Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TheAlkaizer" data-source="post: 8038401" data-attributes="member: 7024893">The way I look at it, as a game system, it should present itself in a relatively neutral manner that can fit in most settings. The setting is what should suggest social, gender and economic realities. If someone wants to make a setting ala Conan where women wear bikini mails and are cattle for muscular conquerors, so be it; some people grew up reading that stuff and will take interest in it. But the game system itself should be really open and allow for a large variety of settings.When you think about it, it makes a lot of sense because it's already stuff we discuss at the table before starting a campaign. I like to explore racial (or species) tensions in my settings. I think the concept of strangers/foreigners and the tensions it brings is almost universal in time and space. But it's not something everyone is interested in exploring, so I fail to see why this should be baked in the rulebook.This distinction is where, I think, some of the issues come with the recent turmoils. People pick up a book of rules, and the book suggest that orcs are inherently evil. Rules are this abstract concept where they suggest that you should either abide by them, or break them. They're mathematical or logical. Social concepts like races, genders and everything identity related is not.I personally think both Wizards of the Coast and Paizo have done a great job ahead of the curve and have smoothed out most of the issues, but obviously some remain.However, in other cases, like in the very recent debate of ability score bonuses and minuses for races, I think they are pertinent and should stay.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TheAlkaizer, post: 8038401, member: 7024893"] The way I look at it, as a game system, it should present itself in a relatively neutral manner that can fit in most settings. The setting is what should suggest social, gender and economic realities. If someone wants to make a setting ala Conan where women wear bikini mails and are cattle for muscular conquerors, so be it; some people grew up reading that stuff and will take interest in it. But the game system itself should be really open and allow for a large variety of settings. When you think about it, it makes a lot of sense because it's already stuff we discuss at the table before starting a campaign. I like to explore racial (or species) tensions in my settings. I think the concept of [I]strangers/foreigners[/I] and the tensions it brings is almost universal in time and space. But it's not something everyone is interested in exploring, so I fail to see why this should be baked in the rulebook. This distinction is where, I think, some of the issues come with the recent turmoils. People pick up a book of rules, and the book suggest that orcs are inherently evil. Rules are this abstract concept where they suggest that you should either abide by them, or break them. They're mathematical or logical. Social concepts like races, genders and everything identity related is not. I personally think both Wizards of the Coast and Paizo have done a great job ahead of the curve and have smoothed out most of the issues, but obviously some remain. However, in other cases, like in the very recent debate of ability score bonuses and minuses for races, I think they are pertinent and should stay. [/QUOTE]

Verification