Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8375323" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Okay, but that doesn't answer the question. How does having evil human organizations not count as "complex real world angst"? What makes them immune to this effect?Of course you don't fight the good guys. But you still encounter them. Unless that halfling village is full of evil cultists. Or the dwarven traders are secretly cannibals. You encounter the "good guys" all the time. So, again, if you have all the dwarves being good people who are trying to help you, and all the hobgoblins being evil people trying to hurt you... why would anyone go looking for evil dwarves or good hobgoblins? You've made the distinction clear. A group of dwarves in a mine? Allies who are good. A group of hobgoblins in a mine? Enemies who are evil. It doesn't matter anything else... which is the problem that a lot of us have, that it starts to not matter anything else except that they are of the poperly labeled "good guy" or "bad guy" race.To those of us who were actually playing the game? Yes, it did. Because it meant that they were correct that certain people are born evil and need to be destroyed via a "final solution". They were just wrong about who. It took our group all of about a minutes to realize this after a player brought it up. That we were heading for a genocide solution. And we were "in the right" because the individuals we were genociding were an "evil race" who threatened our way of life. Exact same plan, exact same reason, we were just "correct". Which reinforces their message as being fundamentally correct.Really? So what was the evil you were fighting against? Murder? RealTyranny? RealGenocide/Omnicide? RealThievery and covetousness? RealWar? RealWhat evils did your players confront in the game that aren't real evils of our world?Cool. So, Genasi have no type, and that's fine. So why is it a problem to widen the type for others? Why is "I can't play against type" such a big concern if we have these races that don't have a type to begin with?So, you want to take Dwarven wizards away from me, so that other people can feel cool by bucking the trend and playing a dwarven wizard? We are adding. We are adding wizards to dwarves. This is exactly what you are saying people don't get upset about, and is exactly what we are doing. Why shouldn't we add wizards to dwarves? What's wrong with that?I didn't realize my Genasi was indistinguishable from a human. We aren't homogenizing anything, We are adding archetypes to places where they haven't been existing. This should be a good thing, correct. We are taking nothing away. Nothing is being lost.</blockquote>

Verification