Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jfdlsjfd" data-source="post: 9553370" data-attributes="member: 42856">I think it's coherent with it being no longer a person but an entire species. Being human-woman-like doesn't make it female.This sounds common sense to me, and I have seen no argument supporting rejecting that outside two, that I don't find convincing:1. Most people don't know about the creatures in the Monster Manuel anyway, so there is no need to include the few people who actually know about them, too bad if they think a Satyr is an embodiment of sexual energy, what would make them think so?2. The term has been used wrongly for 50 years, so we should continue to be wrong. The second is especially bothersome to me. For long, I thought that the Pyramids were built by slaves, and when I learnt that it was incorrect, I immediately adopted it. If I were to play a game set in ancient Egypt, I wouldn't include slave workers hauling rocks, and I wouldn't think for a second "well, I've been wrong for so many years, why bother?". At least just in case people at my table would cringe at the idea of them being slaves.By the same logic, taking a poop has never been part of the D&D lore (as far as I know), so we can't assume humans in D&D are pooping based on the name of humans alone. If you castle map lacks latrines, it's because you're making incorrect assumption about D&D lore.On the other hand, a group that knows absolutely nothing about mythology would have objectively no problem with a serpent-bodied Medusa, a three-headed giant Kappa or Thor's hammer being called Excalibur, since they wouldn't recognize anything about their mythic names, so from the point of view of the designers, it won't prevent any sales.</blockquote>

Verification