In the character builder section "description", under physical characteristics, there is a box to write what the characters gender is. however, there is no box for sex, so this could lead to 2 potential confusions:
1. the term gender is used interchangebly with sex by the character builder, which is detrimental to the identity of the character and to some members of the LGBTQ+ community who may feel not feel represented, as well as being dismissive of gender identities as a whole.
2. The use of gender in the character builder refers to the definition of gender as understood today, in which case it should either be moved to a section other than physical characteristics, as it implies that gender identities must have visible physical characteristics, which helps perpetuate certain stereotypes, or a separate section for sex should be added to distinguish from the characters gender, allowing greater freedom and descriptiveness when creating the character, or should least be made clear in the meaning and use of this term.
The character sheet does not say "physical characteristics." It just says "characteristics," and includes alignment and faith in the section.
OP is talking about the character builder though, and uhhh. I don't think this is a very significant issue. Could gender be moved to "character details"? Sure, I wouldn't mind that at all. But it feels like a very low priority to me.
I dont know where you are looking but I dont see the word 'Sex' get used in the character builder area at all, within the PHB itself and its the same within Basic Rules. It has the following:
Sex
You can play a male or female character without gaining any special benefits or hindrances. Think about how your character does or does not conform to the broader culture’s expectations of sex, gender, and sexual behavior. For example, a male drow cleric defies the traditional gender divisions of drow society, which could be a reason for your character to leave that society and come to the surface.
You don’t need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender. The elf god Corellon Larethian is often seen as androgynous, for example, and some elves in the multiverse are made in Corellon’s image. You could also play a female character who presents herself as a man, a man who feels trapped in a female body, or a bearded female dwarf who hates being mistaken for a male. Likewise, your character’s sexual orientation is for you to decide.
On the sheet all that is there is Gender and its a box where anyone can write what they wish to in there. You could even class yourself as a "eunich" if you wanted. However the word Sex hasnt been used since at least 3.5 on the character sheets.
The character sheet does not say "physical characteristics." It just says "characteristics," and includes alignment and faith in the section.
OP is talking about the character builder though, and uhhh. I don't think this is a very significant issue. Could gender be moved to "character details"? Sure, I wouldn't mind that at all. But it feels like a very low priority to me.
He is talking in the actual Character Builder under Description, it actually states it as "Physical Characteristics" It changes it on the character sheet to the section like it is all in one group. However I think that OP is getting massively confused because the word GENDER has been used for decades when talking about male and female. The word SEX got put into the mix later on and really has too many meanings, including copulation between genders.
So please dont be confusing the word GENDER when it comes to Dungeons and Dragons because anything that relates to modern day issues has ZERO to do with this gaming world, or ANY GAMING WORLD!
One could just ignore the "gender" column entirely and leave it blank, and still achieve the same identifying markers they feel is important to them. I feel that is a healthier methodology of moving forward than assuming a personal meaning is how everyone will view it as an absolution.
What should that section be called then? Gender doesn't really fit with the "personal characteristics" tables or the skippable "details" section. It should be in the same section as how you describe your character (which it is).
It is true that sex and gender are not the same thing. I for one agree with the OP.
No one has said otherwise. Including the rulebooks or character page.
OP says the character sheet treats gender as biological sex, but has not elaborated how.
Not so. The OP says the character builder conflates the two by simply listing gender as “physical characteristic,” which it does.
So do you think there is a reason the OP has assumed you can't apply physical characteristics to a preferred gender, and also include (or exclude if it's that important) thereafter what the sex is, despite their gender identity? Intuitively people are going to ascribe their identity as they see fit regardless of sex or gender, and there is always another group of people that are going to feel sex and gender are being misrepresented or belong somewhere else, or not at all, or has to be so exacting in its feature that it cannot possibly be confused with anything else, ever. As most people view it without being overly sensitive, The "physical" characteristics box is an aid to help apply physical marks to include your identity, again regardless of sex or gender. It really is just a description column meant to apply how a player wants to assist others in identifying their character in a manner consistent with what they're comfortable with, which, I think, the OP may not realize.
This doesn't seem like a particularly concerning issue, since it's clearly being misrepresented by someone's feelings due to what they perceive is a lack of identity based on assumptions they've made. If the Gender box had a drop down component and only offered a few choice (whatever they may be) then, perhaps, it might be something noteworthy. As it stands it's just going to invite more conflict than meaningful discussion.
The OP misunderstands that physical descriptions aren't mutually exclusive to identity when it comes to sex and gender, regardless of whether or not it's referring to one or both. All of them are interchangeable to the needs of the individual because of the demands the modern world want to apply to a fantasy game already, and the game itself is inclusive by omission of hyper-labeling everything.
So wait a minute…. If someone is offended by the cultural and physical descriptions of Orcs and the Drow, then that’s offensive and needs to change. But if someone is offended by this conflation of sex and gender, the it’s all just a “misrepresentation” because of “someone’s feelings.”
So wait a minute…. If someone is offended by the cultural and physical descriptions of Orcs and the Drow, then that’s offensive and needs to change. But if someone is offended by this conflation of sex and gender, the it’s all just a “misrepresentation” because of “someone’s feelings.”
I see how it is.
Well... I say leave orc and drow (and everything else) lore alone, but let PCs be whatever their players want.
So wait a minute…. If someone is offended by the cultural and physical descriptions of Orcs and the Drow, then that’s offensive and needs to change. But if someone is offended by this conflation of sex and gender, the it’s all just a “misrepresentation” because of “someone’s feelings.”
I see how it is.
No, and nothing I said or suggested had anything to do with that, nor do I ever recall being part of any argument about Drow or Orcs, lol. Not sure what straws you're pulling from but the context of what I said is quite clear my friend.
There doesn't seem to be a need to constantly shift and change every dynamic of every description because one person does not feel it does them justice, when there are very simple solutions to the matter outside of their current politically acclimatized opinion. That applies across the board. The OP looks like they're trying to make an issue out of something that requires little more than a little more open mindedness on their part with a side of tolerance, in my opinion, rather than forcing their absolution on new-age buzzword politics. The reason posts like this get reactions isn't because of any misconstrued privilege (hopefully not for hate reasons either) to "keep everything in its place and all of it like how it used to be" but because there are actually decent people just trying to provoke forward-thinking and pushing for the evolution of equality without the need for conflict. The whole point being made that the box labeled "gender" was put there to offend people and is categorically in the wrong builder section is as crass as is the assumption it will has to be changed.
It’s not just one person. Now it’s two people who are offended and hurt by it. How many do we need before it officially gets designated as a problem needs fixin’? Would three people be enough? Or four perhaps? When is it enough people offended by something before it becomes a problem needs to be addressed?
It’s not just one person. Now it’s two people who are offended and hurt by it. How many do we need before it officially gets designated as a problem needs fixin’? Would three people be enough? Or four perhaps? When is it enough people offended by something before it becomes a problem needs to be addressed?
To counter-ask: How many people aren't offended by it but share a similar point of view as the OP, or you, and simply leave well enough alone because maybe it's not an issue for them, for reasons all their own? How many people would you then like to slate against each other in a pointless conflict over semantics and personal interpretation, misconstrued though they may be? I do no say these things to be rude but trying to quantify how many people it takes before it's a problem which requires fixing means we also have to establish a baseline of what it means to be offensive for -everyone- to think it may need to be addressed. The OP is using personal definitions for themselves to set this baseline in order to assert that their being offended is plenty enough reason to change it, and if it doesn't get changed then everyone not directly in line with their method of thinking is a butt.
Using you an the OP as an example; Two people offended by something which is not there to do something offensive, nor is it dismissive of whatever it is you require recognition or representation. That intent simply is not there, period. If one is going to make a reason to be offended by something which, once again, has a very simple set of alternate solutions then there's no appeasing these people without giving them their way in absolution. Then compromise gets thrown out the window.
Just seems very silly to go looking for a reason to be upset about something which can be left blank and ignored, or utilized in its proper fashion to describe their preferred gender and include the sex there with. Because after all the OP already has to recognize that Gender can be ascribed to a character with their sex not mattering anyway. That's the whole point of what Gender is, if going by what the OP is considering offensive.
Again, the same could have been said about having to change D&D to cater to those who were offended by Orcs or the Drow, but that needed to change. I find it remarkable how the exact same arguments here are so easily dismissed by the majority of people.
It’s horse shit.
If all it takes for something to be labeled “offensive” is for people to stand up and say “that offends me,” then how come my standing up and saying “this offends me” isn’t enough in this circumstance. Hm?
Clearly the idea of defining gender solely as a physical characteristic bothers some people. After all, it bothered the OP enough to start a thread on it, and the whole point of "Diversity and D&D" is to try and be inclusive, ne? That's not just about race, it's also about gender. Race gets the big coverage because D&D has been failing hard at race for quite some time, but that doesn't necessarily excuse gender fails, either. There may not be a better place to put 'Gender' in the current builder and the final sheet may knock off the 'phsyical' part of Physical Characteristics, but this is the sort of thing the dev team should be aware of for future revisions. if we're gonna hold Wizards, D&D, and DDB accountable for race failures, we should hold them accountable for gender failures too.
It can, in fact, be super painful/offensive to tell some folks that their 'physical characteristics' define not only their gender but also their entire personality. Saying "you have a dick, ergo you are a dude, ergo you are - inarguably and by fundamental definition - a beer-guzzling football-obsessed emotionally stunted alpha-male lunatic who measures success in life by three and only three criteria: how many *****es you've knocked up, how fast your car is, and how well you can hold your liquor" should be offensive to everybody, not just trans or nonbinary people.
Again, the same could have been said about having to change D&D to cater to those who were offended by Orcs or the Drow, but that needed to change. I find it remarkable how the exact same arguments here are so easily dismissed by the majority of people.
It’s horse shit.
If all it takes for something to be labeled “offensive” is for people to stand up and say “that offends me,” then how come my standing up and saying “this offends me” isn’t enough in this circumstance. Hm?
We're going to keep covering the same ground until you stop glossing over my posts. Again...I had nothing to do with nor do know what you're talking about with the whole Orc and Drow thing, so that's irrelevant to me pertaining to this conversation because I lack the information to provide a sustainable argument. Also, who is to say the same thing hasn't already been said about it, and perhaps you just glossed over it like you're clearly glossing over my posts? My friend, sincerely, I'm not going to repeat myself anymore. We're two and three people (perhaps more, i don't know who is reading), no one is dismissing any arguments, no one is intentionally omitting information. Some of us are including viable options for suggesting how to approach this subject. I have very literally already directly addressed the debate from both sides and even provided a compromise solution.
It's not that I don't understand why you're offended, it's that I'm also giving you reasons why you don't have to be once you open up a little to understand both sides. Is that wrong of me? No, because i want equality to evolve on all sides.
I cannot answer your final question any clearer than I already did in my previous post, and in previous posts on this thread. The intentions the OP asserts is that this is the offensive nature for all people. That is not true.
Striker, your posts are super confusing. I'm not actually sure what your argument is. But I don't think anyone ever suggested the original poster's issue is universal. Simply that it's an issue, and it might could do with being addressed.
Sposta is talking about Orcs/Drow because the big push with Tasha's Cauldron and similar products released this year and in the back half of last year was on getting away from the idea of "Always Chaotic Evil" races/species and depicting certain intelligent, thinking peoples as being horrible evil utterly irredeemable monsters the player party could freely slaughter without concern. It also dealt with the idea that a PC's species predetermines the entirety of their capabilities. A lot of people got super pissed off at this because the way that books such as Tasha's dealt with this felt, to them, like it was trampling on the history of D&D and ruining D&D's worldbuilding. Most of those folks got told, more or less, to shut up and deal because their opinions were invalid, which was not the right way to go about it but...well. The Internet sucks, what can you do?
Now people are telling Sposta to "shut up and deal with it" when he raises agreement with the OP about the way the character sheet handles gender perhaps not being great. He's understandably annoyed. Frankly, I would be as well. I'm not glossing over your posts, I'm having trouble trying to understand your logic and what you're suggesting. Other than "shut up and deal with it", anyways.
Striker, your posts are super confusing. I'm not actually sure what your argument is. But I don't think anyone ever suggested the original poster's issue is universal. Simply that it's an issue, and it might could do with being addressed.
Sposta is talking about Orcs/Drow because the big push with Tasha's Cauldron and similar products released this year and in the back half of last year was on getting away from the idea of "Always Chaotic Evil" races/species and depicting certain intelligent, thinking peoples as being horrible evil utterly irredeemable monsters the player party could freely slaughter without concern. It also dealt with the idea that a PC's species predetermines the entirety of their capabilities. A lot of people got super pissed off at this because the way that books such as Tasha's dealt with this felt, to them, like it was trampling on the history of D&D and ruining D&D's worldbuilding. Most of those folks got told, more or less, to shut up and deal because their opinions were invalid, which was not the right way to go about it but...well. The Internet sucks, what can you do?
Now people are telling Sposta to "shut up and deal with it" when he raises agreement with the OP about the way the character sheet handles gender perhaps not being great. He's understandably annoyed. Frankly, I would be as well. I'm not glossing over your posts, I'm having trouble trying to understand your logic and what you're suggesting. Other than "shut up and deal with it", anyways.
I inferred from the post that the OP was speaking on behalf of an established plurality of people who have an issue with something as simple as them not utilizing a description box, outside of being annoyed that it's there and doesn't say what they want it to say. Current options; Leave it blank, utilize it how it is. Gender description includes physical markers, so it can belong to the physical description page. I feel if my posts are confusing it's because I'm trying to iterate points towards the already illogical conclusion the OP has drawn based strictly on what they feel is offensive, or dismissive, or whatever without actually seeing that there are other methods to properly describe sex and gender. Maybe they don't want to, who knows right now. There is no intent of "shut up and deal with it" from my side of the table at all, I just don't think it's as big an issue as the OP wants it to feel like it should be, and I gave a few reasons why.
For the record, I'm not against the change, it's just something that's gone unnoticed because I strongly feel like there are plenty of people out there that don't have an issue with it, that align with the OPs scope of thought. Maybe they should have spoken up prior to this, but also this isn't a required change. It can be dealt with alternative solutions that work on both sides of the table.
I for one find it great when someone's gender column leaves me needing to play with their character, interact with them, and figure out what their identity is. Is not that the point?
In the character builder section "description", under physical characteristics, there is a box to write what the characters gender is. however, there is no box for sex, so this could lead to 2 potential confusions:
1. the term gender is used interchangebly with sex by the character builder, which is detrimental to the identity of the character and to some members of the LGBTQ+ community who may feel not feel represented, as well as being dismissive of gender identities as a whole.
2. The use of gender in the character builder refers to the definition of gender as understood today, in which case it should either be moved to a section other than physical characteristics, as it implies that gender identities must have visible physical characteristics, which helps perpetuate certain stereotypes, or a separate section for sex should be added to distinguish from the characters gender, allowing greater freedom and descriptiveness when creating the character, or should least be made clear in the meaning and use of this term.
thanks in advance.
Where exactly is sex ever used instead of gender on the character sheet?
The character sheet does not say "physical characteristics." It just says "characteristics," and includes alignment and faith in the section.
OP is talking about the character builder though, and uhhh. I don't think this is a very significant issue. Could gender be moved to "character details"? Sure, I wouldn't mind that at all. But it feels like a very low priority to me.
I dont know where you are looking but I dont see the word 'Sex' get used in the character builder area at all, within the PHB itself and its the same within Basic Rules. It has the following:
On the sheet all that is there is Gender and its a box where anyone can write what they wish to in there. You could even class yourself as a "eunich" if you wanted. However the word Sex hasnt been used since at least 3.5 on the character sheets.
Quote from SagaTympana >>
He is talking in the actual Character Builder under Description, it actually states it as "Physical Characteristics" It changes it on the character sheet to the section like it is all in one group. However I think that OP is getting massively confused because the word GENDER has been used for decades when talking about male and female. The word SEX got put into the mix later on and really has too many meanings, including copulation between genders.
So please dont be confusing the word GENDER when it comes to Dungeons and Dragons because anything that relates to modern day issues has ZERO to do with this gaming world, or ANY GAMING WORLD!
One could just ignore the "gender" column entirely and leave it blank, and still achieve the same identifying markers they feel is important to them. I feel that is a healthier methodology of moving forward than assuming a personal meaning is how everyone will view it as an absolution.
Loading...
Watch DnD Shorts on youtube.
Chief Innovationist, Acquisitions Inc. The Series 2
Successfully completed the Tomb of Horrors module (as part of playing Tomb of Annihilation) with no party deaths!
It is true that sex and gender are not the same thing. I for one agree with the OP.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
No one has said otherwise. Including the rulebooks or character page.
OP says the character sheet treats gender as biological sex, but has not elaborated how.
Not so. The OP says the character builder conflates the two by simply listing gender as “physical characteristic,” which it does.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
What should that section be called then? Gender doesn't really fit with the "personal characteristics" tables or the skippable "details" section. It should be in the same section as how you describe your character (which it is).
So do you think there is a reason the OP has assumed you can't apply physical characteristics to a preferred gender, and also include (or exclude if it's that important) thereafter what the sex is, despite their gender identity? Intuitively people are going to ascribe their identity as they see fit regardless of sex or gender, and there is always another group of people that are going to feel sex and gender are being misrepresented or belong somewhere else, or not at all, or has to be so exacting in its feature that it cannot possibly be confused with anything else, ever. As most people view it without being overly sensitive, The "physical" characteristics box is an aid to help apply physical marks to include your identity, again regardless of sex or gender. It really is just a description column meant to apply how a player wants to assist others in identifying their character in a manner consistent with what they're comfortable with, which, I think, the OP may not realize.
This doesn't seem like a particularly concerning issue, since it's clearly being misrepresented by someone's feelings due to what they perceive is a lack of identity based on assumptions they've made. If the Gender box had a drop down component and only offered a few choice (whatever they may be) then, perhaps, it might be something noteworthy. As it stands it's just going to invite more conflict than meaningful discussion.
The OP misunderstands that physical descriptions aren't mutually exclusive to identity when it comes to sex and gender, regardless of whether or not it's referring to one or both. All of them are interchangeable to the needs of the individual because of the demands the modern world want to apply to a fantasy game already, and the game itself is inclusive by omission of hyper-labeling everything.
Loading...
Watch DnD Shorts on youtube.
Chief Innovationist, Acquisitions Inc. The Series 2
Successfully completed the Tomb of Horrors module (as part of playing Tomb of Annihilation) with no party deaths!
So wait a minute…. If someone is offended by the cultural and physical descriptions of Orcs and the Drow, then that’s offensive and needs to change. But if someone is offended by this conflation of sex and gender, the it’s all just a “misrepresentation” because of “someone’s feelings.”
I see how it is.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Well... I say leave orc and drow (and everything else) lore alone, but let PCs be whatever their players want.
No, and nothing I said or suggested had anything to do with that, nor do I ever recall being part of any argument about Drow or Orcs, lol. Not sure what straws you're pulling from but the context of what I said is quite clear my friend.
There doesn't seem to be a need to constantly shift and change every dynamic of every description because one person does not feel it does them justice, when there are very simple solutions to the matter outside of their current politically acclimatized opinion. That applies across the board. The OP looks like they're trying to make an issue out of something that requires little more than a little more open mindedness on their part with a side of tolerance, in my opinion, rather than forcing their absolution on new-age buzzword politics. The reason posts like this get reactions isn't because of any misconstrued privilege (hopefully not for hate reasons either) to "keep everything in its place and all of it like how it used to be" but because there are actually decent people just trying to provoke forward-thinking and pushing for the evolution of equality without the need for conflict. The whole point being made that the box labeled "gender" was put there to offend people and is categorically in the wrong builder section is as crass as is the assumption it will has to be changed.
Loading...
Watch DnD Shorts on youtube.
Chief Innovationist, Acquisitions Inc. The Series 2
Successfully completed the Tomb of Horrors module (as part of playing Tomb of Annihilation) with no party deaths!
It’s not just one person. Now it’s two people who are offended and hurt by it. How many do we need before it officially gets designated as a problem needs fixin’? Would three people be enough? Or four perhaps? When is it enough people offended by something before it becomes a problem needs to be addressed?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
To counter-ask: How many people aren't offended by it but share a similar point of view as the OP, or you, and simply leave well enough alone because maybe it's not an issue for them, for reasons all their own? How many people would you then like to slate against each other in a pointless conflict over semantics and personal interpretation, misconstrued though they may be? I do no say these things to be rude but trying to quantify how many people it takes before it's a problem which requires fixing means we also have to establish a baseline of what it means to be offensive for -everyone- to think it may need to be addressed. The OP is using personal definitions for themselves to set this baseline in order to assert that their being offended is plenty enough reason to change it, and if it doesn't get changed then everyone not directly in line with their method of thinking is a butt.
Using you an the OP as an example; Two people offended by something which is not there to do something offensive, nor is it dismissive of whatever it is you require recognition or representation. That intent simply is not there, period. If one is going to make a reason to be offended by something which, once again, has a very simple set of alternate solutions then there's no appeasing these people without giving them their way in absolution. Then compromise gets thrown out the window.
Just seems very silly to go looking for a reason to be upset about something which can be left blank and ignored, or utilized in its proper fashion to describe their preferred gender and include the sex there with. Because after all the OP already has to recognize that Gender can be ascribed to a character with their sex not mattering anyway. That's the whole point of what Gender is, if going by what the OP is considering offensive.
Loading...
Watch DnD Shorts on youtube.
Chief Innovationist, Acquisitions Inc. The Series 2
Successfully completed the Tomb of Horrors module (as part of playing Tomb of Annihilation) with no party deaths!
Again, the same could have been said about having to change D&D to cater to those who were offended by Orcs or the Drow, but that needed to change. I find it remarkable how the exact same arguments here are so easily dismissed by the majority of people.
It’s horse shit.
If all it takes for something to be labeled “offensive” is for people to stand up and say “that offends me,” then how come my standing up and saying “this offends me” isn’t enough in this circumstance. Hm?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Settle, folks.
Clearly the idea of defining gender solely as a physical characteristic bothers some people. After all, it bothered the OP enough to start a thread on it, and the whole point of "Diversity and D&D" is to try and be inclusive, ne? That's not just about race, it's also about gender. Race gets the big coverage because D&D has been failing hard at race for quite some time, but that doesn't necessarily excuse gender fails, either. There may not be a better place to put 'Gender' in the current builder and the final sheet may knock off the 'phsyical' part of Physical Characteristics, but this is the sort of thing the dev team should be aware of for future revisions. if we're gonna hold Wizards, D&D, and DDB accountable for race failures, we should hold them accountable for gender failures too.
It can, in fact, be super painful/offensive to tell some folks that their 'physical characteristics' define not only their gender but also their entire personality. Saying "you have a dick, ergo you are a dude, ergo you are - inarguably and by fundamental definition - a beer-guzzling football-obsessed emotionally stunted alpha-male lunatic who measures success in life by three and only three criteria: how many *****es you've knocked up, how fast your car is, and how well you can hold your liquor" should be offensive to everybody, not just trans or nonbinary people.
Please do not contact or message me.
We're going to keep covering the same ground until you stop glossing over my posts. Again...I had nothing to do with nor do know what you're talking about with the whole Orc and Drow thing, so that's irrelevant to me pertaining to this conversation because I lack the information to provide a sustainable argument. Also, who is to say the same thing hasn't already been said about it, and perhaps you just glossed over it like you're clearly glossing over my posts? My friend, sincerely, I'm not going to repeat myself anymore. We're two and three people (perhaps more, i don't know who is reading), no one is dismissing any arguments, no one is intentionally omitting information. Some of us are including viable options for suggesting how to approach this subject. I have very literally already directly addressed the debate from both sides and even provided a compromise solution.
It's not that I don't understand why you're offended, it's that I'm also giving you reasons why you don't have to be once you open up a little to understand both sides. Is that wrong of me? No, because i want equality to evolve on all sides.
I cannot answer your final question any clearer than I already did in my previous post, and in previous posts on this thread. The intentions the OP asserts is that this is the offensive nature for all people. That is not true.
Loading...
Watch DnD Shorts on youtube.
Chief Innovationist, Acquisitions Inc. The Series 2
Successfully completed the Tomb of Horrors module (as part of playing Tomb of Annihilation) with no party deaths!
Striker, your posts are super confusing. I'm not actually sure what your argument is. But I don't think anyone ever suggested the original poster's issue is universal. Simply that it's an issue, and it might could do with being addressed.
Sposta is talking about Orcs/Drow because the big push with Tasha's Cauldron and similar products released this year and in the back half of last year was on getting away from the idea of "Always Chaotic Evil" races/species and depicting certain intelligent, thinking peoples as being horrible evil utterly irredeemable monsters the player party could freely slaughter without concern. It also dealt with the idea that a PC's species predetermines the entirety of their capabilities. A lot of people got super pissed off at this because the way that books such as Tasha's dealt with this felt, to them, like it was trampling on the history of D&D and ruining D&D's worldbuilding. Most of those folks got told, more or less, to shut up and deal because their opinions were invalid, which was not the right way to go about it but...well. The Internet sucks, what can you do?
Now people are telling Sposta to "shut up and deal with it" when he raises agreement with the OP about the way the character sheet handles gender perhaps not being great. He's understandably annoyed. Frankly, I would be as well. I'm not glossing over your posts, I'm having trouble trying to understand your logic and what you're suggesting. Other than "shut up and deal with it", anyways.
Please do not contact or message me.
I inferred from the post that the OP was speaking on behalf of an established plurality of people who have an issue with something as simple as them not utilizing a description box, outside of being annoyed that it's there and doesn't say what they want it to say. Current options; Leave it blank, utilize it how it is. Gender description includes physical markers, so it can belong to the physical description page. I feel if my posts are confusing it's because I'm trying to iterate points towards the already illogical conclusion the OP has drawn based strictly on what they feel is offensive, or dismissive, or whatever without actually seeing that there are other methods to properly describe sex and gender. Maybe they don't want to, who knows right now. There is no intent of "shut up and deal with it" from my side of the table at all, I just don't think it's as big an issue as the OP wants it to feel like it should be, and I gave a few reasons why.
For the record, I'm not against the change, it's just something that's gone unnoticed because I strongly feel like there are plenty of people out there that don't have an issue with it, that align with the OPs scope of thought. Maybe they should have spoken up prior to this, but also this isn't a required change. It can be dealt with alternative solutions that work on both sides of the table.
I for one find it great when someone's gender column leaves me needing to play with their character, interact with them, and figure out what their identity is. Is not that the point?
Loading...
Watch DnD Shorts on youtube.
Chief Innovationist, Acquisitions Inc. The Series 2
Successfully completed the Tomb of Horrors module (as part of playing Tomb of Annihilation) with no party deaths!