Quote from PenelopeTheWeaver >>

Quote from SemanticAvenger >>

Quote from ItsNotAChest >>

If Mary Shelly wanted a male character in Frankenstein to be female, she would have made them female. 

 Given the biases and culture of the time and place in which she wrote it, that's tremendously unlikely. It was published anonymously in 1818, and her name didn't appear in the book until five years later, after a successful stage adaptation written by a man. And even then, it did not appear anywhere on the cover, but on an interior title page. Being a novelist at the time was already exceptionally scandalous, and being a woman novelist was doubly so. If a woman was not "allowed" to write novels, I really don't think much of anyone at the time would have been able to accept a woman doing necromantic science.

(she is also on record as hating basically every character in the story, and made numerous revisions in the 1831 edition to make everything less transgressive)

 She actually wrote the story in 1816, when she was hanging out at a lakeshore resort in Switzerland with her husband (Percy Shelley), Lord Byron (her husband’s best friend), her half-sister Claire (who was crushing on Byron) and a doctor named John Polidori. They were each supposed to write a Gothic horror story and the one she wrote became Frankenstein. I wonder if she would’ve made Victor a woman if the culture of the time had allowed her to. (I am definitely not a purist.) 

 Ok cool, great to hear all sides of the story. Excellent bit of trivia by the way. Still, you can’t entirely confirm that she would have wanted her main characters to be female. To say so is speculation, to act on it is assumption.

Quote from ItsNotAChest >>

Quote from PenelopeTheWeaver >>

Quote from SemanticAvenger >>

Quote from ItsNotAChest >>

If Mary Shelly wanted a male character in Frankenstein to be female, she would have made them female. 

 Given the biases and culture of the time and place in which she wrote it, that's tremendously unlikely. It was published anonymously in 1818, and her name didn't appear in the book until five years later, after a successful stage adaptation written by a man. And even then, it did not appear anywhere on the cover, but on an interior title page. Being a novelist at the time was already exceptionally scandalous, and being a woman novelist was doubly so. If a woman was not "allowed" to write novels, I really don't think much of anyone at the time would have been able to accept a woman doing necromantic science.

(she is also on record as hating basically every character in the story, and made numerous revisions in the 1831 edition to make everything less transgressive)

 She actually wrote the story in 1816, when she was hanging out at a lakeshore resort in Switzerland with her husband (Percy Shelley), Lord Byron (her husband’s best friend), her half-sister Claire (who was crushing on Byron) and a doctor named John Polidori. They were each supposed to write a Gothic horror story and the one she wrote became Frankenstein. I wonder if she would’ve made Victor a woman if the culture of the time had allowed her to. (I am definitely not a purist.) 

 Ok cool, great to hear all sides of the story. Excellent bit of trivia by the way. Still, you can’t entirely confirm that she would have wanted her main characters to be female. To say so is speculation, to act on it is assumption.

 Maybe. But why is it so bad to change Mordenheim’s gender? It makes gamers like me (a cis girl) feel more included. Just like racial diversity makes gamers of nonwhite races feel more included. There’s still plenty of male darklords (Strahd, Harkon Lukas, Ankhtepot, Arijani, Wilfred Godefroy...). I actually checked the numbers and it’s like almost half are male, almost half are female and a handful are non-binary (including the sword Nepenthe). Just like rl.

Quote from PenelopeTheWeaver >>

Quote from ItsNotAChest >>

Quote from PenelopeTheWeaver >>

Quote from SemanticAvenger >>

Quote from ItsNotAChest >>

If Mary Shelly wanted a male character in Frankenstein to be female, she would have made them female. 

 Given the biases and culture of the time and place in which she wrote it, that's tremendously unlikely. It was published anonymously in 1818, and her name didn't appear in the book until five years later, after a successful stage adaptation written by a man. And even then, it did not appear anywhere on the cover, but on an interior title page. Being a novelist at the time was already exceptionally scandalous, and being a woman novelist was doubly so. If a woman was not "allowed" to write novels, I really don't think much of anyone at the time would have been able to accept a woman doing necromantic science.

(she is also on record as hating basically every character in the story, and made numerous revisions in the 1831 edition to make everything less transgressive)

 She actually wrote the story in 1816, when she was hanging out at a lakeshore resort in Switzerland with her husband (Percy Shelley), Lord Byron (her husband’s best friend), her half-sister Claire (who was crushing on Byron) and a doctor named John Polidori. They were each supposed to write a Gothic horror story and the one she wrote became Frankenstein. I wonder if she would’ve made Victor a woman if the culture of the time had allowed her to. (I am definitely not a purist.) 

 Ok cool, great to hear all sides of the story. Excellent bit of trivia by the way. Still, you can’t entirely confirm that she would have wanted her main characters to be female. To say so is speculation, to act on it is assumption.

 Maybe. But why is it so bad to change Mordenheim’s gender? It makes gamers like me (a cis girl) feel more included. Just like racial diversity makes gamers of nonwhite races feel more included. There’s still plenty of male darklords (Strahd, Harkon Lukas, Ankhtepot, Arijani, Wilfred Godefroy...). I actually checked the numbers and it’s like almost half are male, almost half are female and a handful are non-binary (including the sword Nepenthe). Just like rl.

 First, that is absolutely NOT like real life.  Nobody in real life ever complains that serial killers and mass-murderers aren't more diverse.  Second, deliberately changing established characters for token diversity, panders to half the audience, and alienates the other half.  It is obvious that Wizards lacks the creativity to come up with their own "diverse" characters, so they use their copyright to steal ideas from good writers.

Quote from ItsNotAChest >>

Quote from PenelopeTheWeaver >>

Quote from SemanticAvenger >>

Quote from ItsNotAChest >>

If Mary Shelly wanted a male character in Frankenstein to be female, she would have made them female. 

 Given the biases and culture of the time and place in which she wrote it, that's tremendously unlikely. It was published anonymously in 1818, and her name didn't appear in the book until five years later, after a successful stage adaptation written by a man. And even then, it did not appear anywhere on the cover, but on an interior title page. Being a novelist at the time was already exceptionally scandalous, and being a woman novelist was doubly so. If a woman was not "allowed" to write novels, I really don't think much of anyone at the time would have been able to accept a woman doing necromantic science.

(she is also on record as hating basically every character in the story, and made numerous revisions in the 1831 edition to make everything less transgressive)

 She actually wrote the story in 1816, when she was hanging out at a lakeshore resort in Switzerland with her husband (Percy Shelley), Lord Byron (her husband’s best friend), her half-sister Claire (who was crushing on Byron) and a doctor named John Polidori. They were each supposed to write a Gothic horror story and the one she wrote became Frankenstein. I wonder if she would’ve made Victor a woman if the culture of the time had allowed her to. (I am definitely not a purist.) 

 Ok cool, great to hear all sides of the story. Excellent bit of trivia by the way. Still, you can’t entirely confirm that she would have wanted her main characters to be female. To say so is speculation, to act on it is assumption.

 No one's saying she would have. But you said she would have if she'd wanted to, and I just pointed out their were significant barriers to that in response to your assumption.

Quote from SemanticAvenger >>

Quote from ItsNotAChest >>

Quote from PenelopeTheWeaver >>

Quote from SemanticAvenger >>

Quote from ItsNotAChest >>

If Mary Shelly wanted a male character in Frankenstein to be female, she would have made them female. 

 Given the biases and culture of the time and place in which she wrote it, that's tremendously unlikely. It was published anonymously in 1818, and her name didn't appear in the book until five years later, after a successful stage adaptation written by a man. And even then, it did not appear anywhere on the cover, but on an interior title page. Being a novelist at the time was already exceptionally scandalous, and being a woman novelist was doubly so. If a woman was not "allowed" to write novels, I really don't think much of anyone at the time would have been able to accept a woman doing necromantic science.

(she is also on record as hating basically every character in the story, and made numerous revisions in the 1831 edition to make everything less transgressive)

 She actually wrote the story in 1816, when she was hanging out at a lakeshore resort in Switzerland with her husband (Percy Shelley), Lord Byron (her husband’s best friend), her half-sister Claire (who was crushing on Byron) and a doctor named John Polidori. They were each supposed to write a Gothic horror story and the one she wrote became Frankenstein. I wonder if she would’ve made Victor a woman if the culture of the time had allowed her to. (I am definitely not a purist.) 

 Ok cool, great to hear all sides of the story. Excellent bit of trivia by the way. Still, you can’t entirely confirm that she would have wanted her main characters to be female. To say so is speculation, to act on it is assumption.

 No one's saying she would have. But you said she would have if she'd wanted to, and I just pointed out their were significant barriers to that in response to your assumption.

 Mary Shelley's goal was to tell a believable horror story, not to represent any group, or make anyone feel included.  The story would only become confusing if Frankenstein were a woman, given that there were only a handful of female doctors worldwide.  It would be every bit as ridiculous as, say, making Sherlock Holmes a handicapped gay man, married to a black Watson.  An identity is not a character!

The ret-coning of major NPC's like Victor Mordenheim is disappointing but not unexpected from a organisation like WoTC.

They seem hell bent on teaching us geo, political, social issues rather than providing a form of entertainment. Why provide a source of dungeon based fun and enjoyment when you can "teach" the masses about perceived social injustice.

My personal take on this is as follows, create a dungeon in Lamordia, Viktra Mordenheim is perceived as the Dark Lord and is written as so in the dungeon, but near the end the party discover that she is in fact a superior form of flesh golem under the control of the real Dark Lord Victor Mordenheim. 

Never forget, D&D is your game at your table.

Quote from JonathanStark >>

The ret-coning of major NPC's like Victor Mordenheim is disappointing but not unexpected from a organisation like WoTC.

They seem hell bent on teaching us geo, political, social issues rather than providing a form of entertainment. Why provide a source of dungeon based fun and enjoyment when you can "teach" the masses about perceived social injustice.

My personal take on this is as follows, create a dungeon in Lamordia, Viktra Mordenheim is perceived as the Dark Lord and is written as so in the dungeon, but near the end the party discover that she is in fact a superior form of flesh golem under the control of the real Dark Lord Victor Mordenheim. 

Never forget, D&D is your game at your table.

 A better solution is to just pick up the old 1e/2e/3e Ravenloft material on PDF, and use that as the backdrop.  It's cheaper, more complete, and has a far superior story.  Once you convert the mechanics to 5e a couple of times, it becomes child's play. Plus, it makes for a better game when you find yourself doing far fewer ability checks.

Quote from SemanticAvenger >>

Quote from ItsNotAChest >>

Quote from PenelopeTheWeaver >>

Quote from SemanticAvenger >>

Quote from ItsNotAChest >>

If Mary Shelly wanted a male character in Frankenstein to be female, she would have made them female. 

 Given the biases and culture of the time and place in which she wrote it, that's tremendously unlikely. It was published anonymously in 1818, and her name didn't appear in the book until five years later, after a successful stage adaptation written by a man. And even then, it did not appear anywhere on the cover, but on an interior title page. Being a novelist at the time was already exceptionally scandalous, and being a woman novelist was doubly so. If a woman was not "allowed" to write novels, I really don't think much of anyone at the time would have been able to accept a woman doing necromantic science.

(she is also on record as hating basically every character in the story, and made numerous revisions in the 1831 edition to make everything less transgressive)

 She actually wrote the story in 1816, when she was hanging out at a lakeshore resort in Switzerland with her husband (Percy Shelley), Lord Byron (her husband’s best friend), her half-sister Claire (who was crushing on Byron) and a doctor named John Polidori. They were each supposed to write a Gothic horror story and the one she wrote became Frankenstein. I wonder if she would’ve made Victor a woman if the culture of the time had allowed her to. (I am definitely not a purist.) 

 Ok cool, great to hear all sides of the story. Excellent bit of trivia by the way. Still, you can’t entirely confirm that she would have wanted her main characters to be female. To say so is speculation, to act on it is assumption.

 No one's saying she would have. But you said she would have if she'd wanted to, and I just pointed out their were significant barriers to that in response to your assumption.

 ... an assumption that has actually basis in fact. Mary Shelly wrote a book where the main antagonists were men. She may have wanted a female character, but no one can confirm that. What they can confirm is that she wrote a book where the main antagonists were men. Furthermore, I am not publishing a book based on my assumption WotC did. I am basing my assumption of Mary Shelly’s intentions based on a book Mary Shelly wrote. WotC wrote a book based on assumptions made about her culture in relation to ours, and then paraded it as of honoring Mary Shelly’s work. 

Man, I am done interacting with people on this site. I'll use the features, but I don't have any interest in the "community" anymore. 

It's astonishing how intractably ignorant some of you can be. 

Quote from JonathanStark >>

The ret-coning of major NPC's like Victor Mordenheim is disappointing but not unexpected from a organisation like WoTC.

They seem hell bent on teaching us geo, political, social issues rather than providing a form of entertainment. Why provide a source of dungeon based fun and enjoyment when you can "teach" the masses about perceived social injustice.

My personal take on this is as follows, create a dungeon in Lamordia, Viktra Mordenheim is perceived as the Dark Lord and is written as so in the dungeon, but near the end the party discover that she is in fact a superior form of flesh golem under the control of the real Dark Lord Victor Mordenheim. 

Never forget, D&D is your game at your table.

Quote from JonathanStark >>

The ret-coning of major NPC's like Victor Mordenheim is disappointing but not unexpected from a organisation like WoTC.

They seem hell bent on teaching us geo, political, social issues rather than providing a form of entertainment. Why provide a source of dungeon based fun and enjoyment when you can "teach" the masses about perceived social injustice.

My personal take on this is as follows, create a dungeon in Lamordia, Viktra Mordenheim is perceived as the Dark Lord and is written as so in the dungeon, but near the end the party discover that she is in fact a superior form of flesh golem under the control of the real Dark Lord Victor Mordenheim. 

Never forget, D&D is your game at your table.

 This is true. WotC needs to understand that some of us don’t want a political and racial agenda shoved down our throats every time we sit at the gaming table. That being said, I am not morally opposed in the same way to “inclusive” characters such as Embric and Avi in Dragonheist. However, when you start genderflipping major and familiar characters for the sake of “inclusivity,” it makes a mockery of the D&D storytelling. Now, if they were writing their own character entirely I wouldn’t mind so much. But this is just getting ridiculous. 

Sorry for double quoting

You were just having an argument, something encouraged by this kind of format; you shouldn't start insulting them or making blanket statements because you disagreed with someone. People just have different opinions.

I hope this helps. Have a nice day!

Quote from Demilich28 >>

You were just having an argument, something encouraged by this kind of format; you shouldn't start insulting them or making blanket statements because you disagreed with someone. People just have different opinions.

I hope this helps. Have a nice day!

 And I am always happy to listen to said different opinions.

D&D is your game and your table - play it fair.

Oldschool Ravenloft, no matter how you slice it, was big time racist (evil vistani that were obviously just every bad romani stereotype and the only black darklord being a literal animal, for instance), and very much a men's club. I am glad they changed it, because women exist and make up about half the population, and we deserve to have characters in our favorite franchises that look like us. I might have complained if they did nothing but gender flip them, but they did more than that. Most of the characters, Viktra Mordenheim included, have been rewritten entirely. Not all are good, but most of them are great! This book is great and the changes it made were good.

If I have to explain why "wanting a darklord who's black/woman/nonbinary/etc." is not the same as wanting more real life serial killers are very different things. If

Because lots of people seem annoyed about the changes between editions I think I might try to get ahold of some older Ravenloft books. Any ideas about where I could get one?

Drive thru rpg or rpgnow might be a good place to start.

I picked up Heroes of Horror from there.

Quote from CaileynRothenel >>

Drive thru rpg or rpgnow might be a good place to start.

I picked up Heroes of Horror from there.

 Ok. Thanks.

Quote from SigrunOfTheBorderRealms >>

Oldschool Ravenloft, no matter how you slice it, was big time racist (evil vistani that were obviously just every bad romani stereotype and the only black darklord being a literal animal, for instance), and very much a men's club. I am glad they changed it, because women exist and make up about half the population, and we deserve to have characters in our favorite franchises that look like us. I might have complained if they did nothing but gender flip them, but they did more than that. Most of the characters, Viktra Mordenheim included, have been rewritten entirely. Not all are good, but most of them are great! This book is great and the changes it made were good.

If I have to explain why "wanting a darklord who's black/woman/nonbinary/etc." is not the same as wanting more real life serial killers are very different things. If

 I can’t Thank this so I’m just gonna say I totally agree.

This only goes to show this forum needs a like button!

Odd the other discussion thread has one, have I missed something?

Quote from CaileynRothenel >>

This only goes to show this forum needs a like button!

Odd the other discussion thread has one, have I missed something?

 Hear hear