Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Levistus's_Leviathan" data-source="post: 8239115" data-attributes="member: 7023887">The definition of direct harm was probably poorly defined in the OP, which is my bad. What I would define as &quot;direct harm&quot; is real harm and indirect harm would be imagined harm. If a party used Vistani as originally written in the Curse of Strahd (not to say that the current version is perfect, it is definitely still problematic), that is direct harm to the culture of the Romani people. If a DM decides to get rid of a race from the table, let's use Tortles as an example, and someone unconnected to that table gets offended, that is indirect and imagined harm (the same is true in a reverse case where someone gets offended because someone uses Tortles at their table). If others assumed &quot;direct&quot; and &quot;indirect&quot; to be &quot;at the table&quot; and &quot;not at the table&quot;, that's my bad, and definitely not what I intended to say. Does this clear things up? I am aware of how the definition is a bit iffy, but this is more a case of &quot;you know it when you see it&quot; than &quot;strict, always objectively true signs&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Levistus's_Leviathan, post: 8239115, member: 7023887"] The definition of direct harm was probably poorly defined in the OP, which is my bad. What I would define as "direct harm" is [B]real harm [/B]and indirect harm would be [B]imagined harm[/B]. If a party used Vistani as originally written in the Curse of Strahd (not to say that the current version is perfect, it is definitely still problematic), that is [B]direct harm[/B] to the culture of the Romani people. If a DM decides to get rid of a race from the table, let's use Tortles as an example, and someone unconnected to that table gets offended, that is [B]indirect and imagined harm[/B] (the same is true in a reverse case where someone gets offended because someone uses Tortles at their table). If others assumed "direct" and "indirect" to be "at the table" and "not at the table", that's my bad, and definitely not what I intended to say. Does this clear things up? I am aware of how the definition is a bit iffy, but this is more a case of "you know it when you see it" than "strict, always objectively true signs". [/QUOTE]

Verification