Search results

Good point. The trope of the player who just wants to sleep with everything is certainly one I've encountered before, but I don't think we need to encourage it by mentioning it in any rule books. Nor has he (not trying to enforce gender pronouns, but it usually is a "he" isn't it?) always been...

Look, I don't think it was "politically correct pandering," Ok? but... There have been arguments made by some that putting women in roles historically attributed to men ruins the immersion of a game based on medieval assumptions. I'm on the same page as you, so don't freak out. I was simply...

It wasn't an attack, don't worry. You were talking about equality. I was just elaborating past a conversation on uniforms and to different approaches for showing diversity.

Instead of a "Politically correct" ratio of 1 woman to 1 man in the city guard. You're depicting a society with men in their standard militaristic gender roles, next to a strong woman showing that while most soldiers may be men, it doesn't mean that women are somehow only suited for getting...

What about a disciplined crowd of completely male soldiers in the city guard (of different ethnicities, sure) with a strong female adventurer strolling by, giving them a dismissive look? Is that diverse, embarrassing to the customer base, or just more reflective of the society that we all live...

This is all true, especially for a setting where it's spelled out, but there is something to be said for having an established shorthand for people to look at and immediately accept without it being jarring and taking them out of the fantasy while they rationalize why this white guy has a black...

I don't know enough about the Yugoloths and demons/devils to make any comments on anything else y'all are discussing, but I might disagree with this statement since the whole idea of law and chaos being opposed forces I thought was cribbed from Michael Moorcock in the construction of the...

Using "they" still feels weird to me because of the singular/plural disagreement, but I still do it from time to time. What should one do for a formal bit of writing (say an rpg rulebook) when a personal pronoun can't be avoided? Is using "he" instantly unsuitable for a general case...

Except PCs in an rpg are more or less outside the norm of most soldiers or knights. I also don't think the core rules have to skew as close to the gritty "real world medieval" standards you do. D&D is, to be unkind, a kind of "escapist power fantasy wish fulfillment simulator" not primarily...

Since we both believe that inclusivity is good. Is there an argument for not making the next edition more diverse? I don't really care if I agree with a group's assertion that the status quo is harmful, or if it's true or not. I'm just willing to acknowledge they think it is. And since I...

I'm enjoying it to an extent. "Deontological ethics" is not something particularly interesting to me. Some people do attribute a moral failing to the action we're talking about. That's more interesting to me than the all deontological reasons you do not. If people say "what you are doing is...

Replace the "status quo" with the action of "publishing materials that are harmful [or purported to be]" then. I never intended yell "status quo" without it being linked to an action. I'm not really interested in discussing the ins and outs of deontological ethics, so I think I may be done with...

Sure we agree on that, but you're not addressing the other part of my question, which is what if the current action "publishing the status quo" is harmful? Is causing harm immoral? I'd say so. But what you're doing is going through all these hoops to say that failure to act doesn't count as...

Forget failure to act for a second, what about the claims by a group that a large company's actions are non-virtuous? Say, "You're current action of publishing [what they deem]sexist and ethnocentric material are actively harming me" Can doing nothing, or maintaining the status quo can be...

But I'm not talking about actions on an individual level. Perhaps you are, and that's fine. But the thread is about how the actions of a large company impacts a large number of individuals. You have a point. We should probably start portraying all wood elves in core as primarily being...

But if that same doctor is sitting there with a guy who's bleeding to death, and it's in his ability to go in and save that guy from dying, does his inaction at that point cause harm? Wait. Weren't we supposed to be talking about gay elves or something?

Then that's what you'd need to convince me of. I'm not certain intent is impossible to ascertain or infer. I'm also not convinced that all consequences are impossible to pre-evaluate, especially when circumstances are taken into concern.

Circumstances matter however. If for example you're repeatedly putting someone under a heavy rotten treebranch and you keep placing a guy underneath it, you might be culpable. It seems you're concentrating on the solely on the action, not the consequences, but the rest of us I think are having...

Did it sell less books because of all this "pandering?" Do you think they actually had a meeting where they pitched "if we use 'she' more we'll see a radical 5% markup in sales"? My guess is some more "Star Trek-like" guy probably thought it might be nice to throw a bone to people who wanted...

What is the right thing in a business sense and what is morally right are two different things. The trick is to find a balance. The thing is, are people NOT going to buy D&D just because it's lacking chainmail bikinis? That very well may be the assumption, but I think it's a flawed one...