Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 2812568" data-attributes="member: 7240">Imperialus,I don’t understand your reply to my comments on your thought experiment involving medieval peasants. You appear to be replying with arguments that just make my case more strongly. The case I am making, if you’d care to look more closely at my post, is that lacking a standing army it made no sense for feudal lords to expend resources on keeping peasants disarmed as (a) they lacked the personnel to do so and (b) deliberately making their peasants even more vulnerable to raiding was crazy.Yes. Core classes refer to archetypes in fantasy stories. Paladins and wizards do that. Your idea, cute as it is, does not.This is a straw man argument. Nobody is making that argument. What we are debating is what constitutes the best, most logical, most coherent way to present non-European elements in the game.Again, I reiterate: it does not make sense to build a class around something that is exclusively a show sport. I don’t see this as any more legitimate a basis for a core class than discus throwing.But these things are separate questions. I may well agree that core D&amp;D should not be Western-themed but should, instead, strive to be generic the way D20 Modern is. But just because you want core D&amp;D to be a particular thing is no reason to pretend it already is that thing. D&amp;D, as it presently stands, is occidental in its core rules. I could make arguments either way as to whether this is a good idea, as evidenced in my other posts but, in my view, you do a disservice to those seeking genuinely culturally neutral core rules by pretending that the current core meets that standard.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="fusangite, post: 2812568, member: 7240"] Imperialus, I don’t understand your reply to my comments on your thought experiment involving medieval peasants. You appear to be replying with arguments that just make my case more strongly. The case I am making, if you’d care to look more closely at my post, is that [b]lacking a standing army[/b] it made no sense for feudal lords to expend resources on keeping peasants disarmed as (a) they lacked the personnel to do so and (b) deliberately making their peasants even more vulnerable to raiding was crazy.Yes. Core classes refer to archetypes in fantasy stories. Paladins and wizards do that. Your idea, cute as it is, does not.This is a straw man argument. Nobody is making that argument. What we are debating is what constitutes the best, most logical, most coherent way to present non-European elements in the game.Again, I reiterate: it does not make sense to build a class around something that is exclusively a show sport. I don’t see this as any more legitimate a basis for a core class than discus throwing.But these things are separate questions. I may well agree that core D&D [i]should not be[/i] Western-themed but should, instead, strive to be generic the way D20 Modern is. But just because you want core D&D to be a particular thing is no reason to pretend it already is that thing. D&D, as it presently stands, is occidental in its core rules. I could make arguments either way as to whether this is a good idea, as evidenced in my other posts but, in my view, you do a disservice to those seeking genuinely culturally neutral core rules by pretending that the current core meets that standard. [/QUOTE]

Verification