As for the term fey, I prefer the term 'faerie' since it a little more understood to the general public.
I think "faerie" is more familiar, but I also think that it evokes a narrower range of creatures. This is probably 99% just D&D's own influence, but when I think "faerie", I think of a small number of pixie/sprite creatures, while "fey" evokes a much broader range. (Although Pixies are still the archetypical fey.) I don't know if that's just because I'm used to the way D&D has historically used the term fey, though.
I think "faerie" is more familiar, but I also think that it evokes a narrower range of creatures. This is probably 99% just D&D's own influence, but when I think "faerie", I think of a small number of pixie/sprite creatures, while "fey" evokes a much
Because the ways that the writers themselves portray these things in their initial presentations of them also have an effect on the people who play with them and on how those people play with them, not to mention that these are concerns about how it reflects on the hobby and brand as a whole.
I have to be honest, I just don't see how portraying Dryads as exclusively female is sexist. Dryads have a charm power, and they are tied to an oak. I don't see how anything there is offensive to women.
You just responded to a bunch of my stuff, so I'm going to see if I can explain this to you in one short reply.
That's a misunderstanding of what sexism is. Something doesn't have to be overtly offensive to men or women specifically in order to be sexist, and sexism certainly isn't always something that conscious or deliberate as some people seem to think. Sexism is also about restrictions and limitations, subconscious ones that have become so ingrained in our minds through our socialization that we don't even notice they're there. Why should the Dryad be limited to being female? Why should the Satyr be limited to being male? The answer now is basically "tradition". The answer when these creatures were being created was that women are like this and men are like that, putting people in different boxes that limit them based on sex and gender. Saying that Satyrs must be male because they portray some stereotypically masculine qualities and that Dryads must be female because they portray some stereotypically feminine qualities is just further perpetuating these limitations, these ideas that women are supposed to be like this and men are supposed to be like that, these idea that still limit all of us today, whether we even realize it or not.
It's not that there's something wrong with taking some cues from the original mythology to decide exactly what these creatures are supposed to be. It's that there's something wrong with thinking that they're immune to critique and should be immune to reinvention just because they've been around for so long. Humanity has progressed in a lot of ways since these creatures were originally invented, and I don't see what's wrong with having our modern interpretations of them reflect that, especially not where the only bits that we're throwing out or reimagining are the limitations that aren't even necessary to begin with. Heck, I'm not even asking them to say "Hags could be male, sure.". That, while cool, would be unnecessary. I'm just asking them to do what they did, describe them absolutely perfectly while still subtly managing to leave the door wide open to less limited interpretation.
Ok Fair Enough.
Because the ways that the writers themselves portray these things in their initial presentations of them also have an effect on the people who play with them and on how those people play with them, not to mention that these are concerns about how it
As for the term fey, I prefer the term 'faerie' since it a little more understood to the general public.
I think "faerie" is more familiar, but I also think that it evokes a narrower range of creatures. This is probably 99% just D&D's own influence, but when I think "faerie", I think of a small number of pixie/sprite creatures, while "fey" evokes a much broader range. (Although Pixies are still the archetypical fey.) I don't know if that's just because I'm used to the way D&D has historically used the term fey, though.
I agree with you there. I see Korred as fey creatures but not faeries.
I think "faerie" is more familiar, but I also think that it evokes a narrower range of creatures. This is probably 99% just D&D's own influence, but when I think "faerie", I think of a small number of pixie/sprite creatures, while "fey" evokes a much
There is no reason why D&D must be a platform for social activism.
If everything takes the stance that "It's not our responsibility to contribute because it's not our job to change anything" then no change will come about.
I think that it's quite the opposite. I think that most people underthink this game and all of the other forms of media and their messages that shape our thinking about the world. That being repeatedly exposed to the same messages by film, music, literature, art, and so on affects our perceptions of our world and of each other is not some fringe theory. It is a key part of sociology, psychology, media studies, and so on. It's the easy way out to say that any one individual element can't be to blame because it is but a single drop in a massive ocean, but what is the ocean but a multitude of drops? (Sorry, I just got done watching Cloud Atlas. )
So, to be clear, will you be upset if the Monster Manual says that all dryads (for instance) are always female, or will simply a picture of a female dryad be enough to incense you? Does every female monster in the book have to be changed to male?
It's not exactly that simple. Remember, the problem is limitations. Trying to then limit women (or men) from these roles is just as bad as limiting women (or men) to them. What's important is variety, removal of limitation. Get creative. Another possible solution that some people have discussed is creating different creatures that fulfill the same role. For example, filling the role of the watery fey seductress could be the Nymph while filling an identical role as watery fey seducer could be the Encantado (from Brazilian folklore). My more general criticism of that is that we're then creating a bunch of different monsters to fill the exact same roles when we really don't need to.
While it may affect how other people without a deeper frame of reference view the game, saying that it affects what you think is a cop out.
I don't think that's a cop-out at all. On a broader level, should I not want to be able to take pride in my hobby rather than be ashamed of it?
We have eight women in our gaming group, and we treat them just the same as we do everyone else.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I think that is impossible. The differences may be subtle, you probably don't even realize that you're doing it, but they're there. Even I treat men and women differently, even all of my buddies in the sociology, gender studies, and q-theory departments treat men and women differently. It is practically impossible not to in our culture considering how we're taught to treat men and women differently from such an early age that it's essentially impossible to reverse when you're this old. The important part is trying to be self-aware and self-critical. The person that thinks they treat all sexes equally probably doesn't know much about the subject. Tell me, are familiar with Avenue Q and this little song? Well, it applies to this too.
If everything takes the stance that "It's not our responsibility to contribute because it's not our job to change anything" then no change will come about.I think that it's quite the opposite. I think that most people underthink this game and all of
There is no reason why D&D must be a platform for social activism.
If everything takes the stance that "It's not our responsibility to contribute because it's not our job to change anything" then no change will come about.
lol. Not everyone wants your brand of change. Furthermore, you can't change the natural order of things with a D&D beistiary.
Tonto: "Rahhh!, is it true that some socially motivated activist is trying to take you girls away from me? I'll crush that human!"
If everything takes the stance that "It's not our responsibility to contribute because it's not our job to change anything" then no change will come about.[/quote]lol. Not everyone wants your brand of change. Furthermore, you can't change the natu
If everything takes the stance that "It's not our responsibility to contribute because it's not our job to change anything" then no change will come about.
You have had the thought that people do just plain disagree with you, right?
I think that it's quite the opposite. I think that most people underthink this game and all of the other forms of media and their messages that shape our thinking about the world. That being repeatedly exposed to the same messages by film, music, literature, art, and so on affects our perceptions of our world and of each other is not some fringe theory. It is a key part of sociology, psychology, media studies, and so on. It's the easy way out to say that any one individual element can't be to blame because it is but a single drop in a massive ocean, but what is the ocean but a multitude of drops? (Sorry, I just got done watching Cloud Atlas. )
It's possible that people do underthink the game. But then, I don't agree that the game needs to be some sort of high form of art, either. For some perhaps that's true. But I don't think the game needs to necessarily be that, nor do I think D&D needs to be a platform for social activism.
So, to be clear, will you be upset if the Monster Manual says that all dryads (for instance) are always female, or will simply a picture of a female dryad be enough to incense you? Does every female monster in the book have to be changed to male?
It's not exactly that simple. Remember, the problem is limitations. Trying to then limit women (or men) from these roles is just as bad as limiting women (or men) to them. What's important is variety, removal of limitation. Get creative. Another possible solution that some people have discussed is creating different creatures that fulfill the same role. For example, filling the role of the watery fey seductress could be the Nymph while filling an identical role as watery fey seducer could be the Encantado (from Brazilian folklore). My more general criticism of that is that we're then creating a bunch of different monsters to fill the exact same roles when we really don't need to.
First off, that didn't really answer the question. Secondly, tell me how a picture of a female dryad limits it from being male? That doesn't mean they can't be, or that it limits males from being dryads. Thirdly, you say you want less limitations, and then complain we're creating monsters to fill the same roles when we don't need to? Could you pick one please?
I don't think that's a cop-out at all. On a broader level, should I not want to be able to take pride in my hobby rather than be ashamed of it?
Indeed - but that doesn't mean that the game needs to be high art for everyone. That's just as much imposing one's take on that game on others as is, say, alignment restrictions.
We have eight women in our gaming group, and we treat them just the same as we do everyone else.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I think that is impossible. The differences may be subtle, you probably don't even realize that you're doing it, but they're there. Even I treat men and women differently, even all of my buddies in the sociology, gender studies, and q-theory departments treat men and women differently. It is practically impossible not to in our culture considering how we're taught to treat men and women differently from such an early age that it's essentially impossible to reverse when you're this old. The important part is trying to be self-aware and self-critical. The person that thinks they treat all sexes equally probably doesn't know much about the subject. Tell me, are familiar with Avenue Q and this little song? Well, it applies to this too.
Oh, sure, there may be small subtle things. I never claimed to be perfect. But by and large, we don't care if someone has indoor or outdoor plumbing - if they do something dumb, they get called out on it. If they do something awesome, they get cheers and high-fives. Women don't get special treatment, and don't get relegated to having to play the pretty pretty princess characters, or anything like that.
And, as an actor...why no, I've never heard of Avenue Q or that song, ever. /sarcasm
You have had the thought that people do just plain disagree with you, right?It's possible that people do underthink the game. But then, I don't agree that the game needs to be some sort of high form of art, either. For some perhaps that's true. But I
You have had the thought that people do just plain disagree with you, right?
Everyone has the right to their own opinion, but they don't have a right to seeing that opinion implemented.
Right. If WotC decides to turn D&D into a platform for social activism, they will. If they don't, they won't. It's really as simple as that. Arguing about it on the forums here isn't going to do anything.
Everyone has the right to their own opinion, but they don't have a right to seeing that opinion implemented.[/quote]Right. If WotC decides to turn D&D into a platform for social activism, they will. If they don't, they won't. It's really as simple as
Except that what C_C is arguing for doesn't actually hurt anyone who wants female-only dryads.
It's not about social activism, it's about the principle of inclusiveness that Next is based on. One way excludes a group of people, the other way includes everyone, so they should implement the way that includes everyone.
Arguing in favor of exclusion is wrong. Forcing other people to accede to your preferences is completely against all Next stands for.
Except that what C_C is arguing for doesn't actually hurt anyone who wants female-only dryads.It's not about social activism, it's about the principle of inclusiveness that Next is based on. One way excludes a group of people, the other way includes
Except that what C_C is arguing for doesn't actually hurt anyone who wants female-only dryads.
It's not about social activism, it's about the principle of inclusiveness that Next is based on. One way excludes a group of people, the other way includes everyone, so they should implement the way that includes everyone.
Arguing in favor of exclusion is wrong. Forcing other people to accede to your preferences is completely against all Next stands for.
I'm not arguing that all dryads should be female, or anything else of that nature. I'm all for things being whatever one wants them to be at their table.
The only thing I'm arguing against is the seeming point that anything less than X (for any given value of X) is entirely unacceptable, and is somehow insulting to . My sole point is that railing about it - for the umpteenth time, no less - does absolutely nothing, and doesn't affect at all how any given group handles the situation at their table. Furthermore, that's where the decision should lie - at each individual table. Not in the books.
I'm not arguing that all dryads should be female, or anything else of that nature. I'm all for things being whatever one wants them to be at their table.The only thing I'm arguing against is the seeming point that anything less than X (for any given
Furthermore, you can't change the natural order of things with a D&D beistiary.
Why not?
Please point me in the direction of historical reference for black dragons being associated with dank swamps and using acid as a weapon.
Why? What does that have to do with anything I was talking about?
I said before that D&D has a right to its own mythology and doesn't need history or anything like that to justify it.
If Dryad's are tree spirits that take female form in D&D so be it, I don't care what history has to say about it.
Lastly, we don't need a bunch of social activists trying to insert their brand of what is right and wrong into D&D.
Why not?Please point me in the direction of historical reference for black dragons being associated with dank swamps and using acid as a weapon.[/quote]Why? What does that have to do with anything I was talking about? I said before that D&D has a
Furthermore, you can't change the natural order of things with a D&D beistiary.
Why not?
Please point me in the direction of historical reference for black dragons being associated with dank swamps and using acid as a weapon.
Why? What does that have to do with anything I was talking about?
Nothing, as often is the case...
Why not?Please point me in the direction of historical reference for black dragons being associated with dank swamps and using acid as a weapon.[/quote]Why? What does that have to do with anything I was talking about? [/quote]Nothing, as often is
that's where the decision should lie - at each individual table. Not in the books.
So...why are you and C_C arguing, again? Because it sounds like you agree completely.
Because it sounds to me that his (I'm assuming; apologies if that's incorrect, and I would welcome a correction) point is that having them be female only is somehow insulting and that nobody should do it ever. Thus, controlling what other tables do (at worst) or looking down on people who do that like they are somehow tainting the hobby and bringing it down (at best). That's not a stance I can agree with.
So...why are you and C_C arguing, again? Because it sounds like you agree completely.[/quote]Because it sounds to me that his (I'm assuming; apologies if that's incorrect, and I would welcome a correction) point is that having them be female only is
Except that what C_C is arguing for doesn't actually hurt anyone who wants female-only dryads.
Nor does keeping it female hurt C_C or anyone else. Both sides are capable of enacting changes if they don't get what they want.
Arguing in favor of exclusion is wrong. Forcing other people to accede to your preferences is completely against all Next stands for.
There can be too much of a good thing. I think you are overstating what next is about. It's not about absolutely every option being available to all players. There can still be limitations in next without breaking what it is trying to accomplish.
Why should I be forced to have black dragons have acid breath? Doesn't having a dragons with specific colors and breath weapons also go against your idea of next? Should we just have dragon and then let the DM decide what color, alignment (if used) and breath weapon type it has?
Why should the game tell us anything at all? Anything it tells us is a fact of the game limits us and forces their preferences on us.
Nor does keeping it female hurt C_C or anyone else. Both sides are capable of enacting changes if they don't get what they want. There can be too much of a good thing. I think you are overstating what next is about. It's not about absolutely ever
Except that what C_C is arguing for doesn't actually hurt anyone who wants female-only dryads.
Nor does keeping it female hurt C_C or anyone else. Both sides are capable of enacting changes if they don't get what they want.
Missing the point. If you take C_C's suggestion and implement it, then neither side needs to change anything, and they both get what they want.
"It's fine, you just have to ignore what's written" is not an acceptable argument.
Nor does keeping it female hurt C_C or anyone else. Both sides are capable of enacting changes if they don't get what they want. [/quote]Missing the point. If you take C_C's suggestion and implement it, then neither side needs to change anything,
I think D&D needs to be a platform for social activism.
You call it "social activism". Some people call it being "PC". I call it "not being regressively moronic". Calling it "social activism" or "PC" over is just a red herring and isn't getting us anywhere one way or the other. I really wish that people would stop using such lazy non-arguments.
Secondly, tell me how a picture of a female dryad limits it from being male?
I never said that it did? What sparked this, if you'll recall, was the textual description of the Dryad. That's what limits it. It'd be great to get some variety in the artwork too, of course, but the artwork is always of example characters, not of every single possible form that a monster can take.
that doesn't mean that the game needs to be high art for everyone. That's just as much imposing one's take on that game on others as is, say, alignment restrictions.
I don't think so because my so-called "imposition" is broadening the game's possibilities rather than limiting them. It's not different than saying alignment restrictions should be removed so everybody can do what they want, while somebody else says that removing those restriction would be other people imposing their views. Plus, if they do what I suggest correctly, then many people probably won't even consciously notice, like the example given of their description of the Hag.
Furthermore, that's where the decision should lie - at each individual table. Not in the books.
So you don't think what's in the book has any effect at all? Tell me then, why do we even bother with flavor text for the monsters? Or for spells? Or for anything in D&D? If the default flavor that they describe is entirely unimportant, then why include any flavor text at all? I think we all know better, that the flavor text they provide does give us ideas, if not ideas about how to use an element in our own games then ideas about what D&D itself expects is a good way to use an element in our own games.
Because it sounds to me that his point is that having them be female only is somehow insulting and that nobody should do it ever. Thus, controlling what other tables do (at worst) or looking down on people who do that like they are somehow tainting the hobby and bringing it down (at best). That's not a stance I can agree with.
No, my point is that D&D is a fantasy game that should be open to our crafting more modern interpretations even of classical mythology and so that it should be considered undesirable for the designers to preclude that possibility by giving unnecessarily limited flavor descriptions.
You call it "social activism". Some people call it being "PC". I call it "not being regressively moronic". Calling it "social activism" or "PC" over is just a red herring and isn't getting us anywhere one way or the other. I really wish that people w
I think D&D needs to be a platform for social activism.
You call it "social activism". Some people call it being "PC". I call it "not being regressively moronic". Calling it "social activism" or "PC" over is just a red herring and isn't getting us anywhere one way or the other. I really wish that people would stop using such lazy non-arguments.
Ah, regressing to insults. Clearly this is the structure of a valid conversation.
I never said that it did? What sparked this, if you'll recall, was the textual description of the Dryad. That's what limits it. It'd be great to get some variety in the artwork too, of course, but the artwork is always of example characters, not of every single possible form that a monster can take.
Well, it would have been helpful had you actually ever bothered to answer my question where I asked if it were the artwork, and/or the text that was offensive. Now that you have, I have no problem with them changing it, but I think the reaction to what's there is an overreaction.
I don't think so because my so-called "imposition" is broadening the game's possibilities rather than limiting them. It's not different than saying alignment restrictions should be removed so everybody can do what they want, while somebody else says that removing those restriction would be other people imposing their views. Plus, if they do what I suggest correctly, then many people probably won't even consciously notice, like the example given of their description of the Hag.
So, what you want is okay and not imposition, but others are? Again, I'm fine with it being more broad, but I'm not keen on really waving that particular flag and making a gigantic deal out of it. It either will be or it won't be in the final product, and that's all I'm concerned about. I honestly give precised zero craps about what the playtest fluff is, because it's a rough draft. It'll change by the end product.
Furthermore, that's where the decision should lie - at each individual table. Not in the books.
So you don't think what's in the book has any effect at all? Tell me then, why do we even bother with flavor text for the monsters? Or for spells? Or for anything in D&D? If the default flavor that they describe is entirely unimportant, then why include any flavor text at all? I think we all know better, that the flavor text they provide does give us ideas, if not ideas about how to use an element in our own games then ideas about what D&D itself expects is a good way to use an element in our own games.
Combining hyperbole and slippery slope in the same paragraph. Well done.
The fluff is there to provide a certain level of expectation for new players and DM's, and may provide some inspiration for experienced folks. That's all. I mean, a lot of this stuff has been that way for quite some time, and there are plenty of folks who have moved beyond it. As I can only speak for myself, I guarantee you that the dryad being female only did not make me then place all females into some sort of role automatically. I tend to take each person as they are. If they're an idiot or undesireable person or whatever, then I simply don't deal with them. If they are a worthwhile person, then I do. It doesn't matter to me if they are straight, homosexual, transgender, what race they are, or anything else. My sole metric by which I measure whether or not I want to put up with someone is "are they someone worthwhile to spend time with." That may be a bit selfish, but at least it isn't sexist, racist, etc.
No, my point is that D&D is a fantasy game that should be open to our crafting more modern interpretations even of classical mythology and so that it should be considered undesirable for the designers to preclude that possibility by giving unnecessarily limited flavor descriptions.
I think the disconnect here is that you claim it does preclude the possibility on the basis that the text says X. I look at X and say "Yeah, so? That's as maybe, but not if I decide otherwise."
You call it "social activism". Some people call it being "PC". I call it "not being regressively moronic". Calling it "social activism" or "PC" over is just a red herring and isn't getting us anywhere one way or the other. I really wish that people w
No, just calling out bad arguments for what they are.
So, what you want is okay and not imposition, but others are?
Correct. It's no different than that alignment issue you were comparing to. What I suggest is only an imposition if you think that it's an imposition to ask for there to be fewer limits. It's an imposition in the same way that "Let's remove alignment restrictions from the Monk" is an imposition.
I honestly give precised zero craps about what the playtest fluff is, because it's a rough draft. It'll change by the end product.
Which is exactly why we should discuss it now when we can maybe still have some influence on how it changes rather than when it's already in the end product and too late.
The fluff is there to provide a certain level of expectation for new players and DM's, and may provide some inspiration for experienced folks.
Exactly, then we completely agree on the purpose of flavor text.
I think the disconnect here is that you claim it does preclude the possibility on the basis that the text says X. I look at X and say "Yeah, so? That's as maybe, but not if I decide otherwise."
No, that's not the disconnect. I look at default flavor text that I diagree with and think the exact same thing. The disconnect is that you don't see the impact of the default flavor text the way that I do. You think that it doesn't have any meaningful effect. Indeed, it's probably true that it doesn't on its own. My concern, though, is with the bigger picture, how it fits into and contributes to the other overarching messages that do combine to have a meaningful effect.
No, just calling out bad arguments for what they are.Correct. It's no different than that alignment issue you were comparing to. What I suggest is only an imposition if you think that it's an imposition to ask for there to be fewer limits. It's an im
Furthermore, you can't change the natural order of things with a D&D beistiary.
Why not?
Please point me in the direction of historical reference for black dragons being associated with dank swamps and using acid as a weapon.
I think he is referring to society not D&D tradition. I could be mistaken.
I agree though, I don't think the natural order of society can be changed with a bestiary. I am not sure how you mean to frame the black dragon reference. Obviously there is no mythical reference to Black Dragons, swamps, and acid. How does that relate to a change in society?
Why not?Please point me in the direction of historical reference for black dragons being associated with dank swamps and using acid as a weapon.[/quote]I think he is referring to society not D&D tradition. I could be mistaken.I agree though, I don't
I can grant you SOCIETY is a human construct. No doubt.
I am not sure I am willing to grant that human nature (from the comic above) is a human construct.
My education has not delved into psychology all that deep, but I have delved deep into anthropology. There are root traits that many cultures share. More than likely this is the human nature component.
No such thing.[/quote]I can grant you SOCIETY is a human construct. No doubt. I am not sure I am willing to grant that human nature (from the comic above) is a human construct. My education has not delved into psychology all that deep, but I have
I was looking for the Greek word that refers to both Satyr (saturos) and Nymph (numphe), but as far as I can tell it is simply Theoi “gods”, meaning the nature gods of local specific wilderness features. In the Greek context, it is probably best to refer to Satyr and Nymph as “godlings”, thus distinguishing them from the Olympian “gods”, who belong to the family of Zeus. The satyr and nymph are properly polytheistic gods, and receive organized worship by humans, even if their influence is restricted to a specific local feature. Even so, these correspond closely to the animistic nature spirits of other cultures that lack polytheistic gods.
As most people know, the term “nymph” refers to any female godling, but especially refers to the Naiad who is the godling of wellsprings (and their outflowing rivulets, streams, and so on). The spirits of main rivers are male, called a “potamos”, literally a “river”, but often translated into english as “river god”.
The “dryad” is another kind of nymph, the god of a forest. There are also nymphs who personify the sea (nereid), the mountain, the meadow, and so on.
For D&D, the Nymph is definitely a family of races, including Naiad, Dryad, Neirad, Mainad, and so on.
But maybe the Nymph along with the male Satyr and Potamos, and so on, can group together as Greek “Godlings”?
In sum, for D&D, I would probably call these Greek nature spirits either Theoi or Godlings, and simply specify, a female Theoi is also called a “nymph”.
Finally, just call these separate races of the Theoi family. We all assume which races are female and which ones are male, but there is no reason to mechanically require gender division.
I was looking for the Greek word that refers to both Satyr (saturos) and Nymph (numphe), but as far as I can tell it is simply Theoi “gods”, meaning the nature gods of local specific wilderness features. In the Greek context, it is probab
Except that what C_C is arguing for doesn't actually hurt anyone who wants female-only dryads.
Nor does keeping it female hurt C_C or anyone else. Both sides are capable of enacting changes if they don't get what they want.
Missing the point. If you take C_C's suggestion and implement it, then neither side needs to change anything, and they both get what they want.
"It's fine, you just have to ignore what's written" is not an acceptable argument.
So why shouldn't we yell about changing dragons so that color, alignment and breath weapon types aren't forced on us?
Nor does keeping it female hurt C_C or anyone else. Both sides are capable of enacting changes if they don't get what they want. [/quote]Missing the point. If you take C_C's suggestion and implement it, then neither side needs to change anything,
However, there's also probably no reason you should, and that's the difference. If you take the argument to its extreme, there would be no fluff in the monster manual whatsoever. Just a list of numbers. But that's not fun, so we include some fluff.
And there's nothing wrong with that, unless there's something wrong with that. C_C has identified a situation where there's an argument made that there's something wrong with this particular aspect, and that it should be changed. It's possible to make such an argument without being forced to argue against all fluff, despite your efforts to prove otherwise.
No reason you shouldn't, no reason at all.However, there's also probably no reason you should, and that's the difference. If you take the argument to its extreme, there would be no fluff in the monster manual whatsoever. Just a list of numbers. Bu
My education has not delved into psychology all that deep, but I have delved deep into anthropology. There are root traits that many cultures share. More than likely this is the human nature component.
I don't deny that there are certain things that are part of human nature. However, the problem is that a lot of people think that there's way more of that than there actually is. You'd be surprised at the amazing number of things that aren't shared by many cultures and that can thus be shown to be social constructs. You've taken anthropology, though, so I'm sure that you know of some of what I mean.
So why shouldn't we yell about changing dragons so that color, alignment and breath weapon types aren't forced on us?
Because that's not part of or reflective of any overarching societal trends that perpetuate oppression. That's why I'm not worrying about that anyway. If you think that you have other good reasons to yell about that, then that's a completely unrelated discussion.
I don't deny that there are certain things that are part of human nature. However, the problem is that a lot of people think that there's way more of that than there actually is. You'd be surprised at the amazing number of things that aren't shared b
However, there's also probably no reason you should, and that's the difference. If you take the argument to its extreme, there would be no fluff in the monster manual whatsoever. Just a list of numbers. But that's not fun, so we include some fluff.
Then the issue is where we draw the line on what gets told to us. My feeling, and the feeling of others here is that the line is past the all female dryad "issue". You, C_C, and others feel that the line is drawn before the all female dryad "issue".
C_C has identified a situation where there's an argument made that there's something wrong with this particular aspect, and that it should be changed. It's possible to make such an argument without being forced to argue against all fluff, despite your efforts to prove otherwise.
I think C_C is wrong, though. There is nothing sexist about the dryads as they are currently used.
Then the issue is where we draw the line on what gets told to us. My feeling, and the feeling of others here is that the line is past the all female dryad "issue". You, C_C, and others feel that the line is drawn before the all female dryad "issue"
Someone has to draw the line, or else things can't be done. At some point the designers have to draw the line and make a decision about which things are included and how.
Someone has to draw the line, or else things can't be done. At some point the designers have to draw the line and make a decision about which things are included and how.
No, you don't have to draw the line. It's perfectly fine to continue to evaluate them on a case-by-case basis.
Even if you do that, in each case a line is drawn. However, it saves a lot of time and effort to just draw a general line that works for the product. It's far faster and easier to just refer to the general rule for a decision, than it is to take each case and have to debate it and make a decision. I doubt they will go case-by-case.
Even if you do that, in each case a line is drawn. However, it saves a lot of time and effort to just draw a general line that works for the product. It's far faster and easier to just refer to the general rule for a decision, than it is to take ea
There is simply nothing wrong with citing mythology in this instance. It is a common cover to claim tradition is not a good argument, but often times it is. This goes far beyond tradition though. Change is good when needed, not good for the sake of change alone.
False on all counts. Tradition is literally never a good argument. And change is better than stagnation. Period.
False on all counts. Tradition is literally never a good argument. And change is better than stagnation. Period.
Now onto the matter at hand. What monsters that have in the past not been fey do you think should be considered fey. I say unicorns should.
Unicorns, definately.
I say Shadar-kai, Dark Ones, etc should be as well.
Goblins.
Pooka.
Selkies.
oh wait, did you just mean dnd monsters?
Of course, I think selkies, satyrs and a handful of others should be presented more as PC races than as monsters, personally.
Unicorns, definately. I say Shadar-kai, Dark Ones, etc should be as well. Goblins. Pooka.Selkies.oh wait, did you just mean dnd monsters?Of course, I think selkies, satyrs and a handful of others should be presented more as PC races than as monsters,
False on all counts. Tradition is literally never a good argument. And change is better than stagnation. Period.
Why don't you go ask the folks in New Jersey and New York City over the past few weeks if change is better?
That's the pesky trouble with those blanket statements - they are so easily shot down.
Why don't you go ask the folks in New Jersey and New York City over the past few weeks if change is better?That's the pesky trouble with those blanket statements - they are so easily shot down.
False on all counts. Tradition is literally never a good argument. And change is better than stagnation. Period.
Why don't you go ask the folks in New Jersey and New York City over the past few weeks if change is better?
That's the pesky trouble with those blanket statements - they are so easily shot down.
LOL You're joking right?
That is the most absurd conflation I have ever seen. Well, outside of certain social issues debates that get threads locked, of course.
Why don't you go ask the folks in New Jersey and New York City over the past few weeks if change is better?That's the pesky trouble with those blanket statements - they are so easily shot down. [/quote]LOL You're joking right? That is the most absurd
False on all counts. Tradition is literally never a good argument. And change is better than stagnation. Period.
Why don't you go ask the folks in New Jersey and New York City over the past few weeks if change is better?
That's the pesky trouble with those blanket statements - they are so easily shot down.
LOL You're joking right?
No, I think we all know what the joke is...
Why don't you go ask the folks in New Jersey and New York City over the past few weeks if change is better?That's the pesky trouble with those blanket statements - they are so easily shot down. [/quote]LOL You're joking right?[/quote]No, I think we a
False on all counts. Tradition is literally never a good argument. And change is better than stagnation. Period.
Why don't you go ask the folks in New Jersey and New York City over the past few weeks if change is better?
That's the pesky trouble with those blanket statements - they are so easily shot down.
LOL You're joking right?
That is the most absurd conflation I have ever seen. Well, outside of certain social issues debates that get threads locked, of course.
You made a sweeping blanket claim that included all change being better. He brought up an example of change that was not good. You can mock it all you like, but he shot down your argument. You need to change your argument to be more precise.
Why don't you go ask the folks in New Jersey and New York City over the past few weeks if change is better?That's the pesky trouble with those blanket statements - they are so easily shot down. [/quote]LOL You're joking right? That is the most absurd
My education has not delved into psychology all that deep, but I have delved deep into anthropology. There are root traits that many cultures share. More than likely this is the human nature component.
I don't deny that there are certain things that are part of human nature. However, the problem is that a lot of people think that there's way more of that than there actually is. You'd be surprised at the amazing number of things that aren't shared by many cultures and that can thus be shown to be social constructs. You've taken anthropology, though, so I'm sure that you know of some of what I mean.
I didn't say there were alot
I don't deny that there are certain things that are part of human nature. However, the problem is that a lot of people think that there's way more of that than there actually is. You'd be surprised at the amazing number of things that aren't shared b
There is simply nothing wrong with citing mythology in this instance. It is a common cover to claim tradition is not a good argument, but often times it is. This goes far beyond tradition though. Change is good when needed, not good for the sake of change alone.
False on all counts. Tradition is literally never a good argument. And change is better than stagnation. Period.
I'd be interested to hear your hypothesis as to why it is LITERALLY never a good argument.
Is it better to study Greek myths, or is it better to change them to reflect the modern age (Note I am nto talking about an entry in a game book). Should we study Shakespeare as written or should we rewrite it for a modern audience? After all many people of today cannot relate to the Elizabethan time period. Why do we bother reading the Canterbury tales in Middle English? WHy do we even include the archaic concepts in the tales like peerage? Why don't we change the tales to better reflect modern sensibilities?
Instead of the Miller's tale we can have the Conagra assembly-line workers tale.
WHo needs the Reeve's tale, we can have instead the Slum-Lord's tale?
Instead of the Manciple's tale we can have the Cafeteria Administer's tale. No need to mention Apollo in that one since the concept of the god is so archaic, lets make it the story about the Solaris Engineer and his pet bird.
This Climate Change thing is also great! The climate will be different than it has for the 10,000 years we have settled into cities. It doesn't matter if food supplies run low because our crops have not evolved to the warmer climate, because the 1 billion people on the planet that will starve to death is CHANGE. There will be no stagnation there.
OH oh, Governor Cuomo of New York talked about change JUST today. How we need 42 billion dollars to deal with New York's Changing environment. I am glad the stupid tradition of temperate climate is breaking. Things were SO stagnant around here.
Again you make the ridiculous claim that tradition is ALWAYS bad without even contemplatiing why it is sometimes necessary, and how change can be detrimental.
You have not yet been able to make a good argument for WHY tradition is bad other than to say time and time again that change is good. How is that argument any different than saying tradition is good?
False on all counts. Tradition is literally never a good argument. And change is better than stagnation. Period.[/quote]I'd be interested to hear your hypothesis as to why it is LITERALLY never a good argument. Is it better to study Greek myths, or
There is simply nothing wrong with citing mythology in this instance. It is a common cover to claim tradition is not a good argument, but often times it is. This goes far beyond tradition though. Change is good when needed, not good for the sake of change alone.
False on all counts. Tradition is literally never a good argument. And change is better than stagnation. Period.
I'd be interested to hear your hypothesis as to why it is LITERALLY never a good argument.
Is it better to study Greek myths, or is it better to change them to reflect the modern age (Note I am nto talking about an entry in a game book). Should we study Shakespeare as written or should we rewrite it for a modern audience? After all many people of today cannot relate to the Elizabethan time period. Why do we bother reading the Canterbury tales in Middle English? WHy do we even include the archaic concepts in the tales like peerage? Why don't we change the tales to better reflect modern sensibilities?
Instead of the Miller's tale we can have the Conagra assembly-line workers tale.
WHo needs the Reeve's tale, we can have instead the Slum-Lord's tale?
Instead of the Manciple's tale we can have the Cafeteria Administer's tale. No need to mention Apollo in that one since the concept of the god is so archaic, lets make it the story about the Solaris Engineer and his pet bird.
This Climate Change thing is also great! The climate will be different than it has for the 10,000 years we have settled into cities. It doesn't matter if food supplies run low because our crops have not evolved to the warmer climate, because the 1 billion people on the planet that will starve to death is CHANGE. There will be no stagnation there.
You don't even have to go into things that major. I have 10 fingers. If that changes it will be a bad thing, I guarantee it.
False on all counts. Tradition is literally never a good argument. And change is better than stagnation. Period.[/quote]I'd be interested to hear your hypothesis as to why it is LITERALLY never a good argument. Is it better to study Greek myths, or
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />You don't even have to go into things that major. I have 10 fingers. If that changes it will be a bad thing, I guarantee it.
Well when mammals first developed fingers it was the first time the world went Digital.
Well when mammals first developed fingers it was the first time the world went Digital.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />You don't even have to go into things that major. I have 10 fingers. If that changes it will be a bad thing, I guarantee it.
Well when mammals first developed fingers it was the first time the world went Digital.
Heh.
Well when mammals first developed fingers it was the first time the world went Digital.[/quote]Heh.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />You don't even have to go into things that major. I have 10 fingers. If that changes it will be a bad thing, I guarantee it.
Well when mammals first developed fingers it was the first time the world went Digital.
Nice.
Well when mammals first developed fingers it was the first time the world went Digital.[/quote]Nice.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />You don't even have to go into things that major. I have 10 fingers. If that changes it will be a bad thing, I guarantee it.
Well when mammals first developed fingers it was the first time the world went Digital.
Nice.
Why thank you, I am quite proud of that one.. it is the only good one I have.
Well when mammals first developed fingers it was the first time the world went Digital.[/quote]Nice.[/quote]Why thank you, I am quite proud of that one.. it is the only good one I have.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />You don't even have to go into things that major. I have 10 fingers. If that changes it will be a bad thing, I guarantee it.
Well when mammals first developed fingers it was the first time the world went Digital.
Nice.
Why thank you, I am quite proud of that one.. it is the only good one I have.
I don't believe that! You're selling yourself short
Well when mammals first developed fingers it was the first time the world went Digital.[/quote]Nice.[/quote]Why thank you, I am quite proud of that one.. it is the only good one I have.[/quote]I don't believe that! You're selling yourself short :)
By the way, instead of “Monster Manual”, I prefer the book be called the “Bestiary”, so it includes different kinds of creatures whether friendly or hostile, instead of just hostile “monsters”.
By the way, instead of “Monster Manual”, I prefer the book be called the “Bestiary”, so it includes different kinds of creatures whether friendly or hostile, instead of just hostile “monsters”.
By the way, instead of “Monster Manual”, I prefer the book be called the “Bestiary”, so it includes different kinds of creatures whether friendly or hostile, instead of just hostile “monsters”.
I am going to use the awful word tradition again, but I am pretty sure they will stick with Monster Manual because it is Trademarked by them.
I agree with the premise you raise, but I think the Monster Manual has a certain bit of marketing clout attached to it.
Pathfinder has the Bestiary 1-3 which is perfectly functional, but does not have the punch of the Monster Manual.
I am going to use the awful word tradition again, but I am pretty sure they will stick with Monster Manual because it is Trademarked by them. I agree with the premise you raise, but I think the Monster Manual has a certain bit of marketing clout att
By the way, instead of “Monster Manual”, I prefer the book be called the “Bestiary”, so it includes different kinds of creatures whether friendly or hostile, instead of just hostile “monsters”.
It always has been filled with creatures of different kinds and not just hostile monsters. "Monster" is just a word and not descriptive of all that you find in the Monster Manual.
It always has been filled with creatures of different kinds and not just hostile monsters. "Monster" is just a word and not descriptive of all that you find in the Monster Manual.
You made a sweeping blanket claim that included all change being better. He brought up an example of change that was not good. You can mock it all you like, but he shot down your argument. You need to change your argument to be more precise.
I love the fact that I post, grab dinner and head off to rehearsal, and when I come back, someone else had my back. I dig it. *brofist* :-)
I love the fact that I post, grab dinner and head off to rehearsal, and when I come back, someone else had my back. I dig it. *brofist* :-)
By the way, instead of “Monster Manual”, I prefer the book be called the “Bestiary”, so it includes different kinds of creatures whether friendly or hostile, instead of just hostile “monsters”.
It always has been filled with creatures of different kinds and not just hostile monsters. "Monster" is just a word and not descriptive of all that you find in the Monster Manual.
Anyway, the “friendly” creatures need stats too, because sometimes they are combat allies.
It always has been filled with creatures of different kinds and not just hostile monsters. "Monster" is just a word and not descriptive of all that you find in the Monster Manual.[/quote]Anyway, the “friendly” creatures need stats too, b
Actually, there are male nymphs, sotospeak. One of the works of Hesiod mentions the female “mountain nymphs” (Oread) have “brothers”.
Similarly, the male river (Potame) is usually the father of the female wellspring (Naiad).
The male revelry spirit is the Satyr, while the female revelry spirit is the Maenad.
There are in fact, female Satyrs, albeit these are an innovation by later classical poets.
The Greek nature spirits, the Theoi, include both males and females, and the name Nymph simply refers to any of them who are female.
Actually, there are male nymphs, sotospeak. One of the works of Hesiod mentions the female “mountain nymphs” (Oread) have “brothers”.Similarly, the male river (Potame) is usually the father of the female wellspring (Naiad).The
You made a sweeping blanket claim that included all change being better. He brought up an example of change that was not good. You can mock it all you like, but he shot down your argument. You need to change your argument to be more precise.
I love the fact that I post, grab dinner and head off to rehearsal, and when I come back, someone else had my back. I dig it. *brofist* :-)
I love the fact that I post, grab dinner and head off to rehearsal, and when I come back, someone else had my back. I dig it. *brofist* :-)[/quote]:ayyyy!:
By the way, instead of “Monster Manual”, I prefer the book be called the “Bestiary”, so it includes different kinds of creatures whether friendly or hostile, instead of just hostile “monsters”.
It always has been filled with creatures of different kinds and not just hostile monsters. "Monster" is just a word and not descriptive of all that you find in the Monster Manual.
Anyway, the “friendly” creatures need stats too, because sometimes they are combat allies.
I agree.
It always has been filled with creatures of different kinds and not just hostile monsters. "Monster" is just a word and not descriptive of all that you find in the Monster Manual.[/quote]Anyway, the “friendly” creatures need stats too, b
* OK..the key about a previous disscusion was about Orthodoxy (or fidelity to classic canon) versus freedom to reimagining. Some players wish the first and other the second. I suposse WotC must find the right balance between coherence and ambiguity (to allow open door to new posibilities).
Somes DM could use the D&D rpg only to play comic stories like Shreck saga (and a big green-skin half-ogre with a little furry anthropomorphic swashbuckler cat PC wouldn´t be the most rare).
* About the Weenie Folk I suposse we should do a distintion:
- The happy and cute little people (for example the dobies, brownie subrace): They are wonderful nPCs.... for a children cartoon show. Their background may be interesting but their monster stats are insignificant. They can be good adventure hooks but most of time they are used to be helped or saved by PCs or to give information.
- The forest defenders: They could be good henchmen or PCs´ allies but they could be too powerful if PCs have got low levels. The henchmen or companions are almost PCs. All potential PC allies creature should be designed like potential racial class PCs.
* I could bet sooner or later somebody will wish create a wee folk PC, like a winged elfling (elfling was a canon Dark Sun PC race).
The wee folk should be designed to be PCs allies.* OK..the key about a previous disscusion was about Orthodoxy (or fidelity to classic canon) versus freedom to reimagining. Some players wish the first and other the second. I suposse WotC must find th
You made a sweeping blanket claim that included all change being better. He brought up an example of change that was not good. You can mock it all you like, but he shot down your argument. You need to change your argument to be more precise.
In all fairness, that is not what he said. He said that change was always better then stagnation, not that change was always good. Mind you, that is also a bit of an odd statement since that is by definition true since the word "stagnation" has negative associations by definition of the word. And broad statements are always risky to make.
Now if he would be saying that "blindly following tradition regardless of how the world has changed is always bad" he would have made more sense. Fact is, arguing that dryads in greek mythology were always female hence so should they be in D&D is IMO also a rather weak argument. Never mind the fact that apparently, the whole argument is akin to complaining that godessesses are always female, not realizing that the male version of the word is god. So in that regards, the fact that in D&D dryads are always female is a bit of a modern D&D construct of the original mythological version
In all fairness, that is not what he said. He said that change was always better then stagnation, not that change was always good. Mind you, that is also a bit of an odd statement since that is by definition true since the word "stagnation" has negat
Change is the only constant. <-- this="" statement="" is="" always="" true="" br="">
No one is disputing that.
How do things change though?
Change was good for the gray pepper moth when the industrial age hit. Bad for the white pepper moth.
Japan experienced their island changing again and got hit with a huge tsunami. But Japan is there because of the changing Crust.
Change is not either good or bad, it has to first be framed within a perspective.
No one is disputing that.How do things change though?Change was good for the gray pepper moth when the industrial age hit. Bad for the white pepper moth.Japan experienced their island changing again and got hit with a huge tsunami. But Japan is the
False on all counts. Tradition is literally never a good argument. And change is better than stagnation. Period.
Why don't you go ask the folks in New Jersey and New York City over the past few weeks if change is better?
That's the pesky trouble with those blanket statements - they are so easily shot down.
LOL You're joking right?
That is the most absurd conflation I have ever seen. Well, outside of certain social issues debates that get threads locked, of course.
You made a sweeping blanket claim that included all change being better. He brought up an example of change that was not good. You can mock it all you like, but he shot down your argument. You need to change your argument to be more precise.
No, he didn't shoot down my argument. MY argument never stated that it is always better to create change than to avoid it, nor is equating change to disasters anything but an absurd level of conflation.
Change is better than stagnation. That statement is inarguably true. One also must entirely fail at reading comprehension (esp, knowing what words mean) in order to interpret that statement in a way that allows his response to it to be anything approaching sensible.
Stagnation is a total stop in advancement or movement. It is a bad thing, by definition. It also is in opposition to the natural order.
Had I said that change is better than stasis, there might have been room for such a response, but I didn't. I used the word "stagnation" for a reason.
There is simply nothing wrong with citing mythology in this instance. It is a common cover to claim tradition is not a good argument, but often times it is. This goes far beyond tradition though. Change is good when needed, not good for the sake of change alone.
False on all counts. Tradition is literally never a good argument. And change is better than stagnation. Period.
I'd be interested to hear your hypothesis as to why it is LITERALLY never a good argument.
Is it better to study Greek myths, or is it better to change them to reflect the modern age (Note I am nto talking about an entry in a game book). Should we study Shakespeare as written or should we rewrite it for a modern audience? After all many people of today cannot relate to the Elizabethan time period. Why do we bother reading the Canterbury tales in Middle English? WHy do we even include the archaic concepts in the tales like peerage? Why don't we change the tales to better reflect modern sensibilities?
Instead of the Miller's tale we can have the Conagra assembly-line workers tale.
WHo needs the Reeve's tale, we can have instead the Slum-Lord's tale?
Instead of the Manciple's tale we can have the Cafeteria Administer's tale. No need to mention Apollo in that one since the concept of the god is so archaic, lets make it the story about the Solaris Engineer and his pet bird.
This Climate Change thing is also great! The climate will be different than it has for the 10,000 years we have settled into cities. It doesn't matter if food supplies run low because our crops have not evolved to the warmer climate, because the 1 billion people on the planet that will starve to death is CHANGE. There will be no stagnation there.
OH oh, Governor Cuomo of New York talked about change JUST today. How we need 42 billion dollars to deal with New York's Changing environment. I am glad the stupid tradition of temperate climate is breaking. Things were SO stagnant around here.
Again you make the ridiculous claim that tradition is ALWAYS bad without even contemplatiing why it is sometimes necessary, and how change can be detrimental.
You have not yet been able to make a good argument for WHY tradition is bad other than to say time and time again that change is good. How is that argument any different than saying tradition is good?
Ridiculous conflation and even more ridiculous hyperbole.
First, learn reading comprehension, for the love of crap!
Why do you not understand the difference between the two following statements?
a. "Tradition is never a valid basis for an argument."
2. "Tradition is always bad."
Seriously. You get that they're not the same statement, right?
Because they're not the same thing. At all.
Why don't you go ask the folks in New Jersey and New York City over the past few weeks if change is better?That's the pesky trouble with those blanket statements - they are so easily shot down. [/quote]LOL You're joking right? That is the most absurd
In all fairness, that is not what he said. He said that change was always better then stagnation, not that change was always good. Mind you, that is also a bit of an odd statement since that is by definition true since the word "stagnation" has negative associations by definition of the word. And broad statements are always risky to make.
Now if he would be saying that "blindly following tradition regardless of how the world has changed is always bad" he would have made more sense. Fact is, arguing that dryads in greek mythology were always female hence so should they be in D&D is IMO also a rather weak argument. Never mind the fact that apparently, the whole argument is akin to complaining that godessesses are always female, not realizing that the male version of the word is god. So in that regards, the fact that in D&D dryads are always female is a bit of a modern D&D construct of the original mythological version
Ah, a post I can actually respond to without annoyance. :P Thank you.
I think I covered the traditionalism argument with my first sentence, however, when I said that tradition is never a good argument. Not my fault some people didn't read the whole sentence, and somehow gleaned "no tradition is ever good." or some such nonsense.
You're right about the wording of the change sentence. It could have been worded differently. I had faith in my fellow posters and their abillity to comprehend what they read, and it got the better of me. :P
But seriously, tradition is never a good argument. Something is either good or not, irrespective of tradition.
Ah, a post I can actually respond to without annoyance. :P Thank you. I think I covered the traditionalism argument with my first sentence, however, when I said that tradition is never a good argument. Not my fault some people didn't read the whole s
Ridiculous conflation and even more ridiculous hyperbole.
I admit the climate change was a bit of hyperbole, but that was intentional. Still you label the rest as hyperbole. It wouldn't matter whether I included that or not. It was meant to show how ridiculous is your statement that "tradition is NEVER a valid basis for argument." If only wishing would make it so.
You're right about the wording of the change sentence. It could have been worded differently. I had faith in my fellow posters and their abillity to comprehend what they read, and it got the better of me. :P
The writer is never at fault for the message they convey. Of course its reading comprehension! Your favorite skill set again!
I admit the climate change was a bit of hyperbole, but that was intentional. Still you label the rest as hyperbole. It wouldn't matter whether I included that or not. It was meant to show how ridiculous is your statement that "tradition is NEVER a
Please, we don´t need a discussion about orthodoxy versus reimagining. Some players would rather a thing and other ones want the second. WotC must find a balance.
Personally I will try use the background of Changeling: the dreaming and Changeling the lost, with some ideas about the Arak from Shadow Rift (Ravenloft) to create my own version of D&D fair folk. If I am sincere, I always try create a background for all (good or evil) humanoids like potential PCs.
I don´t imagine fair folk like happy cute people from a children cartoon but like survivors from a beaty but dangerous zone. A happy nPCs that never must worry by anything aren´t interesting.
If you want happy little fay villagers the gnomes and (hairfeet subrace) halflings are enough. I don´t need leprechauns. I can´t imagine a clan of happy fays who are for all day enjoying, dancing and singing when in the next town people is feared because a werewolf has killed a complete family. Somebody who never has suffered is a psychological inmmature.
The wee folk need "grown", facing challenges.
* If some wee folk can be PC´s allies they should be weaker.
* If we mention fays we think about classic mythology and the celtic one but the rest of Europe has got a rich mythology what could help like source of inspiration.
Please, we don´t need a discussion about orthodoxy versus reimagining. Some players would rather a thing and other ones want the second. WotC must find a balance.Personally I will try use the background of Changeling: the dreaming and Changelin
Please, we don´t need a discussion about orthodoxy versus reimagining. Some players would rather a thing and other ones want the second. WotC must find a balance.
Please, we don´t need a discussion about orthodoxy versus reimagining. Some players would rather a thing and other ones want the second. WotC must find a balance.
Precisely!
Funny, that's exactly what I said about, oh... 80 posts ago.
Precisely![/quote]Funny, that's exactly what I said about, oh... 80 posts ago.
Ridiculous conflation and even more ridiculous hyperbole.
I admit the climate change was a bit of hyperbole, but that was intentional. Still you label the rest as hyperbole. It wouldn't matter whether I included that or not. It was meant to show how ridiculous is your statement that "tradition is NEVER a valid basis for argument." If only wishing would make it so.
You're right about the wording of the change sentence. It could have been worded differently. I had faith in my fellow posters and their abillity to comprehend what they read, and it got the better of me. :P
The writer is never at fault for the message they convey. Of course its reading comprehension! Your favorite skill set again!
I love this post. All of it. Well, except where you used "your" when you meant "you're," but otherwise, yes, I love it. +1 Internets to you, good sir or madam. *tips hat*
I admit the climate change was a bit of hyperbole, but that was intentional. Still you label the rest as hyperbole. It wouldn't matter whether I included that or not. It was meant to show how ridiculous is your statement that "tradition is NEVER a
Ridiculous conflation and even more ridiculous hyperbole.
I admit the climate change was a bit of hyperbole, but that was intentional. Still you label the rest as hyperbole. It wouldn't matter whether I included that or not. It was meant to show how ridiculous is your statement that "tradition is NEVER a valid basis for argument." If only wishing would make it so.
You're right about the wording of the change sentence. It could have been worded differently. I had faith in my fellow posters and their abillity to comprehend what they read, and it got the better of me. :P
The writer is never at fault for the message they convey. Of course its reading comprehension! Your favorite skill set again!
I love this post. All of it. Well, except where you used "your" when you meant "you're," but otherwise, yes, I love it. +1 Internets to you, good sir or madam. *tips hat*
I was posting in the lab when someone told me the guys using the telescopes last night had jupiter and its moons really clear. I got excited, and posted right away to make sure I got to see it.
I really though do not take much time to edit my posts. That one I should have caught
I admit the climate change was a bit of hyperbole, but that was intentional. Still you label the rest as hyperbole. It wouldn't matter whether I included that or not. It was meant to show how ridiculous is your statement that "tradition is NEVER a
Please, we don´t need a discussion about orthodoxy versus reimagining. Some players would rather a thing and other ones want the second. WotC must find a balance.
Precisely!
Funny, that's exactly what I said about, oh... 80 posts ago.
Well someone down the line disagreed with it I guess it had to be restated again
Precisely![/quote]Funny, that's exactly what I said about, oh... 80 posts ago.[/quote]Well someone down the line disagreed with it:) I guess it had to be restated again:)
No, he didn't shoot down my argument. MY argument never stated that it is always better to create change than to avoid it, nor is equating change to disasters anything but an absurd level of conflation.
Below is your quote and it is all inclusive.
And change is better than stagnation. Period.
You even use. "Period.". to show that you are making a sweeping general claim. Change is better, you said. Not some change. Not goood change. But simply CHANGE. PERIOD. If you didn't mean to say that, then you need to rephrase your claim with more specificity.
Change is better than stagnation. That statement is inarguably true.
We've already argued it and proven it wrong. Sometimes change is bad. In those cases, remaining stagnant is better than the worse choice of change.
Why do you not understand the difference between the two following statements?
a. "Tradition is never a valid basis for an argument."
2. "Tradition is always bad."
I have a better question. Why did you start with (a) and end with (2)?
Below is your quote and it is all inclusive. You even use. "Period.". to show that you are making a sweeping general claim. Change is better, you said. Not some change. Not goood change. But simply CHANGE. PERIOD. If you didn't mean to say tha
Ridiculous conflation and even more ridiculous hyperbole.
I admit the climate change was a bit of hyperbole, but that was intentional. Still you label the rest as hyperbole. It wouldn't matter whether I included that or not. It was meant to show how ridiculous is your statement that "tradition is NEVER a valid basis for argument." If only wishing would make it so.
You're right about the wording of the change sentence. It could have been worded differently. I had faith in my fellow posters and their abillity to comprehend what they read, and it got the better of me. :P
The writer is never at fault for the message they convey. Of course its reading comprehension! Your favorite skill set again!
Look, I realize that I can be a snarky ass. I apologize.
However, your post does not address the statement that tradition is not a good basis for an argument. You only address what I didn't say, which is that tradition is always bad/never good.
The fact that something is traditional never makes it either good or bad. It is a perfectly neutral factor. Nothing should be kept simply because it is traditional. Traditions should always be open to review, and if found wanting, dismissal.
No, he didn't shoot down my argument. MY argument never stated that it is always better to create change than to avoid it, nor is equating change to disasters anything but an absurd level of conflation.
Below is your quote and it is all inclusive.
And change is better than stagnation. Period.
You even use. "Period.". to show that you are making a sweeping general claim. Change is better, you said. Not some change. Not goood change. But simply CHANGE. PERIOD. If you didn't mean to say that, then you need to rephrase your claim with more specificity.
Change is better than stagnation. That statement is inarguably true.
We've already argued it and proven it wrong. Sometimes change is bad. In those cases, remaining stagnant is better than the worse choice of change.
That isn't what that statement means. Change is better than stagnation. That doesn't mean that there isn't bad change. You can try to pretend that it does in order to "win" an argument all you want, but it doesn't.
a. "Tradition is never a valid basis for an argument."
2. "Tradition is always bad."
I have a better question. Why did you start with (a) and end with (2)?
Because I enjoy doing so.
I admit the climate change was a bit of hyperbole, but that was intentional. Still you label the rest as hyperbole. It wouldn't matter whether I included that or not. It was meant to show how ridiculous is your statement that "tradition is NEVER a
Isn´t it funny? The classic elf-dwarf disscusion about tradition, change, mind-opening and progress... and about the fairy folk, ones of the creatures most chaotic by nature, therefore the lest attachment to tradiditions.. isn´t it?
Isn´t it funny? The classic elf-dwarf disscusion about tradition, change, mind-opening and progress... and about the fairy folk, ones of the creatures most chaotic by nature, therefore the lest attachment to tradiditions.. isn´t it?
That isn't what that statement means. Change is better than stagnation. That doesn't mean that there isn't bad change. You can try to pretend that it does in order to "win" an argument all you want, but it doesn't.
Look, you have situation A that is stagnant and along comes a change that results in a worse situation than remaining stagnant would have. That one example proves your blanket statement of "Change is better than stagnation. Period." is wrong. My example shows that not all change IS better than stagnation, so you need to rephrase your claim to "Sometimes/often/frequently, etc. change is better than stagnation. Period." in order to be correct. Without a qualifier, you are factually wrong.
Because I enjoy doing so.
Fair enough.
Look, you have situation A that is stagnant and along comes a change that results in a worse situation than remaining stagnant would have. That one example proves your blanket statement of "Change is better than stagnation. Period." is wrong. My ex
That isn't what that statement means. Change is better than stagnation. That doesn't mean that there isn't bad change. You can try to pretend that it does in order to "win" an argument all you want, but it doesn't.
Look, you have situation A that is stagnant and along comes a change that results in a worse situation than remaining stagnant would have. That one example proves your blanket statement of "Change is better than stagnation. Period." is wrong. My example shows that not all change IS better than stagnation, so you need to rephrase your claim to "Sometimes/often/frequently, etc. change is better than stagnation. Period." in order to be correct. Without a qualifier, you are factually wrong.
False. Again, that's not what the statement means. First of all, stagnation is not the same thing as simply not having happened to change yet. Had I used a different word, you might be correct. Second, I did not use the word "always" or any synonym of that word. This means that my statement is not a statement regarding instances, but rather general states. Third, the statement simply does not mean that there is no change for the worse.
Look, you have situation A that is stagnant and along comes a change that results in a worse situation than remaining stagnant would have. That one example proves your blanket statement of "Change is better than stagnation. Period." is wrong. My ex
Third, the statement simply does not mean that there is no change for the worse.
You realize that when you say "change is better than stagnation," that's exactly what you mean, right?
You are saying change is better. Period. That does, in fact, mean that you are saying there is no change for the worse. Again, this is a situation where a blanket statement does nobody any good. Let's just all assume you meant the following: "In general, it is my opinion that change is better than stagnation is almost all cases," and be done with it. Can we do that?
You realize that when you say "change is better than stagnation," that's exactly what you mean, right?You are saying change is better. Period. That does, in fact, mean that you are saying there is no change for the worse. Again, this is a situation w
Look, I realize that I can be a snarky ass. I apologize.
However, your post does not address the statement that tradition is not a good basis for an argument. You only address what I didn't say, which is that tradition is always bad/never good.
The fact that something is traditional never makes it either good or bad. It is a perfectly neutral factor. Nothing should be kept simply because it is traditional. Traditions should always be open to review, and if found wanting, dismissal.
OK I can agree with that. By using the word 'period' the emphasis made it seem like a narrow view.
Should something be kept simply because it is traditional? THat question can only be asked in context, different traditions have different weights.
Cataloging of stars in astronomy is a very traditional exercise, and even though the amount of of stars discovered in modern days quickly overwhelmed the tradition, the tradition was kept and the newer parts kept the general pattern of the traditional catalog. (There are many methods to cataloging stars, most of them NOT traditional)
Brightness of stars is by tradition low numbers (the sun is -25), even though it makes less sense mathematically. Yet the tradition was kept and built upon (the sun used to be brightness 1).
Tradition is a neutral factor for sure, but the weight of the tradition plays alot into whether it is kept or not.
So yes traditions absolutley need to be evaluated, but sometimes the weight of them will keep them around even in perfectly rational fields of study.
OK I can agree with that. By using the word 'period' the emphasis made it seem like a narrow view.Should something be kept simply because it is traditional? THat question can only be asked in context, different traditions have different weights.Cat
Alright, guys. There's much ado about poster subtleties and communication errors and not enough happening with regard to the awesome fey!
Back to the topic at hand...
Alright, guys. There's much ado about poster subtleties and communication errors and not enough happening with regard to the awesome fey! :)Back to the topic at hand...
Third, the statement simply does not mean that there is no change for the worse.
You realize that when you say "change is better than stagnation," that's exactly what you mean, right?
It's exactly what he is saying, not necessarily exactly what he means. I think he's just confused.
You realize that when you say "change is better than stagnation," that's exactly what you mean, right?[/quote]It's exactly what he is saying, not necessarily exactly what he means. I think he's just confused.
Look, I realize that I can be a snarky ass. I apologize.
However, your post does not address the statement that tradition is not a good basis for an argument. You only address what I didn't say, which is that tradition is always bad/never good.
The fact that something is traditional never makes it either good or bad. It is a perfectly neutral factor. Nothing should be kept simply because it is traditional. Traditions should always be open to review, and if found wanting, dismissal.
OK I can agree with that. By using the word 'period' the emphasis made it seem like a narrow view.
Should something be kept simply because it is traditional? THat question can only be asked in context, different traditions have different weights.
Cataloging of stars in astronomy is a very traditional exercise, and even though the amount of of stars discovered in modern days quickly overwhelmed the tradition, the tradition was kept and the newer parts kept the general pattern of the traditional catalog. (There are many methods to cataloging stars, most of them NOT traditional)
Brightness of stars is by tradition low numbers (the sun is -25), even though it makes less sense mathematically. Yet the tradition was kept and built upon (the sun used to be brightness 1).
Tradition is a neutral factor for sure, but the weight of the tradition plays alot into whether it is kept or not.
So yes traditions absolutley need to be evaluated, but sometimes the weight of them will keep them around even in perfectly rational fields of study.
Oh, one cannot argue that traditions are kept whether they should be or not. That's part of why it's so important to me and others like me to remind people that tradition isn't a valid reason to keep something, because it's used like it is far too often. Often innocuously, but just as often traditionalism is holding a field or issue back, and it needs to be dismissed.
Third, the statement simply does not mean that there is no change for the worse.
You realize that when you say "change is better than stagnation," that's exactly what you mean, right?
It's exactly what he is saying, not necessarily exactly what he means. I think he's just confused.
That's not what that statement means. Stagnation is specifically negative. It literally never means something good. If I had wanted to say that change is never bad, I'd have said that, but I specifically didn't.
OK I can agree with that. By using the word 'period' the emphasis made it seem like a narrow view.Should something be kept simply because it is traditional? THat question can only be asked in context, different traditions have different weights.Cat
I don't recal what plane faerie orginally came from in AD&D, but I'll have to check. It might have been the Beastlands. Regardless, I see no reason why D&D can't have a land that all these creatures came from. I'm sure it would fit into the great wheel nicely anyway. In AD&D, there are all kinds of para-elemental planes anyway.
The Seelie Court is a wandering demiplane that goes between the Beastlands, Arborea, and Ysgard. Because they couldn't have their own layer on Arborea.
The Seelie Court is a wandering demiplane that goes between the Beastlands, Arborea, and Ysgard. Because they couldn't have their own layer on Arborea. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seelie_Court_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)
That's not what that statement means. Stagnation is specifically negative. It literally never means something good.
Wonderful. Nobody here has said it means something good. We've only said that change can be worse, so sometimes stagnation is better than change.
If I had wanted to say that change is never bad, I'd have said that, but I specifically didn't.
Your statement was blanket. It included everything. If you didn't mean that, you need to change your statement.
Wonderful. Nobody here has said it means something good. We've only said that change can be worse, so sometimes stagnation is better than change.Your statement was blanket. It included everything. If you didn't mean that, you need to change your
Stagnation is specifically negative. It literally never means something good.
No, as has been repeatedly explained, this is beyond silly now...I'm gonna have a go: change can be good, or change can be bad, I just want some goddamn good change, okay?
I just looked up stagnant in one of my dictionaries (The Oxford Paperback): 1. (of water) not flowing, still. 2. Showing no activity.
No, as has been repeatedly explained, this is beyond silly now...I'm gonna have a go: change can be good, or change can be bad, I just want some goddamn good change, okay?I just looked up stagnant in one of my dictionaries (The Oxford Paperback): 1.
You know, I clicked this thread, read the linked article, and was very excited. I was excited because I thought this thread was 26 pages of awesome banter about the fey folk and our wee little friends.
I was incredibly wrong. So can we drop this pointless argument for five pages even? Please? Nobody is going to convince anyone of anything.
To actually BE on topic, and not add to the problem...
Personally, I really like the way that 4e handled the fey, and I would even be willing to take it one step further and make them MORE prevelant in the game than they were then. I'm totally down with elves and gnomes being fey, I think that just makes sense. At the very least, they should be related and/or desecended from them in some way. Like the distant cousins the other fey don't talk about much when they gather because, well, they're a little... Backwards.
In the setting I have been running for a while now, basically all creatures are fey. Well, not fey specifically, but spirits of a sort. Same concept, anyway.
I love the description for Hags, Dryads and Nymphs I liked as well. The Wee Folk I think are a great idea; I actually made the term "Redcap" a generic term for goblins to refer to their leaders (who of course invariably wore red hats and wielded scythes.) I think that they could easily wrap some good lore in with the fey by linking things together, and I like the idea of spriggans, they sound like a fun enemy to use (I am the DM so I see them all as potential encounters or NPCs regardless.)
I do believe that most fey who are currently listed as "Good" should probably be listed as TN or CN, however. I think the only reason we view them as good is because they are not evil, but not evil and good are very different. Also that they embody such good things as fertility and nature, but those things are neutral in essence. Then again, its up to the individual to decide their alignment. Bah, I honestly wish we didn't have alignment anymore BECAUSE of steps like these, but I digress.
I think I might work on a bit of an adventure path which involves the party waking up all manner of confused, then working backwards/retracing their steps to figure out what happened after a deal with the fey went sour. Sort of like the Hangover, but with DnD. I think it could be fun, anyway.
You know, I clicked this thread, read the linked article, and was very excited. I was excited because I thought this thread was 26 pages of awesome banter about the fey folk and our wee little friends.I was incredibly wrong. So can we drop this poi
I'm totally down with elves and gnomes being fey, I think that just makes sense. At the very least, they should be related and/or desecended from them in some way. Like the distant cousins the other fey don't talk about much when they gather because, well, they're a little... Backwards.
Total, in the D&D Basic Rulebook (Moldvay, 1980/81) it mentions in the Pixie entry that they are distantly related to Elves, so the elf-fey connection has always been there.
I can't get enough fey, bring back Bookas, Killmoulis, all of them.
Total, in the D&D Basic Rulebook (Moldvay, 1980/81) it mentions in the Pixie entry that they are distantly related to Elves, so the elf-fey connection has always been there.I can't get enough fey, bring back Bookas, Killmoulis, all of them.
I can't get enough fey, bring back Bookas, Killmoulis, all of them.
Agreed. I enjoy having some capricious little bastards to throw at my party who AREN'T part of whatever it is they're actually doing. I cannot tell you the number of times they have accidently stumbled into some weird fey situation while looking for old artifacts.
They were also once stalked over the course of five adventures by a fey creature they had angered which would periodically cast Otto's Irresistable Dance on them during the most inopportune times.
Agreed. I enjoy having some capricious little bastards to throw at my party who AREN'T part of whatever it is they're actually doing. I cannot tell you the number of times they have accidently stumbled into some weird fey situation while looking fo
Tradition is a direct connection to product identity for D&D. so the cost of a tradition in terms of mismatch with design goals or otherwise needs to be weighed. I assert it is a reason for inclusion of an element in a new edition of a game (just not a huge one)
Tradition is a direct connection to product identity for D&D. so the cost of a tradition in terms of mismatch with design goals or otherwise needs to be weighed. I assert it is a reason for inclusion of an element in a new edition of a game (just no
Tradition is a direct connection to product identity for D&D. so the cost of a tradition in terms of mismatch with design goals or otherwise needs to be weighed. I assert it is a reason for inclusion of an element in a new edition of a game (just not a huge one)
Traditions will get wieghed as part of the calculation. That can't be questioned.
It should not be, however.
Traditions will get wieghed as part of the calculation. That can't be questioned. It should not be, however.
Tradition is a direct connection to product identity for D&D. so the cost of a tradition in terms of mismatch with design goals or otherwise needs to be weighed. I assert it is a reason for inclusion of an element in a new edition of a game (just not a huge one)
Traditions will get wieghed as part of the calculation. That can't be questioned.
It should not be, however.
I think product Identity gives things a reason to have weight however it should be mostly cosmetic ...
By cosmetic... I mean surface level, like we have the same 6 attributes but the exact fiddlies of how they are interpretted can change ( for example strength can give you burst move speed and dex could be more manual with initiative coming from wisdom or whatever.)
Traditions will get wieghed as part of the calculation. That can't be questioned. It should not be, however.[/quote]I think product Identity gives things a reason to have weight however it should be mostly cosmetic ... By cosmetic... I mean surface
Tradition is a direct connection to product identity for D&D. so the cost of a tradition in terms of mismatch with design goals or otherwise needs to be weighed. I assert it is a reason for inclusion of an element in a new edition of a game (just not a huge one)
Traditions will get wieghed as part of the calculation. That can't be questioned.
It should not be, however.
I think product Identity gives things a reason to have weight however it should be mostly cosmetic ...
By cosmetic... I mean surface level, like we have the same 6 attributes but the exact fiddlies of how they are interpretted can change ( for example strength can give you burst move speed and dex could be more manual with initiative coming from wisdom or whatever.)
Habit is the less offensive little brother of traditionalism. I'm still not seeing anything more than "Accept that some people are obsessed with tradition and refuse to even consider ditching traditions unless practically forced by overwhelming evidence that a tradition is terrible, because you can't change it."
And to that I say, sure, you're right that I can't change. But balls to acceptance. It's a bad thing, and I will never pretend otherwise.
Traditions will get wieghed as part of the calculation. That can't be questioned. It should not be, however.[/quote]I think product Identity gives things a reason to have weight however it should be mostly cosmetic ... By cosmetic... I mean surface
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Post button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Ive removed content from this thread because baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.Yo
)
