The latest data sure indicates that I've been right all along about the speeding up of D&D sales decline the more woke their garbage products become...
#dnd #ttrpg #osr #dnd5e
Here you admit that Candlekeep Mysteries is "almost nominally a real product" and have nothing specifically negative to say about it, when previously you were deriding it for having the combat wheelchair and making all dungeons wheelchair accessible.
Then you go on to characterize Radiant Citadel as if it is all skill checks, which is ridiculous. In no particular order, adventures include key conflicts of:
- defeating an elemental intent on destroying the entire region
- defeating a plague demon that has possessed the offspring of an evil sorcerer
- retrieve an artifact from the hands of evil abominations
- destroying an undead monstrosity that makes people into mindless killers
- destroy an grotesque spirit of desiccation that threatens the world
- stopping a killer taking revenge on the children of those who wronged them
- defeating a good magical beast possessed by spirits of madness
- exposing a scheming killer intent on displacing his rival
- fight through monsters to retrieve ancient artifact
- defeat a demon intent on killing an innocent
It's true that there isn't a universal theme of good against evil. Four of the 13 adventures have fighting between rival groups where neither side is purely good or evil, and the PCs have to take sides. Also, two of the adventures involve possession where it's better to save the possessed creature (but the possessing force is clearly evil). Three have an option where the boss fight can be cut short by making a deal with the boss enemy rather than fighting. The one introductory adventure does have some humorous skill challenges like the pepper-eating contest mixed in with fighting troublesome monsters.
Having intrigue, politics, and non-combat challenges mixed into the fighting isn't out of character for D&D. It certainly isn't destroying it.
Nit fast enough and not as long as they can pull in tertiary finds from any existing IP deals. They wont go broke before ONEe comes out. Hasbro has yet to tighten the dogs leash so unless that happens they will blow whatever their cult says to spend.
And odds are 10000% that they are spindictoring this to claim its the horrible mean wacists! fault as they hate anything non woke, er, white!
Ad nausium.
They must be getting a trickle of funds from the two MMOs and any sales of PC or console games they still have deals with. How is their novel section doing? Looks like Neverwinter Online is about to unveil a new advanture area based on a new Salvatori book so at least he is still doing D&D stuff. Though last I heard WOTC had closed down their publishing arm around same time 5e came out.
But they are probably losing sales if only brcause they announced ONEe and people are bound to hold off buying 5e matrial if a new edition is on the horizon that will make that material obsolete or unplayable with the new edition. Business 101 no one ever fucking learns. Edition treadmills slowly strangle your line. Or sometimes very quickly strangle it.
Quote from: jhkim on October 26, 2022, 09:16:22 PM
Having intrigue, politics, and non-combat challenges mixed into the fighting isn't out of character for D&D. It certainly isn't destroying it.
Exactly.
I think the problem is, as usual, WOTC has pulled stunts a few times too many and at this point people just arent having any of it no matter how mild.
Don't forget, the overall trend on the quality of the products has been on a slow decline since the 5E core books were published. Sure, there's been some positive spikes in there, but the trend is slowly but surely down.
People screwing up as badly as WotC have been doing seldom limit themselves to one axis of screw ups.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 26, 2022, 09:43:43 PM
Don't forget, the overall trend on the quality of the products has been on a slow decline since the 5E core books were published. Sure, there's been some positive spikes in there, but the trend is slowly but surely down.
People screwing up as badly as WotC have been doing seldom limit themselves to one axis of screw ups.
I believe they are simply doubling down on their so called righteous cause.
The quality of writing has dropped because they are diversity hiring rather than talent hiring.
Art quality had been relatively good. I had a glance at a friends copy of 5e Spelljammer and have to say it at least looks good overall.
I'd recommend people read up on this a little for themselves:
https://investor.hasbro.com/static-files/9146662a-3034-4a38-a526-6ecc9d946daf
D&D was up in the quarter, MAGIC was down due to release timings. YTD WotC is down 2% on revenues. There are a lot of companies/business units that would love to be only down 2% in revenue this year given Biden's economy.
Capital Allocation Priorities
• Paid $289M in Dividends YTD
• Repurchased $125M in Hasbro common stock YTD
• Purchased D&D Beyond for $146M
• Repaid $73M in long-term debt
• On target to meet debt to adjusted EBITDA target of 2.0 to 2.5X in 2023
• $552M in cash at quarter end
These are not the signs of a company going broke. Hasbro has to be thrilled with WotC. Check out Wizard's operating profit and margin.
I do agree that their woke nonsense is leaving money on the table. I also believe that both the people they are pissing off and the people they are catering to have one very important thing in common—they are not buying their products. But the hobby itself is so much bigger than these two groups.
If they do not alter course, one day the title of this thread may be true. But it is not true as of today.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 26, 2022, 09:43:43 PM
Don't forget, the overall trend on the quality of the products has been on a slow decline since the 5E core books were published. Sure, there's been some positive spikes in there, but the trend is slowly but surely down.
There was some interesting discussion of this later in the Ray Winninger thread (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/ray-winninger-done-at-wotc-more-digital-dudes-coming-in/).
Most of us were pretty low in our sampling rate, so it was hard to compare trends.
Personally, I liked the 5E core rules, but I hated the initial big adventure modules like Out of the Abyss. I bought that one for material to potentially use since my campaign at the time had gone into the Underdark, but what little I took from it was so heavily adapted that I might as well have just used my own material. The earliest modules are my least favorite. When I ran my first 5E games, I either created my own material or I adapted modules from earlier editions (like I6 Ravenloft and Sunless Citadel) rather than use the 5E modules.
So from my view, I've liked the later modules better.
The sooner WOTC goes broke the better. I have nor purchased any of their tripe for years and will not do so any time soon.
(edited for Doxxing)
(Edited by mod to remove doxxing)
This is completely off topic. You should be banned. You know the forum rules. Don't use me in your weak personal campaign, cunt.
Edited: images deleted, tag in bold left behind
Considering that the Pundit is not "woke", but arguably "broke", which runs counter to his claim in the first post (gEt WoKe Go BrOkE!1!), I'd say it's very relevant. But, hey, open your mouth wider, you've almost got the whole boot in there.
Quote from: Tubesock Army on October 27, 2022, 03:26:13 PM
Considering that the Pundit is not "woke", but arguably "broke", which runs counter to his claim in the first post (gEt WoKe Go BrOkE!1!), I'd say it's very relevant. But, hey, open your mouth wider, you've almost got the whole boot in there.
Imagine how much money
you would have if you started charging Pundit, instead of letting him live rent-free in your head.
Quote from: World_Warrior on October 27, 2022, 03:46:23 PM
Quote from: Tubesock Army on October 27, 2022, 03:26:13 PM
Considering that the Pundit is not "woke", but arguably "broke", which runs counter to his claim in the first post (gEt WoKe Go BrOkE!1!), I'd say it's very relevant. But, hey, open your mouth wider, you've almost got the whole boot in there.
Imagine how much money you would have if you started charging Pundit, instead of letting him live rent-free in your head.
Eh, I must not be doing
that bad, I can afford to pay for eyeglasses.
WOTC has cut corners before. I can still remember seeing some of the 4E having production issues (binding and ink issues), none of which was fixed by the time that 5E came about (my DMG bought in 2017 had a weird double printing of ink on some pages that gave it a weird, almost 3D effect, while other pages looked like all the text was bolded). Thankfully, got rid of most of my WOTC D&D books last week. Money for better products.
As for their latest round of books... I think it's a moot point. Whether they are losing money on their books won't really matter. They lost money on 4E. With the focus on their new One D&D (6E by another name), they are already shifting attention to how many people are engaging the new playtest materials.
I think the downfall of WOTC won't ever be their content, but requesting that their fanbase buy an entire new round of books again. It will be interesting to see how much the new books cost, reactions to said new edition, and whether it will be this popular new version of D&D or have the same reaction as PF1 vs PF2.
Quote from: World_Warrior on October 27, 2022, 03:57:36 PM
WOTC has cut corners before. I can still remember seeing some of the 4E having production issues (binding and ink issues), none of which was fixed by the time that 5E came about (my DMG bought in 2017 had a weird double printing of ink on some pages that gave it a weird, almost 3D effect, while other pages looked like all the text was bolded). Thankfully, got rid of most of my WOTC D&D books last week. Money for better products.
That is what I meant by Hasbro tightening the dogs leash during 4e. They cut WOTCs funding substantially. I know. I talked at length with one of the designers.
As for the wavy books. Hate to say it, but that carried over into at least early 5e. My core 5e books all came with rippled pages throughout and it took pressing them under other books for a week to flatten them some. And mine and other buyers PHB had anywhere from slightly loose, to falling apart binding.
Usually a sign the books were rushed out to shops before they had time to propperly cure. That and WOTC was transitioning to a third party printer around the same time.
Just for consideration as an avenue of discussion.
When you buy a product do you want to know what the political views of the maker are?
i.e. Let's say I buy a carton of milk, they should really put on there what the political leanings of the farmer and possibly the cows are.
For those in smaller markets as indy creators, should you post a tag on your game books saying what you are?
i.e. Let's say there are 1000 people who are into the kind of product I make, should I then only sell to the people in that group who also like my kind of polka dancing.
Just gonna throw that out there because I personally just want a good game without any real life BS in it from either side. I am quite capable of providing my own BS. ;)
Tubesock Army is OBVIOUSLY banned, for doxxing. It's not just doxxing, though, apparently he infiltrated a facebook group that was specifically for the purpose of fundraising related to the teaching I do on eastern spirituality. It was part of my income for many years as is typical in that tradition (where a teacher gives the teaching for free, and students with the means to do so financially assist the teacher, not much different than what you see in churches).
This to try to claim that I'm not actually making a full time living today off of RPGs, but he shared doxxed posts dated years ago.
I've always been very open about how much money I make from RPGs, if you read my blogs or watched my videos, you'd know that over the course of about 10 years RPGs have gone from being insignificant income to being my full-time job and complete income. As of 2018 RPGs were maybe 1/3rd of my income, which was mostly month-to-month.
As of early 2020, it was over 2/3rds of my income, which was now a little past month to month. It was from that point on that the rpgpundit presents line of books started to generate more and more income, the compilation books started, then Star Adventurer, then Invisible College, and this year Sword & Caravan. My youtube channel kept expanding and my sales skyrocketed.
Now RPGs are the vast majority of my income, income which is about double what I'd spend to live off in a month.
If you want proof that contrary to Tubesock's claims, what I wrote above is what I have ALWAYS said about my income, check out this video from March 2021 where I talk about "how to make a living off RPGs", and I repeat exactly what I'm saying now:
(incidentally, you'll note that in the video I am stunned by just how much money I'm earning in March of 2021, which was already more than I ever needed in a regular month; I just checked and my income for Oct 2022 is likely to be about 1.5 times the March '21 amount.
You'll notice Tubesock didn't post anything after 2020, because as I went beyond month-to-month type income to having five-figure fucking-around money, the purpose of that particular group he was quoting from disappeared. The last actual post that wasn't just a repost from somewhere else was in October 2021, The last post by anyone other than myself was Feb 2021, and the last actual request for any special fundraising was November 2020.
I never pretended I'm rich (ironically, the Wokists keep trying to flip flop between the two lies of "pundit is a trust fund baby who lives off an inheritance" and "pundit is an impoverished beggar"). I don't lie, not ever. I can tell you: I own a three bedroom house, in what was a good deal, that I'm still paying the mortgage off but not doing bad at that, and I make a very comfortable salary off RPGs in the thousands of dollars per month. In 2021 and 2022 roughly every other month was a new record for "most money I've ever made off RPGs", with October 2022 already (even without the month's end stuff) a new record.
I'm not super-rich (I never expected to be, I spent my entire life running away from riches in search of other things, and living a bohemian monastic lifestyle) but I incredibly find myself with something I never ever expected from the time I started pursuing my personal spiritual cultivation instead of a career: I have a growing bank account with tens of thousands of dollars in savings I don't need to do anything with, and I don't need to concern myself about paying for anything I want.
To bring it back to this topic: the more Anti-Woke I became, the LESS BROKE I became. The more I succeeded. To the point that I make a full-time living off RPGs that would be entirely sufficient to fund my lifestyle comfortably even if I had no other means of income available, and
there's no sign of it slowing down.
Good riddance, Tubesock. You wasted so much of your life posting over 500 times here, never trying to be part of the community. And now you disappear forever, without a whisper. Like so many trolls before you, you will not be remembered.
And now you get to go back to your life of nothing, where nobody gives a shit whether or not you exist. I am sure you have several other groups you are plaguing, but those will dry up too.
On topic, while I do not think Hasbro has *yet* to pass over the tipping point of go woke—go broke, they are on the path. Just like Tubesock was always on the inevitable path that led to today.
Hasbro is in danger because so many higher ups at Wizards forget, or never understood, the first rule of business. Keep the thing, the thing. Make great games. Cool stories. Cool art. Amazing worlds that capture the imaginations of their customers.
Quote from: jhkim on October 26, 2022, 09:16:22 PM
Here you admit that Candlekeep Mysteries is "almost nominally a real product" and have nothing specifically negative to say about it, when previously you were deriding it for having the combat wheelchair and making all dungeons wheelchair accessible.
Then you go on to characterize Radiant Citadel as if it is all skill checks, which is ridiculous. In no particular order, adventures include key conflicts of:
- defeating an elemental intent on destroying the entire region
- defeating a plague demon that has possessed the offspring of an evil sorcerer
- retrieve an artifact from the hands of evil abominations
- destroying an undead monstrosity that makes people into mindless killers
- destroy an grotesque spirit of desiccation that threatens the world
- stopping a killer taking revenge on the children of those who wronged them
- defeating a good magical beast possessed by spirits of madness
- exposing a scheming killer intent on displacing his rival
- fight through monsters to retrieve ancient artifact
- defeat a demon intent on killing an innocent
It's true that there isn't a universal theme of good against evil. Four of the 13 adventures have fighting between rival groups where neither side is purely good or evil, and the PCs have to take sides. Also, two of the adventures involve possession where it's better to save the possessed creature (but the possessing force is clearly evil). Three have an option where the boss fight can be cut short by making a deal with the boss enemy rather than fighting. The one introductory adventure does have some humorous skill challenges like the pepper-eating contest mixed in with fighting troublesome monsters.
Having intrigue, politics, and non-combat challenges mixed into the fighting isn't out of character for D&D. It certainly isn't destroying it.
Didn't I respond to this already? Oh, you must have posted it on the video comments itself and I answered there.
You're very good, you could write ad copy for Wizards, just the kind of thing they want: deceptive advertising that is not technically untrue, in that it is stuff in the book, but that implies that the book is a really traditional type of fantasy adventuring when in fact it's garbage deconstruction of the same, and is mostly concerned with anything but what normal gamers are looking for.
That's what Wizards has been doing when trying to sell print copies for some time now.
What a day to have a Doxxing incident which means a whole lot of...not much. The point about "Get Woke, Go Broke," is not that antithetical positions are automatically profitable (although they definitely can be), but that fandoms have a finite tolerance for atrocious politics being used to excuse terrible products. This is a statement of the fandom's limited patience, not a guaranteed formula for success.
It's my opinion that D&D's current problems are peas compared to where they will be soon. Hasbro has enough funds to survive poor sales, but they are indirectly dependent on the Fed's fund rate and the easy money it provides, and D&D's insane marketing engine definitely relies on it. D&D isn't going to die from politics; it's going to die from macroecon.
Quote from: Fheredin on October 27, 2022, 07:22:50 PM
... The point about "Get Woke, Go Broke," is not that antithetical positions are automatically profitable (although they definitely can be), but that fandoms have a finite tolerance for atrocious politics being used to excuse terrible products. This is a statement of the fandom's limited patience, not a guaranteed formula for success.
...
^This^
By all accounts the Strixhaven Prom book, and the Radiant woketadel are sitting on the shelves more than previous books, and even the WotC KYTube cheerleaders were having to dig deep to find ways to shill Spelljammer.
"Go Woke, Go Broke", is a signal of creative bankruptcy. Which eventually makes businesses incapable of performing their primary function.
We will continue to see a creative slide from WotC, but I fully expect D&D to get a $$ boost in 2024. In my opinion we are several years away from WotC's selling peak. The oneVTT will have a big effect on their bottom line, and the gamers that have big sunk costs in WotC's forthcoming walled garden will be very reluctant to set D&D aside no matter how bad things get.
It is important to remember that it took the once insanely popular Dr. WHO tv show
Ten Years to go from its ratings peak, to woke irrelevance.
All the same predictable signs are there in WotC D&D, and while there are aspects of the RPG hobby that will prolong D&D's run; we have seen the pattern before in other geek media to know the inevitable result.
Quote from: Jaeger on October 27, 2022, 08:23:33 PM
It is important to remember that it took the once insanely popular Dr. WHO tv show Ten Years to go from its ratings peak, to woke irrelevance.
True though it is not just a steady decline. The show had a slow decline from the Tennant era, that got a little faster in the Capaldi years, and then fell off a cliff in the current year doctor. Doctor who was always liberal, in the classical sense, but the moment it crashed into the abyss was when it went Full Woke.
When One D&D was announced, they did everything they could to say that present 5e materials wouldn't become obsolete. But many reviewers that produce pretty good reviews (like Treant Monk) have pointed out that the changes are touching everything, meaning its a new game that won't be compatible.
A lot of the adventures / settings materials released don't seem to produce reviews that are both concise (used in actual play) and positive. I think there's a valid argument to make for the wokeness but, even those that don't point that out haven't really been very positive. The most positive ones seem to be those reviewing without any play.
Oddly enough 5e Spelljammer is in its 8th printing according to the copy a friend got.
So either its selling like hotcakes. Or they are being really frugal with print runs.
Quote from: Omega on October 28, 2022, 04:59:17 AM
Oddly enough 5e Spelljammer is in its 8th printing according to the copy a friend got.
So either its selling like hotcakes. Or they are being really frugal with print runs.
That's odd. I'm sure a bunch of people bought it, just because of the subject matter in the title. Name familiarity, will create some sales. Maybe they had smaller print runs, too?
Quote from: Omega on October 28, 2022, 04:59:17 AM
Oddly enough 5e Spelljammer is in its 8th printing according to the copy a friend got.
So either its selling like hotcakes. Or they are being really frugal with print runs.
Alternately: they keep finding problems in the book and having to patch them (and reprint it).
But regardless, not buying it after the retarded foorah over the hadozee/yazirians.
Quote from: Jam The MF on October 28, 2022, 01:38:20 PM
Quote from: Omega on October 28, 2022, 04:59:17 AM
Oddly enough 5e Spelljammer is in its 8th printing according to the copy a friend got.
So either its selling like hotcakes. Or they are being really frugal with print runs.
That's odd. I'm sure a bunch of people bought it, just because of the subject matter in the title. Name familiarity, will create some sales. Maybe they had smaller print runs, too?
I believe it was mainly sold as a boxed set, if I remember correctly. I wonder if that is why they have smaller runs? Interesting observation though, I wonder what an eighth print run two months after release could mean.
I do remember reviews being luke warm. It seemed somewhat interesting from what I read about it.
Quote from: Lynn on October 28, 2022, 01:44:13 AM
When One D&D was announced, they did everything they could to say that present 5e materials wouldn't become obsolete. But many reviewers that produce pretty good reviews (like Treant Monk) have pointed out that the changes are touching everything, meaning its a new game that won't be compatible.
They promised modules for the 4E fans when doing their huge marketing push of "D&DNext" too... then unsurprisingly utterly failed to deliver.
Even the 3.0 to 3.5e changeover included just enough changes here and there to make the older books largely incompatible despite claims to the contrary.
So if OneD&D makes enough changes to make 5e incompatible, that's just par for the course with WotC... promise compatibility just long enough to keep the griping muted then "whoops, looks like all you old content won't work with it after all. Guess you'll just have to buy new versions of it if you want to use it with the newest system."
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 28, 2022, 05:54:29 PM
So if OneD&D makes enough changes to make 5e incompatible, that's just par for the course with WotC... promise compatibility just long enough to keep the griping muted then "whoops, looks like all you old content won't work with it after all. Guess you'll just have to buy new versions of it if you want to use it with the newest system."
It will be super interesting to see where it ends up. So far the playtest material is compatible.
Regardless of where it shakes out, I do not believe people will be sitting down for a OneD&D game five years from now sporting a 5e PHB. Even if it maintains compatibility.
Quote from: RPGPundit on October 27, 2022, 07:08:56 PM
Quote from: jhkim on October 26, 2022, 09:16:22 PM
Having intrigue, politics, and non-combat challenges mixed into the fighting isn't out of character for D&D. It certainly isn't destroying it.
You're very good, you could write ad copy for Wizards, just the kind of thing they want: deceptive advertising that is not technically untrue, in that it is stuff in the book, but that implies that the book is a really traditional type of fantasy adventuring when in fact it's garbage deconstruction of the same, and is mostly concerned with anything but what normal gamers are looking for.
Thanks for the compliment of being good, I think.
Calling it "deconstruction" seems so vague and broad that I can't even tell how I'd evaluate that. I think if I ran any of the adventures for most of my past D&D gaming groups, they'd be fine with it. As GM, I'd prefer to rewrite 2-3 of the adventures, and I'd fully replace the framing context. But that's not different than how I'd adapt most other modules.
More specific characterizations in the OP video are more specific - that there wasn't any fighting of evil, say, when there are many enemies like murderous undead, demons, and so on. You also imply that skill challenges like an eating contest are the norm, when they are not. It is a humorous sidebar in the introductory adventure.
I don't have the Strixhaven book, so maybe that is close to what you're saying -- but based on what I have seen, I don't think your characterization of these books is accurate. I have a more detailed review of Radiant Citadel, which gives more details. I think it's fine to give a negative review, but you should be clear and specific in what you consider to be the problems of how it plays.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NE9f7P35te1m-t4lTGuBx6GPV2vPLUhnc1CMDtA_BVk/edit
It's been explicitly stated now that in Nu-D&D, undead and demons can have any alignment.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FfhwL0zWQAEsact?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Quote from: RPGPundit on October 29, 2022, 09:13:43 AM
It's been explicitly stated now that in Nu-D&D, undead and demons can have any alignment.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FfhwL0zWQAEsact?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Because to the woke antinomians, evil can be good, men can be women, children are adults, the obese can be healthy, war is peace, ignorance is knowledge and telling the truth is lies.
This is just the woke cancer metastasizing within D&D into the same sort of repulsive dreck that is driving the public away from all mainstream media.
I'm fine with good devils depending on the setting. for instance, a setting based around giant apartment mecha that are piloted by swarms of devils who fight against the infinite legions of heaven? good shit right there.
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 29, 2022, 09:45:39 AM
I'm fine with good devils depending on the setting. for instance, a setting based around giant apartment mecha that are piloted by swarms of devils who fight against the infinite legions of heaven? good shit right there.
And I think that sounds truly retarded. And that is the great thing about opinions. Neither opinion negates the other. It is all subjective.
What is NOT subjective is D&D does not have mecha apartments. There is a rich history of devils and demons being absolutely evil in D&D.
They continue to make these bad design decisions because of their activism and lack of creative ability.
Quote from: jhkim on October 29, 2022, 12:57:41 AM
I think if I ran any of the adventures for most of my past D&D gaming groups, they'd be fine with it. As GM, I'd prefer to rewrite 2-3 of the adventures, and I'd fully replace the framing context. But that's not different than how I'd adapt most other modules.
More specific characterizations in the OP video are more specific - that there wasn't any fighting of evil, say, when there are many enemies like murderous undead, demons, and so on. You also imply that skill challenges like an eating contest are the norm, when they are not. It is a humorous sidebar in the introductory adventure.
Quote from: RPGPundit on October 29, 2022, 09:13:43 AM
It's been explicitly stated now that in Nu-D&D, undead and demons can have any alignment.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FfhwL0zWQAEsact?format=jpg&name=900x900)
I don't see how that changes anything about the characterization of Radiant Citadel. My current campaign and one-shots have all been in an Incan-inspired setting where the PCs work for the wise and good ancestor-king Pachacuti, who is a mummy. Just yesterday I re-ran a one-shot in this setting where the PCs got help from the spirits of ancient warriors in a dragon lord tomb. I can't think of any offhand, but I suspect there have already been good-aligned ghosts or revenants in previous D&D publications, like Hamlet's father seeking to avenge the wrongs done to them.
I haven't had demons of any sort in my game, but I don't see how having a character like Hellboy or Etrigan who fights for good is inherently opposed to what D&D adventures are about.
Except that we're not playing DC Heroes (and despite your hallucinations, Etrigan is NOT a good guy) or Hellboy.
We're fucking playing Dungeons and Dragons!
And for a lead designer to not just rename demons and devils but outright rewrite them because 'reasons'? Stupid.
So Demons and Devils are not really evil anymore? LOL
Cool. I want to play a character called Sir Geoffrey D'amor. He's not evil just misunderstood. Likes a bit of rape and decapitation on the side. His new alignment it chaotic good. As he just wants the heads as his friends.
What I don't get is, why not just eliminate it altogether? What is the point of keeping it around?
Meh. A lot of these changes are ridiculous, but the idea of fundamentally evil demons is largely a late development of Christianity. Demonic entities in other cultures and even other Abrahamic religions, like Islam, can be more morally ambiguous, with some being more troublesome or mischievous than outright evil, and others being potentially good or beneficial. In Islam, for example, "demons" are jinn who have chosen the path of evil, and Satan himself (called Iblis) is a jinn. In Hinduism asuras (which are regarded as demonic and in opposition to the angelic/godly Devas) can potentially become devas if they choose to redeem themselves. In eastern religions people can even reincarnate as demons if they lead a bad life, but eventually still achieve enlightenment through various lifetimes if they set on the right path.
So the main issue with these changes in D&D is that they're being implemented in a hamfisted and haphazard way, and apparently in the behest of a morally bankrupt ideology, more than the idea that the possibility of non-evil demons is such a ridiculous notion that it has never been considered by the majority of real life cultures and religions.
Quote from: Secrets of Blackmoor on October 27, 2022, 06:01:42 PM
...
When you buy a product do you want to know what the political views of the maker are?
...
Hell no. Zero interest. I just want good games.
I would go one step further, and say that I don't even want any games that take an overt anti-woke stance. Because you do not need to.
Making a traditional RPG without woke nonsense in it makes you anti-woke by default.
Just make a good game and people will want to play it.
Quote from: FingerRod on October 28, 2022, 02:51:47 PM
...
I believe it was mainly sold as a boxed set, if I remember correctly. I wonder if that is why they have smaller runs? Interesting observation though, I wonder what an eighth print run two months after release could mean.
I do remember reviews being luke warm. ...
Hard money on smaller print runs. It didn't receive the usual gushing KYTube praise, and even on pro-5e fora the reception has been a resounding 'meh...'.
Naturally I don't expect WotC to release actual sales numbers anytime soon.
Quote from: RPGPundit on October 27, 2022, 08:29:46 PM
...
True though it is not just a steady decline. The show had a slow decline from the Tennant era, that got a little faster in the Capaldi years, and then fell off a cliff in the current year doctor. Doctor who was always liberal, in the classical sense, but the moment it crashed into the abyss was when it went Full Woke.
Absolutely. It's all a slow turning up the dial until they feel that they are in a position to go all-in full retard. Marvel/DC comics took a similar amount of time to crash and burn, but you only saw the really crazy stuff right before they hit rock bottom.
D&D's decline will be interesting to observe, as so far they are going for a firm woke representation online marketing strategy, with soft inclusions in the actual product. But even in their physical product they are starting to race and gender swap with increasing frequency - slowly turning up the dial to see what they can get away with.
Quote from: VisionStorm on October 29, 2022, 05:00:28 PM
...
So the main issue with these changes in D&D is that they're being implemented in a hamfisted and haphazard way, and apparently in the behest of a morally bankrupt ideology, more than the idea that the possibility of non-evil demons is such a ridiculous notion that it has never been considered by the majority of real life cultures and religions.
Well there is the fact that D&D was and is sold to a primarily western English speaking audience. Which has been culturally shaped by 2000 years of Christian morality, religious thought, and philosophy.
So to D&D's primary sales demographic; Yes, the idea of non-evil demons is a completely ridiculous notion based on post-modern retardery.
Demons and Devils being any alignment is fucktarded. I have no issue with an extremely rare exception straying from the usual routine of torture sodomy and forcing the damned to eat feces and such, but that means neutral in a 1 in a 100 million case, not anyone just be any alignment. I agree many cultures have the idea of troublesome spirits being demons, but that is not the point of view of western culture influenced by Christianity....which is what the creator of the game and the culture it is marketed to have as a vision of what a demon/devil is...evil incarnate.
I am not bothered by such a dumb thing though, I do not buy or play dungeons and dragons. I do not think wizards is headed for broke either, not for a very, very long time. They have big, big money sunk into them and that sort of money can live with a dip in profits for a while for the sake of social engineering if needed. I do think they will lose fans/players over time, but they are a massive operation that knows how to market and they will find players. Their biggest issue is going to be when you hire based on idiot criteria (race/sexuality/etc) instead of talent and creativity you eventually get shit for product across the board. That time will come given their direction but it will not be for a while as momentum will carry them a very long ways first. There is also a point where the bean counters talk to the higher ups and social engineering gets dumped to make money, so there might be a course correction in their direction as well.
All that said, if they do better, worse, cease to exist, become something everyone plays it does not matter to me, I am done with em.
Yeah, older D&D editions had non-evil undead, archliches and some mummies coming to mind, but outsiders are specifically part of an alignment's plane of existence. If a soul had the capacity for good, it wouldn't have become a Glabrezu or whatever in the first place.
This is not to say, however, that there's no room for interpretation. Aside from the modrons, outsiders aren't automotons, after all. A tanar'ri could be the party's cool bro, if their interests aligned, and a solar could be a priggish asshole to them if they were at odds. Just because the tanar'ri isn't eating babies at that exact moment and can be reasoned with doesn't mean it's not an evil creature that likes eating babies.
Quote from: FingerRod on October 29, 2022, 10:00:14 AM
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 29, 2022, 09:45:39 AM
I'm fine with good devils depending on the setting. for instance, a setting based around giant apartment mecha that are piloted by swarms of devils who fight against the infinite legions of heaven? good shit right there.
And I think that sounds truly retarded. And that is the great thing about opinions. Neither opinion negates the other. It is all subjective.
What is NOT subjective is D&D does not have mecha apartments. There is a rich history of devils and demons being absolutely evil in D&D.
They continue to make these bad design decisions because of their activism and lack of creative ability.
i think what they're trying to do is make DND more setting agnostic. I haven't read the article, however, so I don't know for sure- if it's for woke reasons then I hate it.
Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on October 29, 2022, 01:04:47 PM
So Demons and Devils are not really evil anymore? LOL
Cool. I want to play a character called Sir Geoffrey D'amor. He's not evil just misunderstood. Likes a bit of rape and decapitation on the side. His new alignment it chaotic good. As he just wants the heads as his friends.
Does he rape and decapitate Nazis? Full blown Nazis? SS uniform, armband, goose stepping, Holocaust supporting Nazis? If so he's more than Chaotic Good, he's Chaotic Ultragood.
Quote from: VisionStorm on October 29, 2022, 05:00:28 PM
Meh. A lot of these changes are ridiculous, but the idea of fundamentally evil demons is largely a late development of Christianity. Demonic entities in other cultures and even other Abrahamic religions, like Islam, can be more morally ambiguous, with some being more troublesome or mischievous than outright evil, and others being potentially good or beneficial. In Islam, for example, "demons" are jinn who have chosen the path of evil, and Satan himself (called Iblis) is a jinn. In Hinduism asuras (which are regarded as demonic and in opposition to the angelic/godly Devas) can potentially become devas if they choose to redeem themselves. In eastern religions people can even reincarnate as demons if they lead a bad life, but eventually still achieve enlightenment through various lifetimes if they set on the right path.
So the main issue with these changes in D&D is that they're being implemented in a hamfisted and haphazard way, and apparently in the behest of a morally bankrupt ideology, more than the idea that the possibility of non-evil demons is such a ridiculous notion that it has never been considered by the majority of real life cultures and religions.
In orthodox Islam, demons are not Jinn. Jinn are a totally different type of spirit from angels or demons. Jinn have a soul, and thus free will, like humans do, so there can be Jinns who are Muslims, Jinn who are unbelievers, and Jinn who are worshipers of Shaitan. On the other hand, Angels and Demons have no free will.
In Hinduism, I can think of only one instance of an Asura that opposes his nature to try to be good, Prahlada, and in-legend this is because he heard the saint Narada praying while Prahlada was in his mother's womb. This is meant to very much reflect the exception to the rule, rather than a general condition (similar in some ways to the legend of Merlin, being the son of the Devil, having been turned from evil to good by being baptized by Saint Blaise as soon as he is born).
The confusion in your statement might be because in the earlier Vedic texts the word "asura" is etymologically different from how it came to be used in Hinduism, but this is a change in the way the word was used; where in the earliest vedic texts "asura" meant a divine being in general, and there were other terms for good divine beings and evil divine beings. By the time of the Bhagavad Gita, the etymology had changed so that Deva referred to holy divine beings and Asura to unholy ones.
That said, Hindu belief in reincarnation does make it clear that someone can, by committing horrible sins, incarnate as an Asura, and (countless years later) be destroyed and potentially make their way back up the realms of being to become a human or even rise up to become a Deva. But during an individual lifetime, one is restricted by the qualities of the level to which they incarnate; just like someone who incarnates as a horse can't hope to learn algebra, an Asura generally cannot be holy.
The point is, every culture that ever existed had a fundamental mythology that taught that yes, there is Objective Good and Objective Evil. And had mythological creatures meant to represent those qualities. Only a society as degenerate and lost as our own can reach a point where it believes that good or evil are only a matter of feelings.
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 29, 2022, 08:35:49 PM
Quote from: FingerRod on October 29, 2022, 10:00:14 AM
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 29, 2022, 09:45:39 AM
I'm fine with good devils depending on the setting. for instance, a setting based around giant apartment mecha that are piloted by swarms of devils who fight against the infinite legions of heaven? good shit right there.
And I think that sounds truly retarded. And that is the great thing about opinions. Neither opinion negates the other. It is all subjective.
What is NOT subjective is D&D does not have mecha apartments. There is a rich history of devils and demons being absolutely evil in D&D.
They continue to make these bad design decisions because of their activism and lack of creative ability.
i think what they're trying to do is make DND more setting agnostic. I haven't read the article, however, so I don't know for sure- if it's for woke reasons then I hate it.
The excuse that the wokist at D&D are using is to make D&D setting agnostic. In reality its a long standing leftist post modernist belief that there is no good or evil. Everything is grey and whatever man wants it to be it is. Meanwhile having a set alignment system that makes it exceedingly easy to role play a monster is inherently evil (ironic) to a leftist because it is reinforcing objective concepts of good and evil. Having alignment in D&D teaching children the concept of right and wrong is a moral affront to the post-modernist moral degenerates.
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%208%20Ethics/PostModernism.htm
Quote from: RPGPundit on October 29, 2022, 09:13:43 AM
It's been explicitly stated now that in Nu-D&D, undead and demons can have any alignment.
uhhhh... Hate to break it to you. But that was a thing with 2e D&D and especially Planescape. Not often. But could happen. Evil Devas? yrp. They there.
ONEe looks to be more an "anything goes!" ideal without any thought put to it.
Or more aptly the wrong thought put to it.
WOTC and even some idiots here look at alighment of monsters as if it were set in stone and unchangable EVERRRRRRRRRRRR! Even when its ben shown that was not the case with older D&D. But you know. The "cause" has to lie and lie and lie because they hav no leg to stand on otherwise.
WOTC as usualy kowtows to those that bitch the loudest and closest to their own agenda.
Quote from: Omega on October 30, 2022, 03:07:47 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit on October 29, 2022, 09:13:43 AM
It's been explicitly stated now that in Nu-D&D, undead and demons can have any alignment.
uhhhh... Hate to break it to you. But that was a thing with 2e D&D and especially Planescape. Not often. But could happen. Evil Devas? yrp. They there.
ONEe looks to be more an "anything goes!" ideal without any thought put to it.
Or more aptly the wrong thought put to it.
WOTC and even some idiots here look at alighment of monsters as if it were set in stone and unchangable EVERRRRRRRRRRRR! Even when its ben shown that was not the case with older D&D. But you know. The "cause" has to lie and lie and lie because they hav no leg to stand on otherwise.
WOTC as usualy kowtows to those that bitch the loudest and closest to their own agenda.
Everyone goes by the alignment of the monster manual, however there are exceptional individuals that don't match the alignment. Its been that way since time immemorial. What hasn't been a thing in D&D was to release a book about evil where none of the monsters have an alignment. It's a pain in the ass to have to go and read a book on the monster as the leftards try to describe how the monster behaves without using words "evil", "slaver", "rape", "insane" and then use them in a campaign. Just look at the raping of the description of the neogi. WotC redacted 50% of that monster in their "revised" edition of Mord's. You have no clue they are slavers, they are described as fucking vulcan's, god damn vulcans. The Neogi's were one of the big bads of spelljammer. Even mind flayers were allowed in towns, but neogi if you see them they are were the Mexican Narco gangs of Spelljammer. But in Mord's the description suckkkkkssssskkkkss.
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 30, 2022, 03:01:51 AM
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 29, 2022, 08:35:49 PM
Quote from: FingerRod on October 29, 2022, 10:00:14 AM
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 29, 2022, 09:45:39 AM
I'm fine with good devils depending on the setting. for instance, a setting based around giant apartment mecha that are piloted by swarms of devils who fight against the infinite legions of heaven? good shit right there.
And I think that sounds truly retarded. And that is the great thing about opinions. Neither opinion negates the other. It is all subjective.
What is NOT subjective is D&D does not have mecha apartments. There is a rich history of devils and demons being absolutely evil in D&D.
They continue to make these bad design decisions because of their activism and lack of creative ability.
i think what they're trying to do is make DND more setting agnostic. I haven't read the article, however, so I don't know for sure- if it's for woke reasons then I hate it.
The excuse that the wokist at D&D are using is to make D&D setting agnostic. In reality its a long standing leftist post modernist belief that there is no good or evil. Everything is grey and whatever man wants it to be it is. Meanwhile having a set alignment system that makes it exceedingly easy to role play a monster is inherently evil (ironic) to a leftist because it is reinforcing objective concepts of good and evil. Having alignment in D&D teaching children the concept of right and wrong is a moral affront to the post-modernist moral degenerates.
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%208%20Ethics/PostModernism.htm
I disagree that objective (as in independent of humans) morality exists. Reality? Yes. Morality? No. Whether objective morality exists IN A FICTIONAL WORLD depends on the setting's makers. If the creators of a particular setting says X is bad, then it is. If the creators of another setting say nothing is good or bad, then that is true. The creators of the setting are its Gods, they determine everything about it.
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 30, 2022, 08:27:35 PM
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 30, 2022, 03:01:51 AM
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 29, 2022, 08:35:49 PM
Quote from: FingerRod on October 29, 2022, 10:00:14 AM
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 29, 2022, 09:45:39 AM
I'm fine with good devils depending on the setting. for instance, a setting based around giant apartment mecha that are piloted by swarms of devils who fight against the infinite legions of heaven? good shit right there.
And I think that sounds truly retarded. And that is the great thing about opinions. Neither opinion negates the other. It is all subjective.
What is NOT subjective is D&D does not have mecha apartments. There is a rich history of devils and demons being absolutely evil in D&D.
They continue to make these bad design decisions because of their activism and lack of creative ability.
i think what they're trying to do is make DND more setting agnostic. I haven't read the article, however, so I don't know for sure- if it's for woke reasons then I hate it.
The excuse that the wokist at D&D are using is to make D&D setting agnostic. In reality its a long standing leftist post modernist belief that there is no good or evil. Everything is grey and whatever man wants it to be it is. Meanwhile having a set alignment system that makes it exceedingly easy to role play a monster is inherently evil (ironic) to a leftist because it is reinforcing objective concepts of good and evil. Having alignment in D&D teaching children the concept of right and wrong is a moral affront to the post-modernist moral degenerates.
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%208%20Ethics/PostModernism.htm
I disagree that objective (as in independent of humans) morality exists. Reality? Yes. Morality? No. Whether objective morality exists IN A FICTIONAL WORLD depends on the setting's makers. If the creators of a particular setting says X is bad, then it is. If the creators of another setting say nothing is good or bad, then that is true. The creators of the setting are its Gods, they determine everything about it.
I disagree on both counts. Morality in the real world is primarily in the form of cause and effect and if you are doing something which forces other people to act in self-defense against you. These are not intuitively obvious, and as the world becomes increasingly complex, more subtle interactions come into play. There are moral interactions which we don't understand, yet, just like we don't have a theory of Quantum Gravity. But fundamentally, morality is baked into the universe as deeply as mathematics and fictional universes with senses of morality which don't line up with the real universe will feel less like fictional worlds and more like acid trips.
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 29, 2022, 08:35:49 PM
i think what they're trying to do is make DND more setting agnostic. I haven't read the article, however, so I don't know for sure- if it's for woke reasons then I hate it.
You'd have to scrap the entire magic system to achieve that.
I disagree that objective (as in independent of humans) morality exists. [/quote]
There is an objective morality of good and evil in our world. Moral relativism is complete bullshit. Stop sitting on the fence and take a fucking side.
Let me give some examples of evil in the world:
6 million Jews murdered by the Germans in WWII.
approx 3 million Cambodians murdered by the Khmer Rouge.
Ed Gein
Charles Manson
Saddam Hussein
According to you moral relativistic view of things, NONE of those examples would be considered evil. Because all things are equal in moral relativism. No cop outs. No ifs, ands, or buts. A moral relativist would say the deaths of 6 million Jews by the Nazis was "just a thing that happened in the war".
You need to check your moral compass, because it's broke.
Knowing the difference between good and evil is what keeps us from raping, murdering and stealing from each other.
But if you don't see the difference between giving orphan a home versus shooting him in the face, well...you need to unfuck yourself.
Subjective morality disproves itself in practice.
Because it lacks a basis to grant itself legitimacy outside of occasional utilitarianism (which either itself resorts to holy/unholy principles), its either subverted or ousted by philosophies that do.
In modern day most moral subjectivists coast on moral principles set by the past, and assume said principles are inherent to man without the need for principled grounding.
Tldr: killing demons is good.
I'll add my $0.02 about "Demons":
It's very much a specific mythological/theological background to treat all demons as inherently evil. And the specific background that D&D has chosen to take is "all demons are evil". It's loosely evolved from the Christian worldview of historic western civilization, but in pre-Christian western cultures, they weren't (see https://mythology.net/greek/greek-creatures/daemon/ (https://mythology.net/greek/greek-creatures/daemon/) for example--I think anyone who's studied Greek philosophers or Carl Jung know about "Daemons" as not wholly evil...and, despite Pathfinder, it's just a different spelling of the same term derived from the Greek.) In Christian demonology, demons are generally viewed as angels who fell into sin, and thus are by definition going to be evil.
In Islam, there are Angels and there are Jinn--two different categories of being. Angels are 100% good and have no free will...whereas Jinn are *not* analogs to the Christian idea of "Demon"--they've never been Angels, and evil if the most famous Jinn (Iblis/Shaytan) is wholly evil, the Quran does record Jinn who believed the message of Islam.
And really, when world-building, do what you want. If you want all Demons to be evil, fine, do so...if you want them to be more complex characters, fine, do so. It's really not that difficult...certainly not one of the things I would say is something inherently bad about D&D.
WOTC said what the decline was, and it was not D&D:
"Hasbro cites that much of the drop is due to sizable delays to their Magic: the Gathering releases. Delays and other "supply chain challenges" hit pretty hard. And alongside that, bigger releases "and entertainment content" are scheduled for the fourth quarter as opposed to the third quarter." Apparently their video game also didn't do as well as expected. Not one word in their release even hints at a D&D decline.
Quote from: Fheredin on October 31, 2022, 09:34:26 AM
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 30, 2022, 08:27:35 PM
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 30, 2022, 03:01:51 AM
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 29, 2022, 08:35:49 PM
Quote from: FingerRod on October 29, 2022, 10:00:14 AM
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 29, 2022, 09:45:39 AM
I'm fine with good devils depending on the setting. for instance, a setting based around giant apartment mecha that are piloted by swarms of devils who fight against the infinite legions of heaven? good shit right there.
And I think that sounds truly retarded. And that is the great thing about opinions. Neither opinion negates the other. It is all subjective.
What is NOT subjective is D&D does not have mecha apartments. There is a rich history of devils and demons being absolutely evil in D&D.
They continue to make these bad design decisions because of their activism and lack of creative ability.
i think what they're trying to do is make DND more setting agnostic. I haven't read the article, however, so I don't know for sure- if it's for woke reasons then I hate it.
The excuse that the wokist at D&D are using is to make D&D setting agnostic. In reality its a long standing leftist post modernist belief that there is no good or evil. Everything is grey and whatever man wants it to be it is. Meanwhile having a set alignment system that makes it exceedingly easy to role play a monster is inherently evil (ironic) to a leftist because it is reinforcing objective concepts of good and evil. Having alignment in D&D teaching children the concept of right and wrong is a moral affront to the post-modernist moral degenerates.
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%208%20Ethics/PostModernism.htm
I disagree that objective (as in independent of humans) morality exists. Reality? Yes. Morality? No. Whether objective morality exists IN A FICTIONAL WORLD depends on the setting's makers. If the creators of a particular setting says X is bad, then it is. If the creators of another setting say nothing is good or bad, then that is true. The creators of the setting are its Gods, they determine everything about it.
I disagree on both counts. Morality in the real world is primarily in the form of cause and effect and if you are doing something which forces other people to act in self-defense against you. These are not intuitively obvious, and as the world becomes increasingly complex, more subtle interactions come into play. There are moral interactions which we don't understand, yet, just like we don't have a theory of Quantum Gravity. But fundamentally, morality is baked into the universe as deeply as mathematics and fictional universes with senses of morality which don't line up with the real universe will feel less like fictional worlds and more like acid trips.
Morality is not baked into the universe. Morality is a human construct. Without humans, there is no morality. Even with humans, what is 'good' and what is 'evil' is defined entirely by humans. In the case of a fictional world, the author can make up whatever morality they want. Sure, you can disagree. That doesn't make what they said false.
pundit, if this is off topic, tell me, I'll make several more posts responding to the other people. If it is then I'll move it to Discord.
Quote from: blackstone on October 31, 2022, 10:33:19 AM
I disagree that objective (as in independent of humans) morality exists.
There is an objective morality of good and evil in our world. Moral relativism is complete bullshit. Stop sitting on the fence and take a fucking side.
Let me give some examples of evil in the world:
6 million Jews murdered by the Germans in WWII.
approx 3 million Cambodians murdered by the Khmer Rouge.
Ed Gein
Charles Manson
Saddam Hussein
According to you moral relativistic view of things, NONE of those examples would be considered evil. Because all things are equal in moral relativism. No cop outs. No ifs, ands, or buts. A moral relativist would say the deaths of 6 million Jews by the Nazis was "just a thing that happened in the war".
You need to check your moral compass, because it's broke.
Knowing the difference between good and evil is what keeps us from raping, murdering and stealing from each other.
But if you don't see the difference between giving orphan a home versus shooting him in the face, well...you need to unfuck yourself.
[/quote]
Those examples are evil because
1. The humans that said they are good are considered evil by many
2. The last time people did the first two, they were defeated.
In other words, everyone (or more people think they are evil than the ones who think they're good) thinks they are bad. Therefore they are. I myself hate the sorts of people who would do those things, so don't assume I support them.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 31, 2022, 10:41:58 AM
Subjective morality disproves itself in practice.
Because it lacks a basis to grant itself legitimacy outside of occasional utilitarianism (which either itself resorts to holy/unholy principles), its either subverted or ousted by philosophies that do.
In modern day most moral subjectivists coast on moral principles set by the past, and assume said principles are inherent to man without the need for principled grounding.
Tldr: killing demons is good.
it has the legitimacy it needs. "Humans decide all moral values." The end, it's true even when nobody believes in it.
Quote from: Omega on October 30, 2022, 03:07:47 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit on October 29, 2022, 09:13:43 AM
It's been explicitly stated now that in Nu-D&D, undead and demons can have any alignment.
uhhhh... Hate to break it to you. But that was a thing with 2e D&D and especially Planescape.
In Planescape: Torment a character in your party (Fall-from-Grace) is a succubus who became "enlightened" and changed her alignment from Chaotic Evil to Lawful Neutral (she is basically Spock). She is also a cleric but worships no god - so there you go.
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 31, 2022, 12:12:39 PM
Quote from: Fheredin on October 31, 2022, 09:34:26 AM
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 30, 2022, 08:27:35 PM
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 30, 2022, 03:01:51 AM
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 29, 2022, 08:35:49 PM
Quote from: FingerRod on October 29, 2022, 10:00:14 AM
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 29, 2022, 09:45:39 AM
I'm fine with good devils depending on the setting. for instance, a setting based around giant apartment mecha that are piloted by swarms of devils who fight against the infinite legions of heaven? good shit right there.
And I think that sounds truly retarded. And that is the great thing about opinions. Neither opinion negates the other. It is all subjective.
What is NOT subjective is D&D does not have mecha apartments. There is a rich history of devils and demons being absolutely evil in D&D.
They continue to make these bad design decisions because of their activism and lack of creative ability.
i think what they're trying to do is make DND more setting agnostic. I haven't read the article, however, so I don't know for sure- if it's for woke reasons then I hate it.
The excuse that the wokist at D&D are using is to make D&D setting agnostic. In reality its a long standing leftist post modernist belief that there is no good or evil. Everything is grey and whatever man wants it to be it is. Meanwhile having a set alignment system that makes it exceedingly easy to role play a monster is inherently evil (ironic) to a leftist because it is reinforcing objective concepts of good and evil. Having alignment in D&D teaching children the concept of right and wrong is a moral affront to the post-modernist moral degenerates.
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%208%20Ethics/PostModernism.htm
I disagree that objective (as in independent of humans) morality exists. Reality? Yes. Morality? No. Whether objective morality exists IN A FICTIONAL WORLD depends on the setting's makers. If the creators of a particular setting says X is bad, then it is. If the creators of another setting say nothing is good or bad, then that is true. The creators of the setting are its Gods, they determine everything about it.
I disagree on both counts. Morality in the real world is primarily in the form of cause and effect and if you are doing something which forces other people to act in self-defense against you. These are not intuitively obvious, and as the world becomes increasingly complex, more subtle interactions come into play. There are moral interactions which we don't understand, yet, just like we don't have a theory of Quantum Gravity. But fundamentally, morality is baked into the universe as deeply as mathematics and fictional universes with senses of morality which don't line up with the real universe will feel less like fictional worlds and more like acid trips.
Morality is not baked into the universe. Morality is a human construct. Without humans, there is no morality. Even with humans, what is 'good' and what is 'evil' is defined entirely by humans. In the case of a fictional world, the author can make up whatever morality they want. Sure, you can disagree. That doesn't make what they said false.
pundit, if this is off topic, tell me, I'll make several more posts responding to the other people. If it is then I'll move it to Discord.
Allow me to make an argument which simultaneously shows the cause and effect nature of morality and which makes this on-topic for the thread. "Get Woke, Go Broke." The fundamental interaction here is that the companies which forcibly included broken ideologies and tasteless politics are going to get punished for it financially by their fans because it was a breech of trust in an unspoken social contract. The corporations argue that because these social contracts were never explicit that they do not exist, therefore they can rewrite their social contract with the fans as they please. The fandom perspective is that the unspoken social contract exists and should be enforced, so the long term effect of Wokism is to make explicit social contracts between corporations and fandoms more common and more precise.
This is exactly an example of a subtle moral interaction becoming clear through the course of history.
I think Pundit is probably a twinge premature in his conclusions that WotC is going broke over D&D. Your average D&D fan's sense of morality is about as sharp as a billiard ball. More likely, the Federal Reserve is going to backstab Wallstreet (who bet the farm on them keeping interest rates at almost zero) because that social contract was never explicitly stated. The resulting market crash is likely going to take Hasbro down as collateral damage. In this case, "Get Woke, Go Broke" is not happening because of fandom retribution, but because what goes around comes around. But it's all the same.
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 31, 2022, 12:16:17 PMIt has the legitimacy it needs. "Humans decide all moral values." The end, it's true even when nobody believes in it.
But reality becomes a nightmarish hellscape (or one moreso) when people actually believe in that. Its such a unsustainable hellscape of thought that people will willingly discard that train of thought and substitute it with something else whenever possible, even if they don't say it.
"All opinions are subjective" is a position that will disprove itself. Paraphrasing CS Lewis, its basically undermining its own point while making it.
Also settings where demons are not evil are also extremly played out and cliche. 'Demons be misunderstood' is also no longer a novel idea.
As far as demons and alignment:
First, the Hellboy stories have a fine moral center, from my reading of them. They send up Catholic theology, but they still have a moral code that most people of any religion would generally find reasonable. Hellboy overcomes being a demon and still is a good person, which is the point of the stories. That's a perfectly good lesson for human beings.
Further, D&D is a fucking fantasy game, not lessons on theology or moral philosophy. In particular, I disagreed with this -
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 30, 2022, 03:01:51 AM
Meanwhile having a set alignment system that makes it exceedingly easy to role play a monster is inherently evil (ironic) to a leftist because it is reinforcing objective concepts of good and evil. Having alignment in D&D teaching children the concept of right and wrong is a moral affront to the post-modernist moral degenerates.
Children aren't taught right and wrong from D&D alignment. My son grew up sometimes playing D&D and other RPGs, but while they were positive and creative, I think his moral center came from real-world living and instruction, and not at all from game mechanics. Neither D&D alignments nor the non-alignment-using mechanics of other RPGs were important either way in his learning to be a good person. I think trying to use D&D alignments to teach real-world morality is a bad idea, because the real world is vastly different than most D&D worlds.
Whether you have Hellboy-like NPCs in your game or not isn't a moral stance - it's just different ways to play the game.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 31, 2022, 01:09:34 PM
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 31, 2022, 12:16:17 PMIt has the legitimacy it needs. "Humans decide all moral values." The end, it's true even when nobody believes in it.
But reality becomes a nightmarish hellscape (or one moreso) when people actually believe in that. Its such a unsustainable hellscape of thought that people will willingly discard that train of thought and substitute it with something else whenever possible, even if they don't say it.
"All opinions are subjective" is a position that will disprove itself. Paraphrasing CS Lewis, its basically undermining its own point while making it.
Also settings where demons are not evil are also extremly played out and cliche. 'Demons be misunderstood' is also no longer a novel idea.
Even if people believe otherwise, it's still true that morality is a human construct and is dependent on the existence of such. That's the beauty of it. If your community says rape is evil, it is, and you don't need to worry about ANY other community as long as you stay within it. If you really dislike other communities that say 'rape is good in certain circumstances' then get some friends, get some guns and destroy that community. Or just stay away, and tell your friends to do the same.
I don't think morality is set up by an omnipotent omniscient omnipresent creator of all. If there is one (which I don't find to be impossible) it's either
1. An uncaring creator
2. More like a Lovecraftian being
In which case you could not talk to it and get moral help. In the first, it wouldn't care enough to talk to you, in the second, you would not be able to compherend its method of communication. You would lose your mind just by being near it.
Quote from: Fheredin on October 31, 2022, 01:05:33 PM
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 31, 2022, 12:12:39 PM
Quote from: Fheredin on October 31, 2022, 09:34:26 AM
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 30, 2022, 08:27:35 PM
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 30, 2022, 03:01:51 AM
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 29, 2022, 08:35:49 PM
Quote from: FingerRod on October 29, 2022, 10:00:14 AM
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 29, 2022, 09:45:39 AM
I'm fine with good devils depending on the setting. for instance, a setting based around giant apartment mecha that are piloted by swarms of devils who fight against the infinite legions of heaven? good shit right there.
And I think that sounds truly retarded. And that is the great thing about opinions. Neither opinion negates the other. It is all subjective.
What is NOT subjective is D&D does not have mecha apartments. There is a rich history of devils and demons being absolutely evil in D&D.
They continue to make these bad design decisions because of their activism and lack of creative ability.
i think what they're trying to do is make DND more setting agnostic. I haven't read the article, however, so I don't know for sure- if it's for woke reasons then I hate it.
The excuse that the wokist at D&D are using is to make D&D setting agnostic. In reality its a long standing leftist post modernist belief that there is no good or evil. Everything is grey and whatever man wants it to be it is. Meanwhile having a set alignment system that makes it exceedingly easy to role play a monster is inherently evil (ironic) to a leftist because it is reinforcing objective concepts of good and evil. Having alignment in D&D teaching children the concept of right and wrong is a moral affront to the post-modernist moral degenerates.
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%208%20Ethics/PostModernism.htm
I disagree that objective (as in independent of humans) morality exists. Reality? Yes. Morality? No. Whether objective morality exists IN A FICTIONAL WORLD depends on the setting's makers. If the creators of a particular setting says X is bad, then it is. If the creators of another setting say nothing is good or bad, then that is true. The creators of the setting are its Gods, they determine everything about it.
I disagree on both counts. Morality in the real world is primarily in the form of cause and effect and if you are doing something which forces other people to act in self-defense against you. These are not intuitively obvious, and as the world becomes increasingly complex, more subtle interactions come into play. There are moral interactions which we don't understand, yet, just like we don't have a theory of Quantum Gravity. But fundamentally, morality is baked into the universe as deeply as mathematics and fictional universes with senses of morality which don't line up with the real universe will feel less like fictional worlds and more like acid trips.
Morality is not baked into the universe. Morality is a human construct. Without humans, there is no morality. Even with humans, what is 'good' and what is 'evil' is defined entirely by humans. In the case of a fictional world, the author can make up whatever morality they want. Sure, you can disagree. That doesn't make what they said false.
pundit, if this is off topic, tell me, I'll make several more posts responding to the other people. If it is then I'll move it to Discord.
Allow me to make an argument which simultaneously shows the cause and effect nature of morality and which makes this on-topic for the thread. "Get Woke, Go Broke." The fundamental interaction here is that the companies which forcibly included broken ideologies and tasteless politics are going to get punished for it financially by their fans because it was a breech of trust in an unspoken social contract. The corporations argue that because these social contracts were never explicit that they do not exist, therefore they can rewrite their social contract with the fans as they please. The fandom perspective is that the unspoken social contract exists and should be enforced, so the long term effect of Wokism is to make explicit social contracts between corporations and fandoms more common and more precise.
This is exactly an example of a subtle moral interaction becoming clear through the course of history.
I think Pundit is probably a twinge premature in his conclusions that WotC is going broke over D&D. Your average D&D fan's sense of morality is about as sharp as a billiard ball. More likely, the Federal Reserve is going to backstab Wallstreet (who bet the farm on them keeping interest rates at almost zero) because that social contract was never explicitly stated. The resulting market crash is likely going to take Hasbro down as collateral damage. In this case, "Get Woke, Go Broke" is not happening because of fandom retribution, but because what goes around comes around. But it's all the same.
people don't like woke because woke is fucking dumb, not because they morally disagree with woke.
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 31, 2022, 01:32:24 PMEven if people believe otherwise, it's still true that morality is a human construct and is dependent on the existence of such.
Your insight on how societies function are pretty stellar. I will now go and rethink my life.
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 31, 2022, 12:12:39 PM
Quote from: Fheredin on October 31, 2022, 09:34:26 AM
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 30, 2022, 08:27:35 PM
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 30, 2022, 03:01:51 AM
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 29, 2022, 08:35:49 PM
Quote from: FingerRod on October 29, 2022, 10:00:14 AM
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 29, 2022, 09:45:39 AM
I'm fine with good devils depending on the setting. for instance, a setting based around giant apartment mecha that are piloted by swarms of devils who fight against the infinite legions of heaven? good shit right there.
And I think that sounds truly retarded. And that is the great thing about opinions. Neither opinion negates the other. It is all subjective.
What is NOT subjective is D&D does not have mecha apartments. There is a rich history of devils and demons being absolutely evil in D&D.
They continue to make these bad design decisions because of their activism and lack of creative ability.
i think what they're trying to do is make DND more setting agnostic. I haven't read the article, however, so I don't know for sure- if it's for woke reasons then I hate it.
The excuse that the wokist at D&D are using is to make D&D setting agnostic. In reality its a long standing leftist post modernist belief that there is no good or evil. Everything is grey and whatever man wants it to be it is. Meanwhile having a set alignment system that makes it exceedingly easy to role play a monster is inherently evil (ironic) to a leftist because it is reinforcing objective concepts of good and evil. Having alignment in D&D teaching children the concept of right and wrong is a moral affront to the post-modernist moral degenerates.
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%208%20Ethics/PostModernism.htm
I disagree that objective (as in independent of humans) morality exists. Reality? Yes. Morality? No. Whether objective morality exists IN A FICTIONAL WORLD depends on the setting's makers. If the creators of a particular setting says X is bad, then it is. If the creators of another setting say nothing is good or bad, then that is true. The creators of the setting are its Gods, they determine everything about it.
I disagree on both counts. Morality in the real world is primarily in the form of cause and effect and if you are doing something which forces other people to act in self-defense against you. These are not intuitively obvious, and as the world becomes increasingly complex, more subtle interactions come into play. There are moral interactions which we don't understand, yet, just like we don't have a theory of Quantum Gravity. But fundamentally, morality is baked into the universe as deeply as mathematics and fictional universes with senses of morality which don't line up with the real universe will feel less like fictional worlds and more like acid trips.
Morality is not baked into the universe. Morality is a human construct. Without humans, there is no morality. Even with humans, what is 'good' and what is 'evil' is defined entirely by humans. In the case of a fictional world, the author can make up whatever morality they want. Sure, you can disagree. That doesn't make what they said false.
pundit, if this is off topic, tell me, I'll make several more posts responding to the other people. If it is then I'll move it to Discord.
I would say that there's more morality "baked into" many RPGs (or maybe moreso, in a fictional novel) than in the real world (outside of a theological framework).
Although much is random in an RPG (we do love our die rolls), there's a lot more of explicitly calling something "good" or "evil"--at least in the mind of the GM who's created the world.
Let's take disease, for example. In the real world, all sorts of people get disease...good, mundane, evil people can all be struck down. Theologically, believers will often say "It's a mystery" and don't explain why someone most might call "good" gets a disease but an evil person is spared.
If one is a nontheist, well, it's just random. No virus or radiation or bacterium rubbed its hands together and cackled "Muhahahah!!! I'm going to give this innocent child cancer because it will be SO EVILLL!!!!" The agents of much of what we see in the universe--outside of human beings--aren't good or evil...they just act naturally. A Polar Bear that eats a human isn't acting evil...it's acting natural.
Now, in an RPG--well, it could be random, a mere die roll and the GM will shrug and say "sucks to be you." But it could be a deliberate plot device--let's say "an evil wizard has cast a spell of a sleeping sickness on this fair maiden and you must find the hidden gem in the wizard's castle in order to free her from this sickness." That's creating a definite moral framework around it.
Because of the nature of random events in RPGs, I'd say that fiction is a lot more morally charged...things happen in order for a plot to happen. You never have a random character struck down by disease just for the hell of it, it's for a reason in the story. But in an RPG, especially a fantasy RPG, a compelling adventure will often have heroic characters competing against explicitly evil NPCs. (Alternately, the characters can be evil...but there's usually an inherent morality in it.)
In a world without moral agents--let's say, the world of 65 million years ago--I doubt if anyone would call the T. Rex evil and the Triceratops good...or maybe the comet that caused the KT event a moral evil. The T. Rex did what it naturally did...and the comet had even less volition than the T. Rex.
Now, in the world of today, we have humans who make moral choices all the time. And though I have religious beliefs that I believe have a strict moral code, I recognize that atheists, too have moral convictions--the completely amoral person is actually quite rare. The atheist might say there's no objective morality (with which I disagree), but that doesn't mean they're saying morality doesn't exist. There are many things that we could call "merely subjective" but that doesn't mean that they're non-existence. And the fact that there are some things that humans nearly universally treat as immoral (say, the Holocaust), it doesn't change the fact that that's a belief in most of our minds--if we suddenly ceased to exist, in a materialist standpoint, no one would be saying that the Holocaust was evil. (Of course, I'm not a materialist, so I come to a different conclusion...but I don't think that materialists automatically don't have a moral compass.)
But getting back to RPGs, at the end of the day, the GM makes his or her own rules on good and evil...though if they stray too much from the cultural values of good and evil that the other players have, it may be a very confusing game. Actions and settings in an RPG are often charged with a moral framework--though, probably like most here, if that moral framework is WEIRD (Western Educated Industrial Rich Democracy), with the current thing being held up as the height of morality of the ages (e.g., let's work in a condemnation of 'Cishet Whiteness'), I will probably just vomit and avoid playing it altogether.
Quote from: Osman Gazi on October 31, 2022, 01:45:16 PM
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 31, 2022, 12:12:39 PM
Quote from: Fheredin on October 31, 2022, 09:34:26 AM
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 30, 2022, 08:27:35 PM
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 30, 2022, 03:01:51 AM
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 29, 2022, 08:35:49 PM
Quote from: FingerRod on October 29, 2022, 10:00:14 AM
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 29, 2022, 09:45:39 AM
I'm fine with good devils depending on the setting. for instance, a setting based around giant apartment mecha that are piloted by swarms of devils who fight against the infinite legions of heaven? good shit right there.
And I think that sounds truly retarded. And that is the great thing about opinions. Neither opinion negates the other. It is all subjective.
What is NOT subjective is D&D does not have mecha apartments. There is a rich history of devils and demons being absolutely evil in D&D.
They continue to make these bad design decisions because of their activism and lack of creative ability.
i think what they're trying to do is make DND more setting agnostic. I haven't read the article, however, so I don't know for sure- if it's for woke reasons then I hate it.
The excuse that the wokist at D&D are using is to make D&D setting agnostic. In reality its a long standing leftist post modernist belief that there is no good or evil. Everything is grey and whatever man wants it to be it is. Meanwhile having a set alignment system that makes it exceedingly easy to role play a monster is inherently evil (ironic) to a leftist because it is reinforcing objective concepts of good and evil. Having alignment in D&D teaching children the concept of right and wrong is a moral affront to the post-modernist moral degenerates.
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%208%20Ethics/PostModernism.htm
I disagree that objective (as in independent of humans) morality exists. Reality? Yes. Morality? No. Whether objective morality exists IN A FICTIONAL WORLD depends on the setting's makers. If the creators of a particular setting says X is bad, then it is. If the creators of another setting say nothing is good or bad, then that is true. The creators of the setting are its Gods, they determine everything about it.
I disagree on both counts. Morality in the real world is primarily in the form of cause and effect and if you are doing something which forces other people to act in self-defense against you. These are not intuitively obvious, and as the world becomes increasingly complex, more subtle interactions come into play. There are moral interactions which we don't understand, yet, just like we don't have a theory of Quantum Gravity. But fundamentally, morality is baked into the universe as deeply as mathematics and fictional universes with senses of morality which don't line up with the real universe will feel less like fictional worlds and more like acid trips.
Morality is not baked into the universe. Morality is a human construct. Without humans, there is no morality. Even with humans, what is 'good' and what is 'evil' is defined entirely by humans. In the case of a fictional world, the author can make up whatever morality they want. Sure, you can disagree. That doesn't make what they said false.
pundit, if this is off topic, tell me, I'll make several more posts responding to the other people. If it is then I'll move it to Discord.
I would say that there's more morality "baked into" many RPGs (or maybe moreso, in a fictional novel) than in the real world (outside of a theological framework).
Although much is random in an RPG (we do love our die rolls), there's a lot more of explicitly calling something "good" or "evil"--at least in the mind of the GM who's created the world.
Let's take disease, for example. In the real world, all sorts of people get disease...good, mundane, evil people can all be struck down. Theologically, believers will often say "It's a mystery" and don't explain why someone most might call "good" gets a disease but an evil person is spared.
If one is a nontheist, well, it's just random. No virus or radiation or bacterium rubbed its hands together and cackled "Muhahahah!!! I'm going to give this innocent child cancer because it will be SO EVILLL!!!!" The agents of much of what we see in the universe--outside of human beings--aren't good or evil...they just act naturally. A Polar Bear that eats a human isn't acting evil...it's acting natural.
Now, in an RPG--well, it could be random, a mere die roll and the GM will shrug and say "sucks to be you." But it could be a deliberate plot device--let's say "an evil wizard has cast a spell of a sleeping sickness on this fair maiden and you must find the hidden gem in the wizard's castle in order to free her from this sickness." That's creating a definite moral framework around it.
Because of the nature of random events in RPGs, I'd say that fiction is a lot more morally charged...things happen in order for a plot to happen. You never have a random character struck down by disease just for the hell of it, it's for a reason in the story. But in an RPG, especially a fantasy RPG, a compelling adventure will often have heroic characters competing against explicitly evil NPCs. (Alternately, the characters can be evil...but there's usually an inherent morality in it.)
In a world without moral agents--let's say, the world of 65 million years ago--I doubt if anyone would call the T. Rex evil and the Triceratops good...or maybe the comet that caused the KT event a moral evil. The T. Rex did what it naturally did...and the comet had even less volition than the T. Rex.
Now, in the world of today, we have humans who make moral choices all the time. And though I have religious beliefs that I believe have a strict moral code, I recognize that atheists, too have moral convictions--the completely amoral person is actually quite rare. The atheist might say there's no objective morality (with which I disagree), but that doesn't mean they're saying morality doesn't exist. There are many things that we could call "merely subjective" but that doesn't mean that they're non-existence. And the fact that there are some things that humans nearly universally treat as immoral (say, the Holocaust), it doesn't change the fact that that's a belief in most of our minds--if we suddenly ceased to exist, in a materialist standpoint, no one would be saying that the Holocaust was evil. (Of course, I'm not a materialist, so I come to a different conclusion...but I don't think that materialists automatically don't have a moral compass.)
But getting back to RPGs, at the end of the day, the GM makes his or her own rules on good and evil...though if they stray too much from the cultural values of good and evil that the other players have, it may be a very confusing game. Actions and settings in an RPG are often charged with a moral framework--though, probably like most here, if that moral framework is WEIRD (Western Educated Industrial Rich Democracy), with the current thing being held up as the height of morality of the ages (e.g., let's work in a condemnation of 'Cishet Whiteness'), I will probably just vomit and avoid playing it altogether.
Absolutely. If you make a game where killing babies is good, most people will not play. That's why most people stick to their culture's morality with a few twists here and there.
Quote from: jhkim on October 31, 2022, 01:09:44 PM
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 30, 2022, 03:01:51 AM
Meanwhile having a set alignment system that makes it exceedingly easy to role play a monster is inherently evil (ironic) to a leftist because it is reinforcing objective concepts of good and evil. Having alignment in D&D teaching children the concept of right and wrong is a moral affront to the post-modernist moral degenerates.
Children aren't taught right and wrong from D&D alignment. My son grew up sometimes playing D&D and other RPGs, but while they were positive and creative, I think his moral center came from real-world living and instruction, and not at all from game mechanics. Neither D&D alignments nor the non-alignment-using mechanics of other RPGs were important either way in his learning to be a good person. I think trying to use D&D alignments to teach real-world morality is a bad idea, because the real world is vastly different than most D&D worlds.
I think your comment here misses the point. Using vanilla D&D to teach actual morals would indeed be a bad idea. However playing D&D, with its objective good and evil, accustoms and gives practice to kids in thinking in terms of right and wrong being important in making decisions, and good and evil being objective. That's all good IMO.
Objective morality is a self-contradicting system, because nothing is absolute,and that's an absolute statement.
My priest said it quite simply: "What's right is right even if no one's right. What's wrong is wrong even if everybody's wrong."
Quote from: Cathode Ray on October 31, 2022, 05:04:24 PM
Objective morality is a self-contradicting system, because nothing is absolute,and that's an absolute statement.
My priest said it quite simply: "What's right is right even if no one's right. What's wrong is wrong even if everybody's wrong."
I think you mean "subjective" rather than "objective"...but I get your point.
It really depends on your world view: if you view morality like, say, your favorite band or color or what you like on your pizza, then yes, it's inherently subjective, just as those things are. There's no objectively "best" band or color or pizza. However, if you believe that there is an objective basis for morality--e.g., a moral law-giving God--then people can be objectively right or wrong about morality, but that isn't going to change what it is.
Even a materialist can have "objective" measures for morality. For example, if a materialist views that morality is "the greatest good for the greatest number" (utilitarianism)--well then, there are ways that will work towards this goal that are objectively better at achieving this goal than other ways. (That still doesn't explain if the basis for moral behavior--such as utilitarianism--is objectively a good thing or just one's personal preference).
But really, in an RPG (and indeed, much of classic fantasy, myth, and storytelling), there's usually a moral point of view based on what the creator of that (writer, game designer and/or DM) is trying to convey. In so far as we play in a world that's created by that person or persons, we will inhabit the moral space of that making. If you're a Catholic, in the real life, you certainly wouldn't consider it moral to worship some pagan god...but in the game, well, Lawful Good Clerics aren't necessarily Catholic Priests, but could be Priests of Odin or Thor or Zeus. It's a different moral space--but it does have a moral dimension.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 31, 2022, 01:42:23 PM
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 31, 2022, 01:32:24 PMEven if people believe otherwise, it's still true that morality is a human construct and is dependent on the existence of such.
Your insight on how societies function are pretty stellar. I will now go and rethink my life.
your sarcastic quotes are solidified copium. Please try to refute my statements.
Quote from: Osman Gazi on October 31, 2022, 05:25:21 PM
Quote from: Cathode Ray on October 31, 2022, 05:04:24 PM
Objective morality is a self-contradicting system, because nothing is absolute,and that's an absolute statement.
My priest said it quite simply: "What's right is right even if no one's right. What's wrong is wrong even if everybody's wrong."
I think you mean "subjective" rather than "objective"...but I get your point.
YES, I did mean Subjective! My wife called me to dinner and I typed the whole thing hastily.
Quote from: Mishihari on October 31, 2022, 04:59:53 PM
Quote from: jhkim on October 31, 2022, 01:09:44 PM
Children aren't taught right and wrong from D&D alignment. My son grew up sometimes playing D&D and other RPGs, but while they were positive and creative, I think his moral center came from real-world living and instruction, and not at all from game mechanics. Neither D&D alignments nor the non-alignment-using mechanics of other RPGs were important either way in his learning to be a good person. I think trying to use D&D alignments to teach real-world morality is a bad idea, because the real world is vastly different than most D&D worlds.
I think your comment here misses the point. Using vanilla D&D to teach actual morals would indeed be a bad idea. However playing D&D, with its objective good and evil, accustoms and gives practice to kids in thinking in terms of right and wrong being important in making decisions, and good and evil being objective. That's all good IMO.
I don't think D&D is bad for morality, but I don't think it's any better than other RPGs. Alignment in D&D isn't about real moral situations - it's about killing monsters because they're supernaturally evil. If my son told me he was into playing Traveller or Savage Worlds rather than D&D/OSR, I'd have zero concerns that he was missing out on such practice.
Saying that the game gives kids practice for the real world sounds like the same logic that D&D encourages paganism and occultism because characters do that in game.
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 31, 2022, 06:35:27 PM
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 31, 2022, 01:42:23 PM
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 31, 2022, 01:32:24 PMEven if people believe otherwise, it's still true that morality is a human construct and is dependent on the existence of such.
Your insight on how societies function are pretty stellar. I will now go and rethink my life.
your sarcastic quotes are solidified copium. Please try to refute my statements.
Why bother? You just stated your opinions without any evidence or logic to support them. His response was at the same level as yours.
Quote from: Mishihari on October 31, 2022, 09:03:10 PM
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 31, 2022, 06:35:27 PM
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 31, 2022, 01:42:23 PM
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 31, 2022, 01:32:24 PMEven if people believe otherwise, it's still true that morality is a human construct and is dependent on the existence of such.
Your insight on how societies function are pretty stellar. I will now go and rethink my life.
your sarcastic quotes are solidified copium. Please try to refute my statements.
Why bother? You just stated your opinions without any evidence or logic to support them. His response was at the same level as yours.
All he said was 'Nuh uh it real, if it not real then it destroy society'
He didn't actually disprove that morality is independent of humans. He just said that people needed to believe that it was, when in fact that doesn't make it independent- it just proves its dependent on the whims of humanity if anything.
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 31, 2022, 12:12:39 PM
Quote from: Fheredin on October 31, 2022, 09:34:26 AM
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 30, 2022, 08:27:35 PM
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 30, 2022, 03:01:51 AM
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 29, 2022, 08:35:49 PM
Quote from: FingerRod on October 29, 2022, 10:00:14 AM
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 29, 2022, 09:45:39 AM
I'm fine with good devils depending on the setting. for instance, a setting based around giant apartment mecha that are piloted by swarms of devils who fight against the infinite legions of heaven? good shit right there.
And I think that sounds truly retarded. And that is the great thing about opinions. Neither opinion negates the other. It is all subjective.
What is NOT subjective is D&D does not have mecha apartments. There is a rich history of devils and demons being absolutely evil in D&D.
They continue to make these bad design decisions because of their activism and lack of creative ability.
i think what they're trying to do is make DND more setting agnostic. I haven't read the article, however, so I don't know for sure- if it's for woke reasons then I hate it.
The excuse that the wokist at D&D are using is to make D&D setting agnostic. In reality its a long standing leftist post modernist belief that there is no good or evil. Everything is grey and whatever man wants it to be it is. Meanwhile having a set alignment system that makes it exceedingly easy to role play a monster is inherently evil (ironic) to a leftist because it is reinforcing objective concepts of good and evil. Having alignment in D&D teaching children the concept of right and wrong is a moral affront to the post-modernist moral degenerates.
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%208%20Ethics/PostModernism.htm
I disagree that objective (as in independent of humans) morality exists. Reality? Yes. Morality? No. Whether objective morality exists IN A FICTIONAL WORLD depends on the setting's makers. If the creators of a particular setting says X is bad, then it is. If the creators of another setting say nothing is good or bad, then that is true. The creators of the setting are its Gods, they determine everything about it.
I disagree on both counts. Morality in the real world is primarily in the form of cause and effect and if you are doing something which forces other people to act in self-defense against you. These are not intuitively obvious, and as the world becomes increasingly complex, more subtle interactions come into play. There are moral interactions which we don't understand, yet, just like we don't have a theory of Quantum Gravity. But fundamentally, morality is baked into the universe as deeply as mathematics and fictional universes with senses of morality which don't line up with the real universe will feel less like fictional worlds and more like acid trips.
Morality is not baked into the universe. Morality is a human construct. Without humans, there is no morality. Even with humans, what is 'good' and what is 'evil' is defined entirely by humans. In the case of a fictional world, the author can make up whatever morality they want. Sure, you can disagree. That doesn't make what they said false.
pundit, if this is off topic, tell me, I'll make several more posts responding to the other people. If it is then I'll move it to Discord.
Whether or not you believe that morality is universal, there's no question that HUMAN MORALITY is in fact objective. It is not just made up arbitrarily. It is a product of human evolution. Likewise you could assume that most humanoids would end up having similar moralities, in the same way that all human cultures have developed the same core moral elements.
Quote from: Reckall on October 31, 2022, 12:31:01 PM
Quote from: Omega on October 30, 2022, 03:07:47 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit on October 29, 2022, 09:13:43 AM
It's been explicitly stated now that in Nu-D&D, undead and demons can have any alignment.
uhhhh... Hate to break it to you. But that was a thing with 2e D&D and especially Planescape.
In Planescape: Torment a character in your party (Fall-from-Grace) is a succubus who became "enlightened" and changed her alignment from Chaotic Evil to Lawful Neutral (she is basically Spock). She is also a cleric but worships no god - so there you go.
Yes, I also think that Planescape is trash.
Sigh. The fact that the statement "morality is subjective" even makes sense to anyone is a sad consequence of the collapse of the traditional understanding of ethics at the very beginning of the modern world. Before the Reformation and the Jansenists, ethics wasn't just "the rules the community have laid down" or "the rules God or the gods have laid down" — it was the study of how to live well given the sort of creatures we are.
I don't get to just decide that murdering someone is good for me any more than I get to decide that eating tons of junk food and never exercising is good for me — that's a function of their consequences, for my body, for my mind, for my relationships with others, for the sort of person I make myself.
Quote from: Osman Gazi on October 31, 2022, 11:47:58 AM
I'll add my $0.02 about "Demons":
It's very much a specific mythological/theological background to treat all demons as inherently evil.
Exactly, various religions, folk tails and media have depicted demon type creatures as messengers of the gods and meting out vengance and punishment against crimes of the evil.
And its bitching here about something that TSR did as well over 25 years ago. And doing the exact same thing the woke do. Just from the opposite direction. And no less insipid.
Quote from: RPGPundit on October 31, 2022, 09:57:26 PM
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 31, 2022, 12:12:39 PM
Quote from: Fheredin on October 31, 2022, 09:34:26 AM
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 30, 2022, 08:27:35 PM
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 30, 2022, 03:01:51 AM
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 29, 2022, 08:35:49 PM
Quote from: FingerRod on October 29, 2022, 10:00:14 AM
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 29, 2022, 09:45:39 AM
I'm fine with good devils depending on the setting. for instance, a setting based around giant apartment mecha that are piloted by swarms of devils who fight against the infinite legions of heaven? good shit right there.
And I think that sounds truly retarded. And that is the great thing about opinions. Neither opinion negates the other. It is all subjective.
What is NOT subjective is D&D does not have mecha apartments. There is a rich history of devils and demons being absolutely evil in D&D.
They continue to make these bad design decisions because of their activism and lack of creative ability.
i think what they're trying to do is make DND more setting agnostic. I haven't read the article, however, so I don't know for sure- if it's for woke reasons then I hate it.
The excuse that the wokist at D&D are using is to make D&D setting agnostic. In reality its a long standing leftist post modernist belief that there is no good or evil. Everything is grey and whatever man wants it to be it is. Meanwhile having a set alignment system that makes it exceedingly easy to role play a monster is inherently evil (ironic) to a leftist because it is reinforcing objective concepts of good and evil. Having alignment in D&D teaching children the concept of right and wrong is a moral affront to the post-modernist moral degenerates.
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%208%20Ethics/PostModernism.htm
I disagree that objective (as in independent of humans) morality exists. Reality? Yes. Morality? No. Whether objective morality exists IN A FICTIONAL WORLD depends on the setting's makers. If the creators of a particular setting says X is bad, then it is. If the creators of another setting say nothing is good or bad, then that is true. The creators of the setting are its Gods, they determine everything about it.
I disagree on both counts. Morality in the real world is primarily in the form of cause and effect and if you are doing something which forces other people to act in self-defense against you. These are not intuitively obvious, and as the world becomes increasingly complex, more subtle interactions come into play. There are moral interactions which we don't understand, yet, just like we don't have a theory of Quantum Gravity. But fundamentally, morality is baked into the universe as deeply as mathematics and fictional universes with senses of morality which don't line up with the real universe will feel less like fictional worlds and more like acid trips.
Morality is not baked into the universe. Morality is a human construct. Without humans, there is no morality. Even with humans, what is 'good' and what is 'evil' is defined entirely by humans. In the case of a fictional world, the author can make up whatever morality they want. Sure, you can disagree. That doesn't make what they said false.
pundit, if this is off topic, tell me, I'll make several more posts responding to the other people. If it is then I'll move it to Discord.
Whether or not you believe that morality is universal, there's no question that HUMAN MORALITY is in fact objective. It is not just made up arbitrarily. It is a product of human evolution. Likewise you could assume that most humanoids would end up having similar moralities, in the same way that all human cultures have developed the same core moral elements.
Evolution guiding humans to have a sense of morality doesn't mean it's objective. It just meant that we evolved to categorize certain deeds as 'good' or 'bad'. And those deeds are mutable. The Aztecs said that sacrificing humans is good. The Nazis said that killin millions of people is good. I hate both of them because the society I grew up in taught me view them as evil (but also because I don't like it).
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on October 31, 2022, 10:35:32 PM
Sigh. The fact that the statement "morality is subjective" even makes sense to anyone is a sad consequence of the collapse of the traditional understanding of ethics at the very beginning of the modern world. Before the Reformation and the Jansenists, ethics wasn't just "the rules the community have laid down" or "the rules God or the gods have laid down" — it was the study of how to live well given the sort of creatures we are.
I don't get to just decide that murdering someone is good for me any more than I get to decide that eating tons of junk food and never exercising is good for me — that's a function of their consequences, for my body, for my mind, for my relationships with others, for the sort of person I make myself.
Which is a nice way of saying they're made up. Just like laws and the meaning of words.
If you decide murder is good, all power to ya man. Anyone can stop you at any time.
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 31, 2022, 10:59:21 PM
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on October 31, 2022, 10:35:32 PM
Sigh. The fact that the statement "morality is subjective" even makes sense to anyone is a sad consequence of the collapse of the traditional understanding of ethics at the very beginning of the modern world. Before the Reformation and the Jansenists, ethics wasn't just "the rules the community have laid down" or "the rules God or the gods have laid down" — it was the study of how to live well given the sort of creatures we are.
I don't get to just decide that murdering someone is good for me any more than I get to decide that eating tons of junk food and never exercising is good for me — that's a function of their consequences, for my body, for my mind, for my relationships with others, for the sort of person I make myself.
Which is a nice way of saying they're made up. Just like laws and the meaning of words.
If you decide murder is good, all power to ya man. Anyone can stop you at any time.
Sorry, my bad. I didn't realize you were just being edgy. I thought you were serious. Carry on, then.
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on November 01, 2022, 12:26:44 AM
Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 31, 2022, 10:59:21 PM
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on October 31, 2022, 10:35:32 PM
Sigh. The fact that the statement "morality is subjective" even makes sense to anyone is a sad consequence of the collapse of the traditional understanding of ethics at the very beginning of the modern world. Before the Reformation and the Jansenists, ethics wasn't just "the rules the community have laid down" or "the rules God or the gods have laid down" — it was the study of how to live well given the sort of creatures we are.
I don't get to just decide that murdering someone is good for me any more than I get to decide that eating tons of junk food and never exercising is good for me — that's a function of their consequences, for my body, for my mind, for my relationships with others, for the sort of person I make myself.
Which is a nice way of saying they're made up. Just like laws and the meaning of words.
If you decide murder is good, all power to ya man. Anyone can stop you at any time.
Sorry, my bad. I didn't realize you were just being edgy. I thought you were serious. Carry on, then.
I am in fact serious. That anyone includes me, and I'll stop you from doing murder for the sole reason being that
I don't like you doing that. And also I have a gun.
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on November 01, 2022, 12:26:44 AM
Sorry, my bad. I didn't realize you were just being edgy. I thought you were serious. Carry on, then.
Yeah. That one was funny, but it was the clincher for me, too.
This whole "morality is objective/subjective" thing is getting on my nerves.
First, everyone acknowledges that certain things are objectively true (at least I hope they do). For example, it is objectively a fact that the earth orbits the sun, that objects dropped on the earth fall accelerating at 9.8 M/Sec2 (subject to atmospheric disturbance), and that mammals need oxygen to survive. These are facts. You can disagree with them, but you can prove them, again and again. Our opinions won't change the matter, and they'll be true whether or not there are any humans around to observe them, and everything will still be subject to those facts. I think everyone here agrees to that.
Now, morality: it's manifestly not like gravity. People can have different opinions about it, and there's no experimental way to prove that one system of morals is 'true' and another is 'false'.
Sure, you can argue that a person may have morals that are incoherent or otherwise illogical, or that they fail to achieve their stated goals--and insofar as you can demonstrate that a moral system is incoherent or irrational, you can prove that they're objectively 'false'. But saying 'your goals are false' is a bit like saying liking boozing it up every night is 'false'--it's not a question of truth, it's a question of what someone wants. (And yes, liking booze can cause numerous problems that the person may wish to avoid...and you could tell that person that their love for booze is going to work against their stated goal of being healthy or living a long life, but again, that's not a question of being 'true' or 'false'.)
But if someone has a total alien set of moral beliefs--let's say "Human sacrifice is a good thing" (and they might even build a civilization around that, like the Aztecs did)--you can say "You're wrong!", but there's no way you can demonstrate it with an experiment or logical argument. Yes, you can force them to stop human sacrifice--but that merely shows you're more powerful than them, not that your moral system is 'true' and theirs is 'false'.
Now, does that mean "morality is subjective"? Well--what do you mean by 'subjective'? If you mean that it's all in an individual's mind, I'd say no, it isn't--every society has certain moral standards that are objectively outside of the individual. Unlike gravity, of course, they can change over time...and unlike gravity, if that society was completely wiped out, the morals that they believed would also cease to exist--there'd be no one to believe them or enforce them on anyone else. So yes, those morals have an objective existence, but it's a sociological construct that can and does change over time, and only exist so long as the society exists. And that society will enforce that law--imperfectly, unlike gravity; you can get away with flaunting it in some circumstances. They may punish you for it, but that never proves that the criminal's morals are 'false'--just that his society disagrees with him, and they're strong enough to capture him and punish him for it.
Now, taking a step back from that, aside from human society, are there any objective moral laws? That's really a theological question. I am a theist, so I'd say yes--there is a God, and he has a moral law and he will judge us regarding our adherence to it (or lack thereof).
Someone might claim "well, God's morals are just his opinion, so it's subjective, just in his mind". I suppose if you view God as a person on the same level as humans, that would be true--and indeed, if you read, say, the Iliad, it's obvious that the gods in that religion didn't really have any claim on being anything but essentially superheroes whose moral sensibilities were not exactly refined. But if God is "the ground of all being", and eternal--always existing and will never cease to exist, and creator of all that is and everything is contingent on him and he is not contingent on anything else--it's a little hard to consider the mind of God as a 'subject' such as ourselves. It makes his existence more solid than the ground we walk on, in that the ground's creation--and it's continued existence--is wholly dependent on him, but he is not dependent on it.
But, for better or worse, he also created a world in which one who flaunts that law is not immediately punished--not in the same sense that if one flaunts the law of gravity, the consequences are immediate and swift. Some might use this as evidence against the existence of such a God, but that's another issue. Suffice it to say that not everyone accepts the existence of this God, and I can't definitively prove his existence to those who don't believe.
All that said, what does this have to do with RPGs?
Well, most worlds built for RPGs (and stories in general) have an implicit morality. In the case of a game, it's the GM who decides what that is. He'll create societies in which the PCs act, and those PCs will be judged for their actions. If its a fantasy RPG, he'll probably also create a pantheon of gods, and usually these gods have some kind of moral sense. They might be like the Greek gods of the Iliad and not really highly moral; they might be more like historic theistic Gods who have a strict moral code. But there will be a morality...and it will be the GMs choice to see how the characters live their lives, and how the society/gods/die roll modifiers will react when they flaunt the morality of the GMs universe.
And really, in most old school games, there are creatures/spiritual entities who are by nature good, and there are those who are by nature evil. Humans (and many non-human humanoids) tend to be mixed, some predominately good, some predominately evil, but all probably at least a little bit of good and evil. If the GM determines Orcs are evil, there are no consequences for killing Orcs (other than making Orcs kind of unfriendly to you), well then--that's the morality of the game, and it's pretty much going to be absolute and solid. As far as your PC is concerned, it's the law of the universe, and no amount of trying to redeem the Orcs is going to work in that universe. Some Woke character isn't going to get too far in that universe if they try to convert the Orcs to goodness and light. But it goes both ways--if, God forbid, you get a Woke GM, be prepared for their morality ruling the universe. Be prepared to live according to their (or Xis or Xer or whatever pronoun they use) rules.
Oh well, I've blathered on too long. 'Nuff said.
Quote from: Osman Gazi on November 01, 2022, 03:26:51 PM
This whole "morality is objective/subjective" thing is getting on my nerves.
First, everyone acknowledges that certain things are objectively true (at least I hope they do). For example, it is objectively a fact that the earth orbits the sun, that objects dropped on the earth fall accelerating at 9.8 M/Sec2 (subject to atmospheric disturbance), and that mammals need oxygen to survive. These are facts. You can disagree with them, but you can prove them, again and again. Our opinions won't change the matter, and they'll be true whether or not there are any humans around to observe them, and everything will still be subject to those facts. I think everyone here agrees to that.
Now, morality: it's manifestly not like gravity. People can have different opinions about it, and there's no experimental way to prove that one system of morals is 'true' and another is 'false'.
Sure, you can argue that a person may have morals that are incoherent or otherwise illogical, or that they fail to achieve their stated goals--and insofar as you can demonstrate that a moral system is incoherent or irrational, you can prove that they're objectively 'false'. But saying 'your goals are false' is a bit like saying liking boozing it up every night is 'false'--it's not a question of truth, it's a question of what someone wants. (And yes, liking booze can cause numerous problems that the person may wish to avoid...and you could tell that person that their love for booze is going to work against their stated goal of being healthy or living a long life, but again, that's not a question of being 'true' or 'false'.)
But if someone has a total alien set of moral beliefs--let's say "Human sacrifice is a good thing" (and they might even build a civilization around that, like the Aztecs did)--you can say "You're wrong!", but there's no way you can demonstrate it with an experiment or logical argument. Yes, you can force them to stop human sacrifice--but that merely shows you're more powerful than them, not that your moral system is 'true' and theirs is 'false'.
Now, does that mean "morality is subjective"? Well--what do you mean by 'subjective'? If you mean that it's all in an individual's mind, I'd say no, it isn't--every society has certain moral standards that are objectively outside of the individual. Unlike gravity, of course, they can change over time...and unlike gravity, if that society was completely wiped out, the morals that they believed would also cease to exist--there'd be no one to believe them or enforce them on anyone else. So yes, those morals have an objective existence, but it's a sociological construct that can and does change over time, and only exist so long as the society exists. And that society will enforce that law--imperfectly, unlike gravity; you can get away with flaunting it in some circumstances. They may punish you for it, but that never proves that the criminal's morals are 'false'--just that his society disagrees with him, and they're strong enough to capture him and punish him for it.
Now, taking a step back from that, aside from human society, are there any objective moral laws? That's really a theological question. I am a theist, so I'd say yes--there is a God, and he has a moral law and he will judge us regarding our adherence to it (or lack thereof).
Someone might claim "well, God's morals are just his opinion, so it's subjective, just in his mind". I suppose if you view God as a person on the same level as humans, that would be true--and indeed, if you read, say, the Iliad, it's obvious that the gods in that religion didn't really have any claim on being anything but essentially superheroes whose moral sensibilities were not exactly refined. But if God is "the ground of all being", and eternal--always existing and will never cease to exist, and creator of all that is and everything is contingent on him and he is not contingent on anything else--it's a little hard to consider the mind of God as a 'subject' such as ourselves. It makes his existence more solid than the ground we walk on, in that the ground's creation--and it's continued existence--is wholly dependent on him, but he is not dependent on it.
But, for better or worse, he also created a world in which one who flaunts that law is not immediately punished--not in the same sense that if one flaunts the law of gravity, the consequences are immediate and swift. Some might use this as evidence against the existence of such a God, but that's another issue. Suffice it to say that not everyone accepts the existence of this God, and I can't definitively prove his existence to those who don't believe.
All that said, what does this have to do with RPGs?
Well, most worlds built for RPGs (and stories in general) have an implicit morality. In the case of a game, it's the GM who decides what that is. He'll create societies in which the PCs act, and those PCs will be judged for their actions. If its a fantasy RPG, he'll probably also create a pantheon of gods, and usually these gods have some kind of moral sense. They might be like the Greek gods of the Iliad and not really highly moral; they might be more like historic theistic Gods who have a strict moral code. But there will be a morality...and it will be the GMs choice to see how the characters live their lives, and how the society/gods/die roll modifiers will react when they flaunt the morality of the GMs universe.
And really, in most old school games, there are creatures/spiritual entities who are by nature good, and there are those who are by nature evil. Humans (and many non-human humanoids) tend to be mixed, some predominately good, some predominately evil, but all probably at least a little bit of good and evil. If the GM determines Orcs are evil, there are no consequences for killing Orcs (other than making Orcs kind of unfriendly to you), well then--that's the morality of the game, and it's pretty much going to be absolute and solid. As far as your PC is concerned, it's the law of the universe, and no amount of trying to redeem the Orcs is going to work in that universe. Some Woke character isn't going to get too far in that universe if they try to convert the Orcs to goodness and light. But it goes both ways--if, God forbid, you get a Woke GM, be prepared for their morality ruling the universe. Be prepared to live according to their (or Xis or Xer or whatever pronoun they use) rules.
Oh well, I've blathered on too long. 'Nuff said.
wow, osman, you're really articulate in your ideas. especially with the bolded part. most atheists get it wrong with the God described in the Bible/Quran, they think He's a being like a human, and is thus flawed like us. i'm agnostic myself but I get annoyed by that.
i see your point is that 'most games have objective morality' and I agree. woke people shouldn't go as far to say that morality is subjective in real life, so it is in every game. that's even more stupid than what they usually say.
Quote from: MeganovaStella on November 01, 2022, 03:56:13 PM
wow, osman, you're really articulate in your ideas. especially with the bolded part. most atheists get it wrong with the God described in the Bible/Quran, they think He's a being like a human, and is thus flawed like us. i'm agnostic myself but I get annoyed by that.
i see your point is that 'most games have objective morality' and I agree. woke people shouldn't go as far to say that morality is subjective in real life, so it is in every game. that's even more stupid than what they usually say.
Thanks for your kind words, Meganova.
At any rate, I can only imagine how hellish it would be to play a fully Woke RPG. Heck, I could see playing an RPG with minimal fighting (hey, in Classic Traveller, if you fought, that usually ended the adventure pretty quick, at least for some characters...D&D was always more forgiving.) I could see one that involved trying to solve puzzles, do trade and all sorts of non-combat things. But something from a woke wet dream would seem like trying to role play an after-school special or a "Very Special" episode of
Blossom. If that's the direction that TSR goes, it would attract a completely different fandom--probably a completely different species--than I can see getting along with.
You know you have a bad take when even a theist has to step in to point out exactly how dumb you make yourself and this entire community look when you say you think morality/ethics are objective, man alive.
This is just patently false on every conceivable level. Cultures define their own morality, laws, ethics, and they vary WILDLY across the globe and NOBODY has anything anywhere CLOSE to proof of divine right or authority to assert that the values of the culture they live in/fight for are universally true and correct, full stop. Anything short of this is going full mask-off advocating for their personal culture being in every way superior/correct/divine and "their people" being the chosen people of some higher power, you know in other words, fundamental religious terrorist shit. Feel free to push back if this is the hill you want to die on go right ahead, the local three-letter-agency monitor would, I'm SURE be happy to add it to the pile of evidence that this place harbors dangerous and mentally unstable extremists.
If you believe otherwise then you seriously need either a proper education, therapy, or public humiliation, and in Pundit's case all three are DESPERATELY in order, all offense meant.
Quote from: DefNotAnInsiderNopeNoWay on November 01, 2022, 07:06:32 PM
You know you have a bad take when even a theist has to step in to point out exactly how dumb you make yourself and this entire community look when you say you think morality/ethics are objective, man alive.
This is just patently false on every conceivable level. Cultures define their own morality, laws, ethics, and they vary WILDLY across the globe and NOBODY has anything anywhere CLOSE to proof of divine right or authority to assert that the values of the culture they live in/fight for are universally true and correct, full stop. Anything short of this is going full mask-off advocating for their personal culture being in every way superior/correct/divine and "their people" being the chosen people of some higher power, you know in other words, fundamental religious terrorist shit. Feel free to push back if this is the hill you want to die on go right ahead, the local three-letter-agency monitor would, I'm SURE be happy to add it to the pile of evidence that this place harbors dangerous and mentally unstable extremists.
If you believe otherwise then you seriously need either a proper education, therapy, or public humiliation, and in Pundit's case all three are DESPERATELY in order, all offense meant.
So your argument is that that believing in objective morality is evil. Ok, then.Your reasoning is so laughably flawed it's barely worth arguing against, but a few points:
- If morality is not objective, then the things you're talking about aren't objectively bad.
- Just like with anything else, you can believe there are objectively-true propositions in ethics without believing your culture has a perfect understanding of the matter.
- You can believe your culture's values are superior to some other culture's values in some ways without believing your culture is better in all ways, let alone that you need to kill them.
Obvious troll is obvious. There's really no point in engaging with some of these people.
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on November 01, 2022, 08:52:13 PM
Quote from: DefNotAnInsiderNopeNoWay on November 01, 2022, 07:06:32 PM
You know you have a bad take when even a theist has to step in to point out exactly how dumb you make yourself and this entire community look when you say you think morality/ethics are objective, man alive.
This is just patently false on every conceivable level. Cultures define their own morality, laws, ethics, and they vary WILDLY across the globe and NOBODY has anything anywhere CLOSE to proof of divine right or authority to assert that the values of the culture they live in/fight for are universally true and correct, full stop. Anything short of this is going full mask-off advocating for their personal culture being in every way superior/correct/divine and "their people" being the chosen people of some higher power, you know in other words, fundamental religious terrorist shit. Feel free to push back if this is the hill you want to die on go right ahead, the local three-letter-agency monitor would, I'm SURE be happy to add it to the pile of evidence that this place harbors dangerous and mentally unstable extremists.
If you believe otherwise then you seriously need either a proper education, therapy, or public humiliation, and in Pundit's case all three are DESPERATELY in order, all offense meant.
So your argument is that that believing in objective morality is evil. Ok, then.
Your reasoning is so laughably flawed it's barely worth arguing against, but a few points:
- If morality is not objective, then the things you're talking about aren't objectively bad.
- Just like with anything else, you can believe there are objectively-true propositions in ethics without believing your culture has a perfect understanding of the matter.
- You can believe your culture's values are superior to some other culture's values in some ways without believing your culture is better in all ways, let alone that you need to kill them.
Firstly, his point was that if you believe in objective morality then you might peform actions that he doesn't like. And that not many people would like. To the level of killing you...which is not good or bad independent of human cognition.
Secondly, you can believe that there's a objectively true morality outside of societies. Doesn't make you true. As he said, there have been millions of moral systems invented during the course of humanity and none of them have been refuted (save for those that contradict themselves). Morality deals with the subjective, not the objective.
Thirdly, if you're not a theist (if you are then you have almost no problem) then objective morality becomes extremely hard to prove.
An example:
"Objective morality exists" you say
"Based on what" the other person says
"Based on these moral principles" you respond
"Why should we follow them and why do you assume they exist outside of any society? Isnt morality a human construct?"
"We should follow them because it's good to and they exist because I said so"
"So you're gonna override the millions of cultures that aren't yours? And you expect 'I said so' to be a good excuse? You don't even believe in a God or gods. Why should I listen to someone who thinks that his thoughts are magic?"
"Because you should."
"You're dumb."
Quote from: Zelen on November 01, 2022, 10:01:30 PM
Obvious troll is obvious. There's really no point in engaging with some of these people.
Who are the trolls here?
Greetings!
Objective Truth exists. Absolute values of right and wrong, good and evil. This is reality whether the atheists and God-haters reee and deny it. Judgement Day will see them cast into Hell in wrath and judgement for their blasphemies and rebellion.
I love the TRUTH within the King James Bible. One of my favourite versions is "The Common Man" King James Bible. Beautiful, fine cover, very nice pages, excellent features. It beautifully presents God's Word. The BIBLE is like a "Lamp unto your feet".
I encourage everyone to get a good Bible, and prayerfully and humbly read the Bible and be therefore enlightened.
As for morality in the D&D game, well, Gygax was a Christian, and many of the developers and writers as well. So, I am not surprised that a frame work of absolute values and a loosely based Christian morality exists within the game. It's also classic medieval stuff, so it seems essential to me.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on November 02, 2022, 12:52:25 AM
As for morality in the D&D game, well, Gygax was a Christian, and many of the developers and writers as well. So, I am not surprised that a frame work of absolute values and a loosely based Christian morality exists within the game. It's also classic medieval stuff, so it seems essential to me.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
IMHO, for this discussion is to be meaningful, then we need to be talking about the demonstrated morality of the woke D&D fans that are screwing up the game for everyone else.
Good and evil are not subjective. There are behaviors that are universaly preferable. For example: people do not want to be lied to. They might be okay with lying to others, but that would determine whether or not they are a good person or an evil one. But the act of lying is universally evil.
I will prove it with an example: An armed murderer is after your friend with the intent of killing him. He asks you where he can find your friend. Let us suppose that he lies to you and says he does not intend to harm your friend, but you have witnessed him trying to murder your friend in the past and deduce that the murderer is lying. If you lie to him about your friend's location, you are trying to save a life, or possibly two lives since the armed murderer may harm you if you refuse to answer. However, the murderer, does not wish to be lied to, therefore he regards anyone lying to him as bad.
Therefore lying is regarded as evil, even by liars. If everyone regards lying as evil, then it must be objectively true since the preference is universal.
Quote from: DefNotAnInsiderNopeNoWay on November 01, 2022, 07:06:32 PM
You know you have a bad take when even a theist has to step in to point out exactly how dumb you make yourself and this entire community look when you say you think morality/ethics are objective, man alive.
This is just patently false on every conceivable level. Cultures define their own morality, laws, ethics, and they vary WILDLY across the globe and NOBODY has anything anywhere CLOSE to proof of divine right or authority to assert that the values of the culture they live in/fight for are universally true and correct, full stop. Anything short of this is going full mask-off advocating for their personal culture being in every way superior/correct/divine and "their people" being the chosen people of some higher power, you know in other words, fundamental religious terrorist shit. Feel free to push back if this is the hill you want to die on go right ahead, the local three-letter-agency monitor would, I'm SURE be happy to add it to the pile of evidence that this place harbors dangerous and mentally unstable extremists.
If you believe otherwise then you seriously need either a proper education, therapy, or public humiliation, and in Pundit's case all three are DESPERATELY in order, all offense meant.
This is basically an argument that because something exists, therefore it is good, or at least morally neutral. It fundamentally does not understand how ethical arguments work.
I admire Japanese culture quite a bit, but Shintoism is fundamentally a religion which values honor and denies human life as being special. That is a really bad combination. This is why the 47 samurai are a national myth of Japan, but it's also the reason Japan resorted to kamikazi tactics in World War II and to this day can't look its own past war crimes in the face.
By the reverse token, American public schools often proclaim the victimized status of Native Americans. And that definitely was true to some extent. But it's also true that horses are native to North America and that Native Americans hunted horses to extinction. They had to be reintroduced by Europeans. Native Americans also had technologically stalled at late stone-age and while their armed conflicts with each other were rarely (directly) fatal, they usually resulted in the losing tribe being banished from good hunting, fishing, or farming grounds and starving. In terms of pre-Columbian American history, the Trail of Tears is not that special; it's only historically remarkably because a lot of tribes were shoved together...and because it was done by a white guy (Andrew Jackson). The European-descended colonists typically tried to do better and do regret it today. A Native American tribe displacing another tribe would not have tried to do better and would never have regretted it.
My point is that cultures are by their nature hypocritical and terrible sources of moral values. I am not saying that culture has no value, but that in a good situation morality and culture are at right angles to each other, and often outright conflict.
Quote from: Fheredin on November 02, 2022, 05:24:41 PM
Quote from: DefNotAnInsiderNopeNoWay on November 01, 2022, 07:06:32 PM
You know you have a bad take when even a theist has to step in to point out exactly how dumb you make yourself and this entire community look when you say you think morality/ethics are objective, man alive.
This is just patently false on every conceivable level. Cultures define their own morality, laws, ethics, and they vary WILDLY across the globe and NOBODY has anything anywhere CLOSE to proof of divine right or authority to assert that the values of the culture they live in/fight for are universally true and correct, full stop. Anything short of this is going full mask-off advocating for their personal culture being in every way superior/correct/divine and "their people" being the chosen people of some higher power, you know in other words, fundamental religious terrorist shit. Feel free to push back if this is the hill you want to die on go right ahead, the local three-letter-agency monitor would, I'm SURE be happy to add it to the pile of evidence that this place harbors dangerous and mentally unstable extremists.
If you believe otherwise then you seriously need either a proper education, therapy, or public humiliation, and in Pundit's case all three are DESPERATELY in order, all offense meant.
This is basically an argument that because something exists, therefore it is good, or at least morally neutral. It fundamentally does not understand how ethical arguments work.
I admire Japanese culture quite a bit, but Shintoism is fundamentally a religion which values honor and denies human life as being special. That is a really bad combination. This is why the 47 samurai are a national myth of Japan, but it's also the reason Japan resorted to kamikazi tactics in World War II and to this day can't look its own past war crimes in the face.
By the reverse token, American public schools often proclaim the victimized status of Native Americans. And that definitely was true to some extent. But it's also true that horses are native to North America and that Native Americans hunted horses to extinction. They had to be reintroduced by Europeans. Native Americans also had technologically stalled at late stone-age and while their armed conflicts with each other were rarely (directly) fatal, they usually resulted in the losing tribe being banished from good hunting, fishing, or farming grounds and starving. In terms of pre-Columbian American history, the Trail of Tears is not that special; it's only historically remarkably because a lot of tribes were shoved together...and because it was done by a white guy (Andrew Jackson). The European-descended colonists typically tried to do better and do regret it today. A Native American tribe displacing another tribe would not have tried to do better and would never have regretted it.
My point is that cultures are by their nature hypocritical and terrible sources of moral values. I am not saying that culture has no value, but that in a good situation morality and culture are at right angles to each other, and often outright conflict.
"When people are in harmony with the Tao, everyone follows the natural way. When people are not in harmony with the Tao, you need government."
-Lao Tzu
In other word, "Culture" is not the source of Morality. Rather, culture is the codification of Morality, which means that it is a way that morality is often distorted from its original foundation (hardwired into the human experience) by successive legalism and bureaucratization of morality, until 'contemporary cultural morality' can end up being the opposite of what real morality intends. Example: 2022 Western Civilization.
Quote from: Fheredin on November 02, 2022, 05:24:41 PM
Quote from: DefNotAnInsiderNopeNoWay on November 01, 2022, 07:06:32 PM
You know you have a bad take when even a theist has to step in to point out exactly how dumb you make yourself and this entire community look when you say you think morality/ethics are objective, man alive.
This is just patently false on every conceivable level. Cultures define their own morality, laws, ethics, and they vary WILDLY across the globe and NOBODY has anything anywhere CLOSE to proof of divine right or authority to assert that the values of the culture they live in/fight for are universally true and correct, full stop. Anything short of this is going full mask-off advocating for their personal culture being in every way superior/correct/divine and "their people" being the chosen people of some higher power, you know in other words, fundamental religious terrorist shit. Feel free to push back if this is the hill you want to die on go right ahead, the local three-letter-agency monitor would, I'm SURE be happy to add it to the pile of evidence that this place harbors dangerous and mentally unstable extremists.
If you believe otherwise then you seriously need either a proper education, therapy, or public humiliation, and in Pundit's case all three are DESPERATELY in order, all offense meant.
This is basically an argument that because something exists, therefore it is good, or at least morally neutral. It fundamentally does not understand how ethical arguments work.
I admire Japanese culture quite a bit, but Shintoism is fundamentally a religion which values honor and denies human life as being special. That is a really bad combination. This is why the 47 samurai are a national myth of Japan, but it's also the reason Japan resorted to kamikazi tactics in World War II and to this day can't look its own past war crimes in the face.
By the reverse token, American public schools often proclaim the victimized status of Native Americans. And that definitely was true to some extent. But it's also true that horses are native to North America and that Native Americans hunted horses to extinction. They had to be reintroduced by Europeans. Native Americans also had technologically stalled at late stone-age and while their armed conflicts with each other were rarely (directly) fatal, they usually resulted in the losing tribe being banished from good hunting, fishing, or farming grounds and starving. In terms of pre-Columbian American history, the Trail of Tears is not that special; it's only historically remarkably because a lot of tribes were shoved together...and because it was done by a white guy (Andrew Jackson). The European-descended colonists typically tried to do better and do regret it today. A Native American tribe displacing another tribe would not have tried to do better and would never have regretted it.
My point is that cultures are by their nature hypocritical and terrible sources of moral values. I am not saying that culture has no value, but that in a good situation morality and culture are at right angles to each other, and often outright conflict.
The bolded words demonstrate that you're using your own particular moral framework to judge another culture's ethics as being "bad" or "good" or "worse" or "better". The Japanese soldier in WW II or Comanche in the 19th century aren't likely to agree with your assessment. Your culture doesn't rest in some kind of authoritative space that renders it an objective standard to which all other standards of right and wrong can be measured...well,
you might consider it 'objective', but I'm sure the Japanese and the Comanche would view their own the same way.
The question is if there is a standard outside of culture--a divine (or even natural) source of "moral law"--'laws' that differ from natural law in that they can be defied and there are no immediate consequences for doing so. I accept a standard rooted in a particular theistic view that others might view as simply the cultural product of seventh-century Arabia...just as I might not accept any reality behind the Shinto gods and godesses outside of Japanese culture.
Cultures might be 'terrible' sources of morality, but every single moral standard that we have exists embedded in a particular culture. The Quran, the Bible, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx, Genghis Khan--they all arose from a particular cultural milieu. Modern moral philosophers may be aware of more historical examples of various systems than others, and might even render some judgment on the ability of various moral systems to deliver what they promise...but calling one system 'better' or 'worse' is really just revealing that thinker's opinion (which is likely heavily influenced by and formed in their own cultural experience.) Of course, I think my viewpoint's right and in alignment with the Creator of the Cosmos...but others can and do disagree.
As for the naturalistic fallacy--yes, that can happen,
if one says "I can't judge any cultural standard of right and wrong as "good" or "evil" because whatever is, is good (a la Alexander Pope). No; it's entirely possible for one to judge the moral goodness of another culture or of one's actions based upon some standard--their own standard, your standard, a philosophical framework (e.g., consequentialism). That doesn't change the fact that actions we might consider "evil" exist. That's a given. Nature (or Nature's God) permit their existence...which of course leads to the age-old question "the problem of evil" which theistically has been addressed countless times (though not everyone agrees on the solution, even proposed by their co-religionists.
And FWIW, I think judging Native American morality on what their ancestors did to horses 10,000 years ago is a bit weird--like judging modern European moral standards based upon the bones found in Europe that indicate some early Europeans were cannibalistic. Heck, we don't even judge Germans of today for crimes done less than a century ago.
Quote from: RPGPundit on November 02, 2022, 06:35:24 PM
"When people are in harmony with the Tao, everyone follows the natural way. When people are not in harmony with the Tao, you need government."
-Lao Tzu
In other word, "Culture" is not the source of Morality. Rather, culture is the codification of Morality, which means that it is a way that morality is often distorted from its original foundation (hardwired into the human experience) by successive legalism and bureaucratization of morality, until 'contemporary cultural morality' can end up being the opposite of what real morality intends. Example: 2022 Western Civilization.
Mmm...I'd say
law is the "codification" of morality (whether that's political or religious law), not culture. Although law is an important part of culture--what it forbids and what it permits--it's not the sum total of it. But perhaps that's just an unnecessarily distinction.
As far as what is "hardwired into the human experience"--well, I do believe in
fitrah, where every human is born with an innate knowledge of God...but their family and culture can bend that original knowledge and twist it into unrecognizable things--some more reflective of that original state, others less so. And I think--apart from which can be explained by simple evolutionary pressures--that much of what is common in ethical systems comes from this original fitrah. And yes, I'd agree that modern post-Christian western civilization has gone very far astray from its fitrah.
I feel like even if objective as opposed to subjective morality weren't real, if we assume no God/theism/magic, we'd really have no way to prove it. Cuz "objective shoulds" don't have a material way to be detected unless there was like an all knowing divinity or magical detector that can somehow speak to us or something in play. And so we'd be making an argument from ignorance to assume absence. Likewise that would mean making an assumption where there is no legit proof of absence, which I think might even violate Occam's razor, cuz the simplest assertion here would be to be agnostic about moral truth, not to assume one way or another.
That said, even if it were real, with none of that magic stuff we'd never follow what we were supposed to do exactly, cuz the theoretical moral possibilities would be infinite. Any one path selected without exact guidance or a humanized morality creator would have a one over infinity chance of being the actual moral code or formula, and hence would not be.
That all said, I still believe WOTC are in the wrong, and while I doubt it will actually happen hope they will go broke and have to reconsider both their gameplay and attachment to the woke.
Its rather hilarious. People here bitch incessantly about the horrible mean ol alignment. Then flip out when WOTC actually listens and sets out to kill it.
This is in part why I like BX and O D&D. Just Law, Neutral and Chaos. Anything and everything could be good, bad or indifferent depending on the encounter.
As said before. The problem is when the woke start acting as if open alignment is some great new thing that will vanquish the evil wacists out there.
Its the intent behind the action that poisons it.
I believe that universal absolute truth exists, but I can't find it in my D&D books; and I don't expect it to be there either. A monotheistic RPG can be played. Neither TSR, nor WOTC D&D have published such a game. RPG Pundit has published a monotheistic RPG option. Just sayin'.....
Quote from: Jam The MF on November 02, 2022, 09:22:09 PM
I believe that universal absolute truth exists, but I can't find it in my D&D books; and I don't expect it to be there either. A monotheistic RPG can be played. Neither TSR, nor WOTC D&D have published such a game. RPG Pundit has published a monotheistic RPG option. Just sayin'.....
chad pundit
Quote from: Jam The MF on November 02, 2022, 09:22:09 PM
I believe that universal absolute truth exists, but I can't find it in my D&D books; and I don't expect it to be there either. A monotheistic RPG can be played. Neither TSR, nor WOTC D&D have published such a game. RPG Pundit has published a monotheistic RPG option. Just sayin'.....
Actually... TSR put out no less than three monothesic settings. Two D&D historical seting books and Masque of the Red Death set on Gothic Earth.
Quote from: Omega on November 03, 2022, 09:54:31 PM
Quote from: Jam The MF on November 02, 2022, 09:22:09 PM
I believe that universal absolute truth exists, but I can't find it in my D&D books; and I don't expect it to be there either. A monotheistic RPG can be played. Neither TSR, nor WOTC D&D have published such a game. RPG Pundit has published a monotheistic RPG option. Just sayin'.....
Actually... TSR put out no less than three monothesic settings. Two D&D historical seting books and Masque of the Red Death set on Gothic Earth.
Three of the HR books would count as Christian:
Charlemagne's Paladins,
A Mighty Fortress, and
The Crusades.
Masque of the Red Death is arguably more agnostic, as unlike the HR books, it divorces clerical spells from the priest class and makes them the domain of mystics and spiritualists.
Three of TSR's settings, I believe, can be 'drifted' in monotheistic directions. The Forgotten Realms have Lord Ao, Dragonlance has the HighGod, and Planescape makes reference to rumors of a radiant being to whom even the 'overgods' report. Granted, FR's Ao, from what I recall of the Avatar Trilogy, wasn't a very positive portrayal. Dragonlance's HighGod has had varying interpretations.
JoetheLawyer gets it in this video.
Dungeon Craft thinks D&D is in trouble https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3oOTDvsBxc
Quote from: S'mon on November 04, 2022, 07:53:23 AM
Dungeon Craft thinks D&D is in trouble https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3oOTDvsBxc
Professor DM makes great content. But he also doesn't know how to read financial statements.
Quote from: jeff37923 on November 04, 2022, 12:07:45 AM
JoetheLawyer gets it in this video.
Agreed. Too bad common sense.....doesn't make sense to the sjdubs
Quote from: jeff37923 on November 04, 2022, 12:07:45 AM
JoetheLawyer gets it in this video.
Greetings!
Great video, Jeff!
I have heard Joe the Lawyer before. He's a great guy, and he is also spot on here with his ideas and philosophy. I agree entirely.
I run my own game world of Thandor in much the same way. Lots of terrible, monstrous races, that are irredeemable. There's no moral squirming or debate. On occasion, for example, with Orcs, if there is an Orc that is not evil or otherwise conforming to the cultural Orc standards--they are brutally killed and eaten. The Orcs don't need to be tolerant. They aren't interested in other creature's feelings. They don't care that you disagree. Those that are weaker than the Orcs get crushed. The weak are enslaved and plundered, or otherwise killed and eaten.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: S'mon on November 04, 2022, 07:53:23 AM
Dungeon Craft thinks D&D is in trouble https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3oOTDvsBxc
Very interesting video - he seems to know what he's talking about. If I were to hazard a guess I'd say that inflation has had the biggest impact on the 3Q22 results. I've always had the impression that the bulk of D&D's market is towards the lower end of the income spectrum, and the discretionary spending of those folks is getting hit hard right now by economic conditions.
As said earlier. The other likely reason for any dip in sales is the announcement of ONED&D. You always see a dive in sales as people have less incentive to purchase for a game that is about to be DOA.
Combine that with less than stellar product driven more by SJW agendas and people are likely starting to back off a little or alot depending on what they got and how they feel about it.
Thanks for the shoutout Shark!!
—————-
Greetings!
Great video, Jeff!
I have heard Joe the Lawyer before. He's a great guy, and he is also spot on here with his ideas and philosophy. I agree entirely.
I run my own game world of Thandor in much the same way. Lots of terrible, monstrous races, that are irredeemable. There's no moral squirming or debate. On occasion, for example, with Orcs, if there is an Orc that is not evil or otherwise conforming to the cultural Orc standards--they are brutally killed and eaten. The Orcs don't need to be tolerant. They aren't interested in other creature's feelings. They don't care that you disagree. Those that are weaker than the Orcs get crushed. The weak are enslaved and plundered, or otherwise killed and eaten.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
[/quote]
Quote from: Joethelawyer on November 20, 2022, 11:32:14 PM
Thanks for the shoutout Shark!!
—————-
Greetings!
Great video, Jeff!
I have heard Joe the Lawyer before. He's a great guy, and he is also spot on here with his ideas and philosophy. I agree entirely.
I run my own game world of Thandor in much the same way. Lots of terrible, monstrous races, that are irredeemable. There's no moral squirming or debate. On occasion, for example, with Orcs, if there is an Orc that is not evil or otherwise conforming to the cultural Orc standards--they are brutally killed and eaten. The Orcs don't need to be tolerant. They aren't interested in other creature's feelings. They don't care that you disagree. Those that are weaker than the Orcs get crushed. The weak are enslaved and plundered, or otherwise killed and eaten.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
[/quote]
Greetings!
*Laughing* Hey there, Joe The Lawyer! Good to see you! Yes, you are very welcome! I have heard your podcasts on Anchor before, besides knowing you from EN World. So good to see you going strong!
"EN World Refugee"? *Laughing* Interesting! You too, heh? Geez. EN World has banned or inspired so many excellent members to leave that place. Once upon a time, EN World was a fantastic, fun, vibrant web site.
Before the Leftists fully took control. So sad.
I hope you and your family have a wonderful and blessed Thanksgiving Day together!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on November 21, 2022, 01:06:07 AM
"EN World Refugee"? *Laughing* Interesting! You too, heh? Geez. EN World has banned or inspired so many excellent members to leave that place. Once upon a time, EN World was a fantastic, fun, vibrant web site.
Before the Leftists fully took control. So sad.
Now if we could just persuade Elon Musk to buy ENWorld.... I wonder if he plays D&D?
In most of my games it's the player characters that are irredeemable.
Quote from: SHARK on November 21, 2022, 01:06:07 AM
Quote from: Joethelawyer on November 20, 2022, 11:32:14 PM
Thanks for the shoutout Shark!!
—————-
Greetings!
Great video, Jeff!
I have heard Joe the Lawyer before. He's a great guy, and he is also spot on here with his ideas and philosophy. I agree entirely.
I run my own game world of Thandor in much the same way. Lots of terrible, monstrous races, that are irredeemable. There's no moral squirming or debate. On occasion, for example, with Orcs, if there is an Orc that is not evil or otherwise conforming to the cultural Orc standards--they are brutally killed and eaten. The Orcs don't need to be tolerant. They aren't interested in other creature's feelings. They don't care that you disagree. Those that are weaker than the Orcs get crushed. The weak are enslaved and plundered, or otherwise killed and eaten.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Greetings!
*Laughing* Hey there, Joe The Lawyer! Good to see you! Yes, you are very welcome! I have heard your podcasts on Anchor before, besides knowing you from EN World. So good to see you going strong!
"EN World Refugee"? *Laughing* Interesting! You too, heh? Geez. EN World has banned or inspired so many excellent members to leave that place. Once upon a time, EN World was a fantastic, fun, vibrant web site.
Before the Leftists fully took control. So sad.
I hope you and your family have a wonderful and blessed Thanksgiving Day together!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
[/quote]
I agree. Once upon a time that place was cool. Then all the cool kids left and came here haha. I remember you well from there. You wouldn't post too often but then when you did it was like a geyser. Then we wouldn't see you again for a while. :) Have a great thanksgiving buddy!
Quote from: RPGPundit on October 27, 2022, 06:34:57 PM
Tubesock Army is OBVIOUSLY banned, for doxxing. It's not just doxxing, though, apparently he infiltrated a facebook group that was specifically for the purpose of fundraising related to the teaching I do on eastern spirituality. It was part of my income for many years as is typical in that tradition (where a teacher gives the teaching for free, and students with the means to do so financially assist the teacher, not much different than what you see in churches).
This to try to claim that I'm not actually making a full time living today off of RPGs, but he shared doxxed posts dated years ago.
I've always been very open about how much money I make from RPGs, if you read my blogs or watched my videos, you'd know that over the course of about 10 years RPGs have gone from being insignificant income to being my full-time job and complete income. As of 2018 RPGs were maybe 1/3rd of my income, which was mostly month-to-month.
As of early 2020, it was over 2/3rds of my income, which was now a little past month to month. It was from that point on that the rpgpundit presents line of books started to generate more and more income, the compilation books started, then Star Adventurer, then Invisible College, and this year Sword & Caravan. My youtube channel kept expanding and my sales skyrocketed.
Now RPGs are the vast majority of my income, income which is about double what I'd spend to live off in a month.
If you want proof that contrary to Tubesock's claims, what I wrote above is what I have ALWAYS said about my income, check out this video from March 2021 where I talk about "how to make a living off RPGs", and I repeat exactly what I'm saying now:
(incidentally, you'll note that in the video I am stunned by just how much money I'm earning in March of 2021, which was already more than I ever needed in a regular month; I just checked and my income for Oct 2022 is likely to be about 1.5 times the March '21 amount.
You'll notice Tubesock didn't post anything after 2020, because as I went beyond month-to-month type income to having five-figure fucking-around money, the purpose of that particular group he was quoting from disappeared. The last actual post that wasn't just a repost from somewhere else was in October 2021, The last post by anyone other than myself was Feb 2021, and the last actual request for any special fundraising was November 2020.
I never pretended I'm rich (ironically, the Wokists keep trying to flip flop between the two lies of "pundit is a trust fund baby who lives off an inheritance" and "pundit is an impoverished beggar"). I don't lie, not ever. I can tell you: I own a three bedroom house, in what was a good deal, that I'm still paying the mortgage off but not doing bad at that, and I make a very comfortable salary off RPGs in the thousands of dollars per month. In 2021 and 2022 roughly every other month was a new record for "most money I've ever made off RPGs", with October 2022 already (even without the month's end stuff) a new record.
I'm not super-rich (I never expected to be, I spent my entire life running away from riches in search of other things, and living a bohemian monastic lifestyle) but I incredibly find myself with something I never ever expected from the time I started pursuing my personal spiritual cultivation instead of a career: I have a growing bank account with tens of thousands of dollars in savings I don't need to do anything with, and I don't need to concern myself about paying for anything I want.
To bring it back to this topic: the more Anti-Woke I became, the LESS BROKE I became. The more I succeeded. To the point that I make a full-time living off RPGs that would be entirely sufficient to fund my lifestyle comfortably even if I had no other means of income available, and there's no sign of it slowing down.
Congratulations man! Honestly, it's kinda creepy just how zealous the Woke movement is. Political correctness and "pro-trans rights" ideas have really made a lot of them gone insane. I guess I can understand the appeal: Being able to pretend to be a good person, without contributing anything remotely positive to live, and also acting like a pitiful bully who doesn't have to think for himself and reflect on his own flaws. I'm just glad I was able to find an in real life group to play Pathfinder 1E with, as well as have an online discord group that I started myself with 500+ people due to my homebrew creations. No woke there.
The 5e Player's Handbook is currently ranked #9 on Amazon in the nation for....all books of any kind (https://smile.amazon.com/Players-Handbook-Dungeons-Dragons-Wizards/dp/0786965606/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2TR5GV4846CPI&keywords=players%2Bhandbook%2B5e&qid=1669344795&sprefix=%2Caps%2C397&sr=8-1&th=1).
But yeah tell me how it's going broke.
Quote from: Mistwell on November 24, 2022, 09:55:59 PM
The 5e Player's Handbook is currently ranked #9 on Amazon in the nation for....all books of any kind (https://smile.amazon.com/Players-Handbook-Dungeons-Dragons-Wizards/dp/0786965606/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2TR5GV4846CPI&keywords=players%2Bhandbook%2B5e&qid=1669344795&sprefix=%2Caps%2C397&sr=8-1&th=1).
But yeah tell me how it's going broke.
Maybe it's #9 because it's 69% off for a Black Friday sale?
I don't subscribe to go-woke go broke, but the 5e handbook has a lifetime of sales. Its stupid to point as D&D as going broke because of wokeness, or as evidence of wokeness paying the bills. Because the 5e handbook isn't really woke. Its a crap game system (always was) but its not woke.
Quote from: Aglondir on November 24, 2022, 10:25:57 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on November 24, 2022, 09:55:59 PM
The 5e Player's Handbook is currently ranked #9 on Amazon in the nation for....all books of any kind (https://smile.amazon.com/Players-Handbook-Dungeons-Dragons-Wizards/dp/0786965606/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2TR5GV4846CPI&keywords=players%2Bhandbook%2B5e&qid=1669344795&sprefix=%2Caps%2C397&sr=8-1&th=1).
But yeah tell me how it's going broke.
Maybe it's #9 because it's 69% off for a Black Friday sale?
I am sure that is the reason. And? With a new half-edition coming out you'd think everyone who wanted the PHB would have by now. Apparently not. It's now up to 8th in all books. That's a whole lot of books from the sale.
MM is number 15 in all books.
DMG is number 17 in all books.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 24, 2022, 10:47:35 PM
I don't subscribe to go-woke go broke, but the 5e handbook has a lifetime of sales. Its stupid to point as D&D as going broke because of wokeness, or as evidence of wokeness paying the bills. Because the 5e handbook isn't really woke. Its a crap game system (always was) but its not woke.
This is the correct answer. Other than a single "you can be whatever you want to be paragraph" the 5e Player's Handbook is pretty much Woke-free.
It'd be just as valid an argument to say it's up in the rankings now because people who've heard what a woke shitshow OneD&D is turning into want to pick up some extra copies of the last non-woke edition before it's banished to the outer darkness by the current woke cultists promising to throw multiple sensitivity readers at everything and a willingness to change anything that doesn't comply before its too late.
One D&D is repeating many of the same mistakes that happened with 4E; a focus on digital tools with a subscription model (it was going to have a virtual tabletop at launch too), an attempt to drop the OGL/SRD for a separate license that marginalized 3rd party support, etc... all while heading into an economic downturn severe enough to impact discretionary spending.
Woke will just be an extra nail in the coffin, but it's got plenty of other fatal wounds already.
Quote from: Chris24601 on November 25, 2022, 01:50:47 AM
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 24, 2022, 10:47:35 PM
I don't subscribe to go-woke go broke, but the 5e handbook has a lifetime of sales. Its stupid to point as D&D as going broke because of wokeness, or as evidence of wokeness paying the bills. Because the 5e handbook isn't really woke. Its a crap game system (always was) but its not woke.
This is the correct answer. Other than a single "you can be whatever you want to be paragraph" the 5e Player's Handbook is pretty much Woke-free.
It'd be just as valid an argument to say it's up in the rankings now because people who've heard what a woke shitshow OneD&D is turning into want to pick up some extra copies of the last non-woke edition before it's banished to the outer darkness by the current woke cultists promising to throw multiple sensitivity readers at everything and a willingness to change anything that doesn't comply before its too late.
One D&D is repeating many of the same mistakes that happened with 4E; a focus on digital tools with a subscription model (it was going to have a virtual tabletop at launch too), an attempt to drop the OGL/SRD for a separate license that marginalized 3rd party support, etc... all while heading into an economic downturn severe enough to impact discretionary spending.
Woke will just be an extra nail in the coffin, but it's got plenty of other fatal wounds already.
Honestly I have to agree. Same with the Pathfinder 1st edition books, aside from the odd paragraph in an adventure path which nobody cares about, they are pretty much woke free. That is why I bought all the Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition books, and Pathfinder 1st edition books, in printed copy. So I know they won't be able to mess with those.
I do belief in the "go woke go broke" theory, as things really started to go south for WOTC when they allowed these woke cultists to gain more and more influence, to the point that they will now severely alter the game's content. Removing the racial based ability score increases, which were added in the first place because they are different species (duh!), was a big line they crossed. Even though there were already rules in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything that allowed you to do change the ability score increases of your race (which is your species), even if it was not thematic.
The reason why these companies "somehow" survive for so long is because they get money from taxpayers through the ESG ratings. Basically, they get money if they make sure there are as few white people (or men in positions of power with pride) as possible, preferably by race swapping existing white characters. Which is why we now see God of War Ragnarok having Loki's canonical future wife be black, or have the boar guy who flirts with thor's wife be black. That, and they also use it as a shield against criticism of poor gameplay. Here is a video someone made about that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZpuDc3YvLg
That said, ESG ratings and the money it gets you can only go so far.
Quote from: Chris24601 on November 25, 2022, 01:50:47 AM
It'd be just as valid an argument to say it's up in the rankings now because people who've heard what a woke shitshow OneD&D is turning into want to pick up some extra copies of the last non-woke edition before it's banished to the outer darkness by the current woke cultists promising to throw multiple sensitivity readers at everything and a willingness to change anything that doesn't comply before its too late.
While I'm sure that's not the reason it's still selling well, this does tempt me to buy some more 2014 5e PHBs to stock up against the Coming Night. 5e didn't go full Woke until Crawford got to be in charge of everything, years after the PHB-DMG-MM were published.
Quote from: Mistwell on November 24, 2022, 09:55:59 PM
The 5e Player's Handbook is currently ranked #9 on Amazon in the nation for....all books of any kind (https://smile.amazon.com/Players-Handbook-Dungeons-Dragons-Wizards/dp/0786965606/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2TR5GV4846CPI&keywords=players%2Bhandbook%2B5e&qid=1669344795&sprefix=%2Caps%2C397&sr=8-1&th=1).
But yeah tell me how it's going broke.
"#1 Bestseller in Dungeons & Dragons game."
This reminds me of the time that Amazon listed Strixhaven as the #1 bestseller in Greek & Roman Mythology.
Quote from: S'mon on November 25, 2022, 03:40:44 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on November 25, 2022, 01:50:47 AM
It'd be just as valid an argument to say it's up in the rankings now because people who've heard what a woke shitshow OneD&D is turning into want to pick up some extra copies of the last non-woke edition before it's banished to the outer darkness by the current woke cultists promising to throw multiple sensitivity readers at everything and a willingness to change anything that doesn't comply before its too late.
While I'm sure that's not the reason it's still selling well, this does tempt me to buy some more 2014 5e PHBs to stock up against the Coming Night. 5e didn't go full Woke until Crawford got to be in charge of everything, years after the PHB-DMG-MM were published.
I wouldn't place money on it either, but it's more likely correct than "they're buying a non-Woke book because they so support the Woke" is.
Quote from: Svenhelgrim on November 25, 2022, 09:21:30 AM
Quote from: Mistwell on November 24, 2022, 09:55:59 PM
The 5e Player's Handbook is currently ranked #9 on Amazon in the nation for....all books of any kind (https://smile.amazon.com/Players-Handbook-Dungeons-Dragons-Wizards/dp/0786965606/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2TR5GV4846CPI&keywords=players%2Bhandbook%2B5e&qid=1669344795&sprefix=%2Caps%2C397&sr=8-1&th=1).
But yeah tell me how it's going broke.
"#1 Bestseller in Dungeons & Dragons game."
This reminds me of the time that Amazon listed Strixhaven as the #1 bestseller in Greek & Roman Mythology.
It was #8 in all books of any kind, not just in D&D Games. They raised the price for actual Black Friday to$19 and now it's back down to #17 in all books.
Quote from: Mistwell on November 24, 2022, 09:55:59 PM
The 5e Player's Handbook is currently ranked #9 on Amazon in the nation for....all books of any kind (https://smile.amazon.com/Players-Handbook-Dungeons-Dragons-Wizards/dp/0786965606/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2TR5GV4846CPI&keywords=players%2Bhandbook%2B5e&qid=1669344795&sprefix=%2Caps%2C397&sr=8-1&th=1).
But yeah tell me how it's going broke.
Well sure its doing well, that's the book I mainly worked on.
But the newer books are not doing as well, and when OneDnD comes out, other than the initial Autistic Obsessive Fuck Rush who would buy anything at all just because it has the logo, it's going to do even worse.
Quote from: RPGPundit on November 26, 2022, 03:15:20 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on November 24, 2022, 09:55:59 PM
The 5e Player's Handbook is currently ranked #9 on Amazon in the nation for....all books of any kind (https://smile.amazon.com/Players-Handbook-Dungeons-Dragons-Wizards/dp/0786965606/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2TR5GV4846CPI&keywords=players%2Bhandbook%2B5e&qid=1669344795&sprefix=%2Caps%2C397&sr=8-1&th=1).
But yeah tell me how it's going broke.
Well sure its doing well, that's the book I mainly worked on.
But the newer books are not doing as well, and when OneDnD comes out, other than the initial Autistic Obsessive Fuck Rush who would buy anything at all just because it has the logo, it's going to do even worse.
Hold on, you worked on the player's handbook for 5th edition? I honestly didn't know that.
Also, I have to agree. I notice that the newer books are not nearly as popular as the older works.
Once I learned about the ethically-dubious business model of Magic: the Gathering*, I started to wonder if wokifying D&D is a broader brand management exercise for Wizards/Hasbro. M:tG is much more financially important to them. The editorial line for D&D won't be determined in isolation.
* see other recent thread in Other Games
Quote from: nielspeterdejong on November 26, 2022, 07:35:19 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit on November 26, 2022, 03:15:20 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on November 24, 2022, 09:55:59 PM
The 5e Player's Handbook is currently ranked #9 on Amazon in the nation for....all books of any kind (https://smile.amazon.com/Players-Handbook-Dungeons-Dragons-Wizards/dp/0786965606/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2TR5GV4846CPI&keywords=players%2Bhandbook%2B5e&qid=1669344795&sprefix=%2Caps%2C397&sr=8-1&th=1).
But yeah tell me how it's going broke.
Well sure its doing well, that's the book I mainly worked on.
But the newer books are not doing as well, and when OneDnD comes out, other than the initial Autistic Obsessive Fuck Rush who would buy anything at all just because it has the logo, it's going to do even worse.
Hold on, you worked on the player's handbook for 5th edition? I honestly didn't know that.
Also, I have to agree. I notice that the newer books are not nearly as popular as the older works.
Yup. If you can track down early prints, Pundit and Zak S. are listed as contributors.
That entire section was wiped in later printings.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on November 27, 2022, 12:28:56 AM
Quote from: nielspeterdejong on November 26, 2022, 07:35:19 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit on November 26, 2022, 03:15:20 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on November 24, 2022, 09:55:59 PM
The 5e Player's Handbook is currently ranked #9 on Amazon in the nation for....all books of any kind (https://smile.amazon.com/Players-Handbook-Dungeons-Dragons-Wizards/dp/0786965606/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2TR5GV4846CPI&keywords=players%2Bhandbook%2B5e&qid=1669344795&sprefix=%2Caps%2C397&sr=8-1&th=1).
But yeah tell me how it's going broke.
Well sure its doing well, that's the book I mainly worked on.
But the newer books are not doing as well, and when OneDnD comes out, other than the initial Autistic Obsessive Fuck Rush who would buy anything at all just because it has the logo, it's going to do even worse.
Hold on, you worked on the player's handbook for 5th edition? I honestly didn't know that.
Also, I have to agree. I notice that the newer books are not nearly as popular as the older works.
Yup. If you can track down early prints, Pundit and Zak S. are listed as contributors.
That entire section was wiped in later printings.
Did they even give a reason why that entire section was wiped?
Quote from: nielspeterdejong on November 27, 2022, 04:20:50 AM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on November 27, 2022, 12:28:56 AM
Quote from: nielspeterdejong on November 26, 2022, 07:35:19 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit on November 26, 2022, 03:15:20 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on November 24, 2022, 09:55:59 PM
The 5e Player's Handbook is currently ranked #9 on Amazon in the nation for....all books of any kind (https://smile.amazon.com/Players-Handbook-Dungeons-Dragons-Wizards/dp/0786965606/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2TR5GV4846CPI&keywords=players%2Bhandbook%2B5e&qid=1669344795&sprefix=%2Caps%2C397&sr=8-1&th=1).
But yeah tell me how it's going broke.
Well sure its doing well, that's the book I mainly worked on.
But the newer books are not doing as well, and when OneDnD comes out, other than the initial Autistic Obsessive Fuck Rush who would buy anything at all just because it has the logo, it's going to do even worse.
Hold on, you worked on the player's handbook for 5th edition? I honestly didn't know that.
Also, I have to agree. I notice that the newer books are not nearly as popular as the older works.
Yup. If you can track down early prints, Pundit and Zak S. are listed as contributors.
That entire section was wiped in later printings.
Did they even give a reason why that entire section was wiped?
The same reason Stalin had politically inconvenient people erased from photos of him. The Woke, which is to say the foot soldiers of totalitarianism, can't abide the existence of dissenting voices anywhere within their sphere of perception.
Pundit is a dissenting voice, ergo everything he even brushed up against is bad so it was either remove the contributors from the 5e PHB credits so they no longer had to look upon the name of someone "unmutual" or stop selling the 5e PHB entirely.
Ah, figured as much. The sad part is, these people unironically don't see anything wrong with this, because they are narcicistic enough to believe that whatever horrible thing they do is justified since they are "on the right side of history". Believing they are too "educated" and intelligent to be manipulated by propaganda, and don't realize they are essentially part of a cult that functions like a religion. Screaming "hate speech" instead of blasphemy.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on November 27, 2022, 12:28:56 AM
Quote from: nielspeterdejong on November 26, 2022, 07:35:19 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit on November 26, 2022, 03:15:20 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on November 24, 2022, 09:55:59 PM
The 5e Player's Handbook is currently ranked #9 on Amazon in the nation for....all books of any kind (https://smile.amazon.com/Players-Handbook-Dungeons-Dragons-Wizards/dp/0786965606/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2TR5GV4846CPI&keywords=players%2Bhandbook%2B5e&qid=1669344795&sprefix=%2Caps%2C397&sr=8-1&th=1).
But yeah tell me how it's going broke.
Well sure its doing well, that's the book I mainly worked on.
But the newer books are not doing as well, and when OneDnD comes out, other than the initial Autistic Obsessive Fuck Rush who would buy anything at all just because it has the logo, it's going to do even worse.
Hold on, you worked on the player's handbook for 5th edition? I honestly didn't know that.
Also, I have to agree. I notice that the newer books are not nearly as popular as the older works.
Yup. If you can track down early prints, Pundit and Zak S. are listed as contributors.
That entire section was wiped in later printings.
They purged the names of contributors, so that the citizens of Seattle could stop having nightmares and wetting the bed. It was all done in the name of progress.... A small price to pay for peace.
Quote from: Marchand on November 26, 2022, 11:49:45 PM
Once I learned about the ethically-dubious business model of Magic: the Gathering*, I started to wonder if wokifying D&D is a broader brand management exercise for Wizards/Hasbro. M:tG is much more financially important to them. The editorial line for D&D won't be determined in isolation.
An interesting theory but I don't think the timelines quite add up. D&D descent into wokeness has been slow but continuous and gradual and started before M:TG was in trouble. I'd argue that the first sign of wokeness was when WotC patted themselves on the back for their "Diverse" iconic characters in the third edition Players Handbook.
Once you go down the path of virtue signalling there is only one inevitable end. You can only have your first female paladin once and your first gay ranger once. As the need to continually virtue signalling remains, you're forced to insert ever more bizarre and unlikely characters and esoteric rules changes until you finally reach the point where "Even the dog is disabled!".
Quote from: hedgehobbit on November 28, 2022, 05:43:18 PM
Quote from: Marchand on November 26, 2022, 11:49:45 PM
Once I learned about the ethically-dubious business model of Magic: the Gathering*, I started to wonder if wokifying D&D is a broader brand management exercise for Wizards/Hasbro. M:tG is much more financially important to them. The editorial line for D&D won't be determined in isolation.
An interesting theory but I don't think the timelines quite add up. D&D descent into wokeness has been slow but continuous and gradual and started before M:TG was in trouble. I'd argue that the first sign of wokeness was when WotC patted themselves on the back for their "Diverse" iconic characters in the third edition Players Handbook.
Once you go down the path of virtue signalling there is only one inevitable end. You can only have your first female paladin once and your first gay ranger once. As the need to continually virtue signalling remains, you're forced to insert ever more bizarre and unlikely characters and esoteric rules changes until you finally reach the point where "Even the dog is disabled!".
Wait, third edition player's handbook had diverse characters? You mean the 3rd edition Dungeons & Dragons book right? I recall them being all european, which honestly makes sense for a fantasy setting which is 99% inspired by European folklore.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on November 28, 2022, 05:43:18 PM
...
An interesting theory but I don't think the timelines quite add up. D&D descent into wokeness has been slow but continuous and gradual and started before M:TG was in trouble. I'd argue that the first sign of wokeness was when WotC patted themselves on the back for their "Diverse" iconic characters in the third edition Players Handbook.
Once you go down the path of virtue signalling there is only one inevitable end. You can only have your first female paladin once and your first gay ranger once. As the need to continually virtue signalling remains, you're forced to insert ever more bizarre and unlikely characters and esoteric rules changes until you finally reach the point where "Even the dog is disabled!".
The pedomouse already beat them to the disabled dog thing in their latest animated movie box-office bomb.
I find the sales of the 5e handbook interesting considering that D&Done is coming in 2024. Everyone and their sister knows that the new hotness totally not a new edition is right around the corner. Best case scenario; "backwards compatibility" will be the same as it was with the 3.0 to 3.5 transition.
Yet people are evidently snapping up the soon to be obsoleted class and subclass write-ups like hotcakes...
Quote from: nielspeterdejong on November 28, 2022, 06:04:25 PM
...
Wait, third edition player's handbook had diverse characters? You mean the 3rd edition Dungeons & Dragons book right? I recall them being all european, which honestly makes sense for a fantasy setting which is 99% inspired by European folklore.
WotC made a big point of it.
WotC purchased TSR in 1997
By 1999 "TSR" art was already well on it's way.
"POC" front and center. Death to captain white-bread!
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f7/RttKotBCover.jpg)
Quote from: Jaeger on November 28, 2022, 07:02:50 PM
I find the sales of the 5e handbook interesting considering that D&Done is coming in 2024.
Okay, I just have to laugh because I just now recognized the pun in reversing OneD&D like that... D&D is Done.
Bravo.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on November 28, 2022, 05:43:18 PM
Quote from: Marchand on November 26, 2022, 11:49:45 PM
Once I learned about the ethically-dubious business model of Magic: the Gathering*, I started to wonder if wokifying D&D is a broader brand management exercise for Wizards/Hasbro. M:tG is much more financially important to them. The editorial line for D&D won't be determined in isolation.
You can only have your first female paladin once and your first gay ranger once.
Are you trying to suggest an argument against female paladins? Deed of Paksenarrion was published in '88-89, and there's an adequate supply of not-literally-D&D-paladin female warriors going back through Appendix N.
Quote from: nielspeterdejong on November 28, 2022, 06:04:25 PM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on November 28, 2022, 05:43:18 PM
Quote from: Marchand on November 26, 2022, 11:49:45 PM
Once I learned about the ethically-dubious business model of Magic: the Gathering*, I started to wonder if wokifying D&D is a broader brand management exercise for Wizards/Hasbro. M:tG is much more financially important to them. The editorial line for D&D won't be determined in isolation.
An interesting theory but I don't think the timelines quite add up. D&D descent into wokeness has been slow but continuous and gradual and started before M:TG was in trouble. I'd argue that the first sign of wokeness was when WotC patted themselves on the back for their "Diverse" iconic characters in the third edition Players Handbook.
Once you go down the path of virtue signalling there is only one inevitable end. You can only have your first female paladin once and your first gay ranger once. As the need to continually virtue signalling remains, you're forced to insert ever more bizarre and unlikely characters and esoteric rules changes until you finally reach the point where "Even the dog is disabled!".
Wait, third edition player's handbook had diverse characters? You mean the 3rd edition Dungeons & Dragons book right? I recall them being all european, which honestly makes sense for a fantasy setting which is 99% inspired by European folklore.
I have absolutely nothing against having non-European folklore and non-European peoples and cultures represented in fantasy RPGs. However, the mixing of non-European people with European-inspired cultures and settings--as if the Europe of, say, 1000 AD and implying it was as "rich and diverse" as the Europe of 2022 (more accurately, the Western Europe, United States, and Canada) is just weird. It's as weird as the "cultural appropriation" of some Nordic guy wearing dō-maru armor in a Native American setting. While the idea that "cultural appropriation" as insulting is eyeroll-inducing, it does appear messed up and ridiculous. Sure, Role-playing in Ancient Rome or the Ottoman Empire might have more varied cultures (especially in the urban areas), but medieval western Europe? Please.
This is also a problem I have with too many non-human races mixed together in a mish-mash that assumes very 21st-century ideas of "Multiculturalism".
Quote from: RPGPundit on October 29, 2022, 09:13:43 AM
It's been explicitly stated now that in Nu-D&D, undead and demons can have any alignment.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FfhwL0zWQAEsact?format=jpg&name=900x900)
I'm out of action for a while and this is what I missed. Why even bother with this fucking trash...
Quote from: Brad on November 29, 2022, 05:33:52 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit on October 29, 2022, 09:13:43 AM
It's been explicitly stated now that in Nu-D&D, undead and demons can have any alignment.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FfhwL0zWQAEsact?format=jpg&name=900x900)
I'm out of action for a while and this is what I missed. Why even bother with this fucking trash...
WOTC has decided to make fools of themselves, and to shit upon their revenue stream.
Quote from: Jaeger on October 29, 2022, 05:22:38 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on October 29, 2022, 05:00:28 PM
...
So the main issue with these changes in D&D is that they're being implemented in a hamfisted and haphazard way, and apparently in the behest of a morally bankrupt ideology, more than the idea that the possibility of non-evil demons is such a ridiculous notion that it has never been considered by the majority of real life cultures and religions.
Wow. Somebody gets it.
But the problem is this: the woke often hate themselves, the boomers and the privilege they have (not shitting selves in a dumpster is super privileged). So it follows that again, they want to tear down alll that is not a modern creature cantina set in pseudo sort of medieval Star Trek settings.
And here I was hoping for holy swords, Morningstars delivered to my enemies and sacks with gold and gems. I was off wanting to pretend adventure and forgot this is not about fun! It's about a statement and changing the world one imaginary fairy at a time.
So disgusted. So disappointed.
Well there is the fact that D&D was and is sold to a primarily western English speaking audience. Which has been culturally shaped by 2000 years of Christian morality, religious thought, and philosophy.
So to D&D's primary sales demographic; Yes, the idea of non-evil demons is a completely ridiculous notion based on post-modern retardery.
Quote from: Dapig on November 30, 2022, 09:47:37 AM
Quote from: Jaeger on October 29, 2022, 05:22:38 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on October 29, 2022, 05:00:28 PM
...
So the main issue with these changes in D&D is that they're being implemented in a hamfisted and haphazard way, and apparently in the behest of a morally bankrupt ideology, more than the idea that the possibility of non-evil demons is such a ridiculous notion that it has never been considered by the majority of real life cultures and religions.
Well there is the fact that D&D was and is sold to a primarily western English speaking audience. Which has been culturally shaped by 2000 years of Christian morality, religious thought, and philosophy.
So to D&D's primary sales demographic; Yes, the idea of non-evil demons is a completely ridiculous notion based on post-modern retardery.
Wow. Somebody gets it.
But the problem is this: the woke often hate themselves, the boomers and the privilege they have (not shitting selves in a dumpster is super privileged). So it follows that again, they want to tear down all that is not a modern creature cantina set in pseudo sort of medieval Star Trek settings.
And here I was hoping for holy swords, Morningstars delivered to my enemies and sacks with gold and gems. I was off wanting to pretend adventure and forgot this is not about fun! It's about a statement and changing the world one imaginary fairy at a time.
So disgusted. So disappointed.
Was ^this^ your intended reply?
I think you did a little cut/pate error when parsing the quotes. Which is easy enough to do... The format for quoting here is a very manual and not that good.
Quote from: Jaeger on November 30, 2022, 02:06:21 PM
Quote from: Dapig on November 30, 2022, 09:47:37 AM
Quote from: Jaeger on October 29, 2022, 05:22:38 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on October 29, 2022, 05:00:28 PM
...
So the main issue with these changes in D&D is that they're being implemented in a hamfisted and haphazard way, and apparently in the behest of a morally bankrupt ideology, more than the idea that the possibility of non-evil demons is such a ridiculous notion that it has never been considered by the majority of real life cultures and religions.
Well there is the fact that D&D was and is sold to a primarily western English speaking audience. Which has been culturally shaped by 2000 years of Christian morality, religious thought, and philosophy.
So to D&D's primary sales demographic; Yes, the idea of non-evil demons is a completely ridiculous notion based on post-modern retardery.
Wow. Somebody gets it.
But the problem is this: the woke often hate themselves, the boomers and the privilege they have (not shitting selves in a dumpster is super privileged). So it follows that again, they want to tear down all that is not a modern creature cantina set in pseudo sort of medieval Star Trek settings.
And here I was hoping for holy swords, Morningstars delivered to my enemies and sacks with gold and gems. I was off wanting to pretend adventure and forgot this is not about fun! It's about a statement and changing the world one imaginary fairy at a time.
So disgusted. So disappointed.
Was ^this^ your intended reply?
I think you did a little cut/pate error when parsing the quotes. Which is easy enough to do... The format for quoting here is a very manual and not that good.
Yeah I was trying to reply to you and say you are spot on. It is ok to want to play at pseudo European myth if you like to do so. Putting evil orcs to the sword is naughty! You never know which great orc poet you might be killing.
Somewhere along the way people who claim to like the hobby have changed their minds. Some of this is so absurd as to be analogous to baseball fans hating strikes, fly outs and bases.
Go find another sport then?
I have no issue with other civilizations in the world but the mandate of a creature cantina in every village is not "inclusive" but rather jarring and not immersive for me anyway.
And good demons? The power of Christ invites you to tea? Wtf
Quote from: Dapig on November 30, 2022, 02:47:55 PM
And good demons? The power of Christ invites you to tea? Wtf
I strongly suspect that the quickest way to get yourself thrown out of current WotC-D&D fandom would be to unironically invoke Christ.
It is over on BGG.
Quote from: nielspeterdejong on November 27, 2022, 04:20:50 AM
Did they even give a reason why that entire section was wiped?
I think they cut the section when the Zack accusations arose. i don't remember if they used that as a rational specifically or if that was my assumption.
I always figure a Demon or Devil will tell you they're good and misunderstood for just as long as you'll let them.
One of the best devil bits I've ever seen is the issue of New Mutants where Memphisto agrees to let them leave hell if Magma will go out with him. So they're sitting in this cafe and he's explaining how he spends more money on African famine relief than any country because children don't go to hell. Really,the whole issue was gold. Poor guy's out of his league and out of his depth but he did get her number.
Quote from: Omega on November 30, 2022, 03:54:38 PM
It is over on BGG.
I have no idea what you mean. I have no context. I don't even know if you mean something is over (as in finished) at Board Game Geek, or if it's over (like there) at BGG? Can you explain?
Quote from: Ruprecht on November 30, 2022, 06:02:29 PM
Quote from: nielspeterdejong on November 27, 2022, 04:20:50 AM
Did they even give a reason why that entire section was wiped?
I think they cut the section when the Zack accusations arose. i don't remember if they used that as a rational specifically or if that was my assumption.
The Consultant section?
Yes they seem to have used that as an excuse to remove mention of all of them. Have bot seen the entry in later print runs and they even removed them from the basic rules along the way?
Quote from: Cathode Ray on November 30, 2022, 08:56:02 PM
Quote from: Omega on November 30, 2022, 03:54:38 PM
It is over on BGG.
I have no idea what you mean. I have no context. I don't even know if you mean something is over (as in finished) at Board Game Geek, or if it's over (like there) at BGG? Can you explain?
Meant that over on BGG they can and have done things like banning or temp banning you for mentioning Jesus or just saying anything they disapprove of today.
Quote from: Omega on November 30, 2022, 10:22:04 PM
Quote from: Cathode Ray on November 30, 2022, 08:56:02 PM
Quote from: Omega on November 30, 2022, 03:54:38 PM
It is over on BGG.
I have no idea what you mean. I have no context. I don't even know if you mean something is over (as in finished) at Board Game Geek, or if it's over (like there) at BGG? Can you explain?
Meant that over on BGG they can and have done things like banning or temp banning you for mentioning Jesus or just saying anything they disapprove of today.
Understood now! I'm proudly banned from that bastion of fascism!
I'd love for WotC to go broke, but I don't see it happening.
Their digital initiative for D&D 6e makes sense.
5e appealed to the SJW freaks who became shamdemic shut-ins and finally, groups of misfits could gather on Zoom & Roll20 without anyone complaining about their frightful stank.
GenZ has so little social skills that remote digital gaming is as social as it gets for most of them who have been raised on MMOs and online mass player games. Once Meta gets their virtual world happening, D&D will be 50% digital larping and 50% screeching about micro-aggressions.
Thus D&D via a subscription model makes sense for the modern era. In fact, it's probably a gold mine if even done half-ass.
I've got zero interest because if I'm not gaming around a table, I have better things to do with my free time that I prefer to involve less screens, not more.
I don't really want them to go broke but I would like them to cull the excess consultants, manager, and woke scolds and get back to creating games. Maybe let the D&D team play with online stuff while the rest resurrect campaign worlds or forgotten game.
Quote from: Mishihari on October 31, 2022, 04:59:53 PM
Quote from: jhkim on October 31, 2022, 01:09:44 PM
Children aren't taught right and wrong from D&D alignment. My son grew up sometimes playing D&D and other RPGs, but while they were positive and creative, I think his moral center came from real-world living and instruction, and not at all from game mechanics. Neither D&D alignments nor the non-alignment-using mechanics of other RPGs were important either way in his learning to be a good person. I think trying to use D&D alignments to teach real-world morality is a bad idea, because the real world is vastly different than most D&D worlds.
I think your comment here misses the point. Using vanilla D&D to teach actual morals would indeed be a bad idea. However playing D&D, with its objective good and evil, accustoms and gives practice to kids in thinking in terms of right and wrong being important in making decisions, and good and evil being objective. That's all good IMO.
I've never seen an RPG influence anyone's moral worldview one way or the other, and attempting to use them for such is a fool's errand. Games are inherently about
choice, and as such horrible tools for indoctrination.
Quote from: Mistwell on November 25, 2022, 01:03:16 AM
Quote from: Aglondir on November 24, 2022, 10:25:57 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on November 24, 2022, 09:55:59 PM
The 5e Player's Handbook is currently ranked #9 on Amazon in the nation for....all books of any kind (https://smile.amazon.com/Players-Handbook-Dungeons-Dragons-Wizards/dp/0786965606/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2TR5GV4846CPI&keywords=players%2Bhandbook%2B5e&qid=1669344795&sprefix=%2Caps%2C397&sr=8-1&th=1).
But yeah tell me how it's going broke.
Maybe it's #9 because it's 69% off for a Black Friday sale?
I am sure that is the reason. And? With a new half-edition coming out you'd think everyone who wanted the PHB would have by now. Apparently not. It's now up to 8th in all books. That's a whole lot of books from the sale.
MM is number 15 in all books.
DMG is number 17 in all books.
Or maybe folks are buying the books because they're worried the new edition will suck, or not even be available in printed form, which granted I consider unlikely, but who knows. The main books will sell simply because they're core product identity. It's why every edition is based on the same three books.
Quote from: World_Warrior on October 27, 2022, 03:57:36 PM
I think the downfall of WOTC won't ever be their content, but requesting that their fanbase buy an entire new round of books again.
On the contrary alienating the old fanbase by releasing new editions has been #GamesWorkshop's profit making formula for years.
Quote from: Mishihari on November 21, 2022, 02:46:36 AM
Now if we could just persuade Elon Musk to buy ENWorld....
#EMWorld
Quote from: RPGPundit on October 31, 2022, 09:58:22 PM
I also think that Planescape is trash.
...you're dead to me.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan on December 02, 2022, 04:45:06 PM
I've never seen an RPG influence anyone's moral worldview one way or the other, and attempting to use them for such is a fool's errand. Games are inherently about choice, and as such horrible tools for indoctrination.
GMing for 38 years, I can recall twice seeing a player having a kind of 'moral wake up call' where they saw things differently after experiencing the results of their PC's actions. So it can happen, but IME only rarely, and organically.
Quote from: S'mon on December 02, 2022, 05:51:13 PM
Quote from: Anon Adderlan on December 02, 2022, 04:45:06 PM
I've never seen an RPG influence anyone's moral worldview one way or the other, and attempting to use them for such is a fool's errand. Games are inherently about choice, and as such horrible tools for indoctrination.
GMing for 38 years, I can recall twice seeing a player having a kind of 'moral wake up call' where they saw things differently after experiencing the results of their PC's actions. So it can happen, but IME only rarely, and organically.
Agreed. I would agree. I'm presuming that "organically" means that it comes from the situation in the game, and isn't a product of the alignment mechanics (for example).
I'm not sure that I've ever seen a "moral wake up call" - and I'd be curious what the circumstances were of the two moral wake up calls that you saw. I have had players confront dilemmas that made them think about what the right answer is, and I've seen confrontations where players genuinely argue over what's right.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan on December 02, 2022, 04:45:06 PM
Quote from: Mishihari on October 31, 2022, 04:59:53 PM
Quote from: jhkim on October 31, 2022, 01:09:44 PM
Children aren't taught right and wrong from D&D alignment. My son grew up sometimes playing D&D and other RPGs, but while they were positive and creative, I think his moral center came from real-world living and instruction, and not at all from game mechanics. Neither D&D alignments nor the non-alignment-using mechanics of other RPGs were important either way in his learning to be a good person. I think trying to use D&D alignments to teach real-world morality is a bad idea, because the real world is vastly different than most D&D worlds.
I think your comment here misses the point. Using vanilla D&D to teach actual morals would indeed be a bad idea. However playing D&D, with its objective good and evil, accustoms and gives practice to kids in thinking in terms of right and wrong being important in making decisions, and good and evil being objective. That's all good IMO.
I've never seen an RPG influence anyone's moral worldview one way or the other, and attempting to use them for such is a fool's errand. Games are inherently about choice, and as such horrible tools for indoctrination.
Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Things that influence sense of morality and worldview are generally subtle and slow acting
Quote from: Mishihari on December 03, 2022, 02:30:31 PM
Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Things that influence sense of morality and worldview are generally subtle and slow acting
Which is why the woke SJW cult wants to control all forms of media and entertainment.
Quote from: Marchand on November 26, 2022, 11:49:45 PM
Once I learned about the ethically-dubious business model of Magic: the Gathering*, I started to wonder if wokifying D&D is a broader brand management exercise for Wizards/Hasbro. M:tG is much more financially important to them. The editorial line for D&D won't be determined in isolation.
* see other recent thread in Other Games
Once I learned about them sheltering an inordinate amount of paedophiles as volunteers and judges, while at the same time purging the existing fanbase for the crime of Autism/poor social skills, in order to promote cosplayers; I stopped giving a flying F about them.
Quote from: Chris24601 on November 27, 2022, 08:36:59 AMPundit is a dissenting voice, ergo everything he even brushed up against is bad so it was either remove the contributors from the 5e PHB credits so they no longer had to look upon the name of someone "unmutual" or stop selling the 5e PHB entirely.
Does it even need to be that personal? Corps like GW have been removing artist and writer credits from their products for years now. It could be as simple as not giving a tinker's damn about contributors anymore. Just make the Corp logo twice as big.
Quote from: nielspeterdejong on November 27, 2022, 08:51:28 AM
Ah, figured as much. The sad part is, these people unironically don't see anything wrong with this, because they are narcicistic enough to believe that whatever horrible thing they do is justified since they are "on the right side of history". Believing they are too "educated" and intelligent to be manipulated by propaganda, and don't realize they are essentially part of a cult that functions like a religion. Screaming "hate speech" instead of blasphemy.
You see it all the time when their morality flip-flops or turns on a dime, depending on what's currently expedient. Like they'll lambast corruption, then casually cover up worse corruption from their team, because they're all about the ends justifying the means, and they're always the good guys.
Quote from: Jam The MF on November 27, 2022, 12:51:54 PMThey purged the names of contributors, so that the citizens of Seattle could stop having nightmares and wetting the bed.
Well, it's the thought that counts.
Quote from: Jaeger on November 28, 2022, 07:02:50 PM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f7/RttKotBCover.jpg)
At least it's a man. Think about any movie, book or game cover from the last 6+ years. Always a woman or women front and prominent, every time.
Quote from: Naburimannu on November 29, 2022, 03:29:13 AMAre you trying to suggest an argument against female paladins? Deed of Paksenarrion was published in '88-89, and there's an adequate supply of not-literally-D&D-paladin female warriors going back through Appendix N.
When an IP has female warriors in it, no-one cares. When every group you ever see has women as the melee fighters, or heavy weapons support, the verisimilitude is destroyed. Then we care.
Quote from: Ruprecht on December 01, 2022, 07:23:47 PM
I don't really want them to go broke but I would like them to cull the excess consultants, manager, and woke scolds and get back to creating games. Maybe let the D&D team play with online stuff while the rest resurrect campaign worlds or forgotten game.
There's no saving them from the cancer. They need to die, then eventually the Progenoid Glands will be harvested by the Apothecary of a healthier legion.
Quote from: Omega on December 03, 2022, 05:01:13 PM
Quote from: Mishihari on December 03, 2022, 02:30:31 PM
Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Things that influence sense of morality and worldview are generally subtle and slow acting
Which is why the woke SJW cult wants to control all forms of media and entertainment.
Yup. They're using 1984 as their guidebook
Quote from: Grognard GM on December 03, 2022, 06:43:08 PM
Quote from: Marchand on November 26, 2022, 11:49:45 PM
Once I learned about the ethically-dubious business model of Magic: the Gathering*, I started to wonder if wokifying D&D is a broader brand management exercise for Wizards/Hasbro. M:tG is much more financially important to them. The editorial line for D&D won't be determined in isolation.
* see other recent thread in Other Games
Once I learned about them sheltering an inordinate amount of paedophiles as volunteers and judges, while at the same time purging the existing fanbase for the crime of Autism/poor social skills, in order to promote cosplayers; I stopped giving a flying F about them.
Quote from: Chris24601 on November 27, 2022, 08:36:59 AMPundit is a dissenting voice, ergo everything he even brushed up against is bad so it was either remove the contributors from the 5e PHB credits so they no longer had to look upon the name of someone "unmutual" or stop selling the 5e PHB entirely.
Does it even need to be that personal? Corps like GW have been removing artist and writer credits from their products for years now. It could be as simple as not giving a tinker's damn about contributors anymore. Just make the Corp logo twice as big.
Quote from: nielspeterdejong on November 27, 2022, 08:51:28 AM
Ah, figured as much. The sad part is, these people unironically don't see anything wrong with this, because they are narcicistic enough to believe that whatever horrible thing they do is justified since they are "on the right side of history". Believing they are too "educated" and intelligent to be manipulated by propaganda, and don't realize they are essentially part of a cult that functions like a religion. Screaming "hate speech" instead of blasphemy.
You see it all the time when their morality flip-flops or turns on a dime, depending on what's currently expedient. Like they'll lambast corruption, then casually cover up worse corruption from their team, because they're all about the ends justifying the means, and they're always the good guys.
Quote from: Jam The MF on November 27, 2022, 12:51:54 PMThey purged the names of contributors, so that the citizens of Seattle could stop having nightmares and wetting the bed.
Well, it's the thought that counts.
Quote from: Jaeger on November 28, 2022, 07:02:50 PM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f7/RttKotBCover.jpg)
At least it's a man. Think about any movie, book or game cover from the last 6+ years. Always a woman or women front and prominent, every time.
Quote from: Naburimannu on November 29, 2022, 03:29:13 AMAre you trying to suggest an argument against female paladins? Deed of Paksenarrion was published in '88-89, and there's an adequate supply of not-literally-D&D-paladin female warriors going back through Appendix N.
When an IP has female warriors in it, no-one cares. When every group you ever see has women as the melee fighters, or heavy weapons support, the verisimilitude is destroyed. Then we care.
Quote from: Ruprecht on December 01, 2022, 07:23:47 PM
I don't really want them to go broke but I would like them to cull the excess consultants, manager, and woke scolds and get back to creating games. Maybe let the D&D team play with online stuff while the rest resurrect campaign worlds or forgotten game.
There's no saving them from the cancer. They need to die, then eventually the Progenoid Glands will be harvested by the Apothecary of a healthier legion.
what if the setting allows for female warriors to be common? for instance everyone gets strength increasing magic that works in a way that both males and females have equal strength
Quote from: MeganovaStella on December 04, 2022, 04:48:03 AM
Quote from: Grognard GM on December 03, 2022, 06:43:08 PM
Quote from: Marchand on November 26, 2022, 11:49:45 PM
Once I learned about the ethically-dubious business model of Magic: the Gathering*, I started to wonder if wokifying D&D is a broader brand management exercise for Wizards/Hasbro. M:tG is much more financially important to them. The editorial line for D&D won't be determined in isolation.
* see other recent thread in Other Games
Once I learned about them sheltering an inordinate amount of paedophiles as volunteers and judges, while at the same time purging the existing fanbase for the crime of Autism/poor social skills, in order to promote cosplayers; I stopped giving a flying F about them.
Quote from: Chris24601 on November 27, 2022, 08:36:59 AMPundit is a dissenting voice, ergo everything he even brushed up against is bad so it was either remove the contributors from the 5e PHB credits so they no longer had to look upon the name of someone "unmutual" or stop selling the 5e PHB entirely.
Does it even need to be that personal? Corps like GW have been removing artist and writer credits from their products for years now. It could be as simple as not giving a tinker's damn about contributors anymore. Just make the Corp logo twice as big.
Quote from: nielspeterdejong on November 27, 2022, 08:51:28 AM
Ah, figured as much. The sad part is, these people unironically don't see anything wrong with this, because they are narcicistic enough to believe that whatever horrible thing they do is justified since they are "on the right side of history". Believing they are too "educated" and intelligent to be manipulated by propaganda, and don't realize they are essentially part of a cult that functions like a religion. Screaming "hate speech" instead of blasphemy.
You see it all the time when their morality flip-flops or turns on a dime, depending on what's currently expedient. Like they'll lambast corruption, then casually cover up worse corruption from their team, because they're all about the ends justifying the means, and they're always the good guys.
Quote from: Jam The MF on November 27, 2022, 12:51:54 PMThey purged the names of contributors, so that the citizens of Seattle could stop having nightmares and wetting the bed.
Well, it's the thought that counts.
Quote from: Jaeger on November 28, 2022, 07:02:50 PM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f7/RttKotBCover.jpg)
At least it's a man. Think about any movie, book or game cover from the last 6+ years. Always a woman or women front and prominent, every time.
Quote from: Naburimannu on November 29, 2022, 03:29:13 AMAre you trying to suggest an argument against female paladins? Deed of Paksenarrion was published in '88-89, and there's an adequate supply of not-literally-D&D-paladin female warriors going back through Appendix N.
When an IP has female warriors in it, no-one cares. When every group you ever see has women as the melee fighters, or heavy weapons support, the verisimilitude is destroyed. Then we care.
Quote from: Ruprecht on December 01, 2022, 07:23:47 PM
I don't really want them to go broke but I would like them to cull the excess consultants, manager, and woke scolds and get back to creating games. Maybe let the D&D team play with online stuff while the rest resurrect campaign worlds or forgotten game.
There's no saving them from the cancer. They need to die, then eventually the Progenoid Glands will be harvested by the Apothecary of a healthier legion.
what if the setting allows for female warriors to be common? for instance everyone gets strength increasing magic that works in a way that both males and females have equal strength
You still would realistically only see lots of women warriors in societies with a social safety net and/or facing utter destruction. Strength isn't the issue. In desperate times societies have thrown young teen boys into battle who are nowhere near the strength they'd have with just a few more years of development.
Rather, in pre-modern societies, your children were your only reliable means of support in old age and to birth a child takes a few minutes for a man, but 9 months for a woman (and someone has to spend at least a dozen years raising them to self-sufficiency after that). Similarly, if situations are truly desperate, one male survivor from a group can have children with many women from the group at once while women can generally only have children with one man at a time. You need more surviving women than men to rebuild a society; that's just biology.
In short, the ability of women to bear children is far more valuable to a society than their ability to be an extra body on the battlefield. Nor would risking a child in the womb by putting their mother on the battlefield. If such magic to make all men of equal strength existed they'd give it first to the elderly (of both sexes) and then to younger boys before employing women of childbearing age on the front line.
Any society doing otherwise is either desperate or insane.
Note; this is in reference to mass combat and organized militaries. Adventurers are invariably exceptions to the general order, but the existence of a four-leaf clover doesn't mean half the clover has four-leaves.
Quote from: Mishihari on December 03, 2022, 02:30:31 PM
Quote from: Anon Adderlan on December 02, 2022, 04:45:06 PM
Quote from: Mishihari on October 31, 2022, 04:59:53 PM
Quote from: jhkim on October 31, 2022, 01:09:44 PM
Children aren't taught right and wrong from D&D alignment. My son grew up sometimes playing D&D and other RPGs, but while they were positive and creative, I think his moral center came from real-world living and instruction, and not at all from game mechanics. Neither D&D alignments nor the non-alignment-using mechanics of other RPGs were important either way in his learning to be a good person. I think trying to use D&D alignments to teach real-world morality is a bad idea, because the real world is vastly different than most D&D worlds.
I think your comment here misses the point. Using vanilla D&D to teach actual morals would indeed be a bad idea. However playing D&D, with its objective good and evil, accustoms and gives practice to kids in thinking in terms of right and wrong being important in making decisions, and good and evil being objective. That's all good IMO.
I've never seen an RPG influence anyone's moral worldview one way or the other, and attempting to use them for such is a fool's errand. Games are inherently about choice, and as such horrible tools for indoctrination.
Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Things that influence sense of morality and worldview are generally subtle and slow acting
All of this still rests on the unsupported assumption that RPGs (and specifically, going by your claims, the use of alignment with the assumption of objective good and evil) can influence people's morality. Telling people that just because they didn't see that doesn't mean that it didn't happen still begs the question. And in my experience using alignment only led to arguments about how other people are supposed to play X or Y alignment, and imposing someone's subjective opinion on how that should be done on other players, which if anything highlights how subjective these concepts are.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 04, 2022, 08:43:22 AM
Quote from: MeganovaStella on December 04, 2022, 04:48:03 AM
Quote from: Grognard GM on December 03, 2022, 06:43:08 PM
Quote from: Marchand on November 26, 2022, 11:49:45 PM
Once I learned about the ethically-dubious business model of Magic: the Gathering*, I started to wonder if wokifying D&D is a broader brand management exercise for Wizards/Hasbro. M:tG is much more financially important to them. The editorial line for D&D won't be determined in isolation.
* see other recent thread in Other Games
Once I learned about them sheltering an inordinate amount of paedophiles as volunteers and judges, while at the same time purging the existing fanbase for the crime of Autism/poor social skills, in order to promote cosplayers; I stopped giving a flying F about them.
Quote from: Chris24601 on November 27, 2022, 08:36:59 AMPundit is a dissenting voice, ergo everything he even brushed up against is bad so it was either remove the contributors from the 5e PHB credits so they no longer had to look upon the name of someone "unmutual" or stop selling the 5e PHB entirely.
Does it even need to be that personal? Corps like GW have been removing artist and writer credits from their products for years now. It could be as simple as not giving a tinker's damn about contributors anymore. Just make the Corp logo twice as big.
Quote from: nielspeterdejong on November 27, 2022, 08:51:28 AM
Ah, figured as much. The sad part is, these people unironically don't see anything wrong with this, because they are narcicistic enough to believe that whatever horrible thing they do is justified since they are "on the right side of history". Believing they are too "educated" and intelligent to be manipulated by propaganda, and don't realize they are essentially part of a cult that functions like a religion. Screaming "hate speech" instead of blasphemy.
You see it all the time when their morality flip-flops or turns on a dime, depending on what's currently expedient. Like they'll lambast corruption, then casually cover up worse corruption from their team, because they're all about the ends justifying the means, and they're always the good guys.
Quote from: Jam The MF on November 27, 2022, 12:51:54 PMThey purged the names of contributors, so that the citizens of Seattle could stop having nightmares and wetting the bed.
Well, it's the thought that counts.
Quote from: Jaeger on November 28, 2022, 07:02:50 PM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f7/RttKotBCover.jpg)
At least it's a man. Think about any movie, book or game cover from the last 6+ years. Always a woman or women front and prominent, every time.
Quote from: Naburimannu on November 29, 2022, 03:29:13 AMAre you trying to suggest an argument against female paladins? Deed of Paksenarrion was published in '88-89, and there's an adequate supply of not-literally-D&D-paladin female warriors going back through Appendix N.
When an IP has female warriors in it, no-one cares. When every group you ever see has women as the melee fighters, or heavy weapons support, the verisimilitude is destroyed. Then we care.
Quote from: Ruprecht on December 01, 2022, 07:23:47 PM
I don't really want them to go broke but I would like them to cull the excess consultants, manager, and woke scolds and get back to creating games. Maybe let the D&D team play with online stuff while the rest resurrect campaign worlds or forgotten game.
There's no saving them from the cancer. They need to die, then eventually the Progenoid Glands will be harvested by the Apothecary of a healthier legion.
what if the setting allows for female warriors to be common? for instance everyone gets strength increasing magic that works in a way that both males and females have equal strength
You still would realistically only see lots of women warriors in societies with a social safety net and/or facing utter destruction. Strength isn't the issue. In desperate times societies have thrown young teen boys into battle who are nowhere near the strength they'd have with just a few more years of development.
Rather, in pre-modern societies, your children were your only reliable means of support in old age and to birth a child takes a few minutes for a man, but 9 months for a woman (and someone has to spend at least a dozen years raising them to self-sufficiency after that). Similarly, if situations are truly desperate, one male survivor from a group can have children with many women from the group at once while women can generally only have children with one man at a time. You need more surviving women than men to rebuild a society; that's just biology.
In short, the ability of women to bear children is far more valuable to a society than their ability to be an extra body on the battlefield. Nor would risking a child in the womb by putting their mother on the battlefield. If such magic to make all men of equal strength existed they'd give it first to the elderly (of both sexes) and then to younger boys before employing women of childbearing age on the front line.
Any society doing otherwise is either desperate or insane.
Note; this is in reference to mass combat and organized militaries. Adventurers are invariably exceptions to the general order, but the existence of a four-leaf clover doesn't mean half the clover has four-leaves.
ERMAHGERD! Are you suggesting that the role of wimmyn is to serve as broodmares for society. So sexist and supportive of the enactment of systems of oppreshun. This is why we need feminism!
Quote from: VisionStorm on December 04, 2022, 09:52:13 AM
ERMAHGERD! Are you suggesting that the role of wimmyn is to serve as broodmares for society. So sexist and supportive of the enactment of systems of oppreshun. This is why we need feminism!
I know it's being said sarcastically towards the woke, but to further clarify regardless it's actually more a case of the historical disposability of men in society (particularly second sons and similar who have little to inherit). The normal order of society for both men and women is centered around family; i.e. the raising of children. Men's role in pre-modern society is to provide for and protect his mate and children.
War is a disruption of and danger to the normal order. When the order is threatened you do your best to protect critical infrastructure while risking only what you can most afford to lose. In general, that means men of fighting age whereas women are held to be more valuable to society and so are protected.
Basically, just about any civilization in history will prioritize its children, then it's women and only lastly it's men in terms of value and importance to protect (and those societies which invert those priorities are typically presented as corrupt to outright wicked).
The existence of magic, even combat magic, in a setting doesn't change this typically unless magic is something exclusive to women (or to children). Even then it would depend greatly upon the nature and potency of said magic... something that only lets a woman or child be as strong as a man wouldn't generally alter the risk/reward calculations... magic that lets a single woman or child be as potent as a hundred normal men is another matter entirely.
Quote from: MeganovaStella on December 04, 2022, 04:48:03 AMwhat if the setting allows for female warriors to be common? for instance everyone gets strength increasing magic that works in a way that both males and females have equal strength
Then males would only have the advantages of larger hearts, greater height and weight, greater reach, vastly superior stamina and pain tolerance, enhanced aggression, and (in the case of the young men that fight most wars) a contempt for the idea that they will die.
The magic women would need, in essence, would be Testosterone, from the womb onwards, at which point they'd be men.
There's also the fact that these women in fiction are being given these roles, and being pushed to the fore, usually stepping on weak male characters; not for reasons of lore, but real world ideology.
No-one has an issue with classic Wonder Woman, or Super Girl.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 04, 2022, 08:43:22 AM
In short, the ability of women to bear children is far more valuable to a society than their ability to be an extra body on the battlefield. Nor would risking a child in the womb by putting their mother on the battlefield. If such magic to make all men of equal strength existed they'd give it first to the elderly (of both sexes) and then to younger boys before employing women of childbearing age on the front line.
Exactly this. Western countries filling the military with women is a sign of how disconnected we are from REAL war, the kind where you take massive casualties AND CAN LOSE. And by lose I mean be conquered/enslaved/wiped out, not give up and go home because it has become too costly.
Feminists always ignore the fact that, historically and now, men are always at the bottom of society and disposable. They focus on the tiny amount of men at the top, and see all of history through the lens of male privilege and female oppression.
Quote from: VisionStorm on December 04, 2022, 09:52:13 AM
Quote from: Mishihari on December 03, 2022, 02:30:31 PM
Quote from: Anon Adderlan on December 02, 2022, 04:45:06 PM
Quote from: Mishihari on October 31, 2022, 04:59:53 PM
Quote from: jhkim on October 31, 2022, 01:09:44 PM
Children aren't taught right and wrong from D&D alignment. My son grew up sometimes playing D&D and other RPGs, but while they were positive and creative, I think his moral center came from real-world living and instruction, and not at all from game mechanics. Neither D&D alignments nor the non-alignment-using mechanics of other RPGs were important either way in his learning to be a good person. I think trying to use D&D alignments to teach real-world morality is a bad idea, because the real world is vastly different than most D&D worlds.
I think your comment here misses the point. Using vanilla D&D to teach actual morals would indeed be a bad idea. However playing D&D, with its objective good and evil, accustoms and gives practice to kids in thinking in terms of right and wrong being important in making decisions, and good and evil being objective. That's all good IMO.
I've never seen an RPG influence anyone's moral worldview one way or the other, and attempting to use them for such is a fool's errand. Games are inherently about choice, and as such horrible tools for indoctrination.
Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Things that influence sense of morality and worldview are generally subtle and slow acting
All of this still rests on the unsupported assumption that RPGs (and specifically, going by your claims, the use of alignment with the assumption of objective good and evil) can influence people's morality. Telling people that just because they didn't see that doesn't mean that it didn't happen still begs the question. And in my experience using alignment only led to arguments about how other people are supposed to play X or Y alignment, and imposing someone's subjective opinion on how that should be done on other players, which if anything highlights how subjective these concepts are.
Yeah. I'm even leaving some doubt about RPGs overall, but I can't see how alignment mechanics teach morality. I think RPGs do have positive impact of helping kids actively imagine rather than passively consume, and that may help with moral development. But that applies just as much to a kid playing Traveller, Ars Magica, or Champions as one playing D&D.
Quote from: Omega on November 30, 2022, 10:20:19 PM
Quote from: Ruprecht on November 30, 2022, 06:02:29 PM
Quote from: nielspeterdejong on November 27, 2022, 04:20:50 AM
Did they even give a reason why that entire section was wiped?
I think they cut the section when the Zack accusations arose. i don't remember if they used that as a rational specifically or if that was my assumption.
The Consultant section?
Yes they seem to have used that as an excuse to remove mention of all of them. Have bot seen the entry in later print runs and they even removed them from the basic rules along the way?
They removed the entire consultant section because they wanted to remove Zak, but if they had kept the rest of us and removed only him, he could sue. They did not make a specific statement about the reason for removing the consultant section, but it was obviously because of the Zak scandal. Of course, a lot of leftists in and out of WoTC were happy to get rid of my name too, as a bonus.
Quote from: Grognard GM on December 04, 2022, 03:10:06 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit on December 04, 2022, 03:05:40 PMthe Zak scandal.
Where may I learn of this lore?
There are some references on his Wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zak_Smith#Sexual_assault_allegations
Quote from: MeganovaStella on December 04, 2022, 04:48:03 AM
Quote from: Grognard GM on December 03, 2022, 06:43:08 PM
what if the setting allows for female warriors to be common? for instance everyone gets strength increasing magic that works in a way that both males and females have equal strength
Aside from AD&D that is pretty much every edition of D&D. I think AD&D was the only edition that set a limit on STR on females. But of course to the woke that's patriarchy racist opressionistic whateverthefuckwehallucinatedtoday-ism.
Quote from: VisionStorm on December 04, 2022, 09:52:13 AM
Quote from: Mishihari on December 03, 2022, 02:30:31 PM
Quote from: Anon Adderlan on December 02, 2022, 04:45:06 PM
Quote from: Mishihari on October 31, 2022, 04:59:53 PM
Quote from: jhkim on October 31, 2022, 01:09:44 PM
Children aren't taught right and wrong from D&D alignment. My son grew up sometimes playing D&D and other RPGs, but while they were positive and creative, I think his moral center came from real-world living and instruction, and not at all from game mechanics. Neither D&D alignments nor the non-alignment-using mechanics of other RPGs were important either way in his learning to be a good person. I think trying to use D&D alignments to teach real-world morality is a bad idea, because the real world is vastly different than most D&D worlds.
I think your comment here misses the point. Using vanilla D&D to teach actual morals would indeed be a bad idea. However playing D&D, with its objective good and evil, accustoms and gives practice to kids in thinking in terms of right and wrong being important in making decisions, and good and evil being objective. That's all good IMO.
I've never seen an RPG influence anyone's moral worldview one way or the other, and attempting to use them for such is a fool's errand. Games are inherently about choice, and as such horrible tools for indoctrination.
Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Things that influence sense of morality and worldview are generally subtle and slow acting
All of this still rests on the unsupported assumption that RPGs (and specifically, going by your claims, the use of alignment with the assumption of objective good and evil) can influence people's morality. Telling people that just because they didn't see that doesn't mean that it didn't happen still begs the question. And in my experience using alignment only led to arguments about how other people are supposed to play X or Y alignment, and imposing someone's subjective opinion on how that should be done on other players, which if anything highlights how subjective these concepts are.
Roleplaying is proven as a tremendously powerful technique when used in therapy to change feelings and behavior and overcome various problems. Positing that it has no mental effect just because it's in a game rather than a counseling session is just silly.
Quote from: Mishihari on December 05, 2022, 01:40:10 AM
Quote from: VisionStorm on December 04, 2022, 09:52:13 AM
Quote from: Mishihari on December 03, 2022, 02:30:31 PM
Quote from: Anon Adderlan on December 02, 2022, 04:45:06 PM
Quote from: Mishihari on October 31, 2022, 04:59:53 PM
Quote from: jhkim on October 31, 2022, 01:09:44 PM
Children aren't taught right and wrong from D&D alignment. My son grew up sometimes playing D&D and other RPGs, but while they were positive and creative, I think his moral center came from real-world living and instruction, and not at all from game mechanics. Neither D&D alignments nor the non-alignment-using mechanics of other RPGs were important either way in his learning to be a good person. I think trying to use D&D alignments to teach real-world morality is a bad idea, because the real world is vastly different than most D&D worlds.
I think your comment here misses the point. Using vanilla D&D to teach actual morals would indeed be a bad idea. However playing D&D, with its objective good and evil, accustoms and gives practice to kids in thinking in terms of right and wrong being important in making decisions, and good and evil being objective. That's all good IMO.
I've never seen an RPG influence anyone's moral worldview one way or the other, and attempting to use them for such is a fool's errand. Games are inherently about choice, and as such horrible tools for indoctrination.
Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Things that influence sense of morality and worldview are generally subtle and slow acting
All of this still rests on the unsupported assumption that RPGs (and specifically, going by your claims, the use of alignment with the assumption of objective good and evil) can influence people's morality. Telling people that just because they didn't see that doesn't mean that it didn't happen still begs the question. And in my experience using alignment only led to arguments about how other people are supposed to play X or Y alignment, and imposing someone's subjective opinion on how that should be done on other players, which if anything highlights how subjective these concepts are.
Roleplaying is proven as a tremendously powerful technique when used in therapy to change feelings and behavior and overcome various problems. Positing that it has no mental effect just because it's in a game rather than a counseling session is just silly.
Except that I made no claim that roleplaying can have no mental effect, but merely called into question the idea that it—and specifically the use of alignment (which are themselves a questionable game mechanic that have been the subject of numerous debates for decades, since the inception of RPGs)—can influence people's morality. Further more, the idea that RPGs can be used in therapy does not necessarily support your claim, since such uses of RPGs are very specific, and involve a trained therapist who modified the game for therapeutic purposes and playing the game in a clinical context and environment. You're making the leap that, since RPGs have been used in therapy (which is something done by trained professionals who have modified the game for therapeutic purposes) you can therefore attach these additional claims about the efficacy of RPGs and the use of alignment to influence morality. And then placing the burden of proof on others to disproof your claims.
Quote from: Mishihari on December 05, 2022, 01:40:10 AM
Roleplaying is proven as a tremendously powerful technique when used in therapy to change feelings and behavior and overcome various problems. Positing that it has no mental effect just because it's in a game rather than a counseling session is just silly.
Not really. The "roleplaying" used in therapy only shares the label and a surface resemblance to "roleplaying" as used in a game. Using the techniques from a game session as therapy would be useless at best, more likely counter-productive, and would run the risk of doing actual harm in some cases.
Now, if someone were to abuse gaming roleplay in a misguided attempt at therapy, you could certainly exacerbate and already present, negative behavior. So that would have a mental effect. But that's not what's being discussed here.
Quote from: Mishihari on December 05, 2022, 01:40:10 AM
Roleplaying is proven as a tremendously powerful technique when used in therapy to change feelings and behavior and overcome various problems. Positing that it has no mental effect just because it's in a game rather than a counseling session is just silly.
Only with professionals using it and not in the way it gets thrown around now.
Just playing an RPG is not therapy and can actually make situations worse as we have seen time and again.
This while movement of "RPGs are THERAPY!" is a dangerous lie.