Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DinoInDisguise" data-source="post: 9828812" data-attributes="member: 7045806">I wonder. Are the DMs and players morally different? If you humor me, and we assume the answer is no, a DM refusing a non-standard race and a player refusing a standard race are structurally identical positions. Neither is more reasonable than the other, neither is more unreasonable. But this discussion seems to be trying to make a distinction. When we say “the DM should compromise” or we say “the player should compromise,” aren’t we really just saying “the role I sympathize with less should compromise?” Or "The role who's agency I value less should compromise?"But that's weird to me. It's weird because compromise cannot be the goal. For bad compromise is no better than no compromise. So the goal has to be something else, perhaps compatibility. But compatibility isn't beholden to one role acquiescing to the demands of another. Not at all. It requires both sides have the same goal, the same end state. It's a higher bar than compromise.Yet, in this discussion we are pretending that there is a moral difference between the roles, and that one role owes the other a compromise.  That the onus of creating compatibility lays at the feet of one role, and not the other. A truly strange way to say, "I prefer this role."So I'm curious. Is there a moral difference between the roles? Or are we confessing which role we prefer under the guise of compromise?</blockquote>

Verification