D&D (2024) (+) New Edition Changes for Inclusivity (discuss possibilities)

[FrogReaver]

We are getting close to a world where non-human intelligence will exist. I believe that extending "people" beyond humanity is going to be necessary.

Suppose we do end up with artificial intelligence that is self conscious. Could we represent it with an intelligence bonus in an RPG?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Suppose we do end up with artificial intelligence that is self conscious. Could we represent it with an intelligence bonus in an RPG?

Is that really in the scope of this thread? What does that have to do with 6e or inclusivity. If you want to start a thread talking about intelligence in AI and how that would equate in D&D and other RPGs, please do so. If it's not on topic, please don't discuss this.

Edit: I would very much be happy to engage in this conversation, but this thread isn't really the place to do it.

 

[EscherEnigma]

Suppose we do end up with artificial intelligence that is self conscious. Could we represent it with an intelligence bonus in an RPG?

I've seen the output from machine learning. It's far more likely to warrant an intelligence penalty.

 

[FrogReaver]

Is that really in the scope of this thread? What does that have to do with 6e or inclusivity. If you want to start a thread talking about intelligence in AI and how that would equate in D&D and other RPGs, please do so. If it's not on topic, please don't discuss this.

Edit: I would very much be happy to engage in this conversation, but this thread isn't really the place to do it.

dont jump on me for replying to the idea that you liked....

if my comment doesn’t have a place here then that like and comment don’t either.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

dont jump on me for replying to the idea that you liked....

if my comment doesn’t have a place here then that like and comment don’t either.

Rebuttal by providing real world examples that apply to the situation is a valid post in this thread. The post I liked was not off topic. Yours, which was suggesting to shift the discussion to discuss mechanical attributes that would apply to AI was not on topic.

I'm not "jumping on you." I'm trying to keep the thread actually discussing things relevant to the thread. @Chaosmancer's post was relevant, but yours was not. Don't mistake this for a personal attack, which your previous post was. I have suggested multiple times in this thread before to others who were trying to derail it the same thing I did for you in my last post.

 

[FrogReaver]

Rebuttal by providing real world examples that apply to the situation is a valid post in this thread. The post I liked was not off topic. Yours, which was suggesting to shift the discussion to discuss mechanical attributes that would apply to AI was not on topic.

I'm not "jumping on you." I'm trying to keep the thread actually discussing things relevant to the thread. @Chaosmancer's post was relevant, but yours was not. Don't mistake this for a personal attack, which your previous post was. I have suggested multiple times in this thread before to others who were trying to derail it the same thing I did for you in my last post.

Mine was directly related to his. If his was relevant then mine was too. Nor was my post a personal attack. Claiming it was though...

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

All people are equal. To deny this by saying one racial group is stronger or smarter is anthema. It’s one of the most non-inclusive things that can be done. This same phenomenon must also apply to the fantasy world as the races can often resemble real world races and peoples and cultures enough such that people draw connections between them. That those connections can be drawn is what makes having races that exhibit such characteristics be non-inclusive.

I think that everyone in this discussion is starting from the point at which the unfortunate language drawing parallels between certain races in D&D and certain real-life ethnic groups has been removed.

That's your assertion and one that seems entirely based on ignorance. Sentient human-like beings in fiction are very clearly stand-ins for humans with the whole "not technically a human" being used only to explain away having super powers. The character Wolverine from X-Men is technically "not a human" by the definitions of his own world and has a number of features that any normal human would not have anyway. So you are arguing that he, and others like him, should be inherently treated inhumanely and no understanding of human psychology should be applied to him? Then you could have a character like Superman who is even more so definitely not human, despite appearing human in all manners-- you would argue that human rights should not extend to him? He is not a person?

I suppose Commander Spock from Star Trek is also not to be considered "a person"? Or is he only half a person? How about Lt. Commander Data? Just property, just an object I suppose.

In Sci-fi and fantasy, any time you want to have a group of people who either have abilities beyond what we do or who are visually distinct, they are just called something else. But everything about them is still understood to be functionally human except in areas that are explicitly stated to be different. Beyond that, you are always to understand them to be just as much a person as any human, not to be seen as lesser or to imply that they aren't motivated like a human. It is just a matter of expanding the concept of personhood beyond our one fairly boring animal species.

I think that you really need to read back on the conversation you just stepped in on. It was a discussion about physical differences (or, I suppose predilection of phenotypic expressions within ethnic/species groupings.)
Claiming that someone pointing out the differences in size and strength that exist within some demographics is arguing that those differences make them less deserving as a person is a deeply, deeply unpleasant misattribution of their position.

And that's perfectly fine. The fact that you seem to believe that the issue is about stat bonuses simply shows how out of touch you are with what is being discussed.

I swear, these threads are about 25% actually discussing the actual issues that people have and then 75% of the time wasted on trying to calm people's massive over reactions, complete misreadings, deliberate twisting and pedantry.

When we actually stick to the issues, resolving them generally takes about 15 minutes and a couple of sentences. One really has to wonder, @Derren, what your objective is, in every single one of these threads that you comment in, why you insist on misrepresenting the issues every single time. Once or twice is simply misunderstanding, but, every time?

The current discussion that they were commenting on in the thread is about stat bonuses. Following from the section in the original post that was specifically talking about stat bonuses.
Do you believe that the line of conversation that Derren was contributing to was not about stat bonuses?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Mine was directly related to his. If his was relevant then mine was too. Nor was my post a personal attack. Claiming it was though...

If your post wasn't a personal attack, I apologize for mistaking it to be one. Yours was related to theirs, but it was not on topic, theirs was. I'm not going to debate this. I politely asked for you to stop pursuing this topic on this thread, as it is not on topic. If you have any grievances, take it to a private message. Don't bog up this thread further with this discussion.

I swear, these threads are about 25% actually discussing the actual issues that people have and then 75% of the time wasted on trying to calm people's massive over reactions, complete misreadings, deliberate twisting and pedantry.

Yeah, it is annoying. A lot of this I had thought was already covered in other threads. Almost all of what we want are changed descriptions. The rest here is just possible changes in the next edition, which will contain changes.

 

[Umbran]

Mine was directly related to his. If his was relevant then mine was too. Nor was my post a personal attack. Claiming it was though...

Mod Note:

But now, you are turning whether you should have posted it into a whole sub-thread of its own that very much is off topic.

Time to let it go and move on, everyone.

 

[Hussar]

The current discussion that they were commenting on in the thread is about stat bonuses. Following from the section in the original post that was specifically talking about stat bonuses.
Do you believe that the line of conversation that Derren was contributing to was not about stat bonuses?

I believe that the whole line about stat bonuses is a red herring, and, a pointless diversion from the actual issues the exist. Giving a +2 Str to a race is not racist, nor is anyone actually complaining about it except as a personal preference issue. Which has now gotten tied up into the actual instances of racism in the texts. But, since it benefits the groups that hate the idea of any change in the game, they run with it and drag it out until the thread gets closed for pointless argumentation.