And a great many people who only looked like a member of 'The Majority' were silently miserable, knowing that breaking the mask meant ridicule or even harm and death. I will never willingly go back to a world where silencing the Different is tolerated just because it's more convenient for the Same.
And that's all I will say on the real-life aspects of the matter.
Anyways. I know nothing about comics or the Maximoff thing, sadly. All I know is that Wanda Maximoff is a lot of fun in Avengers 2, as well as easily the best-dressed lady. The real question, though...
Aberrant Mind, or Shadow Magic, for her Sorcerous Origin?
I know I am quite fed up with every little singular complaint driving the world to CHANGE, to suit the one squeaky wheel.
Where you see "squeaky wheels," I see living, breathing human beings with value who've lived different lives than I have, with a different perspective I have, telling me things are harmful to them.
Which is actually the point of the saying. The squeaky wheel gets the grease because it's the one with a problem. If you don't grease it, that problem gets worse and that wheel can be irrevocably damaged. The squeak is not the wheel's fault, nor is it an imaginary issue the wheel comes up with just to inconvenience you. It's the result of friction the wheel is incapable of fixing on its own, friction that needs help before it becomes something worse.
Aberrant Mind, or Shadow Magic, for her Sorcerous Origin?
Honestly, it's entirely possible it's Clockwork Soul. Her powers were forced on her by cold-hearted people using technology, and a lot of what she does is "Chaos Magic" or "affects probability," which feels a bit like Clockwork's messing with advantage and disadvantage. Wild Magic is also a strong contender, considering it often gets away from her.
Love that you recognize she's unquestionably a sorcerer, regardless.
If they are not already, it will soon be that the majority support equality and inclusivity for all, and those who criticise them as "bleeding hearts" will be in the minority.
I'm lovin' this thread. Just because of the inclusivity! I mean, I'm part of a marginalised community myself... maybe several, but I know one thing: I'm a vegetarian and GF. DO you know how rude people can be about that? It's bonkers.
Aberrant Mind, or Shadow Magic, for her Sorcerous Origin?
Honestly, it's entirely possible it's Clockwork Soul. Her powers were forced on her by cold-hearted people using technology, and a lot of what she does is "Chaos Magic" or "affects probability," which feels a bit like Clockwork's messing with advantage and disadvantage. Wild Magic is also a strong contender, considering it often gets away from her.
Love that you recognize she's unquestionably a sorcerer, regardless.
To quote Doctor Strange, "There's no such thing as Chaos Magic."
But the Wild Magic origin does seem to fit her best, I think.
If they are not already, it will soon be that the majority support equality and inclusivity for all, and those who criticise them as "bleeding hearts" will be in the minority.
Where in the hell do you see ANYONE on this topic (or forum) saying we don't support equality and inclusivity? There is a difference between us saying "Hey, this is how the game works and these game worlds have these inherent assumptions" and people screaming at us "You're a bigot cause you don't realize Orks are coded as [insert Minority X here]!" Maybe we don't appreciate being labeled as bigots by a bunch of know-nothings, considering if it hadn't been for us older fans support, Dungeons & Dragons would have ceased production when Hasbro bought WotC and asked "Why are we bothering with this small potatoes role-playing stuff when Monopoly sells a million copies a month?"
Aberrant Mind, or Shadow Magic, for her Sorcerous Origin?
Honestly, it's entirely possible it's Clockwork Soul. Her powers were forced on her by cold-hearted people using technology, and a lot of what she does is "Chaos Magic" or "affects probability," which feels a bit like Clockwork's messing with advantage and disadvantage. Wild Magic is also a strong contender, considering it often gets away from her.
Love that you recognize she's unquestionably a sorcerer, regardless.
To quote Doctor Strange, "There's no such thing as Chaos Magic."
But the Wild Magic origin does seem to fit her best, I think.
He says that, but somehow it still keeps popping up. Different writers, conflicting lore. Even he was a purveyor of "catastrophe magic" when Ellis wrote him for three issues in the nineties. Me being used to all this is part of the whole "lore is dumb" thesis a lot of my arguments stem from.
If they are not already, it will soon be that the majority support equality and inclusivity for all, and those who criticise them as "bleeding hearts" will be in the minority.
Where in the hell do you see ANYONE on this topic (or forum) saying we don't support equality and inclusivity? There is a difference between us saying "Hey, this is how the game works and these game worlds have these inherent assumptions" and people screaming at us "You're a bigot cause you don't realize Orks are coded as [insert Minority X here]!" Maybe we don't appreciate being labeled as bigots by a bunch of know-nothings, considering if it hadn't been for us older fans support, Dungeons & Dragons would have ceased production when Hasbro bought WotC and asked "Why are we bothering with this small potatoes role-playing stuff when Monopoly sells a million copies a month?"
You call them "know-nothings" and yet you refuse to listen to what they have to say. They're not suddenly rendered invalid because their words hurt your feelings.
And you do realize that all hobbies die unless new membership is brought in, right? It's the same issue with comics publishing. I don't mind the stuff aimed at adults, but you can't ignore the children. They're your bread and butter. They're what will sustain you for decades to come. And, as times and views change, you need to change with them. You need to continue to market to the new audience. And not just with an engine that works. (And 5e's engine works really well.) But also with a compelling fiction that they'll want to read that doesn't also alienate other potential customers.
I'm lovin' this thread. Just because of the inclusivity! I mean, I'm part of a marginalized community myself... maybe several, but I know one thing: I'm a vegetarian and GF. DO you know how rude people can be about that? It's bonkers.
I've been a vegetarian since 91'. There are plenty of vegetarian options in restaurants, as well as tons of online resources currently, and in most metropolitan cities, people are fairly tolerant of it. There is far less marginalization of vegetarians today then there was back then.
As far as rude people, well, just ignore them. People who matter don't mind, people who mind don't matter.
If they are not already, it will soon be that the majority support equality and inclusivity for all, and those who criticise them as "bleeding hearts" will be in the minority.
Where in the hell do you see ANYONE on this topic (or forum) saying we don't support equality and inclusivity? There is a difference between us saying "Hey, this is how the game works and these game worlds have these inherent assumptions" and people screaming at us "You're a bigot cause you don't realize Orks are coded as [insert Minority X here]!" Maybe we don't appreciate being labeled as bigots by a bunch of know-nothings, considering if it hadn't been for us older fans support, Dungeons & Dragons would have ceased production when Hasbro bought WotC and asked "Why are we bothering with this small potatoes role-playing stuff when Monopoly sells a million copies a month?"
Changes are being made, at least in part, because some people found the idea of racial traits to be offensive. That excludes them from the game, and changing it to be less offensive to them is inclusive. Those arguing against the change (or, at the very least, those arguing against making any change to address this issue), therefore, could be said to be arguing against making the game more inclusive.
Note that I'm not, intentionally, labeling anyone a bigot. However, a refusal to accept changes being made to make the game more inclusive for those with a different world view to yourself can hardly be seen to be enlightened.
Changes are being made, at least in part, because some people found the idea of racial traits to be offensive.
I have to be honest. I don't like the idea of telling others what they should or should not be offended by, but I'm certainly tempted to in this particular instance. Not to mention that the notion of objective diversity implying or causing subjective inequality is pretty darn offensive to me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Hoo boy. I knew this thread was going to blow up, but *damn*...
So, firstly, addressing the original point of this thread: I like this direction. As others have pointed out, it's not quite complete and needs something addressing learned experiences in order to complement it, but with that said I think this makes a good first step.
Regarding some of the suggestions that different races could have their own max attributes (like Goliaths having a 22 maximum Strength), from a purely mechanical perspective that would require a long hard look at how bounded accuracy works in 5e, and could potentially require the whole game to be rebalanced.
It's more like ... the idea of racial essentialism in general is the idea that certain peoples are the way they are because of inborn traits. This is an argument that, while applied to fictional peoples, has been used in this very discussion. It's also an argument that has been used in real life to the actual and real detriment of people in this discussion. Me among them. So when we hear those kinds of arguments applied to our fictional little fantasy escapist hobby it ruins the experience for us in a real and harmful way. I'm not talking about being offended, I'm talking about being traumatized. People will decry efforts to make our common hobby a safe play experience and say, "Oh we want to get away from the real world, not hear about it more!" Well yeah, so do we. We don't come to Faerun or Greyhawk or Eberron just to get retraumatized by things that hurt us in real life, we come to get away. The arts in general are awakening to the knowledge that what they do has actual effects on people and are acknowledging responsibility for it. Gaming is an exponentially more intimate experience than watching a movie, in my opinion, so I think the artists that create our rpg's are starting to do their due diligence in being aware and sensitive of these issues. It's not correctness it's freaking compassion.
If I have to choose between making the hobby safer for people and adhering to some arbitrary notion of genre purity or fictionally biological ideas of verisimilitude then I'm going to choose the former and I make no apology for it. Do you feel left behind because people are now writing and creating art that doesn't center your experience? That sounds like a you problem.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Thank you so much for that, Ophidimancer. This is what I was attempting to express, and doing a pretty bad job of. It's something I'm fortunate not to have experienced myself, but friends and family have discussed the effects of things like this to me in the past. You have put it very eloquently and succinctly.
I am so glad somebody else linked to that article. I've never read any of N.K.'s work, but I stumbled across that article back in the day and it was positively illuminating. It's helped my character building quite a bit, honestly. The author understandably wants nothing to do with it, but the same logic speaks to me in different ways on different levels. It's also an excellent treatise on why accidental racism is still racism and causes problems even if someone doesn't intend to. That accident doesn't make someone a bad person; perpetuating the accident after being informed of it is what makes someone the bad person.
That article explains neatly why I am so opposed to the idea that it's "okay" for certain species to be better or worse, as an entire breed of people, at things. My orcish wizard gal (I think I'm legit going to make that character, even if I'll never play her) is 100% an orc. She does not apologize for being what she is, she does not allow other people to talk down to her or belittle her for being what she is, and she owns her lineage. No tusk filing, no makeup to hide her pigmentation, none of that - she's an orc and doesn't try to be anything else. She is also 100% a wizard, devoted to her studies and determined to maximize herself in her vocation. She loves magic, she loves having that incredible, indescribable power genetics denied her, and she will be happy to demonstrate her mastery of her chosen art upon the face of anyone who tells her she can't be a wizard, or has to be a worse wizard, just because she's greener, taller, and tuskier than most of her classmates.
The DM who tells me that character isn't allowed to do that - that she has to pick whether she's an orc or a wizard, she's not allowed to be fully both of those things - is a DM who is going to have to do some fast talking to keep me at the table. if they care to do so at all.
Personally, I always thought orcs were meant to be a kind of beast-kin race. That's why they always look like boars and pigs, or at least they did when I was growing up. WoW changed that, making them closer in appearance and attitude to giant-kin, but I always think of them as a type of anthropomorphic animal so resplendent in mythology.
Of course, the way that D&D historically treats beast-people isn't exactly good either - if anything, its worse, and still ongoing. Gnolls, lizardfolk, kobald, kuo-toa... with very few exceptions, beast-kin are treated the same as the "humans + bad magic" to mow down.
And don't get me started on japanese light novels - somehow, some way, someone came up with the idea of porc. Meat from killing an orc and serving it for food. Its literally killing a sapient being, carving them up for food, like we do with cattle. I wanted to puke the first time I heard of that.
I am actually very intrigued by the idea of changing max possible ability scores per race...while also keeping Tasha's floating racial ASIs at creation.
But it's not even the source of my wrath here, it's the hypocrisy around the debate. Out of all the people who want the change, only one has had the courage to say that it basically allows him to create the character idea that he has but still being very much optimised.
Maybe the reason most people haven't said that is why they want it is because most of those discussing it don't want it for that reason.
There are plenty of options out there to minmax. If someone wants to optimise, they will do so. This rule, on the other hand, helps to stop people feeling excluded by eliminating (or at least reducing) something which is heavily linked to a painful part of their lives. I feel that it's more important to help those people than it is to stop people from optimising their characters.
Given that it is completely optional, I find it incredible to see how dead set against this some people are.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There was a time when 'Majority Ruled', yes.
And a great many people who only looked like a member of 'The Majority' were silently miserable, knowing that breaking the mask meant ridicule or even harm and death. I will never willingly go back to a world where silencing the Different is tolerated just because it's more convenient for the Same.
And that's all I will say on the real-life aspects of the matter.
Anyways. I know nothing about comics or the Maximoff thing, sadly. All I know is that Wanda Maximoff is a lot of fun in Avengers 2, as well as easily the best-dressed lady. The real question, though...
Aberrant Mind, or Shadow Magic, for her Sorcerous Origin?
Please do not contact or message me.
Where you see "squeaky wheels," I see living, breathing human beings with value who've lived different lives than I have, with a different perspective I have, telling me things are harmful to them.
Which is actually the point of the saying. The squeaky wheel gets the grease because it's the one with a problem. If you don't grease it, that problem gets worse and that wheel can be irrevocably damaged. The squeak is not the wheel's fault, nor is it an imaginary issue the wheel comes up with just to inconvenience you. It's the result of friction the wheel is incapable of fixing on its own, friction that needs help before it becomes something worse.
Aberrant.
Honestly, it's entirely possible it's Clockwork Soul. Her powers were forced on her by cold-hearted people using technology, and a lot of what she does is "Chaos Magic" or "affects probability," which feels a bit like Clockwork's messing with advantage and disadvantage. Wild Magic is also a strong contender, considering it often gets away from her.
Love that you recognize she's unquestionably a sorcerer, regardless.
If they are not already, it will soon be that the majority support equality and inclusivity for all, and those who criticise them as "bleeding hearts" will be in the minority.
I'm lovin' this thread. Just because of the inclusivity! I mean, I'm part of a marginalised community myself... maybe several, but I know one thing: I'm a vegetarian and GF. DO you know how rude people can be about that? It's bonkers.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
To quote Doctor Strange, "There's no such thing as Chaos Magic."
But the Wild Magic origin does seem to fit her best, I think.
Where in the hell do you see ANYONE on this topic (or forum) saying we don't support equality and inclusivity? There is a difference between us saying "Hey, this is how the game works and these game worlds have these inherent assumptions" and people screaming at us "You're a bigot cause you don't realize Orks are coded as [insert Minority X here]!" Maybe we don't appreciate being labeled as bigots by a bunch of know-nothings, considering if it hadn't been for us older fans support, Dungeons & Dragons would have ceased production when Hasbro bought WotC and asked "Why are we bothering with this small potatoes role-playing stuff when Monopoly sells a million copies a month?"
He says that, but somehow it still keeps popping up. Different writers, conflicting lore. Even he was a purveyor of "catastrophe magic" when Ellis wrote him for three issues in the nineties. Me being used to all this is part of the whole "lore is dumb" thesis a lot of my arguments stem from.
You call them "know-nothings" and yet you refuse to listen to what they have to say. They're not suddenly rendered invalid because their words hurt your feelings.
And you do realize that all hobbies die unless new membership is brought in, right? It's the same issue with comics publishing. I don't mind the stuff aimed at adults, but you can't ignore the children. They're your bread and butter. They're what will sustain you for decades to come. And, as times and views change, you need to change with them. You need to continue to market to the new audience. And not just with an engine that works. (And 5e's engine works really well.) But also with a compelling fiction that they'll want to read that doesn't also alienate other potential customers.
I've been a vegetarian since 91'. There are plenty of vegetarian options in restaurants, as well as tons of online resources currently, and in most metropolitan cities, people are fairly tolerant of it. There is far less marginalization of vegetarians today then there was back then.
As far as rude people, well, just ignore them. People who matter don't mind, people who mind don't matter.
Changes are being made, at least in part, because some people found the idea of racial traits to be offensive. That excludes them from the game, and changing it to be less offensive to them is inclusive. Those arguing against the change (or, at the very least, those arguing against making any change to address this issue), therefore, could be said to be arguing against making the game more inclusive.
Note that I'm not, intentionally, labeling anyone a bigot. However, a refusal to accept changes being made to make the game more inclusive for those with a different world view to yourself can hardly be seen to be enlightened.
I have to be honest. I don't like the idea of telling others what they should or should not be offended by, but I'm certainly tempted to in this particular instance. Not to mention that the notion of objective diversity implying or causing subjective inequality is pretty darn offensive to me.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Hoo boy. I knew this thread was going to blow up, but *damn*...
So, firstly, addressing the original point of this thread: I like this direction. As others have pointed out, it's not quite complete and needs something addressing learned experiences in order to complement it, but with that said I think this makes a good first step.
Regarding some of the suggestions that different races could have their own max attributes (like Goliaths having a 22 maximum Strength), from a purely mechanical perspective that would require a long hard look at how bounded accuracy works in 5e, and could potentially require the whole game to be rebalanced.
It's a bit more complicated than simply being offended, and commensurately harder to explain. NK Jemisin explains a bit from her perspective as a fantasy author: http://nkjemisin.com/2013/02/from-the-mailbag-the-unbearable-baggage-of-orcing/
It's more like ... the idea of racial essentialism in general is the idea that certain peoples are the way they are because of inborn traits. This is an argument that, while applied to fictional peoples, has been used in this very discussion. It's also an argument that has been used in real life to the actual and real detriment of people in this discussion. Me among them. So when we hear those kinds of arguments applied to our fictional little fantasy escapist hobby it ruins the experience for us in a real and harmful way. I'm not talking about being offended, I'm talking about being traumatized. People will decry efforts to make our common hobby a safe play experience and say, "Oh we want to get away from the real world, not hear about it more!" Well yeah, so do we. We don't come to Faerun or Greyhawk or Eberron just to get retraumatized by things that hurt us in real life, we come to get away. The arts in general are awakening to the knowledge that what they do has actual effects on people and are acknowledging responsibility for it. Gaming is an exponentially more intimate experience than watching a movie, in my opinion, so I think the artists that create our rpg's are starting to do their due diligence in being aware and sensitive of these issues. It's not correctness it's freaking compassion.
If I have to choose between making the hobby safer for people and adhering to some arbitrary notion of genre purity or fictionally biological ideas of verisimilitude then I'm going to choose the former and I make no apology for it. Do you feel left behind because people are now writing and creating art that doesn't center your experience? That sounds like a you problem.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Thank you so much for that, Ophidimancer. This is what I was attempting to express, and doing a pretty bad job of. It's something I'm fortunate not to have experienced myself, but friends and family have discussed the effects of things like this to me in the past. You have put it very eloquently and succinctly.
I am so glad somebody else linked to that article. I've never read any of N.K.'s work, but I stumbled across that article back in the day and it was positively illuminating. It's helped my character building quite a bit, honestly. The author understandably wants nothing to do with it, but the same logic speaks to me in different ways on different levels. It's also an excellent treatise on why accidental racism is still racism and causes problems even if someone doesn't intend to. That accident doesn't make someone a bad person; perpetuating the accident after being informed of it is what makes someone the bad person.
That article explains neatly why I am so opposed to the idea that it's "okay" for certain species to be better or worse, as an entire breed of people, at things. My orcish wizard gal (I think I'm legit going to make that character, even if I'll never play her) is 100% an orc. She does not apologize for being what she is, she does not allow other people to talk down to her or belittle her for being what she is, and she owns her lineage. No tusk filing, no makeup to hide her pigmentation, none of that - she's an orc and doesn't try to be anything else. She is also 100% a wizard, devoted to her studies and determined to maximize herself in her vocation. She loves magic, she loves having that incredible, indescribable power genetics denied her, and she will be happy to demonstrate her mastery of her chosen art upon the face of anyone who tells her she can't be a wizard, or has to be a worse wizard, just because she's greener, taller, and tuskier than most of her classmates.
The DM who tells me that character isn't allowed to do that - that she has to pick whether she's an orc or a wizard, she's not allowed to be fully both of those things - is a DM who is going to have to do some fast talking to keep me at the table. if they care to do so at all.
Please do not contact or message me.
If anyone in this thread needs a succinct explanation of what essentialism is, or how D&D is kinda filled with it, this twitter thread is pretty good: https://twitter.com/KiennaS/status/1161655684599099392
(Yeah, I know, people already want to call this a "twitter mob" but that breakdown is clear and short.)
Huh. Interesting.
Personally, I always thought orcs were meant to be a kind of beast-kin race. That's why they always look like boars and pigs, or at least they did when I was growing up. WoW changed that, making them closer in appearance and attitude to giant-kin, but I always think of them as a type of anthropomorphic animal so resplendent in mythology.
Of course, the way that D&D historically treats beast-people isn't exactly good either - if anything, its worse, and still ongoing. Gnolls, lizardfolk, kobald, kuo-toa... with very few exceptions, beast-kin are treated the same as the "humans + bad magic" to mow down.
And don't get me started on japanese light novels - somehow, some way, someone came up with the idea of porc. Meat from killing an orc and serving it for food. Its literally killing a sapient being, carving them up for food, like we do with cattle. I wanted to puke the first time I heard of that.
Maybe the reason most people haven't said that is why they want it is because most of those discussing it don't want it for that reason.
There are plenty of options out there to minmax. If someone wants to optimise, they will do so. This rule, on the other hand, helps to stop people feeling excluded by eliminating (or at least reducing) something which is heavily linked to a painful part of their lives. I feel that it's more important to help those people than it is to stop people from optimising their characters.
Given that it is completely optional, I find it incredible to see how dead set against this some people are.