it in no way defined their identity as it does today (except as mockery).

Outside of extremely affluent within society for most of human history (and even then only in the "open secret" sort of way) you just aren't going to see an openly gay person anywhere, except perhaps in the most unseemly of professions like acting/prostitution.

The idea of two openly gay "kings" ruling a "nation" as was the case in one of the recent D&D modules is pure 21st Century First World myopia (and only until the Fascists/Communists are through seizing power, then they'll be among the first dragged in front a firing squad just like happened in Russa after they no longer needed them to destabilize the culture).

Another very basic reason why you see heterosexual relationships everywhere in products is because it is by far the most common relationship in the world. If you listened to what mass media considered "representation" you'd think half the population was homosexual, but just about every study, even here in America where it's celebrated by pop culture is that it's in the 2-4% range.

Put another way, when assigning homosexuality to a random NPC table, on a d20 the table would be 1-19 straight, 20 LGBT.

That would be actual proportional representation; but the Woke aren't interested in proportional, they're interested in subversion of the culture by undermining its norms and traditions which is why every other piece of art in new D&D releases is either a bi-racial LGBT couple, includes a combat wheelchair, or both.

ETA: Since I know you'll demand sources; "A 2017 Gallup poll concluded that 4.5% of adult Americans identified as LGBT with 5.1% of women identifying as LGBT, compared with 3.9% of men." - https://news.gallup.com/poll/234863/estimate-lgbt-population-rises.aspx

Again, it's this insistence on normalizing the outliers as being required mentioning and accepting rather than leaving it for the table to decide. We do not need or want that. If you want to make a game about those outliers - GO FOR IT.

Anecdotally I'm not "normal" by comparison to "normies", and it's okay. I'm certainly not requiring people to accept me based on these things that make me "not the norm". That's okay too. I don't assume people hate me if they don't, or are hesitant for whatever reason. I'm pretty confident I can win people with my effervescent charm, or my whisky/coffee bribery. (My father in-law didn't say my name for the first decade of my marriage to his very redheaded daughter who dared to marry... an Asian. But I won that motherfucker over and he was my biggest fan until the day he died. The point being - when it matters I'm in the fight to win hearts and minds and not be a sniveling victim.) This doesn't seem to be the case with SJW's.

I don't *need* to accept other's issues, no more than I *need* people to accept mine. But at my table? Nearly anything goes. I don't need LGBT, women, and others who identify with things that I don't telling me to accept them. They need to sell me on the package. Just because you're a woman, gay/bi/anything else, trans, twin-spirit goat make-up wearing buttplug tail having person, doesn't make you immune from being a fucking obnoxious asshole.

And when people want to peddle that shit as a feature OR else being a threat of excommunication at minimum, don't be surprised when people that live in reality who have been in this hobby (among other things) much longer, with real diverse ideas and thoughts with real diverse people reject this scripted naive nonsense for what it is.

I have no mandate to accept another person's issues. And I don't need those issues put into my established games. But by all means make a separate game about those issues for all those victims to do with as they please. But if you're going to insist - then I'm going to insist on not spending my money there. And I'll call the bullshit out for what it is - and clearly I won't be alone.

Quote from: jhkim on September 11, 2021, 02:41:16 AM
...But when all of the hundreds of D&D modules in the 1970s and 1980s have zero gay characters ...

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 12:30:02 PM
... there are lots of casual references to heterosexuality. ...

So what?

Bubble thinking. Are you unable to accept that heterosexuality is the overwhelming societal norm regardless of anyone's opinion on "gay issues".

From the Alt-Right news outlet NPR in 2011:
https://www.npr.org/2011/06/08/137057974/-institute-of-medicine-finds-lgbt-health-research-gaps-in-us
"I often hear LGBT advocates lament that it seems absurd that they don't have equal rights in this country given how large their community is. As a demographer I look at it a little differently. I'm amazed at how close we are to equality given how small the community is."

And its not like the SJWs are acting in any way in good faith.

Chris sums it up nicely:

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 13, 2021, 05:37:13 PM
... the Woke aren't interested in proportional, they're interested in subversion of the culture by undermining its norms and traditions which is why every other piece of art in new D&D releases is either a bi-racial LGBT couple, includes a combat wheelchair, or both.
...

As to Lee Golds delusional activism:

Quote from: jhkim on September 11, 2021, 02:41:16 AM
...
Specifically within RPG publishing, I know that Lee Gold said that all of the RPG publishers she worked with would have deleted any mention of homosexuality. Lee Gold was author of Land of the Rising Sun (1980, FGU), GURPS Japan (1988, SJG), and Vikings (1989, ICE). She noted in an essay -

QuoteEventually it occurred to me to wonder whether I'd been wrong to ignore cultural attitudes towards homosexuality. So when I next spoke to management people at my various publishers, I asked them. They said they were very glad I hadn't included the material, and -- yes, indeed -- if I had, it would have been deleted. RPG publishers don't boggle at gaming material featuring amoral bloodshed, torture, drug addiction, vampires, succubi (all strictly heterosexual, in every piece of artwork I've seen), and even demons -- but homosexuality seems to be beyond the pale.

Source: https://www.conchord.org/xeno/censorship.html

I think that just confirms what is perfectly obvious.
...

Yup, just as I remembered: No official anti-gay policies in the RPG hobby.

What is perfectly obvious is : "cultural attitudes towards homosexuality" was just as much of a hot-button political issue back then as it is now.

It seems that Gaming companies were wiser back then in wanting to be apolitical and avoided mentioning things in their games to keep from becoming a part of the political "gay rights" debate going on since at least the 70's.


In declaring their motives to be anti-gay, you are literally taking the softcore version of the "silence is violence" stance.

i.e. The only possible reason for not overtly mentioning *Insert hot-button issue here* is that you are some form of ist-a-phobe.


The solipsistic selfishness of this stance is staggering. A Classic catch-22 set up:

Activist: Why do you have no mentions of homosexuality in your RPGs?

RPG Co: Dude, 'homosexual rights' are a hot-button political issue, and we don't want to touch that stuff in our escapist RPGs.

Activist: Since when are basic human rights a political issue?

RPG Co: WTF? We're a gaming company making escapist RPGs. Why do we need to put out a press release about our stance on some "human rights" issue? 

Activist: Because everything is political, Bigot. By not mentioning homosexuality at all, you are explicitly taking an anti-homosexual political stance!

RPG Co: Wait, what!?

Quote from: Lee Gold on September 11, 2021, 02:41:16 AM
RPG publishers don't boggle at gaming material featuring amoral bloodshed, torture, drug addiction, vampires, succubi (all strictly heterosexual, in every piece of artwork I've seen), and even demons -- but homosexuality seems to be beyond the pale.

Beastiality, child molestation, incest, overt analogues of political figures, BDSM depictions; the list goes on. Many other 'beyond the pale', and myriad other hot-button political issues got nary a mention in most RPGs.

The whole reason we do things like play RPGs, read comics, and watch movies is to ESCAPE the political nonsense.

Not to turn around and see it shoved in our faces yet again.

Especially now since we know their "activism" has nothing to with actual equality anymore.

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 13, 2021, 05:37:13 PM
Put another way, when assigning homosexuality to a random NPC table, on a d20 the table would be 1-19 straight, 20 LGBT.

Right. I basically agree with this. I don't roll a die, but that's roughly the proportion of LGBT characters in most of my campaigns. Given many hundreds of NPCs in the 1970s and 1980s, then, I'd expect to see at least a few dozen who are LGBT if someone followed this. As far as I know, that number is instead zero.

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 13, 2021, 05:37:13 PM
That would be actual proportional representation; but the Woke aren't interested in proportional, they're interested in subversion of the culture by undermining its norms and traditions which is why every other piece of art in new D&D releases is either a bi-racial LGBT couple, includes a combat wheelchair, or both.

I am skeptical of this. I just bought Candlekeep Mysteries -- which Pundit told me had the original combat wheelchair in it as official rules. Instead I found no combat wheelchair rules, no wheelchair illustrations, and no wheelchair-using NPCs. I'll check it later to see if there are any LGBT couples - I suspect that if I find any, they will be no more than 5% and certainly not 50%.

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 06:54:22 PM
Right. I basically agree with this. I don't roll a die, but that's roughly the proportion of LGBT characters in most of my campaigns. Given many hundreds of NPCs in the 1970s and 1980s, then, I'd expect to see at least a few dozen who are LGBT if someone followed this. As far as I know, that number is instead zero.

But the point isn't just whether there are any or not - it's contextual to the game. And is it required at all? Am I supposed to claim WotC is racist since there are no Filipino/Japanese NPC's in Cormyr (or anywhere else)? Context.

Are we going to expect to split hairs on all content to be measured and weighed by the SJW Inquisitorial Board of Social Media? Because that's what is happening.

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 06:54:22 PM
I am skeptical of this. I just bought Candlekeep Mysteries -- which Pundit told me had the original combat wheelchair in it as official rules. Instead I found no combat wheelchair rules, no wheelchair illustrations, and no wheelchair-using NPCs. I'll check it later to see if there are any LGBT couples - I suspect that if I find any, they will be no more than 5% and certainly not 50%.

And what do you infer from this? That Pundit is lying? Or that WotC doesn't *really* give a flying shit about people in wheelchairs, LGBT people, POC, for anything other marketing?

Or do you think that's a false choice? Because contextually we agree Combat Wheelchair's are stupid in D&D for the assumptions of the core rules. They're even more stupid given specific settings. Contextually are we supposed to be having heterosexual couples overtaly proclaiming their sexuality for simply being in the same place? This gets back to what was posted upthread earlier - the presentation of LGBT characters is completely non-contextual for the purposes of undermining the assumptions of the cultural norms we've all played with in D&D from the start. Because we were more grounded in reality compared to the midwits of today.

And at no time did that ever stop anyone from playing a gay character in D&D. My first GM was a tomboy Vietnamese girl that later in life to the shock of no one turned out to be a lesbian. And that was in 1978. And I've had an overproportion of gay players in my LA gaming groups that rarely played gay characters because it was of no particular interest to them. Anecdotal? Sure. But it's a good snapshot of the time especially during my convention gaming years where I've had hundreds of players, some obviously gay, and I probably had less than a half a dozen of those players play gay characters (ironically all lesbians from gay men and women), and never did it come into play for obvious reasons (convention adventures don't really lend themselves to sexual encounters... but that was in the 80's and 90's. Who the fuck knows what goes on these days)

The only reason this shit is happening now is because the people calling the shots at WotC are grievance merchants preying on and cultivating victim-clout from its base. People keep playing D&D because of it's name and go along with this garbage because of brand loyalty.

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 06:54:22 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 13, 2021, 05:37:13 PM
Put another way, when assigning homosexuality to a random NPC table, on a d20 the table would be 1-19 straight, 20 LGBT.

Right. I basically agree with this. I don't roll a die, but that's roughly the proportion of LGBT characters in most of my campaigns. Given many hundreds of NPCs in the 1970s and 1980s, then, I'd expect to see at least a few dozen who are LGBT if someone followed this. As far as I know, that number is instead zero.

That's because you didn't roll on Subtable-B: Non-First World In/Out Ratio. 1-10 Deep in the closet; even their closest friends may not know. 11-19 In the closet, close friends may know, others suspect, but no solid proof, 20 Has the rare political rank or wealth to be out of the closet with minimal hardship.

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 06:54:22 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 13, 2021, 05:37:13 PM
Put another way, when assigning homosexuality to a random NPC table, on a d20 the table would be 1-19 straight, 20 LGBT.

Right. I basically agree with this. I don't roll a die, but that's roughly the proportion of LGBT characters in most of my campaigns. Given many hundreds of NPCs in the 1970s and 1980s, then, I'd expect to see at least a few dozen who are LGBT if someone followed this. As far as I know, that number is instead zero.

I'd expect zero.

Of the many hundreds of major NPCs in the 1970s and 1980s, how many were explicitly stated to be heterosexual? Almost none. It wasn't really until the 90s that Elminster Fucks Everyone Metaplot became a thing, and people also hooked up in novels. But in the RPG material? The sexuality of a character almost never came up. So even if we assume 2% of the population is gay, 2% of almost nothing rounds down to nothing.

More than that, the only thing that ever hinted at a character's sexuality was if the text stated they were married. And as you yourself stated, in both the 1970s and 1980s, and in the medieval European vagueness that D&D is based on, gay marriage simply wasn't a thing. Homosexuality tended to be secret. So the expected number of explicitly known homosexual characters in D&D during the 1970s isn't even 2% of almost nothing. It's 0% of almost nothing. i.e. zero.

If there was a lack of homosexual NPCs in your campaign, that was your bias, not the game's.

Here's the other thing about "gay" vs. well, any other minority. It's NOT something you can know about just by looking at someone. Do you know if the person checking you out at the grocery is gay, straight, asexual or secretly a robot?

Conservation of detail is a thing; the PCs don't care about the blacksmith's family unless it's plot relevant regardless of whether he's a bachelor, married or a widower and who's waiting at home for him once he closes up shop for the night. Why do we need to know his sexual preferences? It's akin to a random NPC on the street shouting out "I'm having great sex."

It's a totally out of place detail no one asked for that's being thrown out there in the adventure for nothing more than virtue points.

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 13, 2021, 07:43:08 PM
Conservation of detail is a thing; the PCs don't care about the blacksmith's family unless it's plot relevant regardless of whether he's a bachelor, married or a widower and who's waiting at home for him once he closes up shop for the night. Why do we need to know his sexual preferences? It's akin to a random NPC on the street shouting out "I'm having great sex."

This applies if the NPC is a bare stat block. However, NPCs often have description of various non-plot-relevant details, like "The blacksmith is a big, surly, bearded man who is suspicious of all strangers." Who cares if he has a beard or not? Does this mean that the module author has some bizarre beard fetish? Why else would the beard be mentioned?

And mentioning that someone is happily married to their husband isn't the equivalent of shouting about sex. Disney films are full of overt heterosexuality, as I mentioned, yet are considered suitable for children.

Quote from: Pat on September 13, 2021, 07:32:45 PM
More than that, the only thing that ever hinted at a character's sexuality was if the text stated they were married. And as you yourself stated, in both the 1970s and 1980s, and in the medieval European vagueness that D&D is based on, gay marriage simply wasn't a thing. Homosexuality tended to be secret. So the expected number of explicitly known homosexual characters in D&D during the 1970s isn't even 2% of almost nothing. It's 0% of almost nothing. i.e. zero.

I looked at a similar claim a few years ago. I find that there are many mentions of sexuality other than marriage. Below are some selected NPC descriptions from the original Temple of Elemental Evil. I've highlighted the relationship mention in the quotes below.

QuoteWench: Dala, a cutpurse (Level 3 Thief), AC 6 (no armor); hp 15; XP 95
S 11 111 W 10 D 18 Co 15 Ch 13
Thief abilities: PP 70; OL 48; F/RT 35; MS 37; HS 30; HN 15; CW 87. Carried: dagger (concealed), 1-4 pieces of cheap jewelry (total value 2-12 gp). She often picks pockets.
In a small room upstairs, Dala has a philtre of love and a pair of jeweled earrings (worth 700 gp) under a loose floor board, and 87 gp in her mattress. She is Dick Rentsch's lover.

QuoteWench: Pearl, a cutpurse (Level 3 Thief), AC 8 (no armor); hp 13; XP 89
S13 114 W9 D16 Co 12 Ch 11
Thief abilities: PP 60; OL 38; F/RT 30; MS 27; HS 20; HN 15; CW 87.
Carried: dagger (concealed), 1-4 pieces of cheap jewelry (total value 2-12 gp). She occasionally picks pockets, but usually limits such work to inebriated victims.
In a small room upstairs, Pearl has a silver case (worth 75 gp and adorned with a sapphire worth 1,000 gp) which contains 19 pp. However, the whole is covered with thick dripped wax, topped by a half-burnt candle and seems to be a perfectly normal and worthless candleholder. The coins are likewise imbedded in wax to prevent telltale rattling. Pearl is Wat's paramour.

QuoteBarmaid: Lodriss, Level 0, Ability scores average; hp 5, no armor, XP 53. Carried: normal dagger (tucked into her girdle), a poisoned dagger (under her skirt), purse with 2 cp, 7 ep, 4 gp, and 8 pp; also wears jeweled earrings (worth 400 gp), gold neck chains (the lot worth 120 gp), four bracelets (values 50, 200, 210, and 500 gp), and a pair of rings (200 and 800 gp).

Lodriss is actually the owner of the Boatmens' Tavern. She is a former camp follower, and is now mistress to Tolub (see below), one of the river pirate leaders who frequents Nulb to sell ill-gotten cargoes and to restock supplies.

QuoteThis cell holds four elves. If freed, they ask to be shown the route out so they can immediately return to their homeland, but express great gratitude and promise rewards for their rescuers. Two elves are normal, but two are Noble—Countess Trillahi of Celene and her consort, Sir Juffer.
Elves, normal (2): AC 9, MV 12", HD 1 + 1, hp 7, 6, no weapons; Dexterity 15 each; XP 21, 20
Countess Tillahi of Celene: AC 6, MV 12", Level 5/4 Fighter/Magic-User, hp 22, no current weapons or spells, Dexterity 18; XP651
Sir Juffer: AC 8, MV 12", Level 4/4 Cleric/Ranger, hp 28, no current weapons, no spells castable (due to curse upon him), Dexterity 16; XP 468

QuoteHerein dwells Smigmal Redhand, a half-orc Fighter/Assassin. She is the leman of Falrinth (in area 337) and leader of the band of brigands in the outer ruins (Tower).
...
Smigmal Redhand: AC 4 (leather +1) & shield +2), MV 12", Level 7/7 Fighter/Assassin, hp 41, XP 4924 S 17 115 W 7 D 16 Co 17 Ch 14 #AT 3/2, D 3-8, SA poison on sword (insinuative type B, + 3 bonus to saving throw, Dmg 25 in 2 rounds), SD ring of invisibility; Thief Abilities: PP 45, OL 52, F/RT 45, MS 40, HS 31, HN 25, CW 95, RL 15

Smigmal wears leather armor + 1, uses a shield + 2, and wields a shortsword + 1 in normal combat (or a non-glowing normal shortsword in assassination attempts). She is thoroughly evil, and loves her work. She hungers for power to make humans suffer, and hates her human ancestry. She sees Falrinth as her tool, the one who will best aid her in gaining her power. She will fight to protect Falrinth if such action appears worthwhile, but will certainly try to save herself from certain death.

None of these NPCs are married, yet their romantic relationships are still mentioned. These are all from a single (admittedly large) module. If you like, I can go through a few of the city modules as well and look for mentions there.

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 08:10:40 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 13, 2021, 07:43:08 PM
Conservation of detail is a thing; the PCs don't care about the blacksmith's family unless it's plot relevant regardless of whether he's a bachelor, married or a widower and who's waiting at home for him once he closes up shop for the night. Why do we need to know his sexual preferences? It's akin to a random NPC on the street shouting out "I'm having great sex."

This applies if the NPC is a bare stat block. However, NPCs often have description of various non-plot-relevant details, like "The blacksmith is a big, surly, bearded man who is suspicious of all strangers." Who cares if he has a beard or not? Does this mean that the module author has some bizarre beard fetish? Why else would the beard be mentioned?

Thats the first time I have seen someone seriously wanting to cut descriptive text so that they can fit in more sexual orientation.

Who cares if he has a beard?  Well I guess who ever has to describe him to the players.

Quote from: Shasarak on September 13, 2021, 08:31:37 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 08:10:40 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 13, 2021, 07:43:08 PM
Conservation of detail is a thing; the PCs don't care about the blacksmith's family unless it's plot relevant regardless of whether he's a bachelor, married or a widower and who's waiting at home for him once he closes up shop for the night. Why do we need to know his sexual preferences? It's akin to a random NPC on the street shouting out "I'm having great sex."

This applies if the NPC is a bare stat block. However, NPCs often have description of various non-plot-relevant details, like "The blacksmith is a big, surly, bearded man who is suspicious of all strangers." Who cares if he has a beard or not? Does this mean that the module author has some bizarre beard fetish? Why else would the beard be mentioned?

Thats the first time I have seen someone seriously wanting to cut descriptive text so that they can fit in more sexual orientation.

Who cares if he has a beard?  Well I guess who ever has to describe him to the players.

Sorry, Shasarak. Sarcasm can be hard to communicate online.

I don't actually have a problem with the beard description. I was being sarcastic of Chris24601's claim that non-plot-relevant details shouldn't be included in NPC description. I am fine with including mention of a beard, and I'm also fine with including mention of being gay. Neither of these necessarily takes up much word count.

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 09:04:20 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on September 13, 2021, 08:31:37 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 08:10:40 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 13, 2021, 07:43:08 PM
Conservation of detail is a thing; the PCs don't care about the blacksmith's family unless it's plot relevant regardless of whether he's a bachelor, married or a widower and who's waiting at home for him once he closes up shop for the night. Why do we need to know his sexual preferences? It's akin to a random NPC on the street shouting out "I'm having great sex."

This applies if the NPC is a bare stat block. However, NPCs often have description of various non-plot-relevant details, like "The blacksmith is a big, surly, bearded man who is suspicious of all strangers." Who cares if he has a beard or not? Does this mean that the module author has some bizarre beard fetish? Why else would the beard be mentioned?

Thats the first time I have seen someone seriously wanting to cut descriptive text so that they can fit in more sexual orientation.

Who cares if he has a beard?  Well I guess who ever has to describe him to the players.

Sorry, Shasarak. Sarcasm can be hard to communicate online.

I don't actually have a problem with the beard description. I was being sarcastic of Chris24601's claim that non-plot-relevant details shouldn't be included in NPC description. I am fine with including mention of a beard, and I'm also fine with including mention of being gay. Neither of these necessarily takes up much word count.

Because "bearded" is visually based and immediately apparent to anyone who sees him, and may also be necessary to give the NPC enough description to give the players a mental picture of him.  Unless you are saying that you and your players can immediately identify gay people by sight?

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 13, 2021, 10:50:39 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 09:04:20 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on September 13, 2021, 08:31:37 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 08:10:40 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 13, 2021, 07:43:08 PM
Conservation of detail is a thing; the PCs don't care about the blacksmith's family unless it's plot relevant regardless of whether he's a bachelor, married or a widower and who's waiting at home for him once he closes up shop for the night. Why do we need to know his sexual preferences? It's akin to a random NPC on the street shouting out "I'm having great sex."

This applies if the NPC is a bare stat block. However, NPCs often have description of various non-plot-relevant details, like "The blacksmith is a big, surly, bearded man who is suspicious of all strangers." Who cares if he has a beard or not? Does this mean that the module author has some bizarre beard fetish? Why else would the beard be mentioned?

Thats the first time I have seen someone seriously wanting to cut descriptive text so that they can fit in more sexual orientation.

Who cares if he has a beard?  Well I guess who ever has to describe him to the players.

Sorry, Shasarak. Sarcasm can be hard to communicate online.

I don't actually have a problem with the beard description. I was being sarcastic of Chris24601's claim that non-plot-relevant details shouldn't be included in NPC description. I am fine with including mention of a beard, and I'm also fine with including mention of being gay. Neither of these necessarily takes up much word count.

Because "bearded" is visually based and immediately apparent to anyone who sees him, and may also be necessary to give the NPC enough description to give the players a mental picture of him.  Unless you are saying that you and your players can immediately identify gay people by sight?

Exactly my point and which, jhkim completely ignored because it doesn't fit his agenda. You can tell whether someone has a beard or not by looking. You can tell someone has a high pitched nasal voice by listening. The quality and condition of one's clothes can visually inform on their level of affluence.

Being homosexual doesn't cause you to emit a rainbow halo or any other identifying trait. At best it might be notable by drawing on various stereotypes of flamboyant clothing and effeminate behavior, but then you'll be accused of mockery by the LGBT community you're trying to pander to.

So again, including it as a character detail is just virtue signaling and making the players aware of it is as subtle as a random NPC shouting out "I enjoy foot massages" at them... completely out of place and irrelevant to the PC's interaction with them.

But jhkim's obtuseness is to be expected; Leftism requires its adherents to pretend not to know certain things that disrupt the narrative.

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 01:27:29 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 13, 2021, 01:07:58 PM
In short, open homosexuality just doesn't make sense in a lot of historic/faux-historic settings because, for the most part, its open indulgence is a First World luxury.

Homosexuality was often restricted and had specific attitudes regarding it in many historical societies. However, there were examples of open homosexuality in many historical societies - from the Greek to the Norse to many others. In general, taking some men out of the gene pool was historically the norm. In Christian Europe that was done mainly via celibate monks and priests. In other societies, though, practices differed.

Never very successfully though. Throughout the middle ages priests and ESPECIALLY Monks had terrible (and apparently well-earned) reputations for sexual lasciviousness with any woman they could get their hands on (often Nuns). To the point that it became a big argument in the Reformation.

Comparatively, cases of "sodomy" were relatively few, though of course they may have been better hidden. But Catholic priests and monks didn't tend to get a reputation for homosexuality until the modern era. It didn't seem to be a common practice to send someone who showed gay tendencies into the priesthood or monastery in the middle ages, and from what data we have those incidents were far more common among men in cities, including of course many married men. As it was in ancient Rome or in many other cultures too; mainly because the definitions we have of what being 'gay' means didn't really exist back then, which as a historian convinces me that they're at least partly arbitrary social constructs.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on September 13, 2021, 01:31:39 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 01:27:29 PM
Deleting mention of actual historical attitudes regarding homosexuality doesn't create greater historical authenticity - it creates less.

But in a game like D&D (aka-fantasy) historical accuracy is not really a consideration.

If you wanted to play a 'historically accurate' game set in Europe then the Woke Scolds would spit the dummy. They can't handle the truth as the saying goes. :)

There are medieval-authentic ways to have gay characters that are not anachronistic to a medieval setting. There are gay characters in my Albion setting (including of course some actual historical characters), and one of the secret societies in my "Medieval-Authentic Secret Societies" RPGPundit Presents books (#90) is a secret society of gay men (disguised as a confraternity of Christmastide revelers).

The problem I have with the combat wheelchair is that it's yet another example of the dumbing down of what an RPG is supposed to be. There seems to be a movement to turn games into dress-up balls where everyone plays a quirky and magical version of themselves. We must have gay characters because there are gay players, we must have diverse characters because there are diverse players, and so on. This speaks to a total lack of imagination.

Most people don't use their imagination much and don't want to actually role play. They want something cookie-cutter and easy. This is the cause or effect (chicken vs egg) of D&D becoming more popular.

The more interesting approach would have been a supplement or couple of pages that describe ideas for magical mobility aids (golems, etc) and real mobility aids from actual history with ideas about how and when they could be used in a campaign, along with some suggestions as to how/why magical healing wouldn't work.

But that's too much to expect from Hasbro, a giant toy company, and their subsidiary WotC. The combat wheelchair, the art that looks like modern 20-somethings in magical dress up, the staged diversity, etc make no mistake it *sells* this stuff. Does it make for good play at the table? Who knows? And frankly Hasbro and WotC don't care as long as it moves product out the door. If I were in a target market for unimaginative and token inclusion, so that giant companies could sell more crap, I would be repulsed.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on September 13, 2021, 01:31:39 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 01:27:29 PM
Deleting mention of actual historical attitudes regarding homosexuality doesn't create greater historical authenticity - it creates less.

But in a game like D&D (aka-fantasy) historical accuracy is not really a consideration.

Historical accuracy, no. Cultural verisimilitude though should be a consideration. Sure you can have a term-limited democratically elected 14 year old queen as head of your planetary government (side-eyes George Lucas)... but it makes anyone who stops to think a moment go through at least a bit of cognitive dissonance trying to weld it together.

In the same way, something like homosexual marriage typically requires certain societal conditions in order to be plausible. Chiefly, enough of a support system, either due to personal or society wealth, to be able to have their needs met in the absence of the normal pattern throughout history of elderly parents being supported by one or more of their adult children (which in pre-modern times typically meant destitution and begging once they were no longer able to support themselves if they had no living children).

Basically, you're only going to find homosexual relationships as primary relationships (versus on the side of traditional marriage/children) among the affluent of your setting; its going to be non-existent amongst the lower classes (peasants, serfs, etc.) who have no reserves of wealth only their families to support them once their health fails.

So adding open homosexual marriage to some sort of civilization where everyone is a sorcerer and every need is handled by magic wouldn't break verisimilitude, but a gay couple who are serfs scraping a living off the land from harvest to harvest with no children to assist in their labors and just one crippling injury or illness from death by starvation isn't going to feel plausible (by contrast two serfs with their own wives and children who have a gay relationship on the side wouldn't break the verisimilitude).

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 14, 2021, 10:24:44 AM
Being homosexual doesn't cause you to emit a rainbow halo or any other identifying trait. At best it might be notable by drawing on various stereotypes of flamboyant clothing and effeminate behavior, but then you'll be accused of mockery by the LGBT community you're trying to pander to.

So again, including it as a character detail is just virtue signaling and making the players aware of it is as subtle as a random NPC shouting out "I enjoy foot massages" at them... completely out of place and irrelevant to the PC's interaction with them.

It seems like you're arguing that the *only* thing in NPC descriptions should be things which are visible at first glance. So there shouldn't be anything about an NPC's background, or relationships, or hidden motivations.

But that's not how old-school NPC descriptions worked. In reply #159 (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/the-chronic-fatigue-barbarian-is-a-real-not-parody-new-dd-subclass/msg1188080/#msg1188080), I just gave a bunch of examples of old-school NPC descriptions that included sexuality by specifying their romantic relationships. That makes sense to me. In real life, sexuality is one of the most powerful of human motivations, and it drives a lot of human behavior. It is featured in most of our popular stories, from Disney cartoons to action movies.

---

For me, the key thing about all these objections is that they simply don't match up to my experience. I've included simple mention of sexuality in my NPCs for decades - from Strahd's love for Tatiana to bits of color like the barman's spirited fights with his wife. And yes, that includes gay NPCs. I don't see the problems that other people are claiming. It hasn't made my games un-fun or un-escapist or unrealistic. They've been fun and interesting in play.

From my old "Favorite Gay Characters" (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/favorite-gay-characters/) thread, others said similar, like:

Quote from: RPGPundit on May 16, 2018, 05:03:57 AM
There was quite a lot of them.

The most recent wasn't one of mine. It was in my Dark Albion campaign, one of my players was a fighter from a knightly family named Alan Boleyn (a possible ancestor of the future Queen of England). Boleyn's player made it clear that Alan was gay, and the rest of the PCs generally had a strong suspicion, but of course the setting being what it was, he kept it mostly under wraps. He had at one point been a favorite of the Duke of Clarence, who I also played as secretly gay.

Quote from: S'mon on May 15, 2018, 06:57:40 PM
Oh, the wizard Lord Krens of Krens' Cairn an NPC in my Wilderlands is pretty cool. He's known to 'prefer the company of men', which caused a political problem as he wouldn't marry one of Lord Vilius Theber's daughters sent to study magic under him; and he was the one Ghinarian Lord to successfully defy Warlord Yusan; Krens' Cairn became the launchpad for the counter-offensive that ultimately destroyed Yusan. Him being gay doesn't have anything much to do with him being a cool character though.

Mordred Midwinter, Eldritch Knight of Valon, is a cool PC IMC who's gay; this mostly manifests in him having no interest in the various buxom noblewomen he interacts with. Also perhaps his occasional prissiness and horror of dirt - player is gay and likes a laugh. :)

I'm not saying anything about other people's campaigns, because I don't know them - but if I'm told that gay NPCs objectively make a game worse, it doesn't fit what I see.

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 08:10:40 PM

Quote from: Pat on September 13, 2021, 07:32:45 PM
More than that, the only thing that ever hinted at a character's sexuality was if the text stated they were married. And as you yourself stated, in both the 1970s and 1980s, and in the medieval European vagueness that D&D is based on, gay marriage simply wasn't a thing. Homosexuality tended to be secret. So the expected number of explicitly known homosexual characters in D&D during the 1970s isn't even 2% of almost nothing. It's 0% of almost nothing. i.e. zero.

I looked at a similar claim a few years ago. I find that there are many mentions of sexuality other than marriage. Below are some selected NPC descriptions from the original Temple of Elemental Evil. I've highlighted the relationship mention in the quotes below.

The Temple of Elemental Evil is far more verbose than the old school norm, and focuses specifically on a starting village/town/area and tries to create a web of relationships. You'd have a hard time finding anything comparable in any other module. Plus, all those are variations on marriage-lite, so it's just pedantry to argue they're substantially different than references to marriage.

There is an argument to be made that there could be same sex paramours or assignee in Hommlet or Nulb, but since you came up with 5 examples, even one example would 20%, which would be a massive over representation.

Sexuality almost never comes up in D&D.

Quote from: jhkim on September 14, 2021, 12:29:44 PM
For me, the key thing about all these objections is that they simply don't match up to my experience.

Given the number of people disagreeing with your interpretations have you considered the obvious yet? i.e. that your experiences are atypical.

Quote from: jhkim on September 14, 2021, 12:29:44 PM
It seems like you're arguing that the *only* thing in NPC descriptions should be things which are visible at first glance. So there shouldn't be anything about an NPC's background, or relationships, or hidden motivations.

But that's not how old-school NPC descriptions worked. In reply #159 (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/the-chronic-fatigue-barbarian-is-a-real-not-parody-new-dd-subclass/msg1188080/#msg1188080), I just gave a bunch of examples of old-school NPC descriptions that included sexuality by specifying their romantic relationships. That makes sense to me. In real life, sexuality is one of the most powerful of human motivations, and it drives a lot of human behavior. It is featured in most of our popular stories, from Disney cartoons to action movies.

You lost me here. Your examples are stat/background blocks. Do you think the DM introduces Dala by saying "This is Dala. She is a wench. She has 87 GP under her mattress and is the lover of Dick Rentsch. Her hit points are..."? The romance stuff is there for the DM to use when role playing the NPCs. I don't think anyone is arguing that DM eyes only stat/background blocks should be first glance stuff only.

Sexuality is a very narrow motivation. People experience numerous flavors of passion and flesh-on-flesh stuff is merely a subcategory of that, lust if you will. Are you going to fight for your lover because you like inserting appendage A into slot B, or are you going to fight because you love the person? Loving a person has nothing to do with sexuality, the obvious example being family, but also other examples such as platonic love, "preferring the company of men," sharing a bed, etc. Retconning everything back to sex is dull.

Quote from: rytrasmi on September 14, 2021, 01:30:49 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 14, 2021, 12:29:44 PM
But that's not how old-school NPC descriptions worked. In reply #159 (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/the-chronic-fatigue-barbarian-is-a-real-not-parody-new-dd-subclass/msg1188080/#msg1188080), I just gave a bunch of examples of old-school NPC descriptions that included sexuality by specifying their romantic relationships. That makes sense to me. In real life, sexuality is one of the most powerful of human motivations, and it drives a lot of human behavior. It is featured in most of our popular stories, from Disney cartoons to action movies.

You lost me here. Your examples are stat/background blocks. Do you think the DM introduces Dala by saying "This is Dala. She is a wench. She has 87 GP under her mattress and is the lover of Dick Rentsch. Her hit points are..."? The romance stuff is there for the DM to use when role playing the NPCs. I don't think anyone is arguing that DM eyes only stat/background blocks should be first glance stuff only.

rytrasmi -- It sounds like you're agreeing with me. Yes, I would also say that including the romance stuff is there for the DM to use when role-playing Dala. This was what Chris24601 said about such material:

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 14, 2021, 10:24:44 AM
So again, including it as a character detail is just virtue signaling and making the players aware of it is as subtle as a random NPC shouting out "I enjoy foot massages" at them... completely out of place and irrelevant to the PC's interaction with them.

I think including that Dala is Dick Rentsch's lover isn't the equivalent of her shouting it out of place at them. It's a note for the DM on how to role-play her.

Quote from: rytrasmi on September 14, 2021, 01:30:49 PM
Sexuality is a very narrow motivation. People experience numerous flavors of passion and flesh-on-flesh stuff is merely a subcategory of that, lust if you will. Are you going to fight for your lover because you like inserting appendage A into slot B, or are you going to fight because you love the person? Loving a person has nothing to do with sexuality, the obvious example being family, but also other examples such as platonic love, "preferring the company of men," sharing a bed, etc. Retconning everything back to sex is dull.

I don't see what this is in reference to. I would agree that love of family, platonic love, etc. is also important - and I'm fine with including those in NPC descriptions as well. Broadly in this thread, it feels like if I mention a gay NPC in my play, then other posters reply back as if somehow my play consists of nothing but gay romance. By this logic, evidently Temple of Elemental Evil is a romance module all about Dala and Dick.

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 14, 2021, 12:55:52 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 14, 2021, 12:29:44 PM
For me, the key thing about all these objections is that they simply don't match up to my experience.

Given the number of people disagreeing with your interpretations have you considered the obvious yet? i.e. that your experiences are atypical.

Most of the arguments against me have been theoretical rather than expressing people's actual experience. Pundit talked about gay characters in his Albion setting, but he didn't seem to have any problems with them either.

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 14, 2021, 10:42:08 AM

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 01:27:29 PM
Homosexuality was often restricted and had specific attitudes regarding it in many historical societies. However, there were examples of open homosexuality in many historical societies - from the Greek to the Norse to many others. In general, taking some men out of the gene pool was historically the norm. In Christian Europe that was done mainly via celibate monks and priests. In other societies, though, practices differed.

Never very successfully though. Throughout the middle ages priests and ESPECIALLY Monks had terrible (and apparently well-earned) reputations for sexual lasciviousness with any woman they could get their hands on (often Nuns). To the point that it became a big argument in the Reformation.

Comparatively, cases of "sodomy" were relatively few, though of course they may have been better hidden. But Catholic priests and monks didn't tend to get a reputation for homosexuality until the modern era.

Sorry if I miscommunicated, Pundit. I wasn't trying to imply that priests and monks were generally gay. Rather, I was saying that they didn't generally raise families - and I agree that they were frequently not actually chaste. The licentious priest or monk has been a frequent stereotype in many of my historical games as well. Chris24601 is arguing that in a pseudo-historical setting, everyone had to raise families because it was a struggle to have a next generation. I was saying that even in historical times, it was common for a significant segment to not raise families - like vestal virgins, monks, nuns, etc. They were not chaste, but I'd think that the number of children raised in monasteries and nunneries was much less than the equivalent among married couples.

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 14, 2021, 11:48:12 AM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on September 13, 2021, 01:31:39 PM
But in a game like D&D (aka-fantasy) historical accuracy is not really a consideration.

Historical accuracy, no. Cultural verisimilitude though should be a consideration. Sure you can have a term-limited democratically elected 14 year old queen as head of your planetary government (side-eyes George Lucas)... but it makes anyone who stops to think a moment go through at least a bit of cognitive dissonance trying to weld it together.

In the same way, something like homosexual marriage typically requires certain societal conditions in order to be plausible.

I don't speak for Rob here, but from my view, the point is that most players aren't particularly concerned even with cultural verisimilitude in D&D any more than in Star Wars. D&D worlds have frequently have dozens of points where if you stop to think about it, it doesn't make sense -- from the coin economy to castles to religious belief and more.

For a historical setting or a more culturally detailed fantasy setting like Harn, I generally agree. When I've had gay characters in such settings or in historical settings, it's been in ways that fit with the broader society - which wouldn't be like 21st century same-sex marriage.

Quote from: jhkim on September 14, 2021, 02:38:40 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on September 14, 2021, 01:30:49 PM
Sexuality is a very narrow motivation. People experience numerous flavors of passion and flesh-on-flesh stuff is merely a subcategory of that, lust if you will. Are you going to fight for your lover because you like inserting appendage A into slot B, or are you going to fight because you love the person? Loving a person has nothing to do with sexuality, the obvious example being family, but also other examples such as platonic love, "preferring the company of men," sharing a bed, etc. Retconning everything back to sex is dull.

I don't see what this is in reference to. I would agree that love of family, platonic love, etc. is also important - and I'm fine with including those in NPC descriptions as well. Broadly in this thread, it feels like if I mention a gay NPC in my play, then other posters reply back as if somehow my play consists of nothing but gay romance. By this logic, evidently Temple of Elemental Evil is a romance module all about Dala and Dick.

I was referring to your statement: "In real life, sexuality is one of the most powerful of human motivations, and it drives a lot of human behavior. It is featured in most of our popular stories, from Disney cartoons to action movies."

I was disagreeing with that. Sexuality is not a motivation. The feeling of passion that is (or may not be) consistent with one's sexuality is a powerful motivation. Nobody charges into battle because of their sexual preferences. It's always for a specific person.

Dala and Dick are lovers. They likely have a sexual relationship, but perhaps not. In the scope of the game, it doesn't matter if they have a sexual relationship, what kind of sex they've had, etc. They are lovers and that is sufficient for their motivation as NPCs, and being lovers is actually greater motivation than whatever flavor of sexuality they have. Dala could be trans, Dick could be gay and closeted, there could be any combination of sexuality between the two. The fact that they are lovers is all we need to know to run them as NPCs.

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 09:04:20 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on September 13, 2021, 08:31:37 PM
Thats the first time I have seen someone seriously wanting to cut descriptive text so that they can fit in more sexual orientation.

Who cares if he has a beard?  Well I guess who ever has to describe him to the players.

Sorry, Shasarak. Sarcasm can be hard to communicate online.

Its probably best to leave it to the experts.

Quote from: Shasarak on September 14, 2021, 05:15:21 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 09:04:20 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on September 13, 2021, 08:31:37 PM
Thats the first time I have seen someone seriously wanting to cut descriptive text so that they can fit in more sexual orientation.

Who cares if he has a beard?  Well I guess who ever has to describe him to the players.

Sorry, Shasarak. Sarcasm can be hard to communicate online.

Its probably best to leave it to the experts.

If I ever add a deity of Sarcasm to my setting, it's name shall be Shasarak.

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 14, 2021, 05:47:24 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on September 14, 2021, 05:15:21 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 09:04:20 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on September 13, 2021, 08:31:37 PM
Thats the first time I have seen someone seriously wanting to cut descriptive text so that they can fit in more sexual orientation.

Who cares if he has a beard?  Well I guess who ever has to describe him to the players.

Sorry, Shasarak. Sarcasm can be hard to communicate online.

Its probably best to leave it to the experts.

If I ever add a deity of Sarcasm to my setting, it's name shall be Shasarak.

If you do that then I pledge to buy a copy of this game you always talk about.

Might not play it, but will definitely buy.

Quote from: Shasarak on September 14, 2021, 06:30:33 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 14, 2021, 05:47:24 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on September 14, 2021, 05:15:21 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 09:04:20 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on September 13, 2021, 08:31:37 PM
Thats the first time I have seen someone seriously wanting to cut descriptive text so that they can fit in more sexual orientation.

Who cares if he has a beard?  Well I guess who ever has to describe him to the players.

Sorry, Shasarak. Sarcasm can be hard to communicate online.

Its probably best to leave it to the experts.

If I ever add a deity of Sarcasm to my setting, it's name shall be Shasarak.

If you do that then I pledge to buy a copy of this game you always talk about.

Might not play it, but will definitely buy.

You posted that in black text.

Quote from: Pat on September 14, 2021, 06:40:48 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on September 14, 2021, 06:30:33 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 14, 2021, 05:47:24 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on September 14, 2021, 05:15:21 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 09:04:20 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on September 13, 2021, 08:31:37 PM
Thats the first time I have seen someone seriously wanting to cut descriptive text so that they can fit in more sexual orientation.

Who cares if he has a beard?  Well I guess who ever has to describe him to the players.

Sorry, Shasarak. Sarcasm can be hard to communicate online.

Its probably best to leave it to the experts.

If I ever add a deity of Sarcasm to my setting, it's name shall be Shasarak.

If you do that then I pledge to buy a copy of this game you always talk about.

Might not play it, but will definitely buy.

You posted that in black text.

That was using dark grey text.

Quote from: rytrasmi on September 14, 2021, 04:29:07 PM
Dala and Dick are lovers. They likely have a sexual relationship, but perhaps not. In the scope of the game, it doesn't matter if they have a sexual relationship, what kind of sex they've had, etc. They are lovers and that is sufficient for their motivation as NPCs, and being lovers is actually greater motivation than whatever flavor of sexuality they have. Dala could be trans, Dick could be gay and closeted, there could be any combination of sexuality between the two. The fact that they are lovers is all we need to know to run them as NPCs.

I think usually the term "lovers" is intended to imply a sexual relationship -- but even if we disagree, this seems like only a technical difference.

From what you're saying, do you have any issue with a module saying that two male NPCs are lovers? From what I've seen of gay characters in modules in recent years, they're often careful or ambiguous in their language about the couple. They'll often use language even less direct than calling them lovers.

Quote from: jhkim on September 15, 2021, 12:11:00 PM
I think usually the term "lovers" is intended to imply a sexual relationship -- but even if we disagree, this seems like only a technical difference.

From what you're saying, do you have any issue with a module saying that two male NPCs are lovers? From what I've seen of gay characters in modules in recent years, they're often careful or ambiguous in their language about the couple. They'll often use language even less direct than calling them lovers.

A technical difference, maybe. It would depend on the setting. In a modern setting, lovers probably means sex. In some bizarro medieval fantasy world, who knows.

To answer your question, it depends on the setting. D&D has a strongly implied straight setting (for lack of a better word) for whatever reason, probably a combination of bias/ignorance with the original creators and also the source material. It's modeled after medieval times and back then non-straight sexuality, as others have said, was an indulgence for the upper classes because 95% of regular people had to procreate as a matter of survival. There likely were gay peasants who had illicit liaisons, but we don't know those stories because history doesn't concern peasants.

So, in a module with two male NPC lovers, it's likely muted because of expectations regarding the setting. Are these expectations there because of intolerance or because of some half-assed historical accuracy? Yes. To what proportion? Who knows.

I don't have an issue with gay PCs or NPCs. However, most settings would need modification to have it make sense. I think part of the reticence you might be facing is that you can't just add openly gay characters to a setting without significant changes to the setting to make sense.

Anyway, I don't play D&D, so I won't comment further. The game I'm playing a lot of now (Aquelarre) acknowledges homosexuality and treats it with reasonable historic accuracy. You can have a gay PC or NPC but you need to be careful because it's viewed as a sin. It you're a noble it might just be viewed as a quirk or indulgence. If you're a peasant, you could be killed for it.

I don't care about dickering around who fucks who in the books. That's for the table.

I'm more interested in what other "grievances" should be represented? Seriously. How far are we to split this pubic-hair we found in our favorite soup, in order to justify your position, before it loses it's cohesion.

This is Entropy at its rhetorical finest (i.e. worst) masquerading under semantics as some kind of logical conversation.

"What do you call a barrel of shit when you put a teaspoon of fine wine into it?" - A barrel of shit.
"What do you call a barrel of fine wine when you put a teaspoon of shit into it?" - A barrel of shit.

Quote from: rytrasmi on September 15, 2021, 01:04:08 PM
Anyway, I don't play D&D, so I won't comment further. The game I'm playing a lot of now (Aquelarre) acknowledges homosexuality and treats it with reasonable historic accuracy. You can have a gay PC or NPC but you need to be careful because it's viewed as a sin. It you're a noble it might just be viewed as a quirk or indulgence. If you're a peasant, you could be killed for it.

That's sounds fine to me - and that sounds similar to how Pundit describes gay characters in his Albion setting. I've run a number of historical campaigns which have been similar. I don't own or play Aquelarre, so I'm curious. From online reviews, it sounds like Aquelarre characters are likely to have dangerous sins of other sorts - like doing magic or being Jewish. So clash with the church is an expected part of the game. Is that the case?

As for D&D and other RPGs...

Quote from: rytrasmi on September 15, 2021, 01:04:08 PM
So, in a module with two male NPC lovers, it's likely muted because of expectations regarding the setting. Are these expectations there because of intolerance or because of some half-assed historical accuracy? Yes. To what proportion? Who knows.

I don't have an issue with gay PCs or NPCs. However, most settings would need modification to have it make sense. I think part of the reticence you might be facing is that you can't just add openly gay characters to a setting without significant changes to the setting to make sense.

You're alternate between "gay" with "openly gay" in your phrasing, but the two are very different. Just like Albion and Aquelarre don't need setting changes to have gay characters, I don't think other settings do either.

Gay people have existed in every society in history. In Christian Europe, gay characters will tend to be clandestine depending on their social situation - but they'll still exist - as Albion and apparently Aquelarre portray. Even there, 20th century history books tend to be far more prudish in portraying history than actual medieval Europeans were. In many other settings such as pagan Europe, ancient Greece, or medieval India, some sort of homosexual behavior is fully open. Pundit has mentioned before that there is a transgender (or rather third-gendered) character on the cover of his Arrows of Indra RPG.

As for fantasy settings, it depends. D&D has a current default setting of Faerun (aka Forgotten Realms), created by Ed Greenwood in the 1980s. Greenwood has said in later posts that as he envisioned it, Faerun had no general stigma on homosexuality. On the one hand, that was edited out by TSR at the time, but conversely, they never contradicted it either - and there are even a few published cases of implied-gay couples in early works.

Other fantasy settings are often undefined how society views gay people.

Quote from: jhkim on September 16, 2021, 11:07:53 AM
That's sounds fine to me - and that sounds similar to how Pundit describes gay characters in his Albion setting. I've run a number of historical campaigns which have been similar. I don't own or play Aquelarre, so I'm curious. From online reviews, it sounds like Aquelarre characters are likely to have dangerous sins of other sorts - like doing magic or being Jewish. So clash with the church is an expected part of the game. Is that the case?

The game has a very interesting dynamic among Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Pagans/Devil Worshippers/Heretics/Witches/Etc. Many things are sins to many different people. And there absolutely is conflict with the church and conflict within the church, and it recognizes that the church is not a unified and entirely wholesome entity. There is a lot of black, white, and grey, but clash with the church is expected if you're a witch, mage, or whatever. On the other hand, you can play a militant Christian knight and hunt witches. Or a Muslim Dervish, and so on. A mix of people can even be friends and comrades because people don't think sociologically when creating relationships.

Quote from: jhkim on September 16, 2021, 11:07:53 AM
You're alternate between "gay" with "openly gay" in your phrasing, but the two are very different. Just like Albion and Aquelarre don't need setting changes to have gay characters, I don't think other settings do either.

Gay people have existed in every society in history. In Christian Europe, gay characters will tend to be clandestine depending on their social situation - but they'll still exist - as Albion and apparently Aquelarre portray. Even there, 20th century history books tend to be far more prudish in portraying history than actual medieval Europeans were. In many other settings such as pagan Europe, ancient Greece, or medieval India, some sort of homosexual behavior is fully open. Pundit has mentioned before that there is a transgender (or rather third-gendered) character on the cover of his Arrows of Indra RPG.

Yes, I agree. In historically authentic settings, it's pretty simple to include all kinds of people because they did exist in actual history. The framework is there, and if this is not anticipated at the table that's the fault of the players/GM for not knowing their history. How a gay (or other) character behaves and is treated should be pretty evident from the setting: likely closeted in a medieval farming village, but probably open in an ancient Greek setting.

I think we agree more or less. You (or anyone) would be welcome to play a gay character in my game of Aquelarre and you seem to understand that it might increase the difficulty a bit. It could be interesting.

Quote from: jhkim on September 16, 2021, 11:07:53 AM
As for fantasy settings, it depends. D&D has a current default setting of Faerun (aka Forgotten Realms), created by Ed Greenwood in the 1980s. Greenwood has said in later posts that as he envisioned it, Faerun had no general stigma on homosexuality. On the one hand, that was edited out by TSR at the time, but conversely, they never contradicted it either - and there are even a few published cases of implied-gay couples in early works.

Other fantasy settings are often undefined how society views gay people.

I did not know that about Forgotten Realms.

I'm perfectly fine with including gay people in fantasy settings. However, just dropping them in as if it were 2021 can be jarring to the setting itself or to the preconceived ideas that people have about the setting.

Extreme example: a medieval-ish village where 10% of farms are run by openly gay couples. Okay, fine we are inclusive, but how to they compete with hetero couples that can breed free labor? How does the lord of the land view them considering that his prestige is based on how productive his land is and how many soldiers he can rally when his lord calls on him. Hetero farmers have a big advantage here, so it's not farfetched to image that the lord would disenfranchise gay couples in favor of hereto ones. The setting needs to account for it. Perhaps adoption or slavery is widespread and this gives gay couples equal footing. If so, those circumstances would need to be explained, too. It's certainly possible. I'm just using an extreme example to illustrate a point, and not to argue that it would be very difficult.

Setting consistency is vital to immersion. I'm not saying it can't or shouldn't be done. It needs to be done thoughtfully and deliberately otherwise it looks like a modern agenda dropped into a "traditional" setting.

Quote from: rytrasmi on September 16, 2021, 12:25:49 PM
I think we agree more or less. You (or anyone) would be welcome to play a gay character in my game of Aquelarre and you seem to understand that it might increase the difficulty a bit. It could be interesting.

Sounds good. I'm more curious about Aquelarre now, but it might be hard to find players. I had a good Harn group for a while, but I haven't found players as interested in historical games lately.

Quote from: rytrasmi on September 16, 2021, 12:25:49 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 16, 2021, 11:07:53 AM
As for fantasy settings, it depends. D&D has a current default setting of Faerun (aka Forgotten Realms), created by Ed Greenwood in the 1980s. Greenwood has said in later posts that as he envisioned it, Faerun had no general stigma on homosexuality. On the one hand, that was edited out by TSR at the time, but conversely, they never contradicted it either - and there are even a few published cases of implied-gay couples in early works.

Other fantasy settings are often undefined how society views gay people.

I did not know that about Forgotten Realms.

I'm perfectly fine with including gay people in fantasy settings. However, just dropping them in as if it were 2021 can be jarring to the setting itself or to the preconceived ideas that people have about the setting.

For a historical setting, it's easy to incorporate gay characters since they can be the way they were in history. Likewise, I'd say that in Faerun it is at least defined by the creator. But the question is, what is the right way to introduce gay characters into other fantasy settings? For most settings, they aren't defined as punishing homosexuality the way that Christian Europe did - or having a designated social class like the kliba in India, or the onnagata in Japan - or having open homosexual behavior like ancient Greece and others. Instead, it's left undefined how homosexuality is regarded.

I guess, can you give examples of what you think of as good, non-jarring ways that gay characters have been included in fantasy settings?

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 13, 2021, 07:43:08 PM
Here's the other thing about "gay" vs. well, any other minority. It's NOT something you can know about just by looking at someone. Do you know if the person checking you out at the grocery is gay, straight, asexual or secretly a robot?

True story: one of my coworkers in my last job was gay. I didn't realize it until like a year in.

Him: "What the hell? How did you NOT know I was gay?"
Me: "Dude, I just figured you had good fashion sense and liked computers!"

...Yeah, sometimes my social awareness is a little rusty.

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 14, 2021, 05:47:24 PM
If I ever add a deity of Sarcasm to my setting, it's name shall be Shasarak.

*adds something to his D&D campaign notes*

Shasarak, minor deity of sarcasm...

:D

Quote from: jhkim on September 17, 2021, 01:21:41 PM

For a historical setting, it's easy to incorporate gay characters since they can be the way they were in history. Likewise, I'd say that in Faerun it is at least defined by the creator. But the question is, what is the right way to introduce gay characters into other fantasy settings? For most settings, they aren't defined as punishing homosexuality the way that Christian Europe did - or having a designated social class like the kliba in India, or the onnagata in Japan - or having open homosexual behavior like ancient Greece and others. Instead, it's left undefined how homosexuality is regarded.

Again, I feel I should note that there's NO period in any culture in ancient history where "homosexuality" was treated the way it is treated in the modern west for the past 30 years or so.

So when you talk about "open homosexual behavior in ancient Greece" it should be noted that it looked nothing like what homosexuality looks like in 2021 USA.

In the ancient Greco-Roman world, homosexuality was not considered abnormal. Many people engaged in it. Most of them wouldn't suggest that was a special identity to them.

Adolescent boys were often put into relationships with adult men; being public about this relationship was seen as shameful and humiliating, but mainly for the boy.

Most adult men who engaged in homosexual activity were also married, and had children. They fulfilled their responsibilities to society, and it was not a huge deal for them to go fuck effeminate men or boys. When someone failed to fulfill their social duties, and it was attributed to their lust for other males, it was shameful (like it was for Maecenas).

In general, there was seen to be no shame in being the guy doing the fucking. But for a guy to be fucked was seen as shameful and weak. This is why when Julius Caesar's enemies said that "Caesar is every woman's man, and every man's woman" it was meant to humiliate him.
This is a recurring theme throughout history in various cultures where homosexuality was tolerated, not universal, but significant enough to jump across big divides space and time and cultures, where it is considered acceptable or even powerful to be the "top" but being the "bottom" is considered shameful and emasculating.
To this day, that sort of attitude still exists in some highly Macho Latin cultures, for example in Colombia and parts of Central America, where a "maricon" is only someone who is a bottom.

So essentially, there were sort of two ways to be "gay" in the pre-christian West, neither of which look anything like how to "be gay" in the 21st century west, and these sexual identities we have today are constructed and not universal.

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 17, 2021, 04:59:34 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 17, 2021, 01:21:41 PM
For a historical setting, it's easy to incorporate gay characters since they can be the way they were in history. Likewise, I'd say that in Faerun it is at least defined by the creator. But the question is, what is the right way to introduce gay characters into other fantasy settings? For most settings, they aren't defined as punishing homosexuality the way that Christian Europe did - or having a designated social class like the kliba in India, or the onnagata in Japan - or having open homosexual behavior like ancient Greece and others. Instead, it's left undefined how homosexuality is regarded.

In general, there was seen to be no shame in being the guy doing the fucking. But for a guy to be fucked was seen as shameful and weak. This is why when Julius Caesar's enemies said that "Caesar is every woman's man, and every man's woman" it was meant to humiliate him.
This is a recurring theme throughout history in various cultures where homosexuality was tolerated, not universal, but significant enough to jump across big divides space and time and cultures, where it is considered acceptable or even powerful to be the "top" but being the "bottom" is considered shameful and emasculating.

I know that's true of the pre-Christian Norse - Lee Gold's article that I linked earlier talks about that in more detail. But as you say, it isn't universal. As far as I know, being third gender is un-masculine but not shameful in Hindu culture. Similar is true of shamans in a number of cultures. I'm most familiar with Lakota shamans - who wear women's clothes and are sometimes called "two spirit". I'm less sure about others. ​Among European cultures, I know that Greek author Diodorus Siculus wrote about British Celts in Roman times:

QuoteAlthough they have good-looking women, they pay very little attention to them, but are really crazy about having sex with men. They are accustomed to sleeping on the ground on animal skins and roll around naked with male bed-mates on both sides. Heedless of their own dignity, they abandon without qualm the bloom of their bodies to others. And the most incredible thing is that they do not find this shameful. When they proposition someone, they consider it dishonourable if he doesn't accept the offer!

He might have been wrong or exaggerating - but I heard that other authors of the period say similar.

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 17, 2021, 04:59:34 PM
So essentially, there were sort of two ways to be "gay" in the pre-christian West, neither of which look anything like how to "be gay" in the 21st century west, and these sexual identities we have today are constructed and not universal.

From my reading, there are more than two ways to be gay. I think attitudes towards LGBT issues are at least as varied as marriage customs between different cultures. There are some common patterns, but also a lot of differences. And yes, they are constructed and not universal.

But again, in history, it's easy to include gay or LGBT characters. I had been talking about typical fantasy worlds. Many fantasy worlds aren't like real history in anything more than cosmetic ways.

Quote from: jhkim on September 17, 2021, 07:05:59 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 17, 2021, 04:59:34 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 17, 2021, 01:21:41 PM
For a historical setting, it's easy to incorporate gay characters since they can be the way they were in history. Likewise, I'd say that in Faerun it is at least defined by the creator. But the question is, what is the right way to introduce gay characters into other fantasy settings? For most settings, they aren't defined as punishing homosexuality the way that Christian Europe did - or having a designated social class like the kliba in India, or the onnagata in Japan - or having open homosexual behavior like ancient Greece and others. Instead, it's left undefined how homosexuality is regarded.

In general, there was seen to be no shame in being the guy doing the fucking. But for a guy to be fucked was seen as shameful and weak. This is why when Julius Caesar's enemies said that "Caesar is every woman's man, and every man's woman" it was meant to humiliate him.
This is a recurring theme throughout history in various cultures where homosexuality was tolerated, not universal, but significant enough to jump across big divides space and time and cultures, where it is considered acceptable or even powerful to be the "top" but being the "bottom" is considered shameful and emasculating.

I know that's true of the pre-Christian Norse - Lee Gold's article that I linked earlier talks about that in more detail. But as you say, it isn't universal. As far as I know, being third gender is un-masculine but not shameful in Hindu culture. Similar is true of shamans in a number of cultures. I'm most familiar with Lakota shamans - who wear women's clothes and are sometimes called "two spirit". I'm less sure about others.

Correct. There was also a difference between "third gender" and "homosexual activity". These were not considered part of the same thing in most cultures. Among cultures (like in India, and many other places) that had a third-gender category, that was seen as a difference in gender role, which was basically separate from sexuality. Some cultures that had a third-gender category also had tolerance of homosexual activity, and some didn't (a good modern example being Iran, where the government will pay for you to get 'gender reassignment surgery' if you identify as a woman and considers that fine, but will put you to death if you're a man engaged in homosexual activity).

So again, an important point is that almost all our definitions about sexuality (certainly about anything other than heterosexual sexuality) or gender (certainly anything other than 'cisgender'), but probably even including our understandings of what 'heterosexual' or 'cisgender' mean (though to a lesser degree than the other categories) is not some kind of scientific absolute based on objective reality. It is absolutely a social construct. The same person with the same sexual attraction or gender concepts would have been categorized and would have understood themselves and their role in society completely different. None of the categories we use today in 21st century western society apply at all to the understanding of sexuality or gender in other historical periods or cultures.

Quote

Quote from: RPGPundit on September 17, 2021, 04:59:34 PM
So essentially, there were sort of two ways to be "gay" in the pre-christian West, neither of which look anything like how to "be gay" in the 21st century west, and these sexual identities we have today are constructed and not universal.

From my reading, there are more than two ways to be gay.

Well, quite possibly yes; I should probably have said "in the classical pre-christian Greco-roman civilization" rather than the entire pre-christian west. Because as you point out about the Celts (and the germans, etc) they had different understandings from the Romans and Greeks too.

QuoteI think attitudes towards LGBT issues are at least as varied as marriage customs between different cultures. There are some common patterns, but also a lot of differences. And yes, they are constructed and not universal.

But again, in history, it's easy to include gay or LGBT characters. I had been talking about typical fantasy worlds. Many fantasy worlds aren't like real history in anything more than cosmetic ways.

Sure, but doing so in a way that you have what are completely modern 2021 seattle LGBT+ concepts in a fantasy world is anachronistic regardless, in the same way as, say, having people using modern day slang or playing modern music or going to prom or having wal-mart style stores or having modern style democratic elections. If a GM doesn't care about being anachronistic, I guess they can go ahead and do that, but on some level it's going to look and feel ridiculous (which is why modern anachronisms are effective in certain styles of Gonzo play).
If you want your world to not be gonzo and to feel more real, whether or not you base your social norms on real historical sources, it's still much less lazy to come up with concepts that are different social norms than our own modern ones. Which is part of why I so strongly oppose the current trend/demand from SJW Designers that every setting needs to have 2021 Seattle Values.

The two-ways for being "gay" like the Andrew Dice Clay definition of gay? That was pretty clear to most people. How much more nuance do you need?