D&D 5E 5e's new gender policy - is it attracting new players?

[Shasarak]

I also suspect that combat has a lot more room for training overcoming physical attributes. You can parry in combat; you can't really parry a tackle.

The technical term for parrying a tackle is Fending.

[video=youtube;yhmQlxCDFSc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhmQlxCDFSc[/video]

 

[TheCosmicKid]

But to get back on topic...

We were talking about whether you should be allowed to have sex with football players in D&D.

Or have I gotten confused?

 

[MostlyDm]

I don't think that Seraph is making the argument that Western civilization is some sort of bogeyman. I know I haven't made that argument. The argument she is making - one which can be backed up by simply looking at a map - is that the evils committed by Western European civilization are unrivaled by those of any other set of cultures in scope and power.

Western civilization has done a great deal of good in the world. I'm part of it - a white girl in North America, born in the American South and living in the Pacific Northwest. I think I'm pretty awesome, and I'm the tip of the iceberg there. But that doesn't change the scope and degree of evil in our background.

Genocide across literally all human-inhabited continents. The theft of land and resources. The drawing of national boundaries specifically to produce regional ethnic and religious tension and allow further meddling. Colonialism and the destruction of native cultures. Conversion at the point of a sword or the end of a gun. Intercontinental, intergenerational chattel slavery - not the sort of "we enslave debtors and war prisoners" known throughout the ancient world, but the mass relocation of entire ethnic groups and their coercion into brutal, body-and-soul-destroying work for generations with no real hope of escape. Deliberate, systematic destruction of natural resources in an effort at defeating in war an enemy whose land the war is being fought on and who had no chance even if the war was conducted in a purely conventional way.

Those things are as much a part of my cultural heritage as the Declaration of Independence's unique statement that people are equal, as the beauty of Versailles and Vienna, as the first touch of humanity on an alien world, as close-up pictures of Pluto, as a game that lets me interact with worlds that share the imaginations of myself, my friends, and my loved ones with specific, predictable rules that allow our souls to craft stories and people and universes together in a way nothing else ever designed ever has. I think it is an act of intense intellectual dishonesty to enjoy the fruits of these good things without also confronting the intense, unrivalled, and (this is the way it is most undeniably unique) global evil done along the way, in the name of the same set of cultures that produced these good things.

The truth of your position is not self-evident. It doesn't take "simply looking at a map" to see that you are right.

I disagree with you. Strenuously. I really think we're not supposed to go into this argument here, and have been warned about this... but it absolutely does not sit well with me to simply let such a horrifically one-sided characterization of the West stand unchallenged.

 

[Wik]

I've run into somebody whose preferred pronoun was "it". Yes, usually it's very definitely not preferred, but maybe don't presume to speak in such absolutes on behalf of other people.

What's your point? Someone asked to be called "it" is a lot different than referring to someone you don't know as an object.

Ultimately, it says nothing about THEM, and says a lot about how YOU look at human beings.

Ignorance of etiquette != "openly hostile". There was far, far more hostility in Wik's post.

You know what? Maybe there was a bit of hostility. But sometimes, when someone crosses a big line, you need to respond with hostility. You do not speak about a person as an "it" when you do not know them. Simple enough.

Also, I have no idea why you quoted "me" in that other post. I didn't say that.

 

[hawkeyefan]

In a roundabout way, I think this thread has served to show that the gender policy of D&D really doesn't matter. However the folks at Wizard decided to handle it, I would imagine this thread would be largely the same. The topic just seems like a starting gun for folks to run out their prearranged arguments and counterarguments. I include myself in that.

The conversation is so far afield, and going in 12 different directions. And I'm sure that is simply due to the wide range of viewpoints on the topic, and how important it is to many folks....but I think it also explains why a company like Wizards doesn't address this topic more definitively.

They basically said "this game is for everyone and can be used to depict any manner of character you wish" and we can't agree that's a good thing. It's either not enough, or it's labeled as pandering.

Doing more or less than they've done would only invite more scrutiny and criticism. I think in the end, they did the smartest thing they could do...a middle of the road approach carefully worded to ruffle the least amount of feathers.

I mean...it's a game. Even more, it's a fantasy game. I can just imagine them wondering why reality must insinuate itself so greatly into what they do.

 

[Tia Nadiezja]

The truth of your position is not self-evident. It doesn't take "simply looking at a map" to see that you are right.

I disagree with you. Strenuously. I really think we're not supposed to go into this argument here, and have been warned about this... but it absolutely does not sit well with me to simply let such a horrifically one-sided characterization of the West stand unchallenged.

It's been challenged. Repeatedly. The challenges were wrong, and so are you.

And your repeated statements of "we're not supposed to go into this" while you continue to go into it read like a blatant effort at getting the last word. "I'm going to repeat that we're not supposed to talk about this thing we're not supposed to talk about, so don't talk about it after I finish talking about it."

And I suppose I should point out which map to look at. Basically any map of the world between the Age of Exploration and the First World War will do the trick, though even a modern map also shows the West's fingerprints basically everywhere if you have any degree of historical literacy.

 

[Shasarak]

If we do assume for the sake of the argument that the "West" is bad m'kay, then which culture with a better reputation to replace them with?

 

[Celtavian]

OK, I think we can just ignore everything this guy says now.

Go and prove it. Male upper body strength is much higher than female.

I need to stop coming back. These arguments on the internet are unproductive. People are arguing based on their personal viewpoint rather than evidence. I've done my research. I've watched tons of fighting. I've read up on fighting extensively and makes an individual fighter successful.

They have weight classes in professional fighting for a reason. They teach males not to hit females for a reason. Reach, muscle mass, power (speed and strength), endurance, pain tolerance, and a few other traits are what make a fighter great. Size and strength matter for men as well as women. Training can help you beat untrained people. Size and strength can make up for a lack of training and has many times. It's why the UFC moved to weight classes. They found that smaller fighters fighting bigger men were being injured accidentally by the larger fighters. They had a more even and interesting match by putting fighters of relatively equal size against each other.

It wouldn't have been any different in the ancient world. In fact, size and strength would have been more pronounced due to the lack of training techniques for advanced fighting.

I'm going to go with my research, toss realism out the window, and just make an interesting female fighter, one that survives through a combination of skill, will, wits, and luck, same as most great male fighters when it comes down to it once training and size are accounted for.

 

[billd91]

If we do assume for the sake of the argument that the "West" is bad m'kay, then which culture with a better reputation to replace them with?

It's not a question of replacing anything. History is history - we can't change that or "replace" anything there. What we can do is recognize that history affects what comes after it and that many of us are living with advantages and disadvantages we didn't earn, that are ultimately caused by legacies of violence, colonization, suppression, and exploitation. And, perhaps, a little more humility, charity, and compassion are in order rather than reflexively defending unequal privileges.

 

[Celtavian]

I've replied to this line of derailing once already at some length, so I'll just repeat that I am in fact familiar with the history you're talking about. It doesn't change the fact that European colonialism is uniquely nasty in scope, ugliness and effect, and that there is no good faith argument to be made otherwise.

There is no good faith argument that what the Europeans did was unique. They did what every major powerful culture was doing to a much larger scale due to being the first to be able to project their power over long distances due to their ability and willingness to traverse the ocean to do so. European colonialism is not uniquely nasty. You're just one those folks who likely has a liberal education and refuses to acknowledge that other cultures were engaged in similar disgusting or worse behavior on a smaller scale.

Genocide was not something the Europeans invented. Colonizing wasn't either. Europeans didn't invent slavery. They invented very few of the atrocities they committed. They were the most successful at projecting power worldwide. I don't feel an ounce of guilt over it. The world was going to be colonized by someone. I'm ok being part of the winning team.

Folks like you that take history and paint it as you do like to make the cultures the Europeans conquered seem like kindly, organized, peaceful cultures that the Europeans just happened upon and ruined. They weren't doing anything wrong or troublesome or wouldn't have in the future. Of course, everyone was organizing in a peaceful, friendly manner, then those bad guy Europeans showed up and ruined the party without any real opposition. None of those other places had armies or warriors or slavery or any of the vile evils the Europeans brought, oh, of course not.

That tiresome line of thought has been pushed by European scholars for ages. They completely ignore the racism, bigotry, maltreatment and similar behaviors in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. They don't bring up that the Incas and Aztecs were both warrior empires that expanded by crushing and enslaving smaller tribes and engaged in human sacrifice. They don't bring up the tribal genocides and enslavement that was occurring in Africa prior to the European's arrival. They don't bring up that there were African kings that captured and sold their own people to European slavers to build their wealth viewing the opposing tribes their kingdom defeated as lessers. Then their the complexity of Asia. The Japanese domination and enslavement of the Koreans. As well as the well known racist views of the Korean, Japanese, and Chinese that view themselves as the greatest people in the world.

It's one thing to seek to change things you consider bad. To judge people of the past by standards no one was living by is bad historical analysis aimed at pursuing an agenda. Europeans were no worse than any other group. They were merely more successful conquerors and did it in a wider scope. They engaged in no behaviors that were not already occurring. Very few people realize the Europeans enslaved Africans because Africans already had a slave trade and were trading people amongst themselves. They offered slaves in trade when the Europeans arrived. The Europeans found a use for slaves in their colonies and continued to trade with Africans. Not this whole myth where they took them themselves as it perpetuated in the modern day to make it seem like the Europeans targeted the African because of their racial views. The racial views came later as a justification for slavery. The initial reason slaves were taken was because African kings traded them to obtain things from the Europeans that arrived on their continent. This was an acceptable form of trading.

Of course the conquered are pissed. Who wouldn't be if they got hammered. I'll never be part of the feel bad for being successful group of people of European ancestry that want to see their ancestors as bad people for successfully expanding their influence. It isn't like Europe wasn't invaded time and time again by Mongols, Moors, and the fighting between the various European powers that divided up Europe prior to them projecting power over the seas. Being successful conquerors is not wrong. It was part of what people were doing in ancient times. I still fail to see why modern historian to ignore the atrocities committed by other cultures and nations because the Europeans make such easy targets due to their success.