Search results

Would you disagree if you didn't like the message?

Now the discussion ends. We agree to disagree. And we leave it.

Once again, no problem with black characters. No problem with gay characters. The problem lies in the sentence, "I wasn't going to send out another book with no..." Once again, minor point. I honestly regret starting this discussion because it makes all sides of the issue look ridiculous for...

I said nothing as to the portrayal of these NPCs - because it is irreverent. I am discussing Crawford's statements not the NPCs. As I have said dozens of times, I have no argument against the inclusion of NPCs, only the motivation behind their origin as professed by Crawford.

I defined my use of the word propaganda several times. To be clear, here it is (and yes, I'm using a sterile meaning of it because a more appropriate term hasn't come to my head yet): Propaganda: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or...

Republic of Georgia (not the US state). And no, WotC, as a company, shouldn't care about people here on a professional level.

Propagandist phrases: 1. “I wasn’t about to have this book go out and not acknowledge..." 2. "It’s important ... for the game to acknowledge our existence." (Specifically the word "important." I don't included the rest of the quote because the word important standing there alone doesn't make...

Wholehearted agree with everything you're just said. Adding gays in adventure: good. Adding gays to make ideological point (even if I agree with that ideology): bad - because it's the wrong medium to discuss the issue.

I did. The key word in my post is "merely." You may have missed it.

Exactly. Correct message, wrong medium. It's as simple as that. Like I said to the other guy, I live in a country in which being gay can get the local priest to ask his choir boys to come over and drown you in a river - and it's not a uncommon occurrence. It's a sensitive topic. Honestly, I...

It is neither biased not misleading. It is the presentation of information to promote a point of view, something I'm not sure it best done in a game, but in a clear, focused, healthy debate.

The designer being gay is irrelevant. If he was straight, I wouldn't care. If he was merely including something from his only life, I wouldn't care. In fact, I would commend him, but using a game to openly push an agenda instead of dealing with it in a logical, factual way is ludicrous.

I'm America. I live here by choice. I feel like I'm making a real difference in the world (maybe I actually am) by doing workshops and summer camps with teenagers in which we discuss issue of bride napping, female circumcision, honor killings, tolerance, etc. My plan was to leave after two...

No. It's a great agenda - my opinion. But propaganda is not the right way to advance one's ideology - also my opinion.

Don't take this the wrong way, but, Dude, I live in a country in which being gay can get the local priest to ask his choir boys to come over and drown you in a river - and it's not a uncommon occurrence. It is sensitive topic. Honestly, I would be doing it just as much for your safety as I would...

Honestly, that would be an interesting setting. I would totally play that.

Offended no. Concerned, yes.

If he didn't make the statement, I wouldn't know he was pushing an agenda and therefore we wouldn't be having this conversation. First, what you do at your home game, if none of my business. If you brought an LGBT character to table at my home game, I would love to see the faces of the other...

Not really. I only just discovered the issue when I woke up this morning.

No. But if you tell a new source that you included the NPC in order to further your ideological agenda, like what happened in this case, it doesn't leave much to the imagination.