Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Faolyn" data-source="post: 8402056" data-attributes="member: 6915329">Why not? There's more rabbit people in medieval art then there are elves, dwarfs, or halflings.Because all the different animal types aren't needed for the adventure. Also, they've already done a bunch of other animal people at this point.And anyway, there's plenty of 5e games that have included tons of other anthro races--and in a non-sexy way at that. Humblewood and Historia, for instance.MMORPGs also have elves, dwarfs, and orcs as well.Removing sex slaves may make D&amp;D feel childish (to you). That's because this is a game that some people play with actual children. It's easy to add in horrible things to an adventure, but removing it is a bit harder, because the horribleness taints how the entire thing is written.And quite frankly, there's a lot of players out there who take the &quot;mature&quot; content (which really is just dark and edgy, not mature) as permission to be pretty horrible to other people in their game. We don't need that. You do realize that player demographics have changed, right? And that a lot of the people who play today simply aren't happy to see a room full of women (I doubt any of them were men) existing for no purpose in the adventure other than to be sexually abused and victimized. How is it not good to remove this sort of victimization? Especially when there are plenty of ways to show a type of evil that real people--some of whom might be at your table--haven't actually experienced.You clearly haven't read Watership Down. Or Usagi Yojimbo.I listed all their traits before. You still haven't said how they're the same. Other than darkvision, their traits are completely different from each other's.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Faolyn, post: 8402056, member: 6915329"] Why not? There's more rabbit people in medieval art then there are elves, dwarfs, or halflings. Because all the different animal types aren't needed for the adventure. Also, they've already done a bunch of other animal people at this point. And anyway, there's plenty of 5e games that [I]have [/I]included tons of other anthro races--and in a non-sexy way at that. Humblewood and Historia, for instance. MMORPGs also have elves, dwarfs, and orcs as well. Removing sex slaves may make D&D feel childish (to you). That's because this is a game that some people play with actual children. It's easy to add in horrible things to an adventure, but removing it is a bit harder, because the horribleness taints how the entire thing is written. And quite frankly, there's a lot of players out there who take the "mature" content (which really is just dark and edgy, not mature) as permission to be pretty horrible to other people in their game. We don't need that. You do realize that player demographics have changed, right? And that a lot of the people who play today simply aren't happy to see a room full of women (I doubt any of them were men) existing for no purpose in the adventure other than to be sexually abused and victimized. How is it [I]not [/I]good to remove this sort of victimization? Especially when there are plenty of ways to show a type of evil that real people--some of whom might be at your table--haven't actually experienced. You clearly haven't read [I]Watership Down. [/I]Or [I]Usagi Yojimbo.[/I] I listed all their traits before. You still haven't said how they're the same. Other than darkvision, their traits are completely different from each other's. [/QUOTE]

Verification