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.  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.

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... 

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... 

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.