Sexism in D&D and on ENWorld (now with SOLUTIONS!)

[Dannyalcatraz]

Anthro-Alligator Snapping Turtle? That's beautiful

Thanks! I came up with them when someone was complaining about Halflings as "riverfolk."

Mechanically, I kind of melded Lizardmen with Dwarves. In terms of fluff, they were gruff but stalwart (like Dwarves) but fought with extreme rage (Orcish traits). Like Vikings and the Halflings that inspired them, they spent the bulk of their lives on the water and were formidable traders.

Things I've done with other races:

Elves:

In one campaign, they were hermaphroditic Grays whose scientific survey ship had crash landed on a world where magic worked, and the crash itself resulted in the ship being buried. (S3 Barrier Peaks, anyone?) Their tech was advanced enough for them to generate a huge slow-time/stasis field which let them wait for rescue. They had devices to help them somewhat resemble the other sentient races of the world. Thus, common legendary tropes about Elves applied to them- time passed more slowly in "Underhill," so those who ventured within it often came back decades later; they lack some of the empathy we take for granted, and often did experiments & tricks upon the unsuspecting, either for research or to relieve boredom; they control unusual magic; their alien biology reacted poorly with certain forms of iron and silver. And so forth.

In another campaign, Elves were replaced by 3 kinds of Fey- actually Elves who had recaptured their original nature in order to survive an "extinction level event." One kind were actually sentient plants with lifespans in the 10K+ year range. One kind embraced Shadow- think a melding of Drow & Shadar-Ki and you're on the right track- and were virtually invisible in darkness. The third kind seemed to be connected in some way to the stars, with a natural radiance and the ability to manipulate light.

 

[shilsen]

Okay, academic. A circumspection that only leaves communication as clear as mud is hardly a virtue.

Unchecked, an army in the service of an ideological empire kills all who will not serve it. That might greatly reduce the total population of a continent or three; but who is left alive, and what ideas?

That is the very profound and powerful fact of nature at which you seemed to scoff.

The cavalier attitude rubs me very much the wrong way, and I cannot help but let some passion creep into my response to it. (That does not mean that I will abandon reason, though; nothing so greases the rails to error as a sense of self-righteousness!)

As I mentioned before, I don't get what you're trying to say. And I don't mean your attitude or anything else, but simply your language. I recognize the words, but the combinations don't make sense to me. Damn you for giving me flashbacks to the freshman composition papers I've graded

In short, if I don't respond to future posts of yours, it's not because I disagree or have a problem with what you're saying. I just find it near impossible to decipher them.

 

[Ariosto]

Sorry, Shilsen!

I think I have been less than earnest in my efforts at explaining because I have been incredulous that you really did not grasp how it goes when thing A, even if multiplying, is not multiplying as rapidly as thing B.

If indeed it interests you to find out, then you can try it out.

 

[Ariosto]

Suppose I come upon the text The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog that had diabetes ... No. That's liable to be too confusing.

Suppose I'm a worried parent and I come across the text Playing a game called "Dungeons & Dragons" induced Dallas Egbert III to commit suicide. My personal interest is in stopping the spread of this evil influence, so I join the crusade to spread the warning.

The rest is history to millions of D&D fans who might not ever have heard of the game otherwise.

 

[Ariosto]

Suppose I have a good living that depends on hunting a few hundred acres of forest. Then boats start unloading hungry-eyed people accustomed to considering themselves lucky to be as far from starving as a potato patch, barely long enough for a coffin, may in some years keep them.

Anticipating fewer miles of forest, I plan to have fewer children.

What becomes of my culture?

 

[Ariosto]

Suppose that even a foster home is preferable to the State School for Getting Buggered. If someone tries to escape and someone else catches him or gives him away, then the snitch gets time off for good behavior. The older and bigger kids have a good line in making the little ones so miserable they run. What do you think I'm up to when I offer a deal to run and get caught in return for a little payoff behind the walls?

What do I think I'm up to?

Is the result for the other guy, me, or the rest of the kids a more human kind of situation? Or is it just more damage to pass on to our kids?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

...What.

Also, why on earth did that take three posts.

 

[S'mon]

Suppose I have a good living that depends on hunting a few hundred acres of forest. Then boats start unloading hungry-eyed people accustomed to considering themselves lucky to be as far from starving as a potato patch, barely long enough for a coffin, may in some years keep them.

Anticipating fewer miles of forest, I plan to have fewer children.

What becomes of my culture?

Your indigeous Amerindian tribes get replaced by the Anglo-Celtic settlers even quicker.

Funnily enough, this has happened in reverse with squirrels. When the British Red Squirrel comes into contact with the larger American Grey, it stops reproducing. This has led to rapid replacement of the natives by the foreigners throughout the British Isles.

Like I said, limiting fertility only works if you can limit population movement, eg Japan with its nearly sealed border. Otherwise the most fertility-limiting populations are simply replaced by more fertile ones. If the reaction of the less fertile population to stress caused by high population density is to further reduce fertility, then replacement occurs even more rapidly. Natural selection is a b*tch.

Edit: BTW that was the only post of Ariosto's I had any idea what he was saying. But I think maybe he should go on over to join us at http://isteve.blogspot.com/ and give it a rest here.

 

[shilsen]

...What.

My response exactly. I seriously don't get what he's trying to say most of the time, and I doubt it's because my reading comprehension skills have atrophied. So, as I said before, I'm just ignoring Ariosto's posts from now on. I may read them, but I'll have to do so quickly and avoid replying, since what he does to clauses and sentence formation makes baby proofreaders cry.

Also, why on earth did that take three posts.

 

[Dausuul]

Like I said, limiting fertility only works if you can limit population movement, eg Japan with its nearly sealed border. Otherwise the most fertility-limiting populations are simply replaced by more fertile ones. If the reaction of the less fertile population to stress caused by high population density is to further reduce fertility, then replacement occurs even more rapidly. Natural selection is a b*tch.

However, this assumes that the migrant population remains fertile in its new territory. It also assumes the migrants do not lose population - through death or other means - just as fast as they gain it.

In human terms, if an immigrant population has a high birth rate, but 90% of its offspring assimilate into the slower-breeding native culture, it isn't going to displace that native culture (although it may eventually come to dominate the gene pool).