Okay, the like... 4 posts that came in while I was typing seem to fly in the face of what I was saying. You guys are great, and my post wasn't aimed at you guys.
Allow me to point out that if they remove from D&D absolutely 100% of absolutely everything that might possibly be offensive to someone then there will be absolutely nothing left.
Sposta, we're friends. We're both in the Loudmouth Club, which I will invoke the purpose of in this post.
This argument doesn't hold water. This is the same argument as saying "We can't send anyone to prison because everyone breaks the law sometimes, and then our system would collapse".
Everyone will be offended by something sometime, but that isn't an argument for the status quo. The more people that are offended by something, the more "valid" a concern that is to possibly need changing. If WotC hears from the community that they don't like the term "Madness" or whatever other language there is used in that system to describe what would be called "Mental Health Conditions" in the real world, and they hear it enough, they should consider changing it. However, if someone is offended that the D&D ruleset includes rules for weapons because they had a traumatic experience related to weapons, that one person will only be one voice asking for change. There have been multiple people in this thread and on other platforms that have expressed discomfort caused by this part of D&D, or by the language used to describe certain races in the game mirroring language used by white supremacists, and other places where they and a noticeable amount of others have been turned off/harmed by a specific part of the hobby.
The amount of people being offended matters. That's why this is a valid question to ask. That's why the language describing the Vistani has been changed in Curse of Strahd and why Van Richten's and Tasha's are taking a new viewpoint on the Vistani people. It's because the thing causing offense was noticeable enough to gain the attention of enough people for WotC to change it. That's how society progresses. That's why a lot of terms that were commonly in use a decade or two ago are now considered taboo by modern standards. Society marches on, and that doesn't mean that D&D will be destroyed because "everything can be offensive to anyone", it's that the community is deciding where to draw the line and when to move more problematic parts of the hobby across the line.
You’re right in as much as there are many better reasons to not send people to prison, such as:
So called correctional facilities don’t correct anything.
Prisons have been proven to make criminal activity even more likely after releasing people.
They literally drive people insane.
They are cruel.
They do more harm than good.
Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera….
People are offended that some folks draw parallels between IRL individuals with IRL mental disorders and the fictional “Madnesses” in D&D. So instead of reinforcing that harmful behavior by validating that idea, how about we not…?
This is no different than dealing with the behaviors of bullies.
Sure you can go run to teacher, but all that will serve to do is prove that their bullying genuinely hurts you and piss off the bullies. The result of that action is to paint a bigger target on your self than was already there.
You can go nuclear and escalate things so hard so far so fast that the idea of picking on you is legitimately terrifying to them. But then you get labeled as the bully.
Ot you can laugh harder and longer than the bullies and show them that the have no power.
Yous all wanna go run to teacher and get them to take Lovecraftean Madness out of D&D go ahead, it will only make things worse by encouraging the stigmatization of mental health disorders.
Me, I’ma rather point out how idiotic such an association is so they have no power over me.
Madness isn't Dementia / alstimers. Madness isn't autism. Madness isn't a real disease. Madness and Lunacy don't even come from real mental disorders. Madness is literally being so spiteful that you do things against your own interest to harm someone. Lunacy is being so self-obcessed that you look at your reflection until the moon rises.
Historically, "madness" and "lunacy" were applied to real-world things. That's where they come from. Those terms are pretty derogatory in the modern world (and, based on how we've historically treated people with mental illness, they were arguably derogatory in "their time" as well).
I believe people in this thread have already mentioned how the term "madness" spreads very negative stereotypes about mental illness.
Madness isn't Dementia / alstimers. Madness isn't autism. Madness isn't a real disease. Madness and Lunacy don't even come from real mental disorders. Madness is literally being so spiteful that you do things against your own interest to harm someone. Lunacy is being so self-obcessed that you look at your reflection until the moon rises.
Historically, "madness" and "lunacy" were applied to real-world things. That's where they come from. Those terms are pretty derogatory in the modern world (and, based on how we've historically treated people with mental illness, they were arguably derogatory in "their time" as well).
I believe people in this thread have already mentioned how the term "madness" spreads very negative stereotypes about mental illness.
Which ones? I'm serious. Dementia was a word used which meant Demons were in your head and was used to describe alstimers.
Madness specifically describes Achilles on his Troy slaughtering murder spree. Lunacy is geared at Narcessis.
Also, and I'm serious here: when was the last time anyone said, "Oh, that guy's mad." When talking about someone suffering from schizophrenia, or paranoia? Mad doesn't even mean crazy in the modern vernacular. Most people will only think of "grr".
This really seems like an example of Warner Brothers canceling Speedy Gonzalez in the early 2000's because a bunch of people said it would offend Mexicans without ever consulting a single Mexican... then they found out that everybody has a positive view of him and that he wasn't a hurtful steriotype. That's why he's back now.
I would just leave it to each gaming group, if someone at your table gets offended remove the offensive stuff and move on. If everything anyone finds offensive is removed from the game sooner or later a gamebook of rules will be 2 covers (Front/Back) with nothing in it.
I would just leave it to each gaming group, if someone at your table gets offended remove the offensive stuff and move on. If everything anyone finds offensive is removed from the game sooner or later a gamebook of rules will be 2 covers (Front/Back) with nothing in it.
How about no? How about if someone finds something offensive, they can move on from the table. Under no circumstances does any individual tell me how I run my table. Majority rules.
I would just leave it to each gaming group, if someone at your table gets offended remove the offensive stuff and move on. If everything anyone finds offensive is removed from the game sooner or later a gamebook of rules will be 2 covers (Front/Back) with nothing in it.
How about no? How about if someone finds something offensive, they can move on from the table. Under no circumstances does any individual tell me how I run my table. Majority rules.
So if two people find something offensive, you throw it out? Just not if it's only one?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Which ones? I'm serious. Dementia was a word used which meant Demons were in your head and was used to describe alstimers.
Madness specifically describes Achilles on his Troy slaughtering murder spree. Lunacy is geared at Narcessis.
Also, and I'm serious here: when was the last time anyone said, "Oh, that guy's mad." When talking about someone suffering from schizophrenia, or paranoia? Mad doesn't even mean crazy in the modern vernacular. Most people will only think of "grr".
"The term "lunatic" derives from the Latin word lunaticus, which originally referred mainly to epilepsy and madness, as diseases thought to be caused by the moon."
I would just leave it to each gaming group, if someone at your table gets offended remove the offensive stuff and move on. If everything anyone finds offensive is removed from the game sooner or later a gamebook of rules will be 2 covers (Front/Back) with nothing in it.
How about no? How about if someone finds something offensive, they can move on from the table. Under no circumstances does any individual tell me how I run my table. Majority rules.
So if two people find something offensive, you throw it out? Just not if it's only one?
Nope. Frankly, if It is my table, the offendees can choose to stay or walk. I will try to replace them, and if not possible, I end the game. If it is someone else's table, then it is up to that DM to decide what they allow at their table. But I have yet to run into a DM that has brought up this particular issue before. Is such a DM out there? Probably. But they must be few and far between.
I would just leave it to each gaming group, if someone at your table gets offended remove the offensive stuff and move on. If everything anyone finds offensive is removed from the game sooner or later a gamebook of rules will be 2 covers (Front/Back) with nothing in it.
How about no? How about if someone finds something offensive, they can move on from the table. Under no circumstances does any individual tell me how I run my table. Majority rules.
So if two people find something offensive, you throw it out? Just not if it's only one?
Nope. Frankly, if It is my table, the offendees can choose to stay or walk. I will try to replace them, and if not possible, I end the game. If it is someone else's table, then it is up to that DM to decide what they allow at their table. But I have yet to run into a DM that has brought up this particular issue before. Is such a DM out there? Probably. But they must be few and far between.
So when you say "majority rules", you consider yourself to be the majority.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I would just leave it to each gaming group, if someone at your table gets offended remove the offensive stuff and move on. If everything anyone finds offensive is removed from the game sooner or later a gamebook of rules will be 2 covers (Front/Back) with nothing in it.
How about no? How about if someone finds something offensive, they can move on from the table. Under no circumstances does any individual tell me how I run my table. Majority rules.
So if two people find something offensive, you throw it out? Just not if it's only one?
Nope. Frankly, if It is my table, the offendees can choose to stay or walk. I will try to replace them, and if not possible, I end the game. If it is someone else's table, then it is up to that DM to decide what they allow at their table. But I have yet to run into a DM that has brought up this particular issue before. Is such a DM out there? Probably. But they must be few and far between.
So when you say "majority rules", you consider yourself to be the majority.
Not just that, but Vince would rather have no table to play with than apologize for saying something offensive and stop using that offensive thing.
Wow. Just wow.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I would just leave it to each gaming group, if someone at your table gets offended remove the offensive stuff and move on. If everything anyone finds offensive is removed from the game sooner or later a gamebook of rules will be 2 covers (Front/Back) with nothing in it.
How about no? How about if someone finds something offensive, they can move on from the table. Under no circumstances does any individual tell me how I run my table. Majority rules.
So if two people find something offensive, you throw it out? Just not if it's only one?
Nope. Frankly, if It is my table, the offendees can choose to stay or walk. I will try to replace them, and if not possible, I end the game. If it is someone else's table, then it is up to that DM to decide what they allow at their table. But I have yet to run into a DM that has brought up this particular issue before. Is such a DM out there? Probably. But they must be few and far between.
So when you say "majority rules", you consider yourself to be the majority.
Fair enough.
Let me put it another way. Over the course of D&D life, I have played with dozens, maybe even a hundred people. Not a single one has ever brought up this issue. But if they did, at my table, and it became the bulk of the table, and I could not replace the players, yes, I would shut down the game.
I would just leave it to each gaming group, if someone at your table gets offended remove the offensive stuff and move on. If everything anyone finds offensive is removed from the game sooner or later a gamebook of rules will be 2 covers (Front/Back) with nothing in it.
How about no? How about if someone finds something offensive, they can move on from the table. Under no circumstances does any individual tell me how I run my table. Majority rules.
So if two people find something offensive, you throw it out? Just not if it's only one?
Nope. Frankly, if It is my table, the offendees can choose to stay or walk. I will try to replace them, and if not possible, I end the game. If it is someone else's table, then it is up to that DM to decide what they allow at their table. But I have yet to run into a DM that has brought up this particular issue before. Is such a DM out there? Probably. But they must be few and far between.
So when you say "majority rules", you consider yourself to be the majority.
Fair enough.
Let me put it another way. Over the course of D&D life, I have played with dozens, maybe even a hundred people. Not a single one has ever brought up this issue. But if they did, at my table, and it became the bulk of the table, and I could not replace the players, yes, I would shut down the game.
I suspect it's not just about this issue in particular though.
I would just leave it to each gaming group, if someone at your table gets offended remove the offensive stuff and move on. If everything anyone finds offensive is removed from the game sooner or later a gamebook of rules will be 2 covers (Front/Back) with nothing in it.
How about no? How about if someone finds something offensive, they can move on from the table. Under no circumstances does any individual tell me how I run my table. Majority rules.
So if two people find something offensive, you throw it out? Just not if it's only one?
Nope. Frankly, if It is my table, the offendees can choose to stay or walk. I will try to replace them, and if not possible, I end the game. If it is someone else's table, then it is up to that DM to decide what they allow at their table. But I have yet to run into a DM that has brought up this particular issue before. Is such a DM out there? Probably. But they must be few and far between.
So when you say "majority rules", you consider yourself to be the majority.
Not just that, but Vince would rather have no table to play with than apologize for saying something offensive and stop using that offensive thing.
Wow. Just wow.
You keep operating from the premise that as soon as a single person is "offended" by something, anything at all, everyone should respect that person's opinion and cater to them. Sorry, that is not how the world works. Or even if that single person is a group. That group can coalesce and operate in their own cocoon. No one is stopping them. But as soon as they try to impose their values on others, then trouble arises. Tails wagging dogs is a horrible way to run a society, and that is precisely what you are trying to do.
You keep operating from the premise that as soon as a single person is "offended" by something, anything at all, everyone should respect that person's opinion and cater to them. Sorry, that is not how the world works. Or even if that single person is a group. That group can coalesce and operate in their own cocoon. No one is stopping them. But as soon as they try to impose their values on others, then trouble arises. Tails wagging dogs is a horrible way to run a society, and that is precisely what you are trying to do.
Actually, no, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that you shouldn't dismiss someone else's offense because you find it silly. You shouldn't get yourself offended by someone else being offended. You shouldn't tell people that their experiences aren't real because you have never had them (especially when dealing with a situation where people with mental health issues are a marginalized minority).
You said that you would rather cancel a campaign than entertain the possibility that Vince the Omniscient could possibly be wrong about something while sitting in the DM seat. You said that "majority rules" and proceeded to say that it doesn't even matter if the majority of people at your table see the problem and you don't, you would rather maintain the position that you're right, they're wrong, and anyone that disagrees with you is a snowflake that wants to destroy D&D by taking away the monster-killing in a monster-killing game.
My position is that no one deserves to be treated as a liar until proven guilty of lying. No one deserves to have to prove that their experiences with mental health issues are real at the threat of being banned from a table because you don't want to see their point of view. No one deserves that, not me or my players, not you or your players, and not anyone else in the hobby. The point of this thread is that mental health issues are real and they are a touchy subject, and labeling them (or effects similar to them) as "Madness" could be problematic enough to warrant a change in the hobby.
And guess what? The change is already here. Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft is using Stress and Fear instead of Sanity and Madness. There are mechanical effects for them, too, and guidelines to have the best experience with them at your table with your players. You're dying on a hill where the battle has already been won. I'll be using the Stress and Fears features from Ravenloft, and I'm certain that it's not going to destroy D&D or take away the combat system.
tl;dr: The point is that no D&D is better than bad D&D. If the Madness system could make D&D "bad D&D" for enough individuals for WotC to take notice and make a directional change, that's good enough for me. Play how you want, but don't act like a dictator at your tables by declaring that you're always in the right and anyone that disagrees needs to be kicked out or keep their mouth shut. Growth comes from hearing constructive criticism and making changes based on their validity. Closing your ears to anyone else because they don't like the Madness system won't do you or your table any favors.
You keep operating from the premise that as soon as a single person is "offended" by something, anything at all, everyone should respect that person's opinion and cater to them. Sorry, that is not how the world works. Or even if that single person is a group. That group can coalesce and operate in their own cocoon. No one is stopping them. But as soon as they try to impose their values on others, then trouble arises. Tails wagging dogs is a horrible way to run a society, and that is precisely what you are trying to do.
This is so perplexing. I think a general rule of thumb when it comes to respecting other human beings is that yes, if something harms somebody else, you should stop doing that thing. It's not about a conflict of values. It's about common decency. If you're in my kitchen and you don't like pineapple on your pizza, the respectful thing to do is not force you to eat pineapple or kick you out. Nobody is trying to take away your lousy taste in pizza.
You keep operating from the premise that as soon as a single person is "offended" by something, anything at all, everyone should respect that person's opinion and cater to them. Sorry, that is not how the world works. Or even if that single person is a group. That group can coalesce and operate in their own cocoon. No one is stopping them. But as soon as they try to impose their values on others, then trouble arises. Tails wagging dogs is a horrible way to run a society, and that is precisely what you are trying to do.
This is so perplexing. I think a general rule of thumb when it comes to respecting other human beings is that yes, if something harms somebody else, you should stop doing that thing. It's not about a conflict of values. It's about common decency. If you're in my kitchen and you don't like pineapple on your pizza, the respectful thing to do is not force you to eat pineapple or kick you out. Nobody is trying to take away your lousy taste in pizza.
Surely, but if we simutaneously entertain the concept that ideas are harmful, then we place ourselves at the mercy of the committee of public safety. The very phrase a dangerous idea only finds a true home in the mouths of dictators and demagogues.
You keep operating from the premise that as soon as a single person is "offended" by something, anything at all, everyone should respect that person's opinion and cater to them. Sorry, that is not how the world works. Or even if that single person is a group. That group can coalesce and operate in their own cocoon. No one is stopping them. But as soon as they try to impose their values on others, then trouble arises. Tails wagging dogs is a horrible way to run a society, and that is precisely what you are trying to do.
This is so perplexing. I think a general rule of thumb when it comes to respecting other human beings is that yes, if something harms somebody else, you should stop doing that thing. It's not about a conflict of values. It's about common decency. If you're in my kitchen and you don't like pineapple on your pizza, the respectful thing to do is not force you to eat pineapple or kick you out. Nobody is trying to take away your lousy taste in pizza.
Surely, but if we simutaneously entertain the concept that ideas are harmful, then we place ourselves at the mercy of the committee of public safety. The very phrase a dangerous idea only finds a true home in the mouths of dictators and demagogues.
That's not really what anybody's talking about here though. Nobody's saying the notion of mental illness is harmful or dangerous. What's being pointed out is that how they are labeled can be offensive (and quite possibly harmful).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
You keep operating from the premise that as soon as a single person is "offended" by something, anything at all, everyone should respect that person's opinion and cater to them. Sorry, that is not how the world works. Or even if that single person is a group. That group can coalesce and operate in their own cocoon. No one is stopping them. But as soon as they try to impose their values on others, then trouble arises. Tails wagging dogs is a horrible way to run a society, and that is precisely what you are trying to do.
This is so perplexing. I think a general rule of thumb when it comes to respecting other human beings is that yes, if something harms somebody else, you should stop doing that thing. It's not about a conflict of values. It's about common decency. If you're in my kitchen and you don't like pineapple on your pizza, the respectful thing to do is not force you to eat pineapple or kick you out. Nobody is trying to take away your lousy taste in pizza.
Surely, but if we simutaneously entertain the concept that ideas are harmful, then we place ourselves at the mercy of the committee of public safety. The very phrase a dangerous idea only finds a true home in the mouths of dictators and demagogues.
. . . The idea that people with mental health conditions being crazy and dangerous is a dangerous idea that does real harm. The idea that indigenous people are inferior to white people is a dangerous idea that does real harm. The idea that some people are naturally lesser than any other person is a dangerous idea that does real harm.
Need I go on? Ideas can be dangerous. Some are legitimately dangerous, while others are the type that dictators dislike (that people are equal, lives matter, etc).
The "committee of public safety" in the real world is the whole of society. Society decides what ideas are harmful and what ones aren't. That's why the vast majority society agrees that the *** is bad, people with mental health issues deserve to be treated like people, and that systems that give the people the power are better than those that give specific individuals/families the power.
Anyway, this is getting out of the realm of discussion appropriate to this thread. Basically, society as a whole determines all of this, not individuals. Not me, not you, not Vince, not Heartofjuyomk2, and not any other individual person.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Okay, the like... 4 posts that came in while I was typing seem to fly in the face of what I was saying. You guys are great, and my post wasn't aimed at you guys.
You’re right in as much as there are many better reasons to not send people to prison, such as:
People are offended that some folks draw parallels between IRL individuals with IRL mental disorders and the fictional “Madnesses” in D&D. So instead of reinforcing that harmful behavior by validating that idea, how about we not…?
This is no different than dealing with the behaviors of bullies.
Yous all wanna go run to teacher and get them to take Lovecraftean Madness out of D&D go ahead, it will only make things worse by encouraging the stigmatization of mental health disorders.
Me, I’ma rather point out how idiotic such an association is so they have no power over me.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Historically, "madness" and "lunacy" were applied to real-world things. That's where they come from. Those terms are pretty derogatory in the modern world (and, based on how we've historically treated people with mental illness, they were arguably derogatory in "their time" as well).
I believe people in this thread have already mentioned how the term "madness" spreads very negative stereotypes about mental illness.
Which ones? I'm serious. Dementia was a word used which meant Demons were in your head and was used to describe alstimers.
Madness specifically describes Achilles on his Troy slaughtering murder spree. Lunacy is geared at Narcessis.
Also, and I'm serious here: when was the last time anyone said, "Oh, that guy's mad." When talking about someone suffering from schizophrenia, or paranoia? Mad doesn't even mean crazy in the modern vernacular. Most people will only think of "grr".
This really seems like an example of Warner Brothers canceling Speedy Gonzalez in the early 2000's because a bunch of people said it would offend Mexicans without ever consulting a single Mexican... then they found out that everybody has a positive view of him and that he wasn't a hurtful steriotype. That's why he's back now.
I would just leave it to each gaming group, if someone at your table gets offended remove the offensive stuff and move on. If everything anyone finds offensive is removed from the game sooner or later a gamebook of rules will be 2 covers (Front/Back) with nothing in it.
How about no? How about if someone finds something offensive, they can move on from the table. Under no circumstances does any individual tell me how I run my table. Majority rules.
So if two people find something offensive, you throw it out? Just not if it's only one?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Well, if you really need me to do the research for you... start with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunatic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity is also worth a read. "Insanity, madness, and craziness are terms that describe a spectrum of individual and group behaviors that are characterized by certain abnormal mental or behavioral patterns."
Nope. Frankly, if It is my table, the offendees can choose to stay or walk. I will try to replace them, and if not possible, I end the game. If it is someone else's table, then it is up to that DM to decide what they allow at their table. But I have yet to run into a DM that has brought up this particular issue before. Is such a DM out there? Probably. But they must be few and far between.
So when you say "majority rules", you consider yourself to be the majority.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Not just that, but Vince would rather have no table to play with than apologize for saying something offensive and stop using that offensive thing.
Wow. Just wow.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Fair enough.
Let me put it another way. Over the course of D&D life, I have played with dozens, maybe even a hundred people. Not a single one has ever brought up this issue. But if they did, at my table, and it became the bulk of the table, and I could not replace the players, yes, I would shut down the game.
I suspect it's not just about this issue in particular though.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
You keep operating from the premise that as soon as a single person is "offended" by something, anything at all, everyone should respect that person's opinion and cater to them. Sorry, that is not how the world works. Or even if that single person is a group. That group can coalesce and operate in their own cocoon. No one is stopping them. But as soon as they try to impose their values on others, then trouble arises. Tails wagging dogs is a horrible way to run a society, and that is precisely what you are trying to do.
Actually, no, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that you shouldn't dismiss someone else's offense because you find it silly. You shouldn't get yourself offended by someone else being offended. You shouldn't tell people that their experiences aren't real because you have never had them (especially when dealing with a situation where people with mental health issues are a marginalized minority).
You said that you would rather cancel a campaign than entertain the possibility that Vince the Omniscient could possibly be wrong about something while sitting in the DM seat. You said that "majority rules" and proceeded to say that it doesn't even matter if the majority of people at your table see the problem and you don't, you would rather maintain the position that you're right, they're wrong, and anyone that disagrees with you is a snowflake that wants to destroy D&D by taking away the monster-killing in a monster-killing game.
My position is that no one deserves to be treated as a liar until proven guilty of lying. No one deserves to have to prove that their experiences with mental health issues are real at the threat of being banned from a table because you don't want to see their point of view. No one deserves that, not me or my players, not you or your players, and not anyone else in the hobby. The point of this thread is that mental health issues are real and they are a touchy subject, and labeling them (or effects similar to them) as "Madness" could be problematic enough to warrant a change in the hobby.
And guess what? The change is already here. Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft is using Stress and Fear instead of Sanity and Madness. There are mechanical effects for them, too, and guidelines to have the best experience with them at your table with your players. You're dying on a hill where the battle has already been won. I'll be using the Stress and Fears features from Ravenloft, and I'm certain that it's not going to destroy D&D or take away the combat system.
tl;dr: The point is that no D&D is better than bad D&D. If the Madness system could make D&D "bad D&D" for enough individuals for WotC to take notice and make a directional change, that's good enough for me. Play how you want, but don't act like a dictator at your tables by declaring that you're always in the right and anyone that disagrees needs to be kicked out or keep their mouth shut. Growth comes from hearing constructive criticism and making changes based on their validity. Closing your ears to anyone else because they don't like the Madness system won't do you or your table any favors.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
This is so perplexing. I think a general rule of thumb when it comes to respecting other human beings is that yes, if something harms somebody else, you should stop doing that thing. It's not about a conflict of values. It's about common decency. If you're in my kitchen and you don't like pineapple on your pizza, the respectful thing to do is not force you to eat pineapple or kick you out. Nobody is trying to take away your lousy taste in pizza.
Surely, but if we simutaneously entertain the concept that ideas are harmful, then we place ourselves at the mercy of the committee of public safety. The very phrase a dangerous idea only finds a true home in the mouths of dictators and demagogues.
That's not really what anybody's talking about here though. Nobody's saying the notion of mental illness is harmful or dangerous. What's being pointed out is that how they are labeled can be offensive (and quite possibly harmful).
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
. . . The idea that people with mental health conditions being crazy and dangerous is a dangerous idea that does real harm. The idea that indigenous people are inferior to white people is a dangerous idea that does real harm. The idea that some people are naturally lesser than any other person is a dangerous idea that does real harm.
Need I go on? Ideas can be dangerous. Some are legitimately dangerous, while others are the type that dictators dislike (that people are equal, lives matter, etc).
The "committee of public safety" in the real world is the whole of society. Society decides what ideas are harmful and what ones aren't. That's why the vast majority society agrees that the *** is bad, people with mental health issues deserve to be treated like people, and that systems that give the people the power are better than those that give specific individuals/families the power.
Anyway, this is getting out of the realm of discussion appropriate to this thread. Basically, society as a whole determines all of this, not individuals. Not me, not you, not Vince, not Heartofjuyomk2, and not any other individual person.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms