Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 6388289" data-attributes="member: 2011">I see it fine. I do not agree with it. The reason I find it a non-issue is because it is to me (not to you). There is no great social message here. It's not important for many people. It is important for a few people, but that does not mean that the intolerance of a few people should sway the creative decision making process of the game designers.Since you see this as an important social issue, I am not surprised that you find it troubling that other people do not see it as an important social issue.Nonsense.The value of most fiction is entertainment. Many people experience entertainment without it having to revolve around big artificial social issues. The purpose of entertainment is to have fun.If you want your game to revolve around fiction saying something about reality, great. Do so. But don't belittle other people's games because they are there for fun instead.That's not to say that some fiction cannot revolve around social issues, it's just that a lot of perfectly fine fiction is purely entertainment without the rest of that intellectual and emotional baggage.Who? Games are meant for fun. Who says that they have to have a big moral and social message to them?Maybe between you and a few other people. In nearly 40 years of gaming, this is the first time I've heard of it.It also depends on what one calls a sentient. Where is the line drawn?Dolphin, Dog, Octopus. Are any of these sentient?How is the baby sentient issue important?It's not relevant to you. Both are sentient creatures. Both are dangerous creatures both as infants, and as adults.You call this irrelevant because you've found a tiny little difference. In the movie, there does not appear to be a society of the creatures. So you have this fine line you draw between the two examples.But I see a society in these creatures. The queen is the ruler. The others obey. They all work together for the same goals. It sounds like a society to me.I don't see any significant difference between the two examples.Wrong how? Again, you state this as fact with no solid evidence to back it up.It's wrong because it's wrong is not a valid or compelling argument. It's wrong because Savage Wombat humanizes stone giant babies to be the equivalent of humanoid giant babies is not a valid or compelling argument.In Steading of the Hill Giant Chief, there were giant children. I do not know of anyone who got their panties in a bind if the PCs killed those children. You might have.Where does one draw this line of yours?Sorry, but all of this moral line drawing is all in your head.Your are entitled to your morality, but do not shove it down the throats of those players who see absolutely nothing wrong with the game designers creating any type of evil creature that they want to.I'll say it for the fifth time. Morality is subjective.And, D&D is a game. Games are meant for fun.You don't want sentient baby monsters in your game? Great. Don't have them.</blockquote>

Verification