Are they replacing D&D's blacktop playground with foam?

[Rechan]

If WotC is replacing the blacktop with anything, it's probably that brown gravel stuff that gets in your shoe.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

I wouldn't fret about community standards. Scott Rouse was really clear about this on the call; it's no big deal, and not really any different than now. I think of it as the "Book of Erotic Fantasy" clause, and I doubt it'll come into play with any sort of frequency.

I would thing of it as the FATAL 4E clause. Didn't Rouse say that they weren't merely concerned with shoddy art?

 

[Spinachcat]

Why would half-elves not be the result of human brigands raping elves?

Why is elf / human breeding always tragic love?

Orcs = auto evil, elf = auto good is standard, but when did human = auto good?

I would be happy for WotC to create a new race that some people call half-orcs, but whose lineage is a pure race of their own. Like the Caliban in a Ravenloft campaign I played. The Caliban are 1/2 orcs mechanically, but they are their own race.

 

[Asmor]

Well, there were some good parts in that book that I use .... gave me some really good ideas for campaign development and torments i could use on the PCs...

No, seriously, It was crap, but at least it was fun reading.

Like I said, not my cup of tea, but I'm very glad it was allowed to be published.

And I think the parallel between devil worship and rape is an apt one. D&D does not promote either, and doesn't even mention either except as tangential background information at best. Demons and devils were scrubbed out of many games (not just D&D; Magic was completely demon-free for a long period as well) because some people would be insulted by the mere mention of them. The same goes for rape.

This is nothing specific to rape. I object to any concept being eliminated primarily because it will offend someone.

 

[Piratecat]

Gang, please keep the topic away from real-life rape and real-life devil worship.

Discussion of such things in-game is okay as long as you use good sense.

Thanks!

 

[takasi]

I would be happy for WotC to create a new race that some people call half-orcs, but whose lineage is a pure race of their own. Like the Caliban in a Ravenloft campaign I played. The Caliban are 1/2 orcs mechanically, but they are their own race.

They did that with Races of Destiny. If you're going to monkey around like that though, you might as well make a new race entirely, like the Dragonborn.

Of course, a group of good half-orcs would be more like WoW...

 

[ruleslawyer]

Why would half-elves not be the result of human brigands raping elves?

Why is elf / human breeding always tragic love?

Because the most powerful fantasy archetype of human-elf "breeding" is that of Beren and Luthien/Aragorn and Arwen. Tanis is a game-based fiction Johnny Come Lately.

 

[Dausuul]

I think one of the goals of 4E is to make the game more welcoming to female fantasy fans. Hence the "Confessions" series of articles, the re-envisioning of dwarven women, et cetera. This seems like another move in that direction. What individual gamers do at their own tables is up to them, but I can see why WotC would feel that it's not a good idea to write rape into the core rules, even by implication. I tend to agree with them, too.

I don't think it's a question of what's morally acceptable, really. Villains are a long-established tradition in D&D, and you can't have a villain without sooner or later putting in some villainous deeds. It's more a question of what players are comfortable with. Devil-worship is something that virtually all D&D players can put comfortably in the "pure fantasy, no impact on my life" category. Even murder is, for most of us, a matter of fiction and statistics. Rape is... different. It's a very personal and disturbing topic for a lot of women, and not a few men. I myself would hesitate before introducing a story involving rape at my gaming table, even if it took place firmly offstage and was committed by an unabashed villain.

 

[see]

The community standards clause does not ban certain things from D&D products. They ban them from non-WotC D&D products. This gives WotC the permanent advantage of being able to decide how far they want to go and push boundaries, while forcing all others to be careful about boundary-pushing.

 

[Zamkaizer]

The community standards clause does not ban certain things from D&D products. They ban them from non-WotC D&D products. This gives WotC the permanent advantage of being able to decide how far they want to go and push boundaries, while forcing all others to be careful about boundary-pushing.

I would imagine they'd apply the same standard to themselves as they would to their licensees. The most risque book Wizards published in 3E was the Book of Vile Darkness, and they licensed far more edgy products throughout that same generation.