Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dire Bare" data-source="post: 8113251" data-attributes="member: 18182">You're shifting goal posts here, or your earlier post was not clear. The review didn't mention a &quot;half-assed job&quot;, although opinions vary of course. &quot;Cheap excuse&quot; for a new deluxe boxed set has nothing to do with any potential sensitivity issues. WotC has made it crystal clear what this boxed set is all about, the adventure has minor edits, it includes extra &quot;stuff&quot; like the cards, maps, posters, postcards, DM's screen, and comes in a fancy box. That's not half-assed or a cheap excuse, it's just a deluxe version of the module.Did WotC go far enough with the edits for sensitivity reasons? That's a good question and debate, but very unclear in your earlier post.I agree that the D&amp;D monster of the &quot;hag&quot; is a sexist and ageist trope . . . pulled directly from real-world myth and folktale. Ugly old women are evil monsters to be feared. Should D&amp;D get rid of hags from this adventure and the game itself, or somehow revise them so they no longer represent problematic tropes? I haven't read Curse of Strahd for a while, but how is the hag character in the adventure portrayed? I don't have an opinion on what potential changes need to be made there, but the basic monster concept of the hag is definitely problematic.Do phylacteries even show up in Curse of Strahd? In D&amp;D, they are usually associated with liches, not vampires. But again, it's been a while since I've read the adventure. You are right that the idea of a phylactery is appropriated from Jewish culture out-of-context and given a sinister tone. Should these be removed or revised from D&amp;D? I don't have an opinion here either, but I think the conversation's worth having. Since WotC hasn't, to my knowledge, addressed, removed, or revised references to hags and phylacteries from Curse of Strahd and D&amp;D at large . . . is Curse of Strahd Revamped &quot;half-assed&quot;? No. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The edits they've made are overdue and good, but that certainly doesn't mean more can't be done. We're all learning and trying to be better, without being considered failures, lazy, or uncaring.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dire Bare, post: 8113251, member: 18182"] You're shifting goal posts here, or your earlier post was not clear. The review didn't mention a "half-assed job", although opinions vary of course. "Cheap excuse" for a new deluxe boxed set has nothing to do with any potential sensitivity issues. WotC has made it crystal clear what this boxed set is all about, the adventure has minor edits, it includes extra "stuff" like the cards, maps, posters, postcards, DM's screen, and comes in a fancy box. That's not half-assed or a cheap excuse, it's just a deluxe version of the module. Did WotC go far enough with the edits for sensitivity reasons? That's a good question and debate, but very unclear in your earlier post. I agree that the D&D monster of the "hag" is a sexist and ageist trope . . . pulled directly from real-world myth and folktale. Ugly old women are evil monsters to be feared. Should D&D get rid of hags from this adventure and the game itself, or somehow revise them so they no longer represent problematic tropes? I haven't read Curse of Strahd for a while, but how is the hag character in the adventure portrayed? I don't have an opinion on what potential changes need to be made there, but the basic monster concept of the hag is definitely problematic. Do phylacteries even show up in Curse of Strahd? In D&D, they are usually associated with liches, not vampires. But again, it's been a while since I've read the adventure. You are right that the idea of a phylactery is appropriated from Jewish culture out-of-context and given a sinister tone. Should these be removed or revised from D&D? I don't have an opinion here either, but I think the conversation's worth having. Since WotC hasn't, to my knowledge, addressed, removed, or revised references to hags and phylacteries from Curse of Strahd and D&D at large . . . is Curse of Strahd Revamped "half-assed"? No. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The edits they've made are overdue and good, but that certainly doesn't mean more can't be done. We're all learning and trying to be better, without being considered failures, lazy, or uncaring. [/QUOTE]

Verification