Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9807160" data-attributes="member: 6790260">More importantly the "political correctness" thing is often used to guise over some...I mean pretty not-great positions?Sapient beings getting depicted as Pure Evil is kind of a gross thought, because that's literally how several cultures have (sometimes literally) demonized and vilified populations they wanted to oppress or exterminate. It's a thing we are dealing with right now in politics.Women being depicted as inherently inferior to men in some areas and inherently superior to them in others is both scientifically inaccurate (yes, the center points are separate, but the bell curves are so broad that they completely--and heavily--overlap, with there being plenty of women who are stronger than a large portion of men, for example). So like, sure that's "politically correct", but it's also factually correct, and the original thing was straight-up Father Knows Best sexism in both directions.And it's not like you can't have Pure Evil villains still. Undead things, especially mature vampires who prey on others by creating spawn (see: Astarion and his "master" in BG3), are a great source. Illithids too, again from BG3. You can also have evil factions, which can be much more interesting, but can also be nice and simple if you desire. The Zhentarim are pretty much exclusively evil and it's not really a problem to say "if you joined the Zhents you're a bad person", for example.So like...if this is "politically correct", I'm not seeing what the problem is, [USER=6684958]@bloodtide[/USER].And not just that. Even works that claim to strive for historical accuracy almost always include really, really, really inaccurate crap, sometimes with significant implications. That Vikings show, for example? It features the whole "Norse undercut" hairstyle....which is strongly associated with some pretty unpleasant, actively racist groups IRL...and which we have zero evidence that it was ever used by Vikings. It's 100% a modern insertion of something fake and a-historical solely to fit the in-our-heads visual aesthetic, just like the old "Viking helmets" were. (Though at least the fictitious horned helmets have the tiniest shred of positive spin, because the Vikings absolutely were the kind of crazy idiots who would willingly wear equipment that was defensively bad for them solely to show off or for the "honor" of it or whatever, even though they did not do that specific thing.)Completely agreed.What is this list, [USER=6684958]@bloodtide[/USER]? What are the things you allege to be "political correct[ness]" gone mad? I'd kinda like to evaluate them for myself rather than going with "trust me bro, they're Bad because they're <insert buzzword>". Given you have, many many many times, dismissed others' arguments for being "word salad", it's more than a little funny to see you invoke "politically correct" as though that were enough of an argument all on its own.As it is, all I have is word salad, and it isn't even all that good of a salad.</blockquote>

Verification