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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5563343" data-attributes="member: 4937">I'm like a moth to the flame...You might offend someone is not a terribly huge objection.  In addition to the fact that the objection goes away if we are speaking of 'my table', you can't limit yourself to what hangs people up.  Should I remove the 'Androgynous' trait because someone might be offended by it?  How about removing clerics?  How about removing the option to play evil characters?  Lots of things are potentially offensive.  Err... no.  Again, someone can always be offended about something.   But I'm more interested in the backwards logic you are expressing here.  Stop and think about this a second; you don't call options restrictions when they apply to any other area of the game.  But in this one situation an option suddenly becomes a restriction in your vocabulary.  Consider if I took away the option to use racial templates because elves offend some people.  If someone wanted to play an elf they could always choose to have higher dex and lower con if they wanted right?  Would that give you more options?  What if I took away feats and traits?  What if I took away skill focus and said, "Just put max ranks in the skill if you want to indicate high skill."  Would you describe removing these aspects of character design from the game as the DM increasing player flexibility?  Would you tell me that the only reason to allow feats, traits, and races in the game was to prevent players from having badwrongfun?  Would you describe an elf having modifiers of +2 to Dex and -2 to Con as the DM "telling you what you should play"?Really?Plus imagine for a second that we had a gaming table were gender options were already available.  Do you think someone would be offended if they were taken away?In short, I understand that this is a touchy subject, but you please stop letting it warp your logic so that up is down and front is back and reducing options is increasing freedom?And another thing....You were the one that claimed that since halflings somehow that showed that gender differences weren't realistic.  You even got upset that after a page or two that no one had yet answered your assertion about the realism of no gender differences because halflings only had a -2 strength penalty.  So when I try to show that your red herring is a red herring and is irrelevent, now you are going to stop taking credit for your red herring and blame me for answering your halfling challenge?  That's a big switch.  Gender differences are realistic because they are real.  That's the end of it. Whether or not we want to capture that realism may very from table to table, game to game, and setting to setting is entirely another matter.  I can completely understand if you don't want to do that.</blockquote>

Verification