I know that two of D&D 5e's lead designers, Jeremy Crawford and Chris Perkins are both LBGTQ+, and I think that's reflected in 5e being more inclusive regarding characters of differing sexualities.
Huh. I knew Crawford is gay, because he mentioned it.
I had no idea about Perkins. Heh, heteronormativity strikes again, and I assumed Perkins was straight!
Being gay is invisible, and in order for D&D products to include gay people, they must explicitly mention that certain characters are gay, especially including images of gay couples, such as holding hands or arm-in-arm. Arm-in-arm can be buddies who are straight too, but any form of male-male affection is appreciated.
D&D is a game where sexuality simply does not come into play, because the awkwardness of forcing ANY kind of romance, between players and/ or NPC's, leads to a mess. That has been consistent throughout the entire history of the game. Once you try to introduce romantic relationships (other than "go rescue the princess taken on her wedding day") into the game, someone is going to be uncomfortable at your table.
Honestly, the way the above cited post comes across, seems profoundly homophobic to me.
Erasing gay people, includes the refusal to mention (or care about) the fact that gay people exist.
To simply mention that a kingdom is ruled by two kings, instead of a king and queen, or that an inn has a married couple of women, is clearly appropriate within the D&D setting.
D&D is a game where sexuality simply does not come into play, because the awkwardness of forcing ANY kind of romance, between players and/ or NPC's, leads to a mess. That has been consistent throughout the entire history of the game. Once you try to introduce romantic relationships (other than "go rescue the princess taken on her wedding day") into the game, someone is going to be uncomfortable at your table.
Honestly, the way the above cited post comes across, seems profoundly homophobic to me.
Erasing gay people, includes the refusal to mention (or care about) the fact that gay people exist.
To simply mention that a kingdom is ruled by two kings, instead of a king and queen, or that an inn has a married couple of women, is clearly appropriate within the D&D setting.
Oh for goodness sake, just stop insinuating other people are horrible.
The reason sexuality is not mentioned in the vast majority of situations in the game is because IT HAS NO BEARING ON THE GAME.
And FWIW, I created family two retainers for my group, when they occasionally get back to the one party member's home. The retainers are a pair of Halflings named Bert and Ernie, who share a room. No one in the group asks if they are gay, because, once again, it has absolutely zero bearing on the game.
D&D is a game where sexuality simply does not come into play, because the awkwardness of forcing ANY kind of romance, between players and/ or NPC's, leads to a mess. That has been consistent throughout the entire history of the game. Once you try to introduce romantic relationships (other than "go rescue the princess taken on her wedding day") into the game, someone is going to be uncomfortable at your table.
Honestly, the way the above cited post comes across, seems profoundly homophobic to me.
Erasing gay people, includes the refusal to mention (or care about) the fact that gay people exist.
To simply mention that a kingdom is ruled by two kings, instead of a king and queen, or that an inn has a married couple of women, is clearly appropriate within the D&D setting.
The point they are trying to make, I believe, is that gender preference rarely comes up in DnD. However, in my own campaign, there are people who are LGBTQ+, and even if I don't state it directly to my players, it is still implied. This helps with the diversity of NPCs in campaigns, as well as expressing that you have acceptance of any players who are LGBTQ+.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All stars fade. Some stars forever fall. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Homebrew (Mostly Outdated):Magic Items,Monsters,Spells,Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If there was no light, people wouldn't fear the dark.
The point they are trying to make, I believe, is that gender preference rarely comes up in DnD. However, in my own campaign, there are people who are LGBTQ+, and even if I don't state it directly to my players, it is still implied. This helps with the diversity of NPCs in campaigns, as well as expressing that you have acceptance of any players who are LGBTQ+.
How implied is "implied"? Obvious? Or totally undetectable?
I agree including GT+ characters makes the setting more diverse, more realistic, and more interesting.
It isn't mentioned (in publication) not as a means of omission or exclusion but because it is up to the GM how to play out the NPCs.
Generally speaking though, it doesn't come up very much or at all. For my table it doesn't matter. And I don't mean it doesn't matter as a brush off. If you're a player in my game, I'm happy to have you regardless of your preferences. Just be a decent human being.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
It isn't mentioned (in publication) not as a means of omission or exclusion but because it is up to the GM how to play out the NPCs.
Generally speaking though, it doesn't come up very much or at all. For my table it doesn't matter. And I don't mean it doesn't matter as a brush off. If you're a player in my game, I'm happy to have you regardless of your preferences. Just be a decent human being.
It seems to me, this generally "well meaning" attitude, is true for all editions of D&D.
At the same time, to assume everyone is straight and to fail to mention the existence of gay or transgender characters is highly problematic.
I should point out that recent D&D modules definitely do contain gay couples as NPCs. Obviously most NPCs don’t have a determined sexuality, but those that do have a great record of queer representation, and I try to do the same thing in my games. I don’t think it’s erasure not to mention the sexuality of every single NPC because some might be gay, but neither should we avoid giving NPCs sexuality because it’s “not important.”
It isn't mentioned (in publication) not as a means of omission or exclusion but because it is up to the GM how to play out the NPCs.
Generally speaking though, it doesn't come up very much or at all. For my table it doesn't matter. And I don't mean it doesn't matter as a brush off. If you're a player in my game, I'm happy to have you regardless of your preferences. Just be a decent human being.
It seems to me, this generally "well meaning" attitude, is true for all editions of D&D.
At the same time, to assume everyone is straight and to fail to mention the existence of gay or transgender characters is highly problematic.
But if it isn't mentioned for any character either way, or at least rarely mentioned either way, then that assumption is on the players, not the module writers. The gays and lesbians I have known have not gone around openly telling everyone their sexual preferences any more than most straight people do, i.e. not at all. When was the last time someone came up to you and said 'By the way, I am straight?'
Most straight couples mention their boyfriend or girlfriend or spouse, while wearing wedding rings. Most straight people mention if someone is unusually attractive to them. Many straight listen to straight love songs, or watch movies with straight heroes, where "Boy Gets Girl", or so on.
Actually, straight people perpetually mention and advertise the fact that they are straight, much of their waking life. Certainly, they assume other people are straight too, if there is no evidence to the contrary.
How many D&D players or adventure-writers assumed that the spouse of a king might be a man?
That said, I agree with @NaivaraArmuanna. It is ok if many NPCs are "anonymous". Even so, when NPCs do step into the spotlight, it is important to mention men with husbands, as well as men with wives, and so on. Sometimes, the "barmaid" that the player is trying to chat up, is transgender, and she might be attracted to women or men.
It isn't mentioned (in publication) not as a means of omission or exclusion but because it is up to the GM how to play out the NPCs.
Generally speaking though, it doesn't come up very much or at all. For my table it doesn't matter. And I don't mean it doesn't matter as a brush off. If you're a player in my game, I'm happy to have you regardless of your preferences. Just be a decent human being.
It seems to me, this generally "well meaning" attitude, is true for all editions of D&D.
At the same time, to assume everyone is straight and to fail to mention the existence of gay or transgender characters is highly problematic.
But if it isn't mentioned for any character either way, or at least rarely mentioned either way, then that assumption is on the players, not the module writers. The gays and lesbians I have known have not gone around openly telling everyone their sexual preferences any more than most straight people do, i.e. not at all. When was the last time someone came up to you and said 'By the way, I am straight?'
Most straight couples mention their boyfriend or girlfriend or spouse, while wearing wedding rings. Most straight people mention if someone is unusually attractive to them. Many straight listen to straight love songs, or watch movies with straight heroes, where "Boy Gets Girl", or so on.
Actually, straight people perpetually mention and advertise the fact that they are straight, much of their waking life. Certainly, they assume other people are straight too, if there is no evidence to the contrary.
How many D&D players or adventure-writers assumed that the spouse of a king might be a man?
That said, I agree with @NaivaraArmuanna. It is ok if many NPCs are "anonymous". Even so, when NPCs do step into the spotlight, it is important to mention men with husbands, as well as men with wives, and so on. Sometimes, the "barmaid" that the player is trying to chat up, is transgender, and she might be attracted to women or men.
If you really get to know them, sure, but if you go into a bar, even a gay barmaid or bartender may well lie and claim to have a husband/boyfriend or wife/girlfriend just to throw off unwanted attention, just as a straight person might lie about being gay or lesbian for the same reason.
Again, how many of the NPC's that you are complaining about actually are described as wearing wedding rings? Or as having their significant other with them regardless of gender or gender preferences? There is a local danger and the NPC is going to just take a time out to tell you about their loved one? You are in a supermarket and the cashier stops ringing in your groceries to sing about being in love with a wonderful guy? I suppose there are campaigns like that, but it does not happen in reality and even in fiction does not normally happen outside of musicals.
As a rule of thumb, make at least one out of 10 couples be same sex. Half of these male couples, and half of these female couples.
A similar rule applies to any NPCs who the players interact with or hear about. And say 50% of the NPCs are potentially bisexual, even while self-identifying as straight.
I am less familiar with stats for transgender. But maybe make it one out of every 20 NPCs? I was surprised by the high frequency of people (often over 1%) who chose neither male nor female, in official forms, when given the option. In the case of transgender, some might specifically identify with a "he" or a "she". So maybe 5% do not self-identify with binary gender expectations. And remember, gender is a different variable from orientation.
And of course, if romance and gender are a theme of a setting, increase these frequencies for the sake of tropes.
If you really get to know them, sure, but if you go into a bar, even a gay barmaid or bartender may well lie and claim to have a husband/boyfriend or wife/girlfriend just to throw off unwanted attention, just as a straight person might lie about being gay or lesbian for the same reason.
Wait. Why would an NPC lie, ... unless the setting and/or players are homophobic in the first place.
The point they are trying to make, I believe, is that gender preference rarely comes up in DnD. However, in my own campaign, there are people who are LGBTQ+, and even if I don't state it directly to my players, it is still implied. This helps with the diversity of NPCs in campaigns, as well as expressing that you have acceptance of any players who are LGBTQ+.
How implied is "implied"? Obvious? Or totally undetectable?
I agree including GT+ characters makes the setting more diverse, more realistic, and more interesting.
The players know that two NPCs, Xhandras and Raviscor, went to the same school of magic, and immediately became best friends. Both were at the top of their classes, and were always together. During a demonic invasion that threatened the entirety of the world, they joined their kingdom's army and fought together. After the war, the world was devastated, the gods had faded, and their kingdom was in shambles. Both the new that the world would be in even graver danger if they didn't find a way to restore the gods, as a world without the gods would soon fall apart. But they disagreed on how to do so. Xhandras believed that they should find a way to become gods themselves, so they could heal the damage that the demons had done. Raviscor believed they should find a way to bring back the old gods. Finally, they each decided to search for away to do what they planned, to see if it was possible. After a year had passed, they would meet and discuss what they had found.
But Xhandras had hidden something from Raviscor, or had discovered the secret during his travels. He and three friends who shared his ideals became the new kings of the broken kingdom where the school of magic had been. Using the secret, these four kings became untouched by the passage of time, and began searching for a way to ascend to godhood. Raviscor returned and met with Xhandras, feeling angry and betrayed. Xhandras explained that his plan was necessary, and that if he agreed, Raviscor would become the fifth king, and later the fifth god. But Raviscor refused, saying that Xhandras had changed. Xhandras then said the Raviscor was misguided, and that he was blinded by his hatred of Xhandras' new friends (who had bullied Raviscor before he met Xhandras) and he couldn't see that Xhandras was doing the right thing. Raviscor then said that is was Xhandras that was blind, not him.
After that, Xhandras locked himself in his room for seven days. On the eighth day, Xhandras emerged determined and ready to crush the rebellion that was already growing in the kingdom he had paid so much to rule. To this day, Xhandras never engages in battle with Raviscor's rebellion, because he fears that he won't be able to harm his old friend in order to do what he believes must be done.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All stars fade. Some stars forever fall. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Homebrew (Mostly Outdated):Magic Items,Monsters,Spells,Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If there was no light, people wouldn't fear the dark.
The point they are trying to make, I believe, is that gender preference rarely comes up in DnD. However, in my own campaign, there are people who are LGBTQ+, and even if I don't state it directly to my players, it is still implied. This helps with the diversity of NPCs in campaigns, as well as expressing that you have acceptance of any players who are LGBTQ+.
How implied is "implied"? Obvious? Or totally undetectable?
I agree including GT+ characters makes the setting more diverse, more realistic, and more interesting.
The players know that two NPCs, Xhandras and Raviscor, went to the same school of magic, and immediately became best friends. Both were at the top of their classes, and were always together. During a demonic invasion that threatened the entirety of the world, they joined their kingdom's army and fought together. After the war, the world was devastated, the gods had faded, and their kingdom was in shambles. Both the new that the world would be in even graver danger if they didn't find a way to restore the gods, as a world without the gods would soon fall apart. But they disagreed on how to do so. Xhandras believed that they should find a way to become gods themselves, so they could heal the damage that the demons had done. Raviscor believed they should find a way to bring back the old gods. Finally, they each decided to search for away to do what they planned, to see if it was possible. After a year had passed, they would meet and discuss what they had found.
But Xhandras had hidden something from Raviscor, or had discovered the secret during his travels. He and three friends who shared his ideals became the new kings of the broken kingdom where the school of magic had been. Using the secret, these four kings became untouched by the passage of time, and began searching for a way to ascend to godhood. Raviscor returned and met with Xhandras, feeling angry and betrayed. Xhandras explained that his plan was necessary, and that if he agreed, Raviscor would become the fifth king, and later the fifth god. But Raviscor refused, saying that Xhandras had changed. Xhandras then said the Raviscor was misguided, and that he was blinded by his hatred of Xhandras' new friends (who had bullied Raviscor before he met Xhandras) and he couldn't see that Xhandras was doing the right thing. Raviscor then said that is was Xhandras that was blind, not him.
After that, Xhandras locked himself in his room for seven days. On the eighth day, Xhandras emerged determined and ready to crush the rebellion that was already growing in the kingdom he had paid so much to rule. To this day, Xhandras never engages in battle with Raviscor's rebellion, because he fears that he won't be able to harm his old friend in order to do what he believes must be done.
Heh. Honestly, it wouldnt occur to me that they were a gay couple. Or even gay at all.
I would read that, that they were best friends in school and stayed in touch after school.
Indeed, in premodern cultures, where men grow up together and rarely leave their birthplace, forming intimate friendships with a "bosom buddy" is the norm.
Only in modern cultures are men weird and nonaffectionate around each other. It mainly has to do with leaving ones birthplace to find work. There is a modern crisis of adult men who are lonely and unable to form "male bonding" friendships.
Anyway, to me, the narrative about old school buddies doesnt make think they might be gay. It makes me think they might go to a bar and get drunk together. Heh.
For them to be a gay couple, they would need to mention or demonstrate that they have a romantic relationship with each other.
The point they are trying to make, I believe, is that gender preference rarely comes up in DnD. However, in my own campaign, there are people who are LGBTQ+, and even if I don't state it directly to my players, it is still implied. This helps with the diversity of NPCs in campaigns, as well as expressing that you have acceptance of any players who are LGBTQ+.
How implied is "implied"? Obvious? Or totally undetectable?
I agree including GT+ characters makes the setting more diverse, more realistic, and more interesting.
The players know that two NPCs, Xhandras and Raviscor, went to the same school of magic, and immediately became best friends. Both were at the top of their classes, and were always together. During a demonic invasion that threatened the entirety of the world, they joined their kingdom's army and fought together. After the war, the world was devastated, the gods had faded, and their kingdom was in shambles. Both the new that the world would be in even graver danger if they didn't find a way to restore the gods, as a world without the gods would soon fall apart. But they disagreed on how to do so. Xhandras believed that they should find a way to become gods themselves, so they could heal the damage that the demons had done. Raviscor believed they should find a way to bring back the old gods. Finally, they each decided to search for away to do what they planned, to see if it was possible. After a year had passed, they would meet and discuss what they had found.
But Xhandras had hidden something from Raviscor, or had discovered the secret during his travels. He and three friends who shared his ideals became the new kings of the broken kingdom where the school of magic had been. Using the secret, these four kings became untouched by the passage of time, and began searching for a way to ascend to godhood. Raviscor returned and met with Xhandras, feeling angry and betrayed. Xhandras explained that his plan was necessary, and that if he agreed, Raviscor would become the fifth king, and later the fifth god. But Raviscor refused, saying that Xhandras had changed. Xhandras then said the Raviscor was misguided, and that he was blinded by his hatred of Xhandras' new friends (who had bullied Raviscor before he met Xhandras) and he couldn't see that Xhandras was doing the right thing. Raviscor then said that is was Xhandras that was blind, not him.
After that, Xhandras locked himself in his room for seven days. On the eighth day, Xhandras emerged determined and ready to crush the rebellion that was already growing in the kingdom he had paid so much to rule. To this day, Xhandras never engages in battle with Raviscor's rebellion, because he fears that he won't be able to harm his old friend in order to do what he believes must be done.
Heh. Honestly, it wouldnt occur to me that they were a gay couple. Or even gay at all.
I would read that, that they were best friends in school and stayed in touch after school.
Indeed, in premodern cultures, where men grow up together and rarely leave their birthplace, forming intimate friendships with a "bosom buddy" is the norm.
Only in modern cultures are men weird and nonaffectionate around each other. It mainly has to do with leaving ones birthplace to find work. There is a modern crisis of adult men who are lonely and unable to form "male bonding" friendships.
Anyway, to me, the narrative about old school buddies doesnt make think they might be gay. It makes me think they might go to a bar and get drunk together. Heh.
For them to be a gay couple, they would need to mention or demonstrate that they have a romantic relationship with each other.
The summary was not in full detail, so it doesn't encompass everything the players know. Here's some more detailed description of their time at the school of magic:
When they met at the College of Magic, Xhandras was 18 and Raviscor was 17. Xhandras was still recovering from his mothers traumatic death due to an illness she was too poor to get medicine for, and Raviscor had lived at an orphanage his whole life, since he never knew his parents. They quickly bonded, and began to spend all of their free time together, working and imaging. Both of them loved history, and magic, and they believed that they could make a true difference. Both dreamt of a better world, where Xhandras' mother would have survived, and Raviscor would have known his parents. Together, they created new spells that had never been used before. Even when they went of to war, they went together, so that neither would have to be alone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All stars fade. Some stars forever fall. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Homebrew (Mostly Outdated):Magic Items,Monsters,Spells,Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If there was no light, people wouldn't fear the dark.
If you really get to know them, sure, but if you go into a bar, even a gay barmaid or bartender may well lie and claim to have a husband/boyfriend or wife/girlfriend just to throw off unwanted attention, just as a straight person might lie about being gay or lesbian for the same reason.
Wait. Why would an NPC lie, ... unless the setting and/or players are homophobic in the first place.
Do you even DM a game?
If so, you can run your game and setting any way you like, and the players will decide if it is worthy of their time, by staying or walking away. Me, I will do the same, and continue to run my game without any questions or references about the sexuality of the NPC's and players. And my players will decide on the worth of my game by the same standard as yours.
But for you to pass judgement on if a game is "homophobic", or what players should think, or DM's should be concerned about, is ludicrous.It is simply none of your business.
It isn't mentioned (in publication) not as a means of omission or exclusion but because it is up to the GM how to play out the NPCs.
Generally speaking though, it doesn't come up very much or at all. For my table it doesn't matter. And I don't mean it doesn't matter as a brush off. If you're a player in my game, I'm happy to have you regardless of your preferences. Just be a decent human being.
It seems to me, this generally "well meaning" attitude, is true for all editions of D&D.
At the same time, to assume everyone is straight and to fail to mention the existence of gay or transgender characters is highly problematic.
One, people as in you and I don’t go around introducing themselves that way. When I introduce myself, I say my name is Daniel. I don’t go my name is Daniel, I’m a cis white male who votes blue, is an atheist and is pro-choice. Neither do NPCs. When we encounter an NPC in a general sense, very often it is in an a business setting. More often than not, its a guard at work, or a merchant, or a monarch, or a quest giver type person. It’s not failing to mention the existence, it’s just not information that would come up in those conversations. If my players go around every corner asking people if they are gay/straight/trans, I’m gonna call em out on it. It’s not appropriate social conduct. It’s rude.
Obversely, I think 5th edition is the most D&D friendly LBGTQIA+ version there is, partly because of people like Crawford. Fantasy, as a setting in the past is very classically inclined with gender roles, because fantasy as a setting historically was NOT friendly to this. So it stands to reason, sadly, that prior editions didn’t really build on being inclusive and more heavily weighed in on classic themes and tropes. Damsels in distress, Men are macho warriors, women only get bikini armor, etc. All of this stuff is terribly sexist but it exists in D&D because of the history of the hobby as it relates to gaming for the past 50 years. That isn’t to say its GOOD, and 5th is definitely taking steps in the right directions. Art of women isn’t overtly sexualized, there are queer NPCs in modules who identify openly as queer and there are no gender based restrictions on class(and even the race restrictions around Bladesinger are about to get thrown out the window in 9 days)but just because it’s getting better doesn’t mean it’s where we, as players would like it to be.
Every single game of D&D has some sort of homebrew or table roleplay that the module doesn’t cover. This is a hardbound fact of our hobby, and as advocates of our hobby its up to us to make sure our tables are inclusive. The books provide mechanical guidance to us, not social guidance. Adventures provide a framework of a story, but the DM is there to flesh out details of that story. Players fill out the social whims and fancies of their characters within the construct of the DMs story, and some tables are going to have far more elements of inclusion than others because each table has players where it matters more to them or not. Which is fine, because each table dictates how they want to play the game.
We have to strive to be better, but we can’t also just assume that everything is done with malicious intent, because it’s not.
And if you are LGBTQ+ yourself, have you had experiences with not being aloud in games, being called slurs or being harassed?
In my experience, D&D tends to ignore gays and trans, and omit them from products. However, on those rare occasions when such characters and themes do come up, it tends to be positive and respectful.
The trend in D&D products seems to be toward more recognition and presence of gays and trans and others.
Omit implies a conscious decision to exclude. It is far more likely that there was no thought of any particular need to include any such content. The gay players that I have known never seemed to feel any need to express their sexual preferences through their characters. Romance more generally does not show up in most campaigns even amongst straight players, so why would it be expected from or for the LGBTQ+ players? The only 5e module that I have read is Mines and it has no romance elements. For published modules from earlier editions I cannot think of any romance plot lines at all. Many of us originally started playing when we were underage for such things and any such elements would be really inappropriate to promote amongst those starting today at such ages, particularly since they are likely playing with older players, often much older.
This is actually a BRILLIANT point.
In my history of playing, not one time have we explored romance between player characters at the table. And only occasionally would there be NPC-related romance, and usually only for characters who were specifically romantics at heart, or the rake with a "barmaid in every town". For the most part, the groups I've belonged to were there to swing swords, sling spells, and delve into the mysteries of the cosmos.
It really has been about exploring the power fantasies we had growing up. Being the hero. I think for most of us there was an implicit assumption that - if we were interested in romance - we'd have chosen to have a movie night instead of a game night, if that makes sense.
I think Kotath is correct in his assessment. What may look like erasure and exclusion to some is simply the omission of content (by choice) that would have ANYTHING to do with gender and sexuality as a prime driver of the story content.
There's really no reason to ask Archie the Berserker which gender he's attracted to if he's too busy raging and laying waste to armies of undead to listen to the question. Does that make sense?
Its a bit like watching a movie with your Parents and there's a sex scene, even tho you're an adult you are still embarassed of it and its awkward.
And to be honest , not everyone is good at playing out romance between characters without it been tongue in cheek silly, awkward or just plain bad.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Normality is but an Illusion, Whats normal to the Spider, is only madness for the Fly"
It isn't mentioned (in publication) not as a means of omission or exclusion but because it is up to the GM how to play out the NPCs.
Generally speaking though, it doesn't come up very much or at all. For my table it doesn't matter. And I don't mean it doesn't matter as a brush off. If you're a player in my game, I'm happy to have you regardless of your preferences. Just be a decent human being.
It seems to me, this generally "well meaning" attitude, is true for all editions of D&D.
At the same time, to assume everyone is straight and to fail to mention the existence of gay or transgender characters is highly problematic.
One, people as in you and I don’t go around introducing themselves that way. When I introduce myself, I say my name is Daniel. I don’t go my name is Daniel, I’m a cis white male who votes blue, is an atheist and is pro-choice. Neither do NPCs. When we encounter an NPC in a general sense, very often it is in an a business setting. More often than not, its a guard at work, or a merchant, or a monarch, or a quest giver type person. It’s not failing to mention the existence, it’s just not information that would come up in those conversations. If my players go around every corner asking people if they are gay/straight/trans, I’m gonna call em out on it. It’s not appropriate social conduct. It’s rude.
Obversely, I think 5th edition is the most D&D friendly LBGTQIA+ version there is, partly because of people like Crawford. Fantasy, as a setting in the past is very classically inclined with gender roles, because fantasy as a setting historically was NOT friendly to this. So it stands to reason, sadly, that prior editions didn’t really build on being inclusive and more heavily weighed in on classic themes and tropes. Damsels in distress, Men are macho warriors, women only get bikini armor, etc. All of this stuff is terribly sexist but it exists in D&D because of the history of the hobby as it relates to gaming for the past 50 years. That isn’t to say its GOOD, and 5th is definitely taking steps in the right directions. Art of women isn’t overtly sexualized, there are queer NPCs in modules who identify openly as queer and there are no gender based restrictions on class(and even the race restrictions around Bladesinger are about to get thrown out the window in 9 days)but just because it’s getting better doesn’t mean it’s where we, as players would like it to be.
Every single game of D&D has some sort of homebrew or table roleplay that the module doesn’t cover. This is a hardbound fact of our hobby, and as advocates of our hobby its up to us to make sure our tables are inclusive. The books provide mechanical guidance to us, not social guidance. Adventures provide a framework of a story, but the DM is there to flesh out details of that story. Players fill out the social whims and fancies of their characters within the construct of the DMs story, and some tables are going to have far more elements of inclusion than others because each table has players where it matters more to them or not. Which is fine, because each table dictates how they want to play the game.
We have to strive to be better, but we can’t also just assume that everything is done with malicious intent, because it’s not.
Actually, it is rapidly becoming a fairly common practice to to introduce oneself by name, haw one identifies, and one’s preferred pronouns. The part about including labels by which one self-identifies is in part important in case one identifies as, say, gender fluid, that way others can be aware that one’s preferred pronouns might change from day to day. I kid you not, I have to specifically teach my students to not only introduce themselves by at least name and preferred pronouns, but to also pointedly request that information from their future patients, as well as their preferred identity to officially put in their file.
Pre COVID, when I would attend certain LGBT+ events, or other nonheteronormative lifestyle events, it was expected of everyone to introduce themself by:
Name
By all relevant identity labels (gender identity, sexual preferences, preferred relationships role, dietary preferences such as Vegan, or any number of other things)
And all preferred pronouns.
Another thing common at that point would be to ask for consent to shake hands, but not everyone had adopted that custom yet at that time.
Whenever someone chose to not introduce themselves by that convention, perhaps simply introducing themself by name, everybody would just stand there expectantly for a moment in awkward silence waiting for the additional information until they finally realized that the rest was not to be forthcoming. Then everyone just looked at the person with an expression that clearly indicated they did not like the lack of participation with that particular social convention.
It honestly made me uncomfortable. I would make, or see someone else make what I considered a perfectly polite introduction including a smile, first name, and an offered handshake. Then I would see that introduction received by others in much the same way they might receive a fart in a crowded elevator. Simply for not stating all of that additional information as part of every single social introduction they made, people were treated as outsiders.
I wear my hair short, my nails short and unpainted, and a close cropped beard and mustache. Basically if it was good enough for the Roman Army, it’s good enough for me. How on earth anyone could look at me and not realize what my preferred pronouns are was a complete mystery to me.
Eventually it was explained to me that the reason it was considered so rude, was that by not listening these things it left the other person to guess, and put them in the awkward situation of possibly using the incorrect pronoun or identity label when addressing someone. By not telling people what the safe ways of thinking about you were, it made them feel uncomfortable because they weren’t really sure what to say or do around the person.
Be prepared, as that trend will only continue until it eventually moves into the mainstream. I would not at all be surprised if, in at least some campaigns, every PC and NPC introduce themselves that way already.
Huh. I knew Crawford is gay, because he mentioned it.
I had no idea about Perkins. Heh, heteronormativity strikes again, and I assumed Perkins was straight!
Being gay is invisible, and in order for D&D products to include gay people, they must explicitly mention that certain characters are gay, especially including images of gay couples, such as holding hands or arm-in-arm. Arm-in-arm can be buddies who are straight too, but any form of male-male affection is appreciated.
he / him
Honestly, the way the above cited post comes across, seems profoundly homophobic to me.
Erasing gay people, includes the refusal to mention (or care about) the fact that gay people exist.
To simply mention that a kingdom is ruled by two kings, instead of a king and queen, or that an inn has a married couple of women, is clearly appropriate within the D&D setting.
he / him
Oh for goodness sake, just stop insinuating other people are horrible.
The reason sexuality is not mentioned in the vast majority of situations in the game is because IT HAS NO BEARING ON THE GAME.
And FWIW, I created family two retainers for my group, when they occasionally get back to the one party member's home. The retainers are a pair of Halflings named Bert and Ernie, who share a room. No one in the group asks if they are gay, because, once again, it has absolutely zero bearing on the game.
The point they are trying to make, I believe, is that gender preference rarely comes up in DnD. However, in my own campaign, there are people who are LGBTQ+, and even if I don't state it directly to my players, it is still implied. This helps with the diversity of NPCs in campaigns, as well as expressing that you have acceptance of any players who are LGBTQ+.
All stars fade. Some stars forever fall.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homebrew (Mostly Outdated): Magic Items, Monsters, Spells, Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there was no light, people wouldn't fear the dark.
How implied is "implied"? Obvious? Or totally undetectable?
I agree including GT+ characters makes the setting more diverse, more realistic, and more interesting.
he / him
It isn't mentioned (in publication) not as a means of omission or exclusion but because it is up to the GM how to play out the NPCs.
Generally speaking though, it doesn't come up very much or at all. For my table it doesn't matter. And I don't mean it doesn't matter as a brush off. If you're a player in my game, I'm happy to have you regardless of your preferences. Just be a decent human being.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
It seems to me, this generally "well meaning" attitude, is true for all editions of D&D.
At the same time, to assume everyone is straight and to fail to mention the existence of gay or transgender characters is highly problematic.
he / him
I should point out that recent D&D modules definitely do contain gay couples as NPCs. Obviously most NPCs don’t have a determined sexuality, but those that do have a great record of queer representation, and I try to do the same thing in my games. I don’t think it’s erasure not to mention the sexuality of every single NPC because some might be gay, but neither should we avoid giving NPCs sexuality because it’s “not important.”
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
Most straight couples mention their boyfriend or girlfriend or spouse, while wearing wedding rings. Most straight people mention if someone is unusually attractive to them. Many straight listen to straight love songs, or watch movies with straight heroes, where "Boy Gets Girl", or so on.
Actually, straight people perpetually mention and advertise the fact that they are straight, much of their waking life. Certainly, they assume other people are straight too, if there is no evidence to the contrary.
How many D&D players or adventure-writers assumed that the spouse of a king might be a man?
That said, I agree with @NaivaraArmuanna. It is ok if many NPCs are "anonymous". Even so, when NPCs do step into the spotlight, it is important to mention men with husbands, as well as men with wives, and so on. Sometimes, the "barmaid" that the player is trying to chat up, is transgender, and she might be attracted to women or men.
he / him
As a rule of thumb, make at least one out of 10 couples be same sex. Half of these male couples, and half of these female couples.
A similar rule applies to any NPCs who the players interact with or hear about. And say 50% of the NPCs are potentially bisexual, even while self-identifying as straight.
I am less familiar with stats for transgender. But maybe make it one out of every 20 NPCs? I was surprised by the high frequency of people (often over 1%) who chose neither male nor female, in official forms, when given the option. In the case of transgender, some might specifically identify with a "he" or a "she". So maybe 5% do not self-identify with binary gender expectations. And remember, gender is a different variable from orientation.
And of course, if romance and gender are a theme of a setting, increase these frequencies for the sake of tropes.
he / him
Wait. Why would an NPC lie, ... unless the setting and/or players are homophobic in the first place.
he / him
As far as I understand, there are four genders that represent most people: A. male, B. female, C. both, D. neither.
he / him
The players know that two NPCs, Xhandras and Raviscor, went to the same school of magic, and immediately became best friends. Both were at the top of their classes, and were always together. During a demonic invasion that threatened the entirety of the world, they joined their kingdom's army and fought together. After the war, the world was devastated, the gods had faded, and their kingdom was in shambles. Both the new that the world would be in even graver danger if they didn't find a way to restore the gods, as a world without the gods would soon fall apart. But they disagreed on how to do so. Xhandras believed that they should find a way to become gods themselves, so they could heal the damage that the demons had done. Raviscor believed they should find a way to bring back the old gods. Finally, they each decided to search for away to do what they planned, to see if it was possible. After a year had passed, they would meet and discuss what they had found.
But Xhandras had hidden something from Raviscor, or had discovered the secret during his travels. He and three friends who shared his ideals became the new kings of the broken kingdom where the school of magic had been. Using the secret, these four kings became untouched by the passage of time, and began searching for a way to ascend to godhood. Raviscor returned and met with Xhandras, feeling angry and betrayed. Xhandras explained that his plan was necessary, and that if he agreed, Raviscor would become the fifth king, and later the fifth god. But Raviscor refused, saying that Xhandras had changed. Xhandras then said the Raviscor was misguided, and that he was blinded by his hatred of Xhandras' new friends (who had bullied Raviscor before he met Xhandras) and he couldn't see that Xhandras was doing the right thing. Raviscor then said that is was Xhandras that was blind, not him.
After that, Xhandras locked himself in his room for seven days. On the eighth day, Xhandras emerged determined and ready to crush the rebellion that was already growing in the kingdom he had paid so much to rule. To this day, Xhandras never engages in battle with Raviscor's rebellion, because he fears that he won't be able to harm his old friend in order to do what he believes must be done.
All stars fade. Some stars forever fall.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homebrew (Mostly Outdated): Magic Items, Monsters, Spells, Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there was no light, people wouldn't fear the dark.
Heh. Honestly, it wouldnt occur to me that they were a gay couple. Or even gay at all.
I would read that, that they were best friends in school and stayed in touch after school.
Indeed, in premodern cultures, where men grow up together and rarely leave their birthplace, forming intimate friendships with a "bosom buddy" is the norm.
Only in modern cultures are men weird and nonaffectionate around each other. It mainly has to do with leaving ones birthplace to find work. There is a modern crisis of adult men who are lonely and unable to form "male bonding" friendships.
Anyway, to me, the narrative about old school buddies doesnt make think they might be gay. It makes me think they might go to a bar and get drunk together. Heh.
For them to be a gay couple, they would need to mention or demonstrate that they have a romantic relationship with each other.
he / him
The summary was not in full detail, so it doesn't encompass everything the players know. Here's some more detailed description of their time at the school of magic:
When they met at the College of Magic, Xhandras was 18 and Raviscor was 17. Xhandras was still recovering from his mothers traumatic death due to an illness she was too poor to get medicine for, and Raviscor had lived at an orphanage his whole life, since he never knew his parents. They quickly bonded, and began to spend all of their free time together, working and imaging. Both of them loved history, and magic, and they believed that they could make a true difference. Both dreamt of a better world, where Xhandras' mother would have survived, and Raviscor would have known his parents. Together, they created new spells that had never been used before. Even when they went of to war, they went together, so that neither would have to be alone.
All stars fade. Some stars forever fall.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homebrew (Mostly Outdated): Magic Items, Monsters, Spells, Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there was no light, people wouldn't fear the dark.
Do you even DM a game?
If so, you can run your game and setting any way you like, and the players will decide if it is worthy of their time, by staying or walking away. Me, I will do the same, and continue to run my game without any questions or references about the sexuality of the NPC's and players. And my players will decide on the worth of my game by the same standard as yours.
But for you to pass judgement on if a game is "homophobic", or what players should think, or DM's should be concerned about, is ludicrous.It is simply none of your business.
One, people as in you and I don’t go around introducing themselves that way. When I introduce myself, I say my name is Daniel. I don’t go my name is Daniel, I’m a cis white male who votes blue, is an atheist and is pro-choice. Neither do NPCs. When we encounter an NPC in a general sense, very often it is in an a business setting. More often than not, its a guard at work, or a merchant, or a monarch, or a quest giver type person. It’s not failing to mention the existence, it’s just not information that would come up in those conversations. If my players go around every corner asking people if they are gay/straight/trans, I’m gonna call em out on it. It’s not appropriate social conduct. It’s rude.
Obversely, I think 5th edition is the most D&D friendly LBGTQIA+ version there is, partly because of people like Crawford. Fantasy, as a setting in the past is very classically inclined with gender roles, because fantasy as a setting historically was NOT friendly to this. So it stands to reason, sadly, that prior editions didn’t really build on being inclusive and more heavily weighed in on classic themes and tropes. Damsels in distress, Men are macho warriors, women only get bikini armor, etc. All of this stuff is terribly sexist but it exists in D&D because of the history of the hobby as it relates to gaming for the past 50 years. That isn’t to say its GOOD, and 5th is definitely taking steps in the right directions. Art of women isn’t overtly sexualized, there are queer NPCs in modules who identify openly as queer and there are no gender based restrictions on class(and even the race restrictions around Bladesinger are about to get thrown out the window in 9 days)but just because it’s getting better doesn’t mean it’s where we, as players would like it to be.
Every single game of D&D has some sort of homebrew or table roleplay that the module doesn’t cover. This is a hardbound fact of our hobby, and as advocates of our hobby its up to us to make sure our tables are inclusive. The books provide mechanical guidance to us, not social guidance. Adventures provide a framework of a story, but the DM is there to flesh out details of that story. Players fill out the social whims and fancies of their characters within the construct of the DMs story, and some tables are going to have far more elements of inclusion than others because each table has players where it matters more to them or not. Which is fine, because each table dictates how they want to play the game.
We have to strive to be better, but we can’t also just assume that everything is done with malicious intent, because it’s not.
Its a bit like watching a movie with your Parents and there's a sex scene, even tho you're an adult you are still embarassed of it and its awkward.
And to be honest , not everyone is good at playing out romance between characters without it been tongue in cheek silly, awkward or just plain bad.
"Normality is but an Illusion, Whats normal to the Spider, is only madness for the Fly"
Kain de Frostberg- Dark Knight - (Vengeance Pal3/ Hexblade 9), Port Mourn
Kain de Draakberg-Dark Knight lvl8-Avergreen(DitA)
I can count on 2 fingers the amount of times I've mentioned gay or transgender characters in any rpg.
We NEVER had a problem. Let people play how they play.
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
Actually, it is rapidly becoming a fairly common practice to to introduce oneself by name, haw one identifies, and one’s preferred pronouns. The part about including labels by which one self-identifies is in part important in case one identifies as, say, gender fluid, that way others can be aware that one’s preferred pronouns might change from day to day. I kid you not, I have to specifically teach my students to not only introduce themselves by at least name and preferred pronouns, but to also pointedly request that information from their future patients, as well as their preferred identity to officially put in their file.
Pre COVID, when I would attend certain LGBT+ events, or other nonheteronormative lifestyle events, it was expected of everyone to introduce themself by:
Whenever someone chose to not introduce themselves by that convention, perhaps simply introducing themself by name, everybody would just stand there expectantly for a moment in awkward silence waiting for the additional information until they finally realized that the rest was not to be forthcoming. Then everyone just looked at the person with an expression that clearly indicated they did not like the lack of participation with that particular social convention.
It honestly made me uncomfortable. I would make, or see someone else make what I considered a perfectly polite introduction including a smile, first name, and an offered handshake. Then I would see that introduction received by others in much the same way they might receive a fart in a crowded elevator. Simply for not stating all of that additional information as part of every single social introduction they made, people were treated as outsiders.
I wear my hair short, my nails short and unpainted, and a close cropped beard and mustache. Basically if it was good enough for the Roman Army, it’s good enough for me. How on earth anyone could look at me and not realize what my preferred pronouns are was a complete mystery to me.
Eventually it was explained to me that the reason it was considered so rude, was that by not listening these things it left the other person to guess, and put them in the awkward situation of possibly using the incorrect pronoun or identity label when addressing someone. By not telling people what the safe ways of thinking about you were, it made them feel uncomfortable because they weren’t really sure what to say or do around the person.
Be prepared, as that trend will only continue until it eventually moves into the mainstream. I would not at all be surprised if, in at least some campaigns, every PC and NPC introduce themselves that way already.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting