NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8489867" data-attributes="member: 7023840">There are no, or close to no, non-problematic titles from the 70s, 80s, and 90s.If you can't find something that has racism, you will find something that has sexism. If it's not in the text, it's in the art.Not to mention that there are no standards for such a thing; I think everyone can agree that GAZ10 is particularly bad. But what about B2 and its invocation of mental illness and issues regarding the possible killing of humanoid women and children? Or the depictions of drow in some artwork? Or the depictions of women in a lot of the art?That's why they are using the standard disclaimer. Even for this product- its content may be offensive to American Indians, but it also offensive to a lot of other people.And for a product that isn't exactly a big seller.I think it is good and proper for people to go back and critique the culture of the past. The OP did some great analysis. But, absent special circumstances, there shouldn't be an ongoing obligation to correct the work of the past. One of the few benefits of the so-called "long tail" commerce method is that we are able to get things that we didn't used to have access to because they are old or out-of-date or don't have much of a market- books, movies, media of all kinds. But the past always is a mirror of the society from which it came from (which I assumed was a "duh" kind of observation, but maybe not?) and if we insist that everything from the past be brought up to current standards, there is a fair amount that just won't be provided any more....I'm waiting for the critical eye to be turned to some older 3PP supplements, myself. Obscurity is the sole solving grace.</blockquote>

Verification