Then maybe you need some new senses opened up?Why aren't any of these details important enough to draw gamers' ire, but monster boobs are?
Political correctness is my guess. Nothing else makes any sense.
Yeah, I don't see the logic in the argument that goes "I'm a female player, and demand my female PC has breasts, otherwise the DM is being sexist". It's a fantasy game - you can play a range of characters that can be very similar to you, or very, very different - some of them anatomically so. Why is the ideas of having non-Human properties on a species sexist?I have no problem playing a robotic/androgynous and/or asexual character in this game. Part of the role-playing.
this helps not one bit. I can design dragonborn with breasts by saying they suckle there young (Wotc did this and people still argued) or ones without by saying they don't.Hi all, just adding my 2 copper pieces to this thread.
First of all. Leave the female/male BS at the door, and lets move on to something much more sensible for this thread.
Lets go with the basics.
- If a creatures young don't suckle ofter being born then there is no need for breasts nor nipples.
- If a creature gives birth to suckling young then:
- Does it give birth to a bunch of young? More nipples/breasts.
- Does it give birth to only a few or singular young? Then A pair will do.
- Variants may include marsupials.
- Talking about marsupials, another major variant is the duck-billed-platypus. Birth via egg then suckling.
Now since humans are animals and assuming D&D's naturally evolved races are the same, then the above mentioned logic should apply.
Why does this surprise you? the dwarf females with beards argument was started in ancient days and still rages whenever someone is imprudent enough to bring it up. How people visualize their fantasy worlds is very important -- to them. Look at the D&D5 halfling debacle.[/COLOR]I dunno; it's kinda odd. What I find REALLY interesting is how many participants are either real old-timers here, or practically brand new. There are names cropping up I haven't seen in _years_.
You know, I actually once saw a third-party product that had a race of tree-people where the females had breasts. I jumped up and down on them pretty hard for that, to the point where the text about them was edited in the compilation. I feel kind of bad about that now, what with my stance in my previous post and all...though it was still quite amusing to do at the time.BECMI used to allow Treant PCs. By this logic, only male players be able to relate to a Treant PC because they lack breasts.
Yea, I think thats what I said. Yay or nay, all up to you, unless defined by the developers, or just house rule it. Just like its always been.this helps not one bit. I can design dragonborn with breasts by saying they suckle there young (Wotc did this and people still argued) or ones without by saying they don't.
Since the suckling doesn't effect 99% of games how do we decide who does and doesn't?
of course you can, when you make up a race you can choose...But now we have the can't choose not to.
the problem is that even when WotC went out of there way to say that dragonborn are not reptile in origin, and that they do breast feed, that wasn't good enough...Yea, I think thats what I said. Yay or nay, all up to you, unless defined by the developers, or just house rule it. Just like its always been.
Now for how it affects the game, its not the point, its about me replying to this thread.
Maybe you're represented in all of the pictures of males wearing shirts.
However, when something and its counterpart both have good arguments for and against it being sexist, I think the only reasonable thing to do is to assume good faith and move on.The ire is recognition of our casual sexism.
Calling it "political correctness" is dismissive. I submit that recognizing our casual sexism is *actual* correctness.
One way or the other, a decision has to be made. If it was the opposite decision, then people would just as reasonably argue they can't choose to. So, the point is moot.But now we have the can't choose not to.