ccs
41st lv DM
I believe I said non-human humanoids.Bad...people?
like...death/murder/blood cultists, ethno-supremacists, authoritarians, etc?
like...they do tend to wear uniforms. It’s not hard to tell them from the average villager.
I believe I said non-human humanoids.Bad...people?
like...death/murder/blood cultists, ethno-supremacists, authoritarians, etc?
like...they do tend to wear uniforms. It’s not hard to tell them from the average villager.
Art 100% influences culture. This is not even a disputed thing.Oh yes!
I remember when WOTC removed/changed lore in the game and it changed our culture, precipitating a racial reckoning.
Or when that one video game came out and suddenly our cultural mores and values were shaped anew.
No. To think this is the case is absurd. These changes happened because our culture changed not the other way around. Games reflect our culture.
Art 100% influences culture. This is not even a disputed thing.
In 20 years, I’ve never killed anyone in D&D because of their race.Let's assume I do.
If for no other reason than just to break up the monotony of killing yet more human bandits, low lv undead, & lesser devils/fiends.
I'm not running GoT, I'm running D&D.
Home of all manner of monstrous humanoids (many with a penchant for eating humans/elves/etc) & many whom the evil empires find quite suitable as troops.
In 20 years, I’ve never killed anyone in D&D because of their race.
Not even the safe kills, really, since they’ve always been doing something evil.
Nothing. You’ll just have to homebrew.As I said, let's assume that answer is yes.
The question though is if you strip those out, what takes their place? And what's after that when you lot decide this new default evil thing should be promoted to playable character/"people" status.
I specified D&D demons for a reason. Other demons aren’t even elementals, or distinct from devils. D&D demons are decidedly their own thing.Not in D&D. I was talking about general myths and lore.
Suggesting that life doesn’t imitate art is genuinely the most blatantly, absurdly, objectively, false claim I’ve ever seen made on this site.Oh yes!
I remember when WOTC removed/changed lore in the game and it changed our culture, precipitating a racial reckoning.
Or when that one video game came out and suddenly our cultural mores and values were shaped anew.
No. To think this is the case is absurd. These changes happened because our culture changed not the other way around. Games reflect our culture.
I don’t especially care. The premise is flawed. You can play D&D entirely without non-human humanoids. You can play D&D with Humans set as the bad guys and orcs as the good guys.I believe I said non-human humanoids.
Well, entirely sidestepping the question of whether D&D games could be considered art...Art 100% influences culture. This is not even a disputed thing.
Oh, to be fair the players didn't kill them because they were orcs/goblins/gnolls or whatever. They killed them because they were the opponents of the moment. They were the opponents of the moment because that's what fit that point in the story.In 20 years, I’ve never killed anyone in D&D because of their race.
Not even the safe kills, really, since they’ve always been doing something evil.
It is.Well, entirely sidestepping the question of whether D&D games could be considered art...
No one here has claimed culture doesn’t influence art. Each influences the other. This is a very well understood relationship.Art has been borne as a result of the culture. There are many examples of this.
The Great War revolutionized art, leading to the rise of the Modernist Movement. Modernism did not cause The Great War. Same with abstract modernism and WW2. WW2 had a lot of causes, but abstract modernism was not one of them.
During the Byzantine Era especially, the Culturally dominant religions of that time caused much Art to be generated in religious iconography. Religious iconography did not cause the rise of the dominance of religion in that Culture.
The Civil Rights era, a cultural reckoning with race, gave rise to a slew of art that dealt with the feelings and influences of that generation. The civil rights era was not caused by this art.
I could continue, but I think 3 pretty clear and undeniable examples are enough, no?
Umm... I wasn’t the one who said that. Do try and keep who you’re arguing with straight. At any rate, you are making an extraordinary claim, which would therefore require extraordinary evidence to support. So far, you have presented no evidence that art doesn’t influence culture, only examples of culture influencing art, which are not mutually exclusive things.Let us also compare and contrast here.
I make a statement. I back up that statement with examples and evidence. You say 'Suggesting that life doesn’t imitate art is genuinely the most blatantly, absurdly, objectively, false claim I’ve ever seen made on this site. you are making a claim that flies in the face of literally all expertise on the subject of the interaction of art and culture.'
Yes, I have read Republic, and nowhere in it did Plato say art doesn’t influence culture. “Art is twice removed from reality” is a very different claim than “art doesn’t affect culture.” Also, while Republic is a highly influential work on the field of philosophy, it’s not exactly up-to-date.Have you not read Plato's Republic? In it, he claims that art is twice removed from reality. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to go read it as trying to explain Plato's Republic in a D&D forum is a bit absurd.
Your “source” doesn’t claim that art doesn’t influence culture. It’s also not my job to educate you on theory. You’re the one making a claim contrary to academic consensus, it’s on you to find support for it.You state this as gospel, but you provide no evidence. Not even one example. Yet the 'literally all expertise' claim is verifiably false. Note that I just don't say its verifiably false. I then provide an example that verifies it as false.
Again, no one here has claimed culture doesn’t influence art.Can people be influenced by art? Surely. But Culture is a far more overriding influence. An order of magnitude so.
It is.
No one here has claimed culture doesn’t influence art. Each influences the other. This is a very well understood relationship.
Nope. My quote fu was weak. Apologies.Umm... I wasn’t the one who said that. Do try and keep who you’re arguing with straight. At any rate, you are making an extraordinary claim, which would therefore require extraordinary evidence to support. So far, you have presented no evidence that art doesn’t influence culture, only examples of culture influencing art, which are not mutually exclusive things.
Yes, I have read Republic, and nowhere in it did Plato say art doesn’t influence culture. “Art is twice removed from reality” is a very different claim than “art doesn’t affect culture.” Also, while Republic is a highly influential work on the field of philosophy, it’s not exactly up-to-date.
Your “source” doesn’t claim that art doesn’t influence culture. It’s also not my job to educate you on theory. You’re the one making a claim contrary to academic consensus, it’s on you to find support for it.
Again, no one here has claimed culture doesn’t influence art.