Its not only the good and evil traits. They're also changing vices. In CoS
When you visit the vistani camp there will be no alcohol or drunk-ness. You will instead encounter 'Generic Guarded Camp A'.
Are we going to remove everything from the game that's harsher than PG-13.. actually i think Sea of Thieves is rated T+ (which means 10 years old +) for use of Alcohol. It's like we can't handle adult themes or imperfect societies. Are we really that fragile and need watered down source material because a group of people love to party?
The destination or eventual conclusion of this thought process is that you're expecting players to be immersed in a perfect world with perfect societies and every group of bad guys is the same diverse modge-podge of every race. That scene from LotR where they enter the old elven tunnel and attacked by Goblins.. no more! Can't do it! Because Goblins are 'Humanoids'. Are we going to make Dwarves stop loving ale too? There's legit real world humans who are dwarves and were made fun of for centuries as unlicensed 'natural' fools. To be mocked and laughed at. Guess its pretty rood to make dwarves have an alcohol vice. Next up is Druids, we use the term Tree-Hugger here in the real world as a derogatory term against those kinds of people. Guess we need to remove Druids from the game.
Grow. Up. And learn to handle themes that are in a fictional world. Now that I've typed this out it... it feels almost identical to the discussions had about gaming over the past decade about guns, violence, drugs, and etc in gaming. You'll hear one side yelling "Guns in games encourage real world violence!". And the answer to that is..
Do not mix fantasy and real world.
edit: Failed to add what camp I was talking about in the spoiler.
Do not create in game cultures that closely resemble stereotypes of real world cultures and then whine when people complain about you doing so. If someone did an obvious negative parody of you personally in advertisements for some commercial product, it would be those having done so that are mixing fantasy and the real world, not those complaining about it.
Societies are imperfect, and should be treated as such, we're not complaining if people don't like it (at least i'm not) If people did a negative parody of me i'd probably laugh at it. But certain societies promote different things and we need to recognize and accept that. Most people don't believe that eating other people is ok, but cannibals do, for example, im against cannibalism, but it is a societal thing and taking it out of a game really does take away from it.
So the exact same stereotyping used to justify literally the real world mass slaughter of that particular ethnic group is something you would just laugh off? Study some history before you comment on it.
No, I just don't take things to heart, now if they were doing it to an entire group of ppl, or just someone who i love, then i have a problem with it.... Regardless I do think that if you take away too much of the differences between the different dnd races, then why not just pick a human, but i like creating characters that are unusual and finding creative ways to get around the non-helpful character bonuses (like a gnome barbarian, or a dwarf monk who has negative wisdom and wears armor) you'd have thought that they'd be bad characters, but you'd be surprised by how great they actually turned out because of the creative workarounds.
Anyway I do not think it's okay to make negative stereotypes about entire races, i misunderstood your premise and thought just if ppl were making fun of me. obviously if you look at almost any group you'll find that the people are all mostly good, with a few bad apples in the mix, and that we're all pretty much the same, that being said, we should celebrate and respect ours, and other's different because if everybody was the same that would suck.
Maybe WotC should remove ASI mods from race and add them to classes instead like say these: Barbarian +2 Str, +1 Con, Fighter +2 Str or Dex, +1 Con or Int, Rogue +2 Dex, +1 to Cha or Int and so on. Then just leave Darkvision, Magic resistance or abilities to races, maybe even skills which could be made a choice for the player to make so the Half-orc chooses from say Intimidation, Survival and such considering there mode of living isn't on par with say the human from Waterdeep or the High-elf from Silvermoon. These could be cultural skills based on the way a certain race usually live in game, leaving some potentially odd skills in for the not normal growing up for the half-orc that did grow up in Waterdeep. give a skill package choice like they did for the Orcs in Explorers Guide to Wildmount which I really liked how they were done.
Personally more than race, i think backstory needs to have a bigger role in deciding these things, obviously the races should still get bonuses, but maybe the background could add some bonuses, I've played around with that before, but you kinda need a weak DM for that.
like a Outlander could get +1 STR and DEX on top of the +1 STR , the Grappler feat and large size for being a Dire Human Ranger.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
Maybe WotC should remove ASI mods from race and add them to classes instead like say these: Barbarian +2 Str, +1 Con, Fighter +2 Str or Dex, +1 Con or Int, Rogue +2 Dex, +1 to Cha or Int and so on. Then just leave Darkvision, Magic resistance or abilities to races, maybe even skills which could be made a choice for the player to make so the Half-orc chooses from say Intimidation, Survival and such considering there mode of living isn't on par with say the human from Waterdeep or the High-elf from Silvermoon. These could be cultural skills based on the way a certain race usually live in game, leaving some potentially odd skills in for the not normal growing up for the half-orc that did grow up in Waterdeep. give a skill package choice like they did for the Orcs in Explorers Guide to Wildmount which I really liked how they were done.
I don't think this would be much better. I think they should make it so the player gets to choose it, and they're not forced to it based on class, either. If they get the choice, them choosing to screw themselves stat-wise is their choice, independent of race.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
D&D races (in my opinion of course) are supposed to represent the outliers. The fringe and extreme examples - thus they are playable. A race provides a base (as does class, subclass, background) from which one can build a character. Someone or something that is supposed to be an extreme example. An outlier. A hero. A champion. A villain. The thing that stands out from the common and normal folk.
D&D PCs are supposed to be the outliers. The races should be pretty standard, but still strange to different races.
On that note, in real life (which should never be a base of accuracy/viability for a fantasy game), we need to take the outliers. The gross examples of difference. In that case, humans at the extreme edges are no where near physically close. Brian Shaw is a Half-Orc. As is the entire cast of world's strongest men. They are humans just like you and I, yet are not even remotely close in a physical sense - size, power, strength, etc.) They'd seem like a different race entirely. Not-human. Perhaps that's how the PHB races should be seen. And if so, there is exact examples of extreme physical difference in real life.
And, so this argument can be turned against you. If the characters are supposed to be the outliers (which they normally are) shouldn't they be able to lie outside of the normal racial modifiers that race has?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
D&D races (in my opinion of course) are supposed to represent the outliers. The fringe and extreme examples - thus they are playable. A race provides a base (as does class, subclass, background) from which one can build a character. Someone or something that is supposed to be an extreme example. An outlier. A hero. A champion. A villain. The thing that stands out from the common and normal folk.
D&D PCs are supposed to be the outliers. The races should be pretty standard, but still strange to different races.
On that note, in real life (which should never be a base of accuracy/viability for a fantasy game), we need to take the outliers. The gross examples of difference. In that case, humans at the extreme edges are no where near physically close. Brian Shaw is a Half-Orc. As is the entire cast of world's strongest men. They are humans just like you and I, yet are not even remotely close in a physical sense - size, power, strength, etc.) They'd seem like a different race entirely. Not-human. Perhaps that's how the PHB races should be seen. And if so, there is exact examples of extreme physical difference in real life.
And, so this argument can be turned against you. If the characters are supposed to be the outliers (which they normally are) shouldn't they be able to lie outside of the normal racial modifiers that race has?
I mean yes, but an unusually strong horse will be much stronger than an unusually strong pygmy mule. Either way Nurture has more effect than nature, a wild animal is stronger than a domestic one 9/10x
I mean yes, but an unusually strong horse will be much stronger than an unusually strong pygmy mule. Either way Nurture has more effect than nature, a wild animal is stronger than a domestic one 9/10x
In D&D terms, the races aren't animals, really. Also, 9 times out of 10 doesn't apply to PCs, as they are meant to be the outliers. And, sure, in your analogy a Kobold is a pygmy mule, and an orc is a normal horse. We already have features that echo that disparity. Attacks with heavy weapons are made at disadvantage by small and tiny creatures. Orcs, Goliaths, Firbolgs, Bugbears, and other large races have Powerful Build, which lets them lift more.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I'm asking honestly, because I'll admit that I may be extremely mis-informed. When you and others talk about "problems", is there an actual problem? Like, to most/many? To all? Obviously, there's things about D&D that can be found problematic at every table, but what are we talking about here? All of the circles I walk in that are into this game have never brought up any issues. Are we naive? Wrong? Shortsighted? Uncaring? Stupid? Is it a non-issue for most or are we the anomaly here? I know it'd be impossible to be accurate here but if we took a vote of all D&D players (or 5e to be more specific), about "is race and portayal of such in D&D a problem?" would more than 50% of the tens (or hundreds) of millions of D&D players out there vote yes? Less than that? How many would vote "I never noticed" or "it's a non-issue at my table."
I'm not trying to fix anything or change anyone or anything because for my table, I know we are good as it all stands. If however, this is truly a big deal, I won't be so quick to overlook discussion on it.
It's a problem that Vistani are depicted as drunks. It's a problem that Chultans are described to be exotic, and much of the other language in ToA describing them is not inclusive. It's a problem that Orcs are described in the Monster Manual in the same way that racists have described black people and indigenous people for centuries.
Also, the people who wanted to get rid of slavery and those that supported the civil rights movement wanted a change that would help a minority of people in the US. Sure, it may not effect a ton of people, but that doesn't mean it's not a worthwhile change. I don't think there are any polls on this, and WotC would probably have to do one for it to be accurate. Even if it showed most people weren't effected by this doesn't mean it's not worth changing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
It's a problem that Orcs are described in the Monster Manual in the same way that racists have described black people and indigenous people for centuries.
Unless you can definitively demonstrate how Orcs were originally interpreted by their initial creative source to be a racist stereotype, there's no leg to stand on here.
Not trying to single out any individual or individuals here. What follows is not meant as personal, but for all to read and think about.
"For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men–"
from Julius Caesar, Marc Antony's speech, Act 3, Scene 2, by William Shakespeare.
It is not enough to simply believe one is a good person, or that one does no harm. The things we do and say can and do affect others. Lines between fantasy and reality get blurred all the time and get misused all the time, sometimes intentionally but often, even in some of the most extreme, most horrific cases in history, unintentionally, with those committing the crimes, engaging in active persecution, even mass slaughter really believing they are in the right, that this 'scourge' must be wiped from the face of the Earth.
Do yourselves a favour and read up on newspaper headlines from the 1920's and 1930's, not just those from Germany, but those from the rest of Europe too, including the UK and America. Read the comments regarding the 'threat' of the Jews, of the Romani, of Africans. Now read modern right wing headlines regarding refugees and various ethnic groups deemed 'threats' today.
Read these and understand, it is not a question of confusing fantasy worlds and reality. It is a question of building fantasy worlds in which such real world delusions are fully institutionalized, where there are races that really are 'evil trying to subjugate us all' or 'corrupt us' or 'destroy us.' Think on that and ask yourselves, "When that is the model being used, what positive benefit does it have? What does it bring that makes anything a better story? Just easier storytelling?"
Be the proverbial better people, the better DM's, the better players. It is ok for there to be racism in campaigns. It is also ok for there to be culture clashes, wars, crime and all sorts of other bad things in campaigns. However please, please go deeper than 'Because Evil' or 'Because Gods' or worst of all "yeah, but it's funny to have races with inherent negative social traits, such as a race of drunken refugees and treat them like they deserve their fate (who also happen to parallel a stereotype of a very specific and often persecuted RL ethnic group)." Build your worlds organically and put some actual thought into them rather than using shallow, arguably dangerous stereotypes.
Don't merely declare yourselves 'honourable men' and therefore conclude that there cannot be any problem with anything you do. Actually put some thought into your words and actions.
Again, this is not meant as any insult to anyone, nor as targeting any particular groups or political parties. Nor is it meant as a blanket defence of any given political policies, organizations or political parties. The Left Wing should also think deeply when choosing their words and actions too.
Can we not pull politics into this discussion? Also you make a good point.
I'm Just gonna finish with this... Should we think deeper about why certain things happen, absolutely, don't just blindly go about it or you will become someone's pawn.
In the end, You need villains, Dragons, Goblins, Orcs, Evil Wizards, etc.because they make good villains, because thats what they were designed for, to be villains, It wouldn't feel right for them being the good guys cuz they just aren't. If it was an evil player's adventure, then the veiws of morality would be heavily twisted and the orcs may or may not come out as the good guys, but based on their morals (not just because theyre orcs) i cannot see them as good guys.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
It's a problem that Orcs are described in the Monster Manual in the same way that racists have described black people and indigenous people for centuries.
Unless you can definitively demonstrate how Orcs were originally interpreted by their initial creative source to be a racist stereotype, there's no leg to stand on here.
Well let's see... Tolkien described Orcs as "the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol types" and many of them as using Middle Eastern style weaponry and are described as universally evil.
With respect to Humans, the dark skinned 'Easterlings' and even darker skinned 'Southrons' are described as being corrupted by Morgoth and universally evil. The skin colour of the tribal Woses is not mentioned, but they are hunted by the Rohirrim as animals, with no questions asked. Even evil regular humans such as Bill Ferney are described as having Dunderling blood as an explanation for his evil-ness.
And before you say 'But there was an evil god involved,' one of the most common accusations in the world is 'They do not follow our god so they must be evil.' This line is often spouted even by Atheists on the theory that because 'their' philosophy is different, 'they' must all be hostile.
can i get a source, and page of where he actually wrote this, i'd like to see it firsthand.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
It's a problem that Orcs are described in the Monster Manual in the same way that racists have described black people and indigenous people for centuries.
Unless you can definitively demonstrate how Orcs were originally interpreted by their initial creative source to be a racist stereotype, there's no leg to stand on here.
Well let's see... Tolkien described Orcs as "the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol types" and many of them as using Middle Eastern style weaponry and are described as universally evil.
With respect to Humans, the dark skinned 'Easterlings' and even darker skinned 'Southrons' are described as being corrupted by Morgoth and universally evil. The skin colour of the tribal Woses is not mentioned, but they are hunted by the Rohirrim as animals, with no questions asked. Even evil regular humans such as Bill Ferney are described as having Dunderling blood as an explanation for his evil-ness.
And before you say 'But there was an evil god involved,' one of the most common accusations in the world is 'They do not follow our god so they must be evil.' This line is often spouted even by Atheists on the theory that because 'their' philosophy is different, 'they' must all be hostile.
can i get a source, and page of where he actually wrote this, i'd like to see it firsthand.
Had to also look that one up. Seems to be from this source:
And before you say 'But there was an evil god involved,' one of the most common accusations in the world is 'They do not follow our god so they must be evil.' This line is often spouted even by Atheists on the theory that because 'their' philosophy is different, 'they' must all be hostile.
And before you say 'But there was an evil god involved,' one of the most common accusations in the world is 'They do not follow our god so they must be evil.' This line is often spouted even by Atheists on the theory that because 'their' philosophy is different, 'they' must all be hostile.
No, not really. Not at all, in fact.
Then feel lucky, that you never met extremist atheists that call everyone follwing a religion or believe in one or more gods a dilusional moron.
It's a problem that Orcs are described in the Monster Manual in the same way that racists have described black people and indigenous people for centuries.
Unless you can definitively demonstrate how Orcs were originally interpreted by their initial creative source to be a racist stereotype, there's no leg to stand on here.
Well let's see... Tolkien described Orcs as "the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol types" and many of them as using Middle Eastern style weaponry and are described as universally evil.
With respect to Humans, the dark skinned 'Easterlings' and even darker skinned 'Southrons' are described as being corrupted by Morgoth and universally evil. The skin colour of the tribal Woses is not mentioned, but they are hunted by the Rohirrim as animals, with no questions asked. Even evil regular humans such as Bill Ferney are described as having Dunderling blood as an explanation for his evil-ness.
And before you say 'But there was an evil god involved,' one of the most common accusations in the world is 'They do not follow our god so they must be evil.' This line is often spouted even by Atheists on the theory that because 'their' philosophy is different, 'they' must all be hostile.
can i get a source, and page of where he actually wrote this, i'd like to see it firsthand.
Had to also look that one up. Seems to be from this source:
I'm not sure if he meant to be racist, after all they were different times, what i am going to say is, he definitely should not have said those things, but im not gonna stop liking his work over some comments i don't agree with.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
And before you say 'But there was an evil god involved,' one of the most common accusations in the world is 'They do not follow our god so they must be evil.' This line is often spouted even by Atheists on the theory that because 'their' philosophy is different, 'they' must all be hostile.
No, not really. Not at all, in fact.
Then feel lucky, that you never met extremist atheists that call everyone follwing a religion or believe in one or more gods a dilusional moron.
Saying that somone is a "Dilussional moron" is not the same as saying that 'They do not follow our god so they must be evil.' which was the statement I was commenting on.
I still think orcs and drow are inherently “good” in the same way humans are, and like humans should only be depicted as behaving in an “evil” manner when they’re being corrupted or led astray by a powerful dark entity (or even a mortal leader) which has chosen evil of its own free will.
What do you guys think? Would that help resolve the issue?
And before you say 'But there was an evil god involved,' one of the most common accusations in the world is 'They do not follow our god so they must be evil.' This line is often spouted even by Atheists on the theory that because 'their' philosophy is different, 'they' must all be hostile.
No, not really. Not at all, in fact.
Then feel lucky, that you never met extremist atheists that call everyone follwing a religion or believe in one or more gods a dilusional moron.
Saying that somone is a "Dilussional moron" is not the same as saying that 'They do not follow our god so they must be evil.' which was the statement I was commenting on.
The argument in full is 'Our culture has Judeo-Christian roots that they oppose, therefore they are a threat to our way of life.' That is not the same as 'They are heathens/infidels/God says they are bad/etc.' 'Often' was referring to generally, though, rather than often by atheists. I should have had a comma in there to make that more clear.
That wasn't the argument you were making in the post I replied to. Either way, implying that atheists have a religious belief that they use to demonize other people is simply a flawed statement since atheism is per definition the absence of religious beliefs.
And before you say 'But there was an evil god involved,' one of the most common accusations in the world is 'They do not follow our god so they must be evil.' This line is often spouted even by Atheists on the theory that because 'their' philosophy is different, 'they' must all be hostile.
No, not really. Not at all, in fact.
Then feel lucky, that you never met extremist atheists that call everyone follwing a religion or believe in one or more gods a dilusional moron.
Saying that somone is a "Dilussional moron" is not the same as saying that 'They do not follow our god so they must be evil.' which was the statement I was commenting on.
The argument in full is 'Our culture has Judeo-Christian roots that they oppose, therefore they are a threat to our way of life.' That is not the same as 'They are heathens/infidels/God says they are bad/etc.' 'Often' was referring to generally, though, rather than often by atheists. I should have had a comma in there to make that more clear.
That wasn't the argument you were making in the post I replied to. Either way, implying that atheists have a religious belief that they use to demonize other people is simply a flawed statement since atheism is per definition the absence of religious beliefs.
Every -ism can be a dogma, that can be used to make someone appear superior to others. Does not need to be a religion to be abused. That is what I was stating, and that is how quite some atheist give themselves.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No, I just don't take things to heart, now if they were doing it to an entire group of ppl, or just someone who i love, then i have a problem with it.... Regardless I do think that if you take away too much of the differences between the different dnd races, then why not just pick a human, but i like creating characters that are unusual and finding creative ways to get around the non-helpful character bonuses (like a gnome barbarian, or a dwarf monk who has negative wisdom and wears armor) you'd have thought that they'd be bad characters, but you'd be surprised by how great they actually turned out because of the creative workarounds.
Anyway I do not think it's okay to make negative stereotypes about entire races, i misunderstood your premise and thought just if ppl were making fun of me. obviously if you look at almost any group you'll find that the people are all mostly good, with a few bad apples in the mix, and that we're all pretty much the same, that being said, we should celebrate and respect ours, and other's different because if everybody was the same that would suck.
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
Maybe WotC should remove ASI mods from race and add them to classes instead like say these: Barbarian +2 Str, +1 Con, Fighter +2 Str or Dex, +1 Con or Int, Rogue +2 Dex, +1 to Cha or Int and so on. Then just leave Darkvision, Magic resistance or abilities to races, maybe even skills which could be made a choice for the player to make so the Half-orc chooses from say Intimidation, Survival and such considering there mode of living isn't on par with say the human from Waterdeep or the High-elf from Silvermoon. These could be cultural skills based on the way a certain race usually live in game, leaving some potentially odd skills in for the not normal growing up for the half-orc that did grow up in Waterdeep. give a skill package choice like they did for the Orcs in Explorers Guide to Wildmount which I really liked how they were done.
Personally more than race, i think backstory needs to have a bigger role in deciding these things, obviously the races should still get bonuses, but maybe the background could add some bonuses, I've played around with that before, but you kinda need a weak DM for that.
like a Outlander could get +1 STR and DEX on top of the +1 STR , the Grappler feat and large size for being a Dire Human Ranger.
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
I don't think this would be much better. I think they should make it so the player gets to choose it, and they're not forced to it based on class, either. If they get the choice, them choosing to screw themselves stat-wise is their choice, independent of race.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
D&D PCs are supposed to be the outliers. The races should be pretty standard, but still strange to different races.
And, so this argument can be turned against you. If the characters are supposed to be the outliers (which they normally are) shouldn't they be able to lie outside of the normal racial modifiers that race has?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I mean yes, but an unusually strong horse will be much stronger than an unusually strong pygmy mule. Either way Nurture has more effect than nature, a wild animal is stronger than a domestic one 9/10x
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
In D&D terms, the races aren't animals, really. Also, 9 times out of 10 doesn't apply to PCs, as they are meant to be the outliers. And, sure, in your analogy a Kobold is a pygmy mule, and an orc is a normal horse. We already have features that echo that disparity. Attacks with heavy weapons are made at disadvantage by small and tiny creatures. Orcs, Goliaths, Firbolgs, Bugbears, and other large races have Powerful Build, which lets them lift more.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
It's a problem that Vistani are depicted as drunks. It's a problem that Chultans are described to be exotic, and much of the other language in ToA describing them is not inclusive. It's a problem that Orcs are described in the Monster Manual in the same way that racists have described black people and indigenous people for centuries.
Also, the people who wanted to get rid of slavery and those that supported the civil rights movement wanted a change that would help a minority of people in the US. Sure, it may not effect a ton of people, but that doesn't mean it's not a worthwhile change. I don't think there are any polls on this, and WotC would probably have to do one for it to be accurate. Even if it showed most people weren't effected by this doesn't mean it's not worth changing.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Unless you can definitively demonstrate how Orcs were originally interpreted by their initial creative source to be a racist stereotype, there's no leg to stand on here.
Can we not pull politics into this discussion? Also you make a good point.
I'm Just gonna finish with this... Should we think deeper about why certain things happen, absolutely, don't just blindly go about it or you will become someone's pawn.
In the end, You need villains, Dragons, Goblins, Orcs, Evil Wizards, etc.because they make good villains, because thats what they were designed for, to be villains, It wouldn't feel right for them being the good guys cuz they just aren't. If it was an evil player's adventure, then the veiws of morality would be heavily twisted and the orcs may or may not come out as the good guys, but based on their morals (not just because theyre orcs) i cannot see them as good guys.
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
can i get a source, and page of where he actually wrote this, i'd like to see it firsthand.
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
Had to also look that one up. Seems to be from this source:
J.R.R. Tolkien; Humphrey Carpenter, Christopher Tolkien (eds.), The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter 210, (undated, written June 1958)
No, not really. Not at all, in fact.
Then feel lucky, that you never met extremist atheists that call everyone follwing a religion or believe in one or more gods a dilusional moron.
I'm not sure if he meant to be racist, after all they were different times, what i am going to say is, he definitely should not have said those things, but im not gonna stop liking his work over some comments i don't agree with.
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
Saying that somone is a "Dilussional moron" is not the same as saying that 'They do not follow our god so they must be evil.' which was the statement I was commenting on.
I still think orcs and drow are inherently “good” in the same way humans are, and like humans should only be depicted as behaving in an “evil” manner when they’re being corrupted or led astray by a powerful dark entity (or even a mortal leader) which has chosen evil of its own free will.
What do you guys think? Would that help resolve the issue?
Any race can be corrupted by an evil leader.
That wasn't the argument you were making in the post I replied to. Either way, implying that atheists have a religious belief that they use to demonize other people is simply a flawed statement since atheism is per definition the absence of religious beliefs.
Every -ism can be a dogma, that can be used to make someone appear superior to others. Does not need to be a religion to be abused. That is what I was stating, and that is how quite some atheist give themselves.