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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 8126723" data-attributes="member: 58416">That wasn't the position I took.However, I did offer some comment in response to that. I said that I can understand efforts to sanitize things which may upset people. I further commented that I'm curious how murdering sentient creatures for wealth and advancement fits into that.----------------------------------------------------------------------Edit: I can see how my position could be construed as that. I did say that it's irrelevant whether or not things are real to you and me. That comment was geared more toward what I perceived as logically valid (given a set of setting assumptions,) and explaining why my position was not a Thermian argument. (I would further posit that there is some argument for a Thermian Argument not being fallacious because being factual is not necessarily a requirement of being logically valid.)Admittedly, I do think that -at some point- building a narrative around a fictional world requires some amount of willingness to leave real-world assumptions and expectation behind. As someone choosing to play a role inside of that same constructed fiction, I think there's an argument to be made for seeing through different eyes than your own. Yes, real-world feelings do matter. A product which is grossly offensive to players and customers is not good; at the same time, is there a point at which the game reaches what is essentially the 80s Satanic Panic with a different moral/ethical paint job? In the context of a broader issue, I'm genuinely curious to see how design of a combat-and-conflict-centric game is approached in a way which objectively offends zero people. How would a brand with the strength (and market share) of contemporary D&D (backed by Hasbro) respond to the 80s Satanic Panic and Jack Chick?</blockquote>

Verification