Search results

Seeing as us both have a reasonable change to present both our views in the same light and with the same resources, I'd say it's not a bad place to discuss ideology with regards to roleplaying games.

I have no problem with either within the context of roleplay. It is a game of make believe with no effect on the real world. Eventually the Nazis will shout loud enough that everyone will learn their mouths and minds are full of garbage and eventually the Christians will realize there's nothing...

Which I would argue is a great example of using the wrong tools for the right reasons, though is remains something I am not in favor of and cannot support.

Which is a shame and demonstrates how far we still have to come as a species. I will not, however, advocate for the use of the wrong tools for the right reasons.

Everyone who disagrees with his ideology but still loves D&D and wants to support the game (just not the ideology Crawford presents). How would you like it if D&D came out and said, "we're no longer going to include images of blacks in our gamebooks." You'd be torn. On the one hand, you love...

Which is why I never accused WotC of propaganda until they started showing their desire to use their adventures to create societal change, as Mr. Crawford stated, as quoted in the mentioned article.

There is not propaganda in the characters, only in Mr. Crawford's rhetoric and desire to advance his ideology. In other words, there is no propaganda in the adventure, only the article.

Which is exactly what I'm saying to Mr. Crawford.

People change social norms through the battle of ideas: I show you my data. You show me your data. I give you my analysis. You give me yours. We both walk away knowing more about both sides. It might even turn out we agree or can reach a compromise.

There's the root of our disagreement, then. You think it's OK to use the game as an ideological arena. I just want to roll dice and make bad jokes in my own little world.

In what way? I'm trying to clarify. Clarification involves adding new details. As I said above: Inclusion of gay characters: Don't really care. Inclusion of straight characters: Don't really care. Using media to as a way to promote any ideology, whether I agree, disagree, or am unsure about...

I would also be against this ideological advance, as well. It's a game, not a podium.

That's exactly my point. Crawford did highly the difference, which turned what he did into an ideological stunt. I have nothing wrong with the adventure or the gay characters. I just don't like the motivation before including them (politicizing a game), regardless of what the message might be..

Because agenda applies motivation. No one is actively trying to use gold pieces or swords to advance one. That's the difference.

Honestly, none of these people bother me. It's a game. It's completely separate from the real world. That's what I like about it. My entire point can be summarized as follows: It's a game, how about we all stop trying to push out agenda with it, alright.

Inclusion of gay characters: Don't really care. Inclusion of straight characters: Don't really care. Using media to as a way to promote any ideology, whether I agree, disagree, or am unsure about: Wrong medium. Find a podium.

Actually, I like and support the message. Next?

Because I mentioned this as a throw away comment and have spent the last 20 pages having to explain myself. Oh, the wonders of the internet.

Yeah, I'm getting tired trying to keep up with so many trains of thought at the same time. My ability to notice what words I'm use to find grammatical errors in my writing has been reduced to 0. As I've said. Adding gays = good. Adding gays to advance an ideology (even one I agree with) =...

Um...When have I ever said I was against including anyone? Please stop with the blatant misrepresentation of my views.