Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 5823255" data-attributes="member: 8835">I agree with your thinking.  It supports my thesis from one of my blog articles.  That you can rant and rave about how some rule is against reality and have a broken game or you can find evidence that supports the rule.[MENTION=1231]Kaodi[/MENTION] doesn't want to accept the premise that Nobles are BETTER than peasants in somebody's D&D campaign because of his reasoning.There is equally valid reasoning that supports the premise that Nobles are BETTER.If you want to play in the D&D campaign, better get with the program.  Stop arguing with the game premise.If you have a personal issue that the game says Nobles are better than peasants, seperate that out from a problem with the game premise.  The problem is not the game and its internal logic doesn't need to be argued against.That doesn't disrespect your concern, but put it in the correct box.  You personally find the social structure in the game to be "wrong".  I can't argue with that (well I could, but I can't really change your mind or prove you are wrong).  That's OK.  If you can't accept the premise, bow out of the campaign.Personally, I don't see how the premise makes my PC a bad guy.  My PC is a noble. He is better than peasants.  He expects courtesy when being spoken to.  He may discipline a lessor who is discourteous but not to an extreme because he is not cruel.  He owns several house slaves who maintain his estate that he bought on auction from a cruel rival family that had been disgraced.  He treats them well and sees to their needs.  This PC is the very model of a "good" person within the definition of an imaginary feudal society.Last on the docket, though I could accept a strong feudal society premise for the campaign (heck, I assume its the standard, albeit watered down in strictness), I'd be wary of racial or gender discrimination as [MENTION=89822]Jon_Dahl[/MENTION] proposes.It's one thing to tell a player "you can be a peasant or a noble, but nobles are better than peasants" and the player can choose what social role they want to play from.  It's another thing to cross into even more personal issues of race and gender.  My default assumption is that more players want to play their own gender than not.  So following "historical" accuracy on the role of women diminishes the fun for female gamers.  I'm inclined to not stick with that for the sake of respecting my female players interests.For a bunch of white guys, exploring racism through characters like Drizz't is probably fine (I'm from a land where everybody's white.  racism is not something we're familiar with).  It strikes a bit more closely to home though for a black player, so maybe that's topic to stay away from out of respect for their real hardships.How does gender and race differ from social status?  Mostly because player's choice of social status doesn't carry as much personal weight.  A poor player is more likely to be just fine playing a Noble PC as a poor PC.  He may not like playing a female PC who is going to have lower stats, be insulted AND threatened with rape.</blockquote>

Verification