Didn't see the other thread, so I can't say anything as to the origins of this one, but I am somewhere in the middle. I can't really call myself an "old time gamer", as I wasn't yet born when D&D became a thing, but I do like the old lore, and there is a part of me that is frustrated with WotC lackadaisical approach to the lore. As I've said before, for some things at least, they could look to the older lore and find examples of the nuance they are trying to bring forth now (I'm mainly referring to Forgotten Realms, as that is the setting I am most familiar with). There have always been goodly drow (or at least since '91) in the form of the Eilistraeens, and the Ondti, goodly orcs who follow Eldath, have been around since 2e. Yet, for all their talk of diversity and wanting to change the image of D&D, they are ignoring old material that could actually help them, instead wanting to sweep anything "old" under the rug and completely flip it on its head. Sometimes, I think they are taking things a bit too far, in that, in an attempt to bring about more nuance, they by the same token getting rid of it (an example of this would making certain traits less racial, such as the bladesinger, which is as much part of elven culture as it is a class. From an RP standpoint and wanting to give players more character background options, it makes sense, but culture is part of making a world unique and diverse, too). Yes, I know things like "lore" and "canon" are loaded words, and there are whole debates around them, but to me, they are part of what makes a setting what it is. That's how it's an established setting.
On the other hand, diversity is important (I read a lot of fantasy that has LGBTQ+ representation, for example), and the real world has come a long way, but still has a long way to go. Sometimes I do want that "classic" fantasy, where it's good vs evil and there is the BBEG and the heroes. But, I agree with others that a villain who isn't a villain "just because", but has reasons and motives, is far more interesting than the simple Dark Lord. Not all drow are mindless worshipers of Lolth, for example (again, Eilistraee, and even Vhaeraun, should really be brought back in to the spotlight. Drow souls deserve a better fate than the Abyss, unless they actually do worship Lolth). Every race/species has a culture around it. Goblin culture is not the same as human culture, for example. But that doesn't mean every goblin has to be "evil", either, since individuals don't always have to be cultural archetypes, just like people in the real world aren't. There is often a "general view" (elves often viewing themselves as superior, for example), but it's not your grandma's world anymore, either. So I stand somewhere in the middle, agreeing and disagreeing with aspects on both sides. Fantasy like D&D is escapism, where you can get away from reality for a time (for those of us under the queer umbrella, a fantasy world where there isn't homophobia is nice, for example). There are problems and some prejudices, to be sure, but they don't have to be the same as our world--though there are bound to be similarities, and I'm sure parallels can always be drawn. I think it's a fine balance between too little and too much, and D&D is still trying to figure it out.
No, it isn't. It also isn't calling you a psychopath if people say that they don't like playing a psychopathic character. You have been told by pretty much everyone who has commented on these threads that they don't care how you play and are happy for you to do as you want, but they wouldn't want to.
You are the only person here telling anyone they are wrong to play the way they do. Everyone else has been "live and let live". People are allowed to play differently, and to explain the reason why. They shouldn't have to put up with being told they are idiotic to do so just because somebody saw insult where there was none.
Brooklyn? If you keep harping on "other people called me racist though!", eventually people are going to ask why that's such a sore spot for you. It's not really a good look. trust me. There are words I could be saying right now that would get me banned, but I will leave the matter at "it's not a good look."
Again - 'Good' and 'Evil' are real, manifest forces in your game. In both the games we're playing at my table right now they are no such thing. Nor are they any such thing for many other tables. The classic cosmology does not matter to many of the game's newer players, while creating a game space where one is not considered Irredeemably Evil Forever due to a simple accident of birth does, in fact, matter for a great many reasons.
Give it up. Play your game as you like, with whatever ordained cosmology you favor. And if you dislike being called racist, quit accusing folks of calling you racist. I never did, I specifically went out of my way not to, and I will take it up with the forum staff if you continue to accuse me of doing so.
To be fair though, this thread started as a passive aggressive baiting against the former thread right down to parodying the title formulation, and including some pretty juvenile barbs against the creator of that thread. The other thread's grievances, and all the "grievances" aired I don't think are valid but the trajectory of the meta discourse between these two threads is a parody of polarization.
I am very much entertained by the broad possibilities of D&D too. I can still find formulations of that perspective, especially when formulated in a way to clearly antagonize another thread, and a specific poster, objectionable. Parody parallel structure is just typographic "eye for an eye" feuding. Don't be half blind to that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Outside of the admittedly cheeky thread title, I don't recall barbing or baiting anyone in the original post. I simply mentioned the lunacy of a humanocentric viewpoint in a game containing individuals with between seven to ten times our lifespan and skills said to be explicitly superhuman and impossible for humankind to match.
Bit of an explanatory rant to follow
I am a firm believer in transhumanism, and the related ideal that humanity is not, in any way, "special" or "sacred". There is nothing intrinsic to the human condition that cannot be replicated or improved upon, nor is most any individual person of any great worth or value. When one discards the idea that humanity is in any way unique or special, and the corresponding idea that individual human lives are precious or inviolate on any but the most personal and immediate of scales, the idea that the entirety of a world (fictitious though this one may be, in this case) exists solely to uphold and empower humanity is absolutely laughable. The life of a goblin raider and the life of a human villager both have equal value to the world at large - and that value is 'none'.
Games like D&D, which can allow people to explore those ideals, are awesome fun. I like when interspecies tensions are a Thing in a game, because that increases verisimilitude for me - but only if neither species involved is portrayed as being Obviously The Right One. The moment the DM starts getting preachy about the priceless value of Humanity (and Humanity alone) and how it must be protected from the ravages of the slobbering hordes of vile nonhumans threatening Innocent People, I'm out. Most of the time, even the most cursory examination of a situation tends to show that the 'slobbering hordes of vile nonhumans' have perfectly reasonable grounds for being pissed off at their murderous, expansionistic, highly militarized neighbors, even if their choice of methods to protest is not necessarily kosher.
Being human sucks. I stick with this species and this body only because we don't have the technology yet to allow people to choose better ones. **** if I'm going to let people tell me I'm a terrible person for wanting to spend my leisure time 'escaping' my body instead of my morality. Nah. Escapism means more than just feeling free to murder gobbs without reprisal, folks.
It was an obvious parody. Often, parody works better than reason to help someone see that they are behaving unreasonably. In this case, it has not, but it is a valid response.
It was an obvious parody. Often, parody works better than reason to help someone see that they are behaving unreasonably. In this case, it has not, but it is a valid response.
A beer-and-pretzels dungeon crawl that offers nothing but pure, nihilistic escapism is perfectly fine. Writing up a big post telling everyone that playing any other form of D&D is 'idiotic' is significantly less so, ne?
Except for the fact that people like me (and others) who have said there is nothing morally wrong, within the alignment Lawful and Good, of putting an entire Goblin village to the sword and being told its "problematic" and that its similar to the "justification of wiping out Native Americans". IOW, its backhandedly calling us racists, bigots and everything under the Sun because "its like what happened in history". Except for the fact that D&D is NOT our world. Its part of a universe where Good & Evil are real, manifest forces.
Please provide evidence that anyone has said that what you are doing is morally wrong.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
I want to remind everyone to not devolve this or any thread into personal attacks or arguments. If people cannot treat each other with respect and discuss appropriate topics in relation to D&D, the moderation team will be forced to lock this thread.
Unreasonable against unreasonable begets reason? That's a pretty sophomoric understanding of the tradition and the place of satire in rhetoric, let alone conflict resolution. Both are fields I care about and it saddened me to see the two threads and the polarization they mobilize. Satire is not used to convert those who disagree. It's used to agitate and mobilize the middle. (Rhetorical protip: if the rhetorical tactic is considered "out of order" in most dispute resolution models, it's probably not a good tool). We all know the OP of this threads "flare". "Der & Der," as a case in point, is not wit, it's callous and an offensive rhetorical formation. You find it acceptable because you think it helps your "side." I find it troublesome that it's cheered on because I'd like to think this space is a space where healthy disagreement can take place.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Unreasonable against unreasonable begets reason? That's a pretty sophomoric understanding of the tradition and the place of satire in rhetoric, let alone conflict resolution. Both are fields I care about and it saddened me to see the two threads and the polarization they mobilize. Satire is not used to convert those who disagree. It's used to agitate and mobilize the middle. (Rhetorical protip: if the rhetorical tactic is considered "out of order" in most dispute resolution models, it's probably not a good tool). We all know the OP of this threads "flare". "Der & Der," as a case in point, is not wit, it's callous and an offensive rhetorical formation. You find it acceptable because you think it helps your "side." I find it troublesome that it's cheered on because I'd like to think this space is a space where healthy disagreement can take place.
I'm all for healthy disagreement, but healthy disagreement was attempted in the other thread, and it didn't work. Apparently unhealthy disagreement can't be countered by healthy disagreement in this matter. This thread is showing how ridiculous it is to tell someone else that the way they are playing is wrong or "idiotic", as the OP of the other thread claimed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I think its more a matter of perspective. Sure, Drow are evil in most eyes but to them they are just doing what they are suppose to be doing. Does that excuse their actions? Probably not, but it is what they believe they need to be doing. If goblins are raiding a village that is bad for the people of the village, yeah. But those goblins might just be doing what they need to because some other force is making them gather food or it cost them their lives.
This is where the wonder of playing the game comes in. If i present this situation to my players, perhaps my players kill all the goblins and solve the problem. Perhaps they talk to the goblins and find out that their village got flooded and because of poor leadership they had to raid the town. The party can then help them rebuild and potentially establish peaceful coexistence between the two groups.
Why shouldn't that be possible?
Not saying it shouldn't be possible, just not probable. Brokering a peace between demons and devils is impossible. Brokering between humans and elves, more than likely fairly easily. Between Goblins and a human town? Probably not, but you can sure try! With some good rolls you could probably keep them from killing you on site but broker a long standing peace is probably not going to happen, at least based on current D&D structure.
I'm trying to see at what point those who feel this game has racist tendencies and that races should be able to coexist, how far do you take it? Where is that line and how do you draw it there? There are those like Drizzt and basically any player character Drow that break away from the norm, but should their whole society as written be changed?
That completely, totally, entirely depends on setting. In my world, it would be more likely for orcs and drow to make a treaty with human countries (which they have done) than for certain types of elves (arctic elves, shadar-kai). In FR, it is less likely for goblins to make a peace treaty than for elves, but that isn't true for Eberron, Ravnica, and my homebrew setting.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Going from a more meta point of view, stories where villains have motives and morals are far more interesting than when they don't. Take almost every post-apocalyptic zombie film or novel there is: at the start of the story, the characters are mostly going to be fighting the undead, but by the end the enemies has likely evolved to be other humans. A story is just more interesting that way. Another example of this is the Stormlight Archive series by Brandon Sanderson. If you haven't read it, I would highly recommended it. If you have, look in the spoiler below.
Fairly heavy spoilers ahead, so if you intend to read the series stop now. The Stormlight Archive's main conflict is between humans, and a species called the Parshendi. At the beginning of the series, the Parshendi are slaughtered wholesale and little thought is given to them. As the story develops. Parshmen are given motives, characters and other traits. Are the heroes truly in the right? The story is much more interesting.
The human opponents in zombie apocalypses have morals and motives? News to me! :P
Speaking seriously though, I have some disagreements with this, Person vs. Person is only one of the basic conflicts after all. To use a mundane example, plenty of people will watch a movie where the main problem is a volcano or hurricane.
A beer-and-pretzels dungeon crawl that offers nothing but pure, nihilistic escapism is perfectly fine. Writing up a big post telling everyone that playing any other form of D&D is 'idiotic' is significantly less so, ne?
Except for the fact that people like me (and others) who have said there is nothing morally wrong, within the alignment Lawful and Good, of putting an entire Goblin village to the sword and being told its "problematic" and that its similar to the "justification of wiping out Native Americans". IOW, its backhandedly calling us racists, bigots and everything under the Sun because "its like what happened in history". Except for the fact that D&D is NOT our world. Its part of a universe where Good & Evil are real, manifest forces.
If you feel like if you have been personally attacked, take it up with the moderators instead of derailing the thread.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Going from a more meta point of view, stories where villains have motives and morals are far more interesting than when they don't. Take almost every post-apocalyptic zombie film or novel there is: at the start of the story, the characters are mostly going to be fighting the undead, but by the end the enemies has likely evolved to be other humans. A story is just more interesting that way. Another example of this is the Stormlight Archive series by Brandon Sanderson. If you haven't read it, I would highly recommended it. If you have, look in the spoiler below.
Fairly heavy spoilers ahead, so if you intend to read the series stop now. The Stormlight Archive's main conflict is between humans, and a species called the Parshendi. At the beginning of the series, the Parshendi are slaughtered wholesale and little thought is given to them. As the story develops. Parshmen are given motives, characters and other traits. Are the heroes truly in the right? The story is much more interesting.
The human opponents in zombie apocalypses have morals and motives? News to me! :P
Speaking seriously though, I have some disagreements with this, Person vs. Person is only one of the basic conflicts after all. To use a mundane example, plenty of people will watch a movie where the main problem is a volcano or hurricane.
To be fair, I am not an expert on the zombie genre. I merely pointed out a trend I noticed.
As for your second part, you are certainly correct. I was mainly referring to more superficial media like D&D or light hearted fantasy. More interesting conflicts can be created, but they generally have some reason. Even in your disaster story example, the purpose of the volcano or hurricane in the story is not to be the main antagonist; it is likely to promote revelations about the nature of the characters and create ethical and moral dilemmas.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Didn't see the other thread, so I can't say anything as to the origins of this one, but I am somewhere in the middle. I can't really call myself an "old time gamer", as I wasn't yet born when D&D became a thing, but I do like the old lore, and there is a part of me that is frustrated with WotC lackadaisical approach to the lore. As I've said before, for some things at least, they could look to the older lore and find examples of the nuance they are trying to bring forth now (I'm mainly referring to Forgotten Realms, as that is the setting I am most familiar with). There have always been goodly drow (or at least since '91) in the form of the Eilistraeens, and the Ondti, goodly orcs who follow Eldath, have been around since 2e. Yet, for all their talk of diversity and wanting to change the image of D&D, they are ignoring old material that could actually help them, instead wanting to sweep anything "old" under the rug and completely flip it on its head. Sometimes, I think they are taking things a bit too far, in that, in an attempt to bring about more nuance, they by the same token getting rid of it (an example of this would making certain traits less racial, such as the bladesinger, which is as much part of elven culture as it is a class. From an RP standpoint and wanting to give players more character background options, it makes sense, but culture is part of making a world unique and diverse, too). Yes, I know things like "lore" and "canon" are loaded words, and there are whole debates around them, but to me, they are part of what makes a setting what it is. That's how it's an established setting.
On the other hand, diversity is important (I read a lot of fantasy that has LGBTQ+ representation, for example), and the real world has come a long way, but still has a long way to go. Sometimes I do want that "classic" fantasy, where it's good vs evil and there is the BBEG and the heroes. But, I agree with others that a villain who isn't a villain "just because", but has reasons and motives, is far more interesting than the simple Dark Lord. Not all drow are mindless worshipers of Lolth, for example (again, Eilistraee, and even Vhaeraun, should really be brought back in to the spotlight. Drow souls deserve a better fate than the Abyss, unless they actually do worship Lolth). Every race/species has a culture around it. Goblin culture is not the same as human culture, for example. But that doesn't mean every goblin has to be "evil", either, since individuals don't always have to be cultural archetypes, just like people in the real world aren't. There is often a "general view" (elves often viewing themselves as superior, for example), but it's not your grandma's world anymore, either. So I stand somewhere in the middle, agreeing and disagreeing with aspects on both sides. Fantasy like D&D is escapism, where you can get away from reality for a time (for those of us under the queer umbrella, a fantasy world where there isn't homophobia is nice, for example). There are problems and some prejudices, to be sure, but they don't have to be the same as our world--though there are bound to be similarities, and I'm sure parallels can always be drawn. I think it's a fine balance between too little and too much, and D&D is still trying to figure it out.
So we should all keep our opinions to ourselves and let each other play the version of D&D we want, right?
"its backhandedly calling us racists"
No, it isn't. It also isn't calling you a psychopath if people say that they don't like playing a psychopathic character. You have been told by pretty much everyone who has commented on these threads that they don't care how you play and are happy for you to do as you want, but they wouldn't want to.
You are the only person here telling anyone they are wrong to play the way they do. Everyone else has been "live and let live". People are allowed to play differently, and to explain the reason why. They shouldn't have to put up with being told they are idiotic to do so just because somebody saw insult where there was none.
Sigh.
Brooklyn? If you keep harping on "other people called me racist though!", eventually people are going to ask why that's such a sore spot for you. It's not really a good look. trust me. There are words I could be saying right now that would get me banned, but I will leave the matter at "it's not a good look."
Again - 'Good' and 'Evil' are real, manifest forces in your game. In both the games we're playing at my table right now they are no such thing. Nor are they any such thing for many other tables. The classic cosmology does not matter to many of the game's newer players, while creating a game space where one is not considered Irredeemably Evil Forever due to a simple accident of birth does, in fact, matter for a great many reasons.
Give it up. Play your game as you like, with whatever ordained cosmology you favor. And if you dislike being called racist, quit accusing folks of calling you racist. I never did, I specifically went out of my way not to, and I will take it up with the forum staff if you continue to accuse me of doing so.
Please do not contact or message me.
To be fair though, this thread started as a passive aggressive baiting against the former thread right down to parodying the title formulation, and including some pretty juvenile barbs against the creator of that thread. The other thread's grievances, and all the "grievances" aired I don't think are valid but the trajectory of the meta discourse between these two threads is a parody of polarization.
I am very much entertained by the broad possibilities of D&D too. I can still find formulations of that perspective, especially when formulated in a way to clearly antagonize another thread, and a specific poster, objectionable. Parody parallel structure is just typographic "eye for an eye" feuding. Don't be half blind to that.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Outside of the admittedly cheeky thread title, I don't recall barbing or baiting anyone in the original post. I simply mentioned the lunacy of a humanocentric viewpoint in a game containing individuals with between seven to ten times our lifespan and skills said to be explicitly superhuman and impossible for humankind to match.
Bit of an explanatory rant to follow
I am a firm believer in transhumanism, and the related ideal that humanity is not, in any way, "special" or "sacred". There is nothing intrinsic to the human condition that cannot be replicated or improved upon, nor is most any individual person of any great worth or value. When one discards the idea that humanity is in any way unique or special, and the corresponding idea that individual human lives are precious or inviolate on any but the most personal and immediate of scales, the idea that the entirety of a world (fictitious though this one may be, in this case) exists solely to uphold and empower humanity is absolutely laughable. The life of a goblin raider and the life of a human villager both have equal value to the world at large - and that value is 'none'.
Games like D&D, which can allow people to explore those ideals, are awesome fun. I like when interspecies tensions are a Thing in a game, because that increases verisimilitude for me - but only if neither species involved is portrayed as being Obviously The Right One. The moment the DM starts getting preachy about the priceless value of Humanity (and Humanity alone) and how it must be protected from the ravages of the slobbering hordes of vile nonhumans threatening Innocent People, I'm out. Most of the time, even the most cursory examination of a situation tends to show that the 'slobbering hordes of vile nonhumans' have perfectly reasonable grounds for being pissed off at their murderous, expansionistic, highly militarized neighbors, even if their choice of methods to protest is not necessarily kosher.
Being human sucks. I stick with this species and this body only because we don't have the technology yet to allow people to choose better ones. **** if I'm going to let people tell me I'm a terrible person for wanting to spend my leisure time 'escaping' my body instead of my morality. Nah. Escapism means more than just feeling free to murder gobbs without reprisal, folks.
Please do not contact or message me.
It was an obvious parody. Often, parody works better than reason to help someone see that they are behaving unreasonably. In this case, it has not, but it is a valid response.
Unreasonable. That's rich....
Please provide evidence that anyone has said that what you are doing is morally wrong.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I want to remind everyone to not devolve this or any thread into personal attacks or arguments. If people cannot treat each other with respect and discuss appropriate topics in relation to D&D, the moderation team will be forced to lock this thread.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Unreasonable against unreasonable begets reason? That's a pretty sophomoric understanding of the tradition and the place of satire in rhetoric, let alone conflict resolution. Both are fields I care about and it saddened me to see the two threads and the polarization they mobilize. Satire is not used to convert those who disagree. It's used to agitate and mobilize the middle. (Rhetorical protip: if the rhetorical tactic is considered "out of order" in most dispute resolution models, it's probably not a good tool). We all know the OP of this threads "flare". "Der & Der," as a case in point, is not wit, it's callous and an offensive rhetorical formation. You find it acceptable because you think it helps your "side." I find it troublesome that it's cheered on because I'd like to think this space is a space where healthy disagreement can take place.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
That's kind of the point of this thread. . .
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Welp.
Apparently I missed out on a *fun* conversation earlier...
I'm all for healthy disagreement, but healthy disagreement was attempted in the other thread, and it didn't work. Apparently unhealthy disagreement can't be countered by healthy disagreement in this matter. This thread is showing how ridiculous it is to tell someone else that the way they are playing is wrong or "idiotic", as the OP of the other thread claimed.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
That completely, totally, entirely depends on setting. In my world, it would be more likely for orcs and drow to make a treaty with human countries (which they have done) than for certain types of elves (arctic elves, shadar-kai). In FR, it is less likely for goblins to make a peace treaty than for elves, but that isn't true for Eberron, Ravnica, and my homebrew setting.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
If you feel like if you have been personally attacked, take it up with the moderators instead of derailing the thread.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
To be fair, I am not an expert on the zombie genre. I merely pointed out a trend I noticed.
As for your second part, you are certainly correct. I was mainly referring to more superficial media like D&D or light hearted fantasy. More interesting conflicts can be created, but they generally have some reason. Even in your disaster story example, the purpose of the volcano or hurricane in the story is not to be the main antagonist; it is likely to promote revelations about the nature of the characters and create ethical and moral dilemmas.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
And if I may build off of what Third_Sundering has said, I will once again extol the virtues of the Ignore function on this website.
It. Works. Wonders.
On a happier note, this has turned into a debate. So I get to keep my soul. Yippee for me.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System