It's the little things...

When I'm reading published articles and adventures I want to see fewer mentions of NPCs who are "merchant's wives" and more who are "merchant's  husbands.  Fewer stories about the female adventurer who had to lose every single person she loved before embarking on a life of adventure.  Fewer monsters where the *really* scary version is called "mother." Fewer articles that rate level-of-attractiveness of female NPCs (and only for females).

And, yes, I'd like to see fewer images of leather-armor-clad adventurers with bare bellies, because all I can think of when I see them is those poor adventurers getting their guts sliced out.

And I know that there are some articles, some books, some adventures that don't fall into these traps.  They're just too few.

I want to see more NPCs who are male herb-gardeners or female woodcutters. More PC portraits that are something other than light-skinned people with western-european features. More women's names on the bylines of articles and books.

And there are certainly some of those out there.  But again, too few.  There's just enough so that people who complain get told that there's nothing to complain about.  That somehow the tokens are supposed to be enough to settle for.  That I'm supposed to be satisfied that the game I've loved for half my life has gone back to treating people of my gender as an afterthought.

The little things bother me, nearly as much as the more-obvious stuff does.  Maybe more.
And, yes, I'd like to see fewer images of leather-armor-clad adventurers with bare bellies, because all I can think of when I see them is those poor adventurers getting their guts sliced out.


How about leather-armor-clad adventurers with bear bellies?  Can we get more of those?

Edit: To be clear, I generally agree with you, but at the moment I found the pun was more amusing then anything else I could have said.
Resident Over-Educated Ivory-Tower Elitist [You don't have the Need-to-Know for that, citizen]
And, yes, I'd like to see fewer images of leather-armor-clad adventurers with bare bellies, because all I can think of when I see them is those poor adventurers getting their guts sliced out.


How about leather-armor-clad adventurers with bear bellies?  Can we get more of those?

Edit: To be clear, I generally agree with you, but at the moment I found the pun was more amusing then anything else I could have said.



*snicker*

I'd really have to see more of them to tell you how I feel about it.  So start drawing! ;)

Beer Bellies would be OK as long as there are male and female NPCs with them.   

Why not have the old fat female drunk in the corner of the Tavern ranting about "When I was an Adventurer..."?

Nice!

"You young whippersnappers! I'll have you know that I'm a second edition fighter, and my weapon specialisation gives me an extra attack and a half per round, so don't you go giving me no cheek! Now bring me another picher off beer, and I'll tell a tale of the days of save or die..."

Yup, I can totally see her...
We had to walk twenty miles in the snow to get to our dungeons! Uphill both ways! And we liked it!
And, yes, I'd like to see fewer images of leather-armor-clad adventurers with bare bellies, because all I can think of when I see them is those poor adventurers getting their guts sliced out.



I prefer my male Fighter types to wear a single metal shoulder pad and have it be worth the entire +8 AC bonus for Plate armor.
Dark Sun DM starting October 18th 2010 Level 4 Tiefling Orbizard Level 3 Tiefling Telepath Psion

12.jpg
D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

I would like there to be something that's a male-only membership that's not Eunuch and have everyone be ok with it, i.e. let it be a Brotherhood period, not Brotherhood and Sisterhood.  There are plenty of female-only organizations around D&D land.

I would like it if people didn't get so uptight with pronouns and constantly write "his or her" every single time they need a third person pronoun or else use "her" as default to be "inclusive".

I would like it if a patriarchal society was not always considered a bad thing but a matriarchal society is ok, even if males are slaves or food.  I know Drow are EVIL, but look at the "respect" they get compared to Orcs.



Support Cedric Diggory, the real Hogwarts Champion!
I would like it if people didn't get so uptight with pronouns and constantly write "his or her" every single time they need a third person pronoun or else use "her" as default to be "inclusive".

Yeah, why don't those pesky women just accept that male is the true and natural state of things? If you mind this (as you seem to), why shouldn't they?

I would like it if a patriarchal society was not always considered a bad thing but a matriarchal society is ok, even if males are slaves or food.  I know Drow are EVIL, but look at the "respect" they get compared to Orcs.

Now I'm puzzled. Whoever, anywhere, give the drow respect or whatever that the poor patriarchies don't get? As far as I can see, drow society is pretty universally reviled as tacky fanservice-archy by people who actually think about it for 2+ minutes, so, what respect again? If, by "respect" you mean attention, I think it has to do with the fanservice, not the gender politics.
Yeah, why don't those pesky women just accept that male is the true and natural state of things? If you mind this (as you seem to), why shouldn't they?

I think they should just go with a neutral 'she'. There's nothing inherently more difficult about it, so it should be easy to get used to, at least if the (frequently disproven) theory that pronouns don't matter is correct.

Now I'm puzzled. Whoever, anywhere, give the drow respect or whatever that the poor patriarchies don't get? As far as I can see, drow society is pretty universally reviled as tacky fanservice-archy by people who actually think about it for 2+ minutes, so, what respect again? If, by "respect" you mean attention, I think it has to do with the fanservice, not the gender politics.

Yeah, I don't get that either. I have never seen drow being respected anywhere. I've seen them being defended a lot, usually in the form of younger men trying to tell women that drow are completely realistic in the way they portray how women truly are. Usually though, people agree they're silly, the disagreement is in whether they're silly-awesome or silly-fail.

Also, since when is drow society considered 'ok'? From what I've seen, writers tend to go out of their way to constantly explain why it's dysfunctional, matriarchal, and evil, in a way they rarely, if ever, do with patriarchies. And on a related note, I'm not even sure I'd call drow matriarchal in anything but name.

I would like it if a patriarchal society was not always considered a bad thing but a matriarchal society is ok, even if males are slaves or food.


I don't think I've seen a society that was either partriarchal or matriarchal that wasn't also considered very evil.
Orcs and drow are the major ones, and I think more attention tends to be paid to the downtrodden male drow than the female orcs.  Possibly because orchish patriarchy is pretty standard-issue and easy to understand whereas how the drow treat their men is... odd.

I think they should just go with a neutral 'she'.


"She" is exactly as neutral as "he".  Actually less so, since it doesn't even have the technically correct thing going for it.
"She" as a gender-neutral pronoun generally annoys me.  It implies that the user has a problem with "he" as gender-neutral, but then decided to use "she" despite completely identical issues.

Going back and forth between the two like the 3rd Edition books did was actually a good idea.  It improved readability when it was established that, for example, "he" referred to your ally and "she" to your enemy, meaning you could have examples of how he and she interact without writing out "your ally" and "your enemy" every time.
Speak softly and carry a sharp quill.
When it comes to pronouns I think he makes sense. It has been in use, and it is just a word. Had people been using she for centuries, I would say go with that. We have something similar in Arabic. Huwa means He, but it also frequently means it, and it is the default pronoun. However, because arabic language has masculine and feminine words (and words in a sentence have to agree on gender), you sometimes use Hiya (she) to indicate an object. While I understand the effort behind many of the pronoun battles in English, it seems to me, it has resulted in many awkward constructions and a great deal of confusion. And on top of that, it hasn't done anything to solve gender equality.
Guys, please stop the pronoun stuff.  There's a thread on this board somewhere that's got pretty much everyone here's opinions on the matter in it.  It's a war that was fought for some time and some time ago.  Look for it and read the opinions there if you're interested - just, for the love of whatever God(s) you pray to (or don't), don't revive it.  We had that fight and we're all pretty well done with it.  Thanks you wonderful peaches.  ;)
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.

Section Six Soldier

Front Door of the House of Trolls

[b]If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.[/b]

It's a war that was fought for some time and some time ago.


... all that inspires me to do is dig up some quotes from old war movies and rant about how the war is never over, just individual battles along the way, not going into that good night my friend, and fighting them on the beaches and in the nursery and in cabbage patch...

Resident Over-Educated Ivory-Tower Elitist [You don't have the Need-to-Know for that, citizen]
... all that inspires me to do is dig up some quotes from old war movies and rant about how the war is never over, just individual battles along the way, not going into that good night my friend, and fighting them on the beaches and in the nursery and in cabbage patch...


"This war is over. We lost." – Adama, BSG
Advice for DMs: When you are ad lib or improve DMing don't self-edit yourself. Some of the most fun you'll ever have is by just going with whatever crazy thing crosses your mind based on what your players are doing. Advice for Players: When your DM is ad libbing there are bound to be plot holes and inconsistencies that crop up. You'll all have a lot more fun if you just roll with it instead of nitpicking the details.
Previous Advice
Advice for DMs: Always dangle a lot of plot hooks in front of you players. Anything they do not bite you can bring back and bite them later. When considering a new house rule ask yourself the question "Will this make the game more fun?" Unless the answer is a resounding yes don't do it. Advice for Players: Always tell the DM not just what you want to do but also what you are hoping to accomplish. No matter how logical the result is it will never happen if it simply never occurred to the DM. "That's what my character would do" is not a valid excuse for being a disruptive ass at the table. Your right to have fun only extends to the point where it impedes the ability of others to do likewise.
Yeah, well I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass.  [dramatic pause]  And I'm all out of bubblegum.
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.

Section Six Soldier

Front Door of the House of Trolls

[b]If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.[/b]

Yeah, well I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass.  [dramatic pause]  And I'm all out of bubblegum.


... I'm not sure which is worse, that you quoted Duke Nukem, or that I recognized the quote...
Resident Over-Educated Ivory-Tower Elitist [You don't have the Need-to-Know for that, citizen]
"She" is exactly as neutral as "he".

Exactly. Either words mean something, or they don't. The reason Orwellian Newspeak is such a horrifying idea, is that the language helps shaping the way people think. Without this recognition of the power of words, the idea that changing words should be a bad thing, is meaningless. So if it doesn't mean anything when a male pronoun is used as supposedly neutral, then it shouldn't mean anything if a female pronoun was used as supposedly neutral instead.

When I'm indifferent to something, but other people care about it, I go with what they want, because it doesn't make a difference to me either way, and insisting on doing it the way that annoys other people the most for no reason is just petty. The same way with pronouns. If you don't think they mean anything, there's no reason to care, and if you don't care (as long as it's a one syllable word), there's no reason to have a problem with a change of words. Read my post again, I specifically said that this would only work if the already disproven theory that pronouns don't matter is true. But Z_B is right, this topic has already been debated, and no one is likely to change their mind.

.. I'm not sure which is worse, that you quoted Duke Nukem, or that I recognized the quote...



HERESY!
HERESY!

It's a quote from They Live.  Spoken by the unparalleled Roddy Piper.  The fact that Duke Nukem stole it shamelessly is what's worst. 
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.

Section Six Soldier

Front Door of the House of Trolls

[b]If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.[/b]

HERESY!
HERESY!

It's a quote from They Live.  Spoken by the unparalleled Roddy Piper.  The fact that Duke Nukem stole it shamelessly is what's worst. 



So say we all.
Advice for DMs: When you are ad lib or improve DMing don't self-edit yourself. Some of the most fun you'll ever have is by just going with whatever crazy thing crosses your mind based on what your players are doing. Advice for Players: When your DM is ad libbing there are bound to be plot holes and inconsistencies that crop up. You'll all have a lot more fun if you just roll with it instead of nitpicking the details.
Previous Advice
Advice for DMs: Always dangle a lot of plot hooks in front of you players. Anything they do not bite you can bring back and bite them later. When considering a new house rule ask yourself the question "Will this make the game more fun?" Unless the answer is a resounding yes don't do it. Advice for Players: Always tell the DM not just what you want to do but also what you are hoping to accomplish. No matter how logical the result is it will never happen if it simply never occurred to the DM. "That's what my character would do" is not a valid excuse for being a disruptive ass at the table. Your right to have fun only extends to the point where it impedes the ability of others to do likewise.
It's a quote from They Live.  Spoken by the unparalleled Roddy Piper.


Dude, when that movie was made, I was 3.  I've never heard of it, never seen it, and that makes me laugh on account of having seen a fair bit of 80's movies on account of my parents enjoyed torturing me and my sisters.

So I think I'll just call you old and laugh.

OLD!

Resident Over-Educated Ivory-Tower Elitist [You don't have the Need-to-Know for that, citizen]
What was that, sonny?  I'm sorry but my ears just ain't what they used to be.  If you'd like to see that scene (and it is awesome), it can be found on the youtubes.  So can the greatest movie fight scene of all time - from the same film, of course.  South Park actually used it as the inspiration for their famous Cripple Fight scene.  Truly quality stuff.  And now my old behind needs to wander off into the vastness of the intertoobs in search of a DVD copy of Hell Comes to Frogtown - now that I'm thinkin' of Piper movies ...
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.

Section Six Soldier

Front Door of the House of Trolls

[b]If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.[/b]

"She" is exactly as neutral as "he".

Exactly. Either words mean something, or they don't. The reason Orwellian Newspeak is such a horrifying idea, is that the language helps shaping the way people think. Without this recognition of the power of words, the idea that changing words should be a bad thing, is meaningless. So if it doesn't mean anything when a male pronoun is used as supposedly neutral, then it shouldn't mean anything if a female pronoun was used as supposedly neutral instead.



I really think 1984 is overblown in general. Yes words mean something. And not having the right words can make expressing particular ideas difficult, but do they truly shape how we perceive the world as strongly as some would believe. I grew up not speaking English. I spoke Arabic and French. Certainly speaking these languages exposed me to specifically french and arabic concepts, because there are words that exist in both languages that don't exist in some others. But I don't think it made me a different human being than someone who grew up speaking english in America or Australia. I don't think the act of speaking french, makes someone different than other people on a fundamental level. Religion, culture, history, yes. But language, as important as it is for the transmission of ideas, I don't think as insidious a force as some people on the left or the right want to believe.
Here's the 113-page argument. Enjoy! ;)
And not having the right words can make expressing particular ideas difficult, but do they truly shape how we perceive the world as strongly as some would believe. I grew up not speaking English. I spoke Arabic and French. Certainly speaking these languages exposed me to specifically french and arabic concepts, because there are words that exist in both languages that don't exist in some others. But I don't think it made me a different human being than someone who grew up speaking english in America or Australia.

Not the language itself, but the meaning of the words.

Show

He or il doesn't make a difference, it's just two different words for the same concept, but consider the word 'witch'. Some hundred years ago it was a considered an insult at best, and a grave accusation at worst, while today, it's more often than not a reference to something good (and fictional). Same words, different meaning. However, when the word still had the meaning of someone who'd made a deal with the devil, accusations of witchcraft were serious business. Saying that being called a witch didn't mean anything, because it was just a word, would have been scarce comfort for the thousands of people who got brutally murdered, or at least lost their social standing and financial security, because of such accusations.


Let's take Muhammed and Aisha (not trying to start a debate here, I'll leave my personal opinion out of this). There are convincing arguments on both sides as to the nature of the marriage, but don't tell me that Muhammed being described as a **** (usually used to indicate a sexual preference for children, and a penchant for hideous abuse, as opposed to marrying one very young girl among several adult women) does nothing to affect people's perception of Islam and, by extension, Muslims.


Or, since we're already on the edge of the CoC, something like female genital mutilation as opposed to female circumcision. It's two different words for the same procedure, but the meaning of said words, and the impression they give, is very different. I've met people who believe that the procedures are identical, and are very upset that others have the audacity to believe the female version is different, al because the name is the same.


Or, to stay (somewhat) on the topic of women, the difference between anger and hysteria, usually used for similar, or even identical, behaviours that are nonetheless perceived very differently. I once had to ask a boyfriend what exactly the difference was between when I got hysterical and he got angry. He had no answer for me, and having him realise that made it a lot easier for me to get my anger accepted and taken seriously (which ended up meaning I got a lot less angry). There's a reason there are several industries based on how to present things, using the best words and images to conjure up the desired reaction.

And not having the right words can make expressing particular ideas difficult, but do they truly shape how we perceive the world as strongly as some would believe. I grew up not speaking English. I spoke Arabic and French. Certainly speaking these languages exposed me to specifically french and arabic concepts, because there are words that exist in both languages that don't exist in some others. But I don't think it made me a different human being than someone who grew up speaking english in America or Australia.

Not the language itself, but the meaning of the words.

Show

He or il doesn't make a difference, it's just two different words for the same concept, but consider the word 'witch'. Some hundred years ago it was a considered an insult at best, and a grave accusation at worst, while today, it's more often than not a reference to something good (and fictional). Same words, different meaning. However, when the word still had the meaning of someone who'd made a deal with the devil, accusations of witchcraft were serious business. Saying that being called a witch didn't mean anything, because it was just a word, would have been scarce comfort for the thousands of people who got brutally murdered, or at least lost their social standing and financial security, because of such accusations.


Let's take Muhammed and Aisha (not trying to start a debate here, I'll leave my personal opinion out of this). There are convincing arguments on both sides as to the nature of the marriage, but don't tell me that Muhammed being described as a **** (usually used to indicate a sexual preference for children, and a penchant for hideous abuse, as opposed to marrying one very young girl among several adult women) does nothing to affect people's perception of Islam and, by extension, Muslims.


Or, since we're already on the edge of the CoC, something like female genital mutilation as opposed to female circumcision. It's two different words for the same procedure, but the meaning of said words, and the impression they give, is very different. I've met people who believe that the procedures are identical, and are very upset that others have the audacity to believe the female version is different, al because the name is the same.


Or, to stay (somewhat) on the topic of women, the difference between anger and hysteria, usually used for similar, or even identical, behaviours that are nonetheless perceived very differently. I once had to ask a boyfriend what exactly the difference was between when I got hysterical and he got angry. He had no answer for me, and having him realise that made it a lot easier for me to get my anger accepted and taken seriously (which ended up meaning I got a lot less angry). There's a reason there are several industries based on how to present things, using the best words and images to conjure up the desired reaction.




Yes, but a language is made up of words with meaning. And many languages handle things like gender and pronouns differently. But I just don't think walking around using the pronoun He to describe an it (as we do in Arabic) or as a default pronoun, has much impact on how we see men and women. What impacts this are ideas. This is one of the reaons I think a guy like glenn beck is such a nut. He harps on things like newspeak and other overblown Orwellian concepts (a work of fiction) to achieve major political conclusions. But 1984 is just a book, and in my opinion its Apocalypse porn. The sort of thinking that can be used by the left or the right to engineer perceived conspiracies or ingrained injusted. The problem is, while people are looking for the invisible modes of oppression, they often ignore the very real forms of oppression.

I will give you an example. The middle east, where I come from, is rife with anti western thinking. We talk about the west, the way college students often speak of corporations, racial injustice etc. The problem is we are so rapt up in the theory, and the linguistics of oppression, that we don't even see the Niqab's right in front of us.

Yes, but a language is made up of words with meaning. And many languages handle things like gender and pronouns differently. But I just don't think walking around using the pronoun He to describe an it (as we do in Arabic) or as a default pronoun, has much impact on how we see men and women. What impacts this are ideas.

Let me put it differently then. I disagree with the idea of maleness/men as the default. And I therefore disagree with expressions of this idea. It's really that simple.

 


(PS: I'm not American, I have no little idea about who Glen Beck is)


(PS: I'm not American, I have no little idea about who Glen Beck is)




I am not an American either (not yet anyways). But Glen Beck is a right wing pundit that has a big late afternoon show on Fox, and a talk radio show.

I am demonstrating the absurdity by being absurd.
Support Cedric Diggory, the real Hogwarts Champion!
Regarding the power of language and whether or not people treat the supposed "gender neutral" he/him/his as such, does anyone still have a link to the study regarding how people responded to gendered vs. un-gendered classifieds?
Resident Over-Educated Ivory-Tower Elitist [You don't have the Need-to-Know for that, citizen]
(PS: I'm not American, I have no little idea about who Glen Beck is)


Glenn Beck is a lying, hypocritical, paranoid, fear-mongering ultra-right lunatic who feeds on - and into - gullible people's small-mindedness, racism and xenophobia. Avoid at all costs.

Here's a video from last week ago where Lewis Black goes off on Glenn Beck (not being in America I can't link to the original video, I found this one on YouTube from Countdown with Keith Olbermann).It's hardly a comprehensive overview of Beck but serves as an amusing (and biting) critique of one of his many manipulative ploys: www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMOh9L60FKw

For context of the opening remarks in case you aren't familiar with Countdown: Keith Olbermann is an open critic - and something of a self-appointed watchdog - of the ultra-right movement both in media and politics. With their long history of lies and hypocisy Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly are favourite and frequent subjects of his caustic derision.

The name "Lonesome Rhodes" by which Keith often refers to Beck is a reference to the 1957 film  A Face In The Crowd" in which a character named Larry "Lonesome" Rhodes becomes a popular media darling by seeming to be a regular guy and appealing to the common folk but in truth is a fraud, a callous manipulator who loathes the general public he panders to.

The bit where Beck starts to break up when talking about how people are "coming to get him" is another of his common ploys. He often pretends to be overwhelmed by emotion, usually when talking about how much he loves America. At one point they actually used to have a banner on the screen during his show with a closeup of his eyes so you could see the tears welling up. I kid you not.
Advice for DMs: When you are ad lib or improve DMing don't self-edit yourself. Some of the most fun you'll ever have is by just going with whatever crazy thing crosses your mind based on what your players are doing. Advice for Players: When your DM is ad libbing there are bound to be plot holes and inconsistencies that crop up. You'll all have a lot more fun if you just roll with it instead of nitpicking the details.
Previous Advice
Advice for DMs: Always dangle a lot of plot hooks in front of you players. Anything they do not bite you can bring back and bite them later. When considering a new house rule ask yourself the question "Will this make the game more fun?" Unless the answer is a resounding yes don't do it. Advice for Players: Always tell the DM not just what you want to do but also what you are hoping to accomplish. No matter how logical the result is it will never happen if it simply never occurred to the DM. "That's what my character would do" is not a valid excuse for being a disruptive ass at the table. Your right to have fun only extends to the point where it impedes the ability of others to do likewise.
I think it should be noted that Olbermann is also somewhat of a 'Beck Jr' for the other side, as it were.  He's by no means as bad (though, at times, he can get close) but he is another political mouthpiece pushing an agenda.  Really, it' best to stay away from both of these 'voices' and their many clones and wannabes.
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.

Section Six Soldier

Front Door of the House of Trolls

[b]If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.[/b]

Keith Olbermann is an open critic - and something of a self-appointed watchdog - of the ultra-right movement both in media and politics. With their long history of lies and hypocisy Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly are favourite and frequent subjects of his caustic derision.



Keith Olberman has called a conservative woman pundit a "mashed up bag of meat with lipstick".  Both sides have nuts with microphones.

Heh.  Here's my favorite Olbermann moment:

Before the 2010 Massachusetts special election, Olbermann called Republican candidate Scott Brown "an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, Tea Bagging supporter of violence against women, and against politicians with whom he disagrees".



Yep.  A real paragon of responsible commentary.  But that's the whole point - both sides have mindless tools in positions of influence so, listening to one comment on another from across the lines just doesn't paint a true picture.  And, if you're a fan of one, you can't really crap on people that are fans of one from the other side.  Cuz, see, you both bought it.  Ya just bought different versions.  But yeah, Glen Beck should be ignored.  So should Keith.
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.

Section Six Soldier

Front Door of the House of Trolls

[b]If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.[/b]

Keith Olberman has called a conservative woman pundit a "mashed up bag of meat with lipstick".  Both sides have nuts with microphones.


That quote was way over the line*, but it's more than a little disingenuous to tar Obermann with the Beck-brush because of an ad hominem insult. Olbermann wears his politics on his sleeve, no question, but unlike Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reily and their ilk he doesn't rely on lies to bolster his position.


*Unless he was talking about her personality, of course, then I think he was being far too generous. Malkin is a strident harpy with an ugly core of malice.
Advice for DMs: When you are ad lib or improve DMing don't self-edit yourself. Some of the most fun you'll ever have is by just going with whatever crazy thing crosses your mind based on what your players are doing. Advice for Players: When your DM is ad libbing there are bound to be plot holes and inconsistencies that crop up. You'll all have a lot more fun if you just roll with it instead of nitpicking the details.
Previous Advice
Advice for DMs: Always dangle a lot of plot hooks in front of you players. Anything they do not bite you can bring back and bite them later. When considering a new house rule ask yourself the question "Will this make the game more fun?" Unless the answer is a resounding yes don't do it. Advice for Players: Always tell the DM not just what you want to do but also what you are hoping to accomplish. No matter how logical the result is it will never happen if it simply never occurred to the DM. "That's what my character would do" is not a valid excuse for being a disruptive ass at the table. Your right to have fun only extends to the point where it impedes the ability of others to do likewise.
I have to agree a bit with Boraxe on this one. While Olberman is certainly a biased source of news, he is really more on the same level as Oreilly than Beck. Beck is is the next logical extreme in demagoguery. Oreilly and Olberman are at least coherent. They can be reasoned with, and they appear to think before reaching conclusions. They may cherry pick their evidence. They may even ignore vital facts from the opposing side. But Beck is much more in the sheer propoganda realm. He literally edits things down to get to the truth he wants. He is sophist. He reshapes night into day and day into night. And he is either the craziest man on television or one heck of an actor.
Thank you for the explanation and illustration Boraxe. "Empathy=Nazism", it's almost as tragic as it's funny
I have to agree a bit with Boraxe on this one. While Olberman is certainly a biased source of news, he is really more on the same level as Oreilly than Beck. Beck is is the next logical extreme in demagoguery. Oreilly and Olberman are at least coherent. They can be reasoned with, and they appear to think before reaching conclusions. They may cherry pick their evidence. They may even ignore vital facts from the opposing side. But Beck is much more in the sheer propoganda realm. He literally edits things down to get to the truth he wants. He is sophist. He reshapes night into day and day into night. And he is either the craziest man on television or one heck of an actor.



I can certainly agree with that.  Beck is ... out there.  The biggest thing, IMO, though, is that all of them are dangerous in their own way. 
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.

Section Six Soldier

Front Door of the House of Trolls

[b]If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.[/b]



I can certainly agree with that.  Beck is ... out there.  The biggest thing, IMO, though, is that all of them are dangerous in their own way. 



I agree they can all be dangerous. But Beck is a kid of dangerous that I don't think the American people have seen since the 30s or 40s. But even then, neither those guys, nor oreilly or oblerman had/have the rhetorical skills or charisma of Beck. Who knows who could burn out in his first couple of years or crash from a big scandal. I don't think that is likely though. The thing that really spurred the Tea Party movement was Beck and his 9.12 thing.
I think it should be noted that Olbermann is also somewhat of a 'Beck Jr' for the other side, as it were.  He's by no means as bad (though, at times, he can get close) but he is another political mouthpiece pushing an agenda.  Really, it' best to stay away from both of these 'voices' and their many clones and wannabes.


Eh.  I prefer Maddow, myself.  I mean, the woman uses a highlighter and a pen during her show!  And she occassionally talks about mixed drinks and random bits of geeky stuff!  And she took out a full page ad to announce that she wasn't running against Scott Brown!
Resident Over-Educated Ivory-Tower Elitist [You don't have the Need-to-Know for that, citizen]
I agree they can all be dangerous. But Beck is a kid of dangerous that I don't think the American people have seen since the 30s or 40s. But even then, neither those guys, nor oreilly or oblerman had/have the rhetorical skills or charisma of Beck. Who knows who could burn out in his first couple of years or crash from a big scandal. I don't think that is likely though. The thing that really spurred the Tea Party movement was Beck and his 9.12 thing.



Sure Beck is worse.  But, in this case, bad is bad.  Lies are lies.  Half truths are half truths.  Biased opinion masquerading as news is terrible.  They're all guilty.  It's just to what degree they've gone.  Would we be better off if Beck was removed from his position of influence (something I do not advocate - Freedom of Speech (certainly not Press in this case) an' all that)?  Yeah, probably.  But it would be even better if all of 'em were gone.  But it'll never happen (which, in a way, is a good thing).  Fear mongering (both sides) works.  It sells ad slots.  So here we will stay for a while.
Anyhoo, to the assertion that Beck is worse, I guess I say 'yeah, but so what?'.  If they're all bad, they're all bad.  He just goes a little further. 

Eh.  I prefer Maddow, myself.  I mean, the woman uses a highlighter and a penduring her show!  And she occassionally talks about mixed drinks and random bits of geeky stuff!  And she took out a full page ad to announce that she wasn't running against Scott Brown!



I was a fan of the Dobbs for a time.  Then he started getting into stuff that made me damn near lose my mind with rage (as he'd invite debate from people on the other side of the topic).  I just don't want that kind of thing after work, ya know?  So I can't watch pretty much any of this crap.  It's political theater and it's all crap.  A world wholly fabricated by agenda that far, far too many allow to replace the real one.  I just can't handle it anymore.  Maybe I am getting old ...
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.

Section Six Soldier

Front Door of the House of Trolls

[b]If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.[/b]