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="Giltonio_Santos" data-source="post: 8020763" data-attributes="member: 36874">I'm offended by the Chardalyn Dragon. At $79.99 it remembers me that some of the coolest things about this hobby are only for people who have a lot of money to spare, which is not my case, with a 1-yo son, an unemployed wife, and 1 USD being about 5.30 BRL right now. I think the existence of the Chardalyn Dragon as a product keeps remembering me that this is not an inclusive hobby, and I feel excluded by it existing and WizKids selling it as one of the "Icons of the Realms". Is my Realms campaign not iconic enough if I cannot afford one?Obviously, the above is not how I really feel about the Chardalyn Dragon (though I wish I could afford one without taking money from my boy's college fund), but I do know people who believe that this is a perfectly fine position to take about that product. If I took the time to discuss that seriously, I'm pretty sure many people would agree and remember me that I don't hate WizKids, I hate Capitalism, and there's no ethical consumption under capitalism, and that D&D is not an inclusive hobby because books are expensive and all (this is a real discussion on Brazilian Twitter, for those who doubt it).What do I mean with that? What I and many people here are saying, I believe, is that no amount of offense can set you free of the burden of rational argumentation. Here lies what I believe is an unsolvable conflict: some people here seem to believe that a statement about how one feels about something releases that person from that burden. I don't think that's true unless we're talking about religious testimonials.One example I'm looking at right now is Paizo's new adventure path. From what I read, it revolves around murder investigation in a big city, and characters happen to be law officers. People are offended about playing as law officers. It seems reasonable at first glance, but look: this is not about street police crushing riots or poor people being framed essentially for being poor, it's more of a Sherlock Holmes-style endeavor. Do I still believe that it's reasonable to be offended? No, I don't. You're free to vote with your money and even campaign online for changes to the module, but I don't believe Paizo should pay attention to your concerns. I don't believe they are reasonable.On the opposite side of the issue is WotC's drunken Vistani in Curse of Strahd. There you have a module that manages to incorporate pretty much every negative stereotype about Romani people that I have seen in real life. It's reasonable to be offended, to point that, and campaign for a serious review of the original text? I believe it is. I also must state that this, as well as my position on Paizo's new adventure path, is how I see the situation. I'm always willing to change my mind, as long as those trying to persuade me do so based on reasonable arguments.tl; dr: no amount of personal offense can free you of the burden of presenting reasonable arguments to be offended.</blockquote>

Verification