Ravenloft is back in 5e?

[Thrackazoggg]

This is also one of the reasons why I'm genuinely interested in this book, from a very Hannibal Lecter "let's see what happens" perspective: That woman, Price, if her only game is being a loudmouth, she will expose herself with this in a way that is impossible to ignore for anyone in the hobby. And if she is actually a decent designer with a future in the hobby beyond politics, we'll see that, too. Who knows, maybe the whole politicization of D&D will become less of a bipolar topic than it has been for the last decade-or-so if she finds some form of lasting success. - Now, let's be clear, I would rather not have her anywhere the stuff I like. The wrong kind of energy, plainly and simply. RPGs are indeed supposed to be a "safe space" - from the stress that people with her personality profile tend to bring.

...But, yeah, for the sake of Ravenloft, I'm still willing to give her a fighting chance. One fighting chance.

Okay, I have to object the constant references to "that woman". If we're going to really sink to sexist comments, let's at least consider another POV on that situation:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/6/17541 ... red-reddit

Further, Price has worked on Pathfinder as a designer for years. Trying to bury her as a flash in the pan instead of a professional with serious cred is simply absurd.

[Five]

I have very little faith in this book, particularly when I found out Jessica Price was involved, a woman fired for not being particularly good at her job and said it was because she was a woman.

https://medium.com/@ColedOne/jessica-pr ... 43ee8ffe43

Make no mistake, this isn’t like the Kargatane taking over the reigns, this is like letting GCSE English students taking the reigns.

Edit: Almost forgot, she celebrated TotalBiscuit’s cancer

Sounds like a lovely creature...haha

I dug this up: https://mobile.twitter.com/Delafina777/ ... 9747016706

And I guess it's in response to this: https://mobile.twitter.com/kiraserpenti ... 9235865603

So, because I like to walk through bushes instead of walking around them (hey, it saves time!), I'm just going to get into it, and take the risk of being perceived as whatever it is you perceive me to be.

I'm not for or against sexuality of others. I honestly could care less what you do behind closed doors (unless it involves children. Then it's...something else). You do what you do, I do what I do. I don't locker room, period. If you're happy and decent about it, then good on you. Happy people make good neighbours.

BUT, when it comes to roleplaying games, and in particular a company's corporate and publicly stated mission of being all-inclusive, and assuming (!) that there is a bulk of truth to those statements and not just product hype (or a play on the word "queer")..

Reading through some of the published 5E books I couldn't help but notice injections of change. "So and so is looking for his husband", or, "her and her wife"...things of that nature. I was left thinking, "ok, is this all that's needed to make the whining of the few to stop? Is this really what being PC, all-inclusive in a rpg is? Seems kinda petty. Token. Bit out of place, but cool in a nonchalant kinda way. Whatever. If that's what it takes to keep people happy then right on. I don't really get what all the fuss is about, but I'll just get right back into reading now and see what this adventure is about...

But now, if those posts aren't just product hype aimed at certain segments of gamers to catch their eye, now they're going all-in by taking the weight from one side of the scale and dumping it on another. Why?

Aren't they (Wizards) committed to being all-inclusive now? All-inclusive doesn't mean taking away, it means balancing the load. To complain about the bias of a broken system, to point your crooked fingers at people long since gone (and who for the most part either don't have or use their own voices to ****block your rage) and then go and use that same system to further lend bias to another group, ie: your group, well, that's a play at a power shift. There's no equality in that. You just voided the basis of your entire argument. Are you really that stupid? Tear the frigging system down if it's broke, and build a new one. Don't be such a bloody hypocrite. And a joke. You're not Beowulf, you're ******* Grendel...

Now, here's the real kicker: why address sexuality, player sexuality at that, in a game product in the first place? Was it ever addressed in any edition before this one? If it was then I could understand. Crusaders usually go tit-for-tat until their only purpose becomes the spilling of blood. It's the nature of the zealot. But I don't recall anything even close to "pro hetero", outside of art generally aimed at those not used to what they're seeing. Even then, art can be taken any which way. Let's be honest here.

Why is Wizards allowing the use of Dungeons and Dragons, a fantasy role-playing game, to now be the vehicle for an author's (and their own) political agenda? And why Ravenloft? Some might argue the whole "sexual repression equaled initial like and want for more gothic stories", but I say have a seance to figure that one out for sure. Besides, Wizards has stated that VRGtR is about all horror, not just gothic. Not to mention we're still tied to the whole "power shift over equality" corporate hypocrisy that seems to be taking place. Yet again, assuming fact over hype. Which is still straight-up greasy if it's hype...haha

Is gamer sexuality (one of many superficial differences amongst players) that important that as much attention has to be devoted to that as there is to the creativity of the actual game product? And why are authors so public with their sexuality that they promote that before their work (to be fair here there was mention of NDAs)? I don't give one flying **** about your personal life, or your political leanings Now focus on your work. A lot of people are expecting a lot of good things from it. Some even get on like it's sacred. Either way, focus and don't **** it up. Too badly anyway. You can't please us all. We all know that and some of us still accept that.

I truly hope this new book isn't half that I now fear it to be. I can use, change, or ignore anything I see in print but I can't ignore real world and such blatant, not even cleverly hidden or inserted corporate politics in a fantasy rpg. That's just too much dancing for me.

All that IF what I read is true. If it ain't then I'll wear your dunce hat with a grin. haha

My apologies to those who hurt their eyes or brains reading this. Just one of those things that had to be purged. If I posted the links and never dropped my dime then I'd almost be flaming. This way I'm just a lunatic ranting. ..

[Jester of the FoS]

Aren't they (Wizards) committed to being all-inclusive now? All-inclusive doesn't mean taking away, it means balancing the load.

Yes... but there's also a finite amount of relationships in a book. Adding LGBTQ+ content does mean reducing the amount of cis hetero content.

Now, here's the real kicker: why address sexuality, player sexuality at that, in a game product in the first place? Was it ever addressed in any edition before this one? If it was then I could understand.

Player sexuality? That gets as much or as little attention as the table wants. In general, PCs can romance whomever the DM wants to allow them to romance.

But NPC sexuality... there's a fair bit of that in the game. Every time there's a king and his queen you have heterosexuality. Heck, there's a fair amount in Ravenloft. Strahd and Tatyana. Soth and Kitiara. Tritessa. Sir Tristen Hiregaard. Godefroy. Bluebeard. Victor Mordenheim. Van Richten. And so many others. All are presented as having belonged to straight relationships.

Heck, there's only one gay darklord, and that was a 3e retcon and not particularly overt.

Why is Wizards allowing the use of Dungeons and Dragons, a fantasy role-playing game, to now be the vehicle for an author's (and their own) political agenda?

Because it's not their political agenda. To the authors it's not political at all. It's their life.
Jeremy Crawford and Wes Schneider are gay. That's not them being political. That's just who they are. They don't have the luxury of choosing not to be controversial or divisive. They are every single day of their lives.
They just want to see content in gaming books that reflects them and their experiences. Characters they identify with and whose struggles seem familiar. Families that look like their own.

And why Ravenloft? Some might argue the whole "sexual repression equaled initial like and want for more gothic stories", but I say have a seance to figure that one out for sure. Besides, Wizards has stated that VRGtR is about all horror, not just gothic. Not to mention we're still tied to the whole "power shift over equality" corporate hypocrisy that seems to be taking place. Yet again, assuming fact over hype. Which is still straight-up greasy if it's hype...haha

Well, I'd imagine because Crawford and Schneider are both noted fans of Ravenloft and have been for years.
But also, it's not just Ravenloft. They've been adding queer and non-straight content to D&D for years.

But also... gothic horror is romantic. There's a sensuality and seductiveness to the genre. Sex and sexuality is an important part of the backstories of so many characters. Doomed romance is key. And that should apply to both homosexual and heterosexual characters.

Is gamer sexuality (one of many superficial differences amongst players) that important that as much attention has to be devoted to that as there is to the creativity of the actual game product? And why are authors so public with their sexuality that they promote that before their work (to be fair here there was mention of NDAs)?

Am I flouting my heterosexuality by mentioning I had a wife? Was I being being "public with my sexuality" by mentioning the most important (adult) person in my life on social media? I'd argue I was just being human. Expressing my life.

A big difference is LGBTQ+ youths can feel alone. Isolated. There's a lot fewer of them and they're surrounded by straight relationships and characters they can't connect to. And everyone wants to find communities where they belong, and feel accepted. And people like to read books and stories with protagonists they can somewhat identify with and feel connected to.
For a non-straight person, much of pop culture can feel like watching a foreign film. It's just full of people acting in ways that just don't seem right.

[Gonzoron of the FoS]

Let's tread very lightly here, shall we? I'm not even going to make this an official mod note, just a personal plea... When you walk through bushes, sometimes they are hiding landmines.

I don't think we can take some joking comments from the writers on twitter as official statements of what's in the book or what isn't. Let's wait and see. If there truly are no more non-straight characters in the book than straight ones, then you can say the balance has tilted toward overcompensation. For now, can we give the benefit of the doubt?

I am honestly sick of twitter on the whole. I miss the days when the creators of things you enjoy were just names on a credits page that you could admire in the abstract. The more we hear everyone's personal thoughts everyday, the bigger chance of someone being misconstrued or putting their foot in their mouth and having to make the mea culpa parade.

[Jester of the FoS]

This is also one of the reasons why I'm genuinely interested in this book, from a very Hannibal Lecter "let's see what happens" perspective: That woman, Price, if her only game is being a loudmouth, she will expose herself with this in a way that is impossible to ignore for anyone in the hobby. And if she is actually a decent designer with a future in the hobby beyond politics, we'll see that, too. Who knows, maybe the whole politicization of D&D will become less of a bipolar topic than it has been for the last decade-or-so if she finds some form of lasting success. - Now, let's be clear, I would rather not have her anywhere the stuff I like. The wrong kind of energy, plainly and simply. RPGs are indeed supposed to be a "safe space" - from the stress that people with her personality profile tend to bring.

...But, yeah, for the sake of Ravenloft, I'm still willing to give her a fighting chance. One fighting chance.

Okay, I have to object the constant references to "that woman". If we're going to really sink to sexist comments, let's at least consider another POV on that situation:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/6/17541 ... red-reddit

Further, Price has worked on Pathfinder as a designer for years. Trying to bury her as a flash in the pan instead of a professional with serious cred is simply absurd.

She was also fired from Paizo for fighting with the management and the fans.

Price is unquestionably a decent writer and talented individual. But she beyond outspoken and quick to take offense and yet slow to apologise when in the wrong.
This is her second book doing freelance work for WotC, but I don't forsee that lasting long.

[Thrackazoggg]

Okay, I have to object the constant references to "that woman". If we're going to really sink to sexist comments, let's at least consider another POV on that situation:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/6/17541 ... red-reddit

Further, Price has worked on Pathfinder as a designer for years. Trying to bury her as a flash in the pan instead of a professional with serious cred is simply absurd.

She was also fired from Paizo for fighting with the management and the fans.

Price is unquestionably a decent writer and talented individual. But she beyond outspoken and quick to take offense and yet slow to apologise when in the wrong.
This is her second book doing freelance work for WotC, but I don't forsee that lasting long.

It's still peddling in sexist comments, dredging up past unrelated incidents on Twitter, and using it to throw a hissy fit about a Ravenloft product that just doesn't quite fit a 30 year old grognard view of how the setting should be.

Think I'm gonna peace out. There's better places to be.

[Five]

Yes... but there's also a finite amount of relationships in a book. Adding LGBTQ+ content does mean reducing the amount of cis hetero content.

Player sexuality? That gets as much or as little attention as the table wants. In general, PCs can romance whomever the DM wants to allow them to romance.

But NPC sexuality... there's a fair bit of that in the game. Every time there's a king and his queen you have heterosexuality. Heck, there's a fair amount in Ravenloft. Strahd and Tatyana. Soth and Kitiara. Tritessa. Sir Tristen Hiregaard. Godefroy. Bluebeard. Victor Mordenheim. Van Richten. And so many others. All are presented as having belonged to straight relationships.

Heck, there's only one gay darklord, and that was a 3e retcon and not particularly overt.

Make no mistake, I like the idea of balance. Beef up one side until it equals the other. Me saying "All-inclusive doesn't mean taking away, it means balancing the load." is me talking about the mentality of all-inclusiveness. Taking away being a negative view, balancing the load being the positive. I'm down with balancing the load. I'm just not cool with taking from one side of the scale and piling it in the other. That's the hypocrisy I mentioned. And it will achieve nothing when it comes to the greater good of the game.

Because it's not their political agenda. To the authors it's not political at all. It's their life.
Jeremy Crawford and Wes Schneider are gay. That's not them being political. That's just who they are. They don't have the luxury of choosing not to be controversial or divisive. They are every single day of their lives.
They just want to see content in gaming books that reflects them and their experiences. Characters they identify with and whose struggles seem familiar. Families that look like their own.

Balancing systems and making sure you reach as many people/gamers as you possibly can is the job, intentionally pushing real life ideals and personal projections beyond that is being political. Injection for balance, or heavy-handed for weight shift. Note that I am again assuming that the links I provided are accurate and factual statements. That there is a heavy dose of bias in that one product. I'm not going overboard by canceling my order here, I have zero issue up until this possibility, but I will be watching for the heavy hand now..

Well, I'd imagine because Crawford and Schneider are both noted fans of Ravenloft and have been for years.
But also, it's not just Ravenloft. They've been adding queer and non-straight content to D&D for years.

But also... gothic horror is romantic. There's a sensuality and seductiveness to the genre. Sex and sexuality is an important part of the backstories of so many characters. Doomed romance is key. And that should apply to both homosexual and heterosexual characters.

The first part I feel was already responded to. I like the idea of balance. Keep it up, just don't go overboard with it.

The second part I agree with you. Beef it up to balance. Just don't put your pen through the page...

Am I flouting my heterosexuality by mentioning I had a wife? Was I being being "public with my sexuality" by mentioning the most important (adult) person in my life on social media? I'd argue I was just being human. Expressing my life.

Honestly? If I didn't ask, then yeah. You're flouting.

EDIT: I meant "flaunting", not flouting. My bad.

What I was getting at was more along the lines of: just be a writer. Isn't that enough? Your work does your speaking for you. I get that an author needs to be noticed (not that I am one), but using cheap tricks to draw attention to you is just that. You might hook a limited audience by flouting your personal life and by tapping the current trend, but at the end of the day it's your work that we'll either remember or forget. You're just a blurb, a few sentences, and maybe a picture. That some people like me don't even bother to read because I'm interested in your imagination, not your personal life.

A big difference is LGBTQ+ youths can feel alone. Isolated. There's a lot fewer of them and they're surrounded by straight relationships and characters they can't connect to. And everyone wants to find communities where they belong, and feel accepted. And people like to read books and stories with protagonists they can somewhat identify with and feel connected to.
For a non-straight person, much of pop culture can feel like watching a foreign film. It's just full of people acting in ways that just don't seem right.

Fair enough. But that argument starts to crumble when you really put your foot on it. Can any of us watch and enjoy a movie or read a book about samurai, even though we have no true understanding of bushido? Can we read about dragon slayers, or vampires, or cavemen and not get enjoyment from it even though none of it is practical, or, stuff that we can't properly "connect" to?

Everybody can feel alone and isolated. Join the club. We're all human (unless you buy in to that fool David Icke). You might be outed for your sexuality, shitty. I'm outted because of a shitty worldview. What's up? He or she has a battle to feel normal, yet nobody tells kids the truth: normal is who you are, not what you see.

And a game like Dungeons and Dragons is built around who you are by default. It's the foundation of the game. Your imagination, your rules. Anything goes. Nowhere does it say "you can't do this", so think it and do it. To have a book zero in on and highlight the superficial differences of the players and not on the empowerment of those player's personal imaginations...it's a bloody sin, is what it is. Politics without wisdom.

That's just my view though.

[Five]

I am honestly sick of twitter on the whole. I miss the days when the creators of things you enjoy were just names on a credits page that you could admire in the abstract. The more we hear everyone's personal thoughts everyday, the bigger chance of someone being misconstrued or putting their foot in their mouth and having to make the mea culpa parade.

Yeah, seems being the recluse (or ghost writer) where you get to actually enjoy privacy along with your loved ones and go about your day being just a body in the crowd, with everybody speculating about you because of the impact of your work (instead of wondering what kind of toothbrush you use) just isn't cool anymore. ..haha

[onmyoji]

Heck, there's only one gay darklord, and that was a 3e retcon and not particularly overt.

While it was also not particularly overt, let's not forget Escher in Curse of Strahd—pretty clear evidence that Strahd at the very least "bites both ways." Of course, that's still a product of 5E—and in all likelihood, a bit of "getting feet wet" in terms of adding LGBTQ+ representation—but CoS has been out for long enough that it probably deserves to be factored in when discussing darklord sexualities.

Make no mistake, I like the idea of balance. Beef up one side until it equals the other. Me saying "All-inclusive doesn't mean taking away, it means balancing the load." is me talking about the mentality of all-inclusiveness. Taking away being a negative view, balancing the load being the positive. I'm down with balancing the load. I'm just not cool with taking from one side of the scale and piling it in the other. That's the hypocrisy I mentioned. And it will achieve nothing when it comes to the greater good of the game.

While I wouldn't go so far as to call it hypocrisy, Five has a point. Just because balance is desired, that doesn't mean that what already exists has to be divided into two equal sides and one of those divisions has to be edited for proper representation.

In a setting like Ravenloft that is probably the easiest setting in any franchise whatsoever to add content to, I find it somewhat disconcerting that they couldn't just decide to ignore most of the pre-existing Core (or maybe give us a paragraph or two on each extant domain) and instead of focusing on that, give us 30 COMPLETELY NEW domains added in, complete with as many LGBTQ+ darklords/ladies/etc. as they wanted.

This would've been great because they could've created a lot more wonderful gripping narratives about how darklords came to be bound to Ravenloft. There are plenty of stories yet to be written about darklords that were brought to Ravenloft because love brought out their worst. I would love personally to read about some new darklord who married a woman, but harbored an unrequited love for his male best friend and fellow adventurer, and eventually that love tore him apart on the inside, manifesting in death, destruction, and a personal invite from the Dark Powers.

But to be clear, at least to me, introducing any number of new darklords with LGBTQ+ representation is far more creative and empowering than simply adjusting preexisting material to match (save for maintaining culturally ignorant representations—I'm completely fine with those being updated). For example, we've heard already about darklords that have been gender-swapped to be darkladies, for what it's worth. While fine, that strikes me as pandering to an audience. If they really wanted to represent, I feel like it would be better to just add however many new domains and narratives they needed.

The sad part, is it's clear that they understand how adaptable Ravenloft is, since there's a "How to Make Your Own Domain" section. I can't seem to get beyond seeing the changes to preexisting established and canonical characters as "the easy way out." And that's even rougher when you consider that the authors of this forthcoming VR Guide are literally paid to be content creators. I hope I'm wrong and there's a lot more new domains than retcons and adjustments.

— onmyoji

[tomokaicho]

If you don't want "queer" NPCs or themes in your home campaign because it is outside your comfort zone, you can simply switch out their relationship for an opposite gender relationship. Sometimes you don't even have to change the name of one of the NPCs if the name is "non-binary", and references to "husband" or "wife" can remain as is for your gender transitioned NPCs.

I get that some designers have a crusading attitude about "representation" in D&D, but sexuality in D&D had always been very low key. What these designers have done is put sexuality (homosexuality) in your face in a way it wasn't going back decades for implied heterosexual themes.

Pathfinder suggests that anyone that doesn't like the homosexual NPCs can simply change them. Someone actually created a thread on the Paizo forum suggesting changes to these NPCs that would make them heterosexual. That person got banned.

There is no point fighting it if you don't like it. Use the discretion of your wallet instead.

[Drinnik Shoehorn]

As a gay man, I welcome more gay NPCs.

But I want new gay NPCs. I don’t want gender swapped characters, I don’t want old characters rewritten. This is what I mean by creatively bankrupt. It’s changing the old and claiming you’re a great writer for doing so, when your new product is demonstrably worse.

[onmyoji]

As a gay man, I welcome more gay NPCs.

But I want new gay NPCs. I don’t want gender swapped characters, I don’t want old characters rewritten. This is what I mean by creatively bankrupt. It’s changing the old and claiming you’re a great writer for doing so, when your new product is demonstrably worse.

Exactly my point above. Gender-swapping and rewriting old characters for LGBTQ+ representation just seems like nothing but pandering to me. Especially since Ravenloft is fertile for new domains and great narratives accompanying the falls of brand-new darklords/ladies/etc. There's so much potential there—which again, they clearly recognize, since there's an entire section devoted to making one's own domains.

I'm legit not going to be happy if there are any fewer than a dozen wholly new domains we first hear about in this guide (even if those dozen ALL have LGBTQ+-themed darklords). The authors literally get paid to create content. And as you say, it is creatively bankrupt to borrow so much from canon for nothing more than surface rewrites. I get the argument that buying this product helps keep the setting alive, but—depending on the quality of the finished product, of course—this could easily be a slippery slope for rewarding sloppy work. Especially in the wake of the poor reviews for Tasha's Cauldron.

— onmyoji

[Drinnik Shoehorn]

As a gay man, I welcome more gay NPCs.

But I want new gay NPCs. I don’t want gender swapped characters, I don’t want old characters rewritten. This is what I mean by creatively bankrupt. It’s changing the old and claiming you’re a great writer for doing so, when your new product is demonstrably worse.

Exactly my point above. Gender-swapping and rewriting old characters for LGBTQ+ representation just seems like nothing but pandering to me. Especially since Ravenloft is fertile for new domains and great narratives accompanying the falls of brand-new darklords/ladies/etc. There's so much potential there—which again, they clearly recognize, since there's an entire section devoted to making one's own domains.

I'm legit not going to be happy if there are any fewer than a dozen wholly new domains we first hear about in this guide (even if those dozen ALL have LGBTQ+-themed darklords). The authors literally get paid to create content. And as you say, it is creatively bankrupt to borrow so much from canon for nothing more than surface rewrites. I get the argument that buying this product helps keep the setting alive, but—depending on the quality of the finished product, of course—this could easily be a slippery slope for rewarding sloppy work. Especially in the wake of the poor reviews for Tasha's Cauldron.

— onmyoji

This has been my argument all week. I’m not the best at verbalising my thoughts.

Essentially, I’m not against it being “woke”. Representation is important.

I’m against it being lazy. But call them out on that and you’ll get called a bigot.

[Five]

While I wouldn't go so far as to call it hypocrisy, Five has a point. Just because balance is desired, that doesn't mean that what already exists has to be divided into two equal sides and one of those divisions has to be edited for proper representation.

Quick note for clarity:

Hypocrisy I'm referring to here is beating on the war drum to target something for change, such as systemic bias (sexuality, skin colour/ancestry, etc...I hate the term "race" as I feel the term itself is the base point for segregation, though it's a personal irk, like pulling toilet paper out from the back of the roll), and then turning around and using that same system without complaint when the "change" that does happen benefits you or your cause. Ie: workplace inequality. You hate the idea of people being excluded from the hiring process because of superficial (and non work-related) differences. You rant and you roar for change and finally you make it hot enough for companies to actually raise eyebrows and actually start talking at the next ops meeting. A more progressive company (or one wanting to be seen that way) then comes out and publicly says their hiring process will now prioritise whatever group is screaming for equality. Your group. Now you're happy because people like you (who share your cause) were given jobs, and you're calling it a victory.

Yet, it's not a true victory because the system that you initially complained about never changed. The system is still broken because it is still running on bias. The victory conditions of your war are now visible to all, it's a lust for blood and power not equality, and resentment continues to rule the day. Your war for equality (appeasement of personal bias; skipping the line) just ****** over other living beings who are in the line, some of which are more skilled or talented than you, trying to keep a roof over their heads and food in their bellies (and that of their children or grandchildren). Way to go "hero"...

That's how I view things anyway. Change is good. Equality, true equality, is the first step towards enlightened humanity. Being fooled by illusionists into thinking things changed when they haven't is not. You''ve just been put into a different room for a different perspective is all. Brick by brick and the castle will be built. But if you don't take the time and effort to lay a proper foundation then it's all coming down the next time the gates are stormed. Actually stormed.

I'll leave it that. So much for quick note haha. I've said enough. And I can't stand preachers so I'll just take my seat.

[Mephisto of the FoS]

As Ravenloft is a Gothic setting inspired by the Romantic movement with one of it's biggest representatives Lord Byron having also non-heterosexual preferences, Mary Shelley being bisexual and Oscar Wilde, who is closer to Romanticism than Decadent literature, got imprisoned for "gross indecency with men". For me non-heterosexual representation in Ravenloft is absolutely gothic, for instance the grace of a vampire mesmerises men and women (or any other sex) alike. In Domains of Dread the Gnomes worship the Ancient Greek pantheon which is full of Gods having non-heterosexual romantic relationships or even sexual assaulting people with no regard as to the sex of each person. And in the same book Gnome culture is referred to as similar to Ancient Greek where there were also semi-institutionalised relationships between erastês and erômenos (ie, adult men and young boys).

If we take that a domain is a representation of it's darklord then Hazlan represent's also it's darklords sexual identity. Since Hazlan is inspired by the Ottoman Empire then Hazlan's culture around sex could be similar to that prior to the Western-influenced heteronormativity in the late-19th century.

"In historian Khaled el-Rouayheb’s book "Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World, 1500-1800 (2005)", it indicates that in the Ottoman Empire one can speak of three genders and two sexualities. First, rather than a male/female dichotomy, sources clearly view men, women and boys as three distinct genders. Indeed, boys are not deemed ‘feminine’, nor are they mere substitutes for women; while they do share certain characteristics with them, such as the absence of facial hair, boys are clearly considered a separate gender. Furthermore, since they grow up to be men, gender is fluid and, in a sense, every adult man is ‘transgender’, having once been a boy. Second, sources suggest that there are two distinct sexualities. But rather than a hetero/homosexual dichotomy, the two sexualities are defined by penetrating and being penetrated. For a man who penetrates, whom he penetrates was considered to be of little consequence and primarily a matter of personal taste. It is indeed significant that the words used for an ‘active’ man’s sexual orientation were quite devoid of value judgment: for example, matlab (demands, wishes, desires), meşreb (temperament, character, disposition), mezheb (manner, mode of conduct, sect), tarîk (path, way, method, manner), and tercîh (choice, preference). Being objects of penetration, boys and women were considered not quite as noble as men."

Although I don't believe that something like that could be written in a game system, as it could be seen as promoting pederasty, but also referring those been penetrated as less noble (which is exactly the opposite of what is being tried to be corrected in society and in this product), it could be changed somehow and still show why Hazlik's feminine tattoos are considered taboo and humiliating.

The info on the Ottoman views on sexuality was taken from this article
https://aeon.co/ideas/what-ottoman-erot ... -pluralism

I have to remind you that besides Hazlik there is also another gay character, Baron Metus. In Van Richten's guide to Vampires, Rudolph "horrified" (because of Erasmus's age?) makes the assumption that Erasmus was turned into a vampire by grooming, a turning procedure where a vampire's lover is turned into a free-willed vampire.

That said to rewrite some darklords and change their sex to have an equal representation was unnecessary for me as in real world there have been more evil heterosexual men governing countries throughout history as kings, tyrants, czars, emperors, tribal leaders etc. so I wouldn't see it as not against patriarchy to still have more heterosexual men as darklords.