Page 3 of 3
Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:42 pm
by dcs
I don't play D&D or any other RPG as a simulation, either, but that doesn't mean that I don't expect the campaign to conform more or less to actual history. If there is no "sexism" in your D&D games, then one might ask whether there is chivalry? For example, a knight might be expected to show courtesy to ladies. Well, if everyone is showing courtesy to ladies then the knight really isn't anything special, is he?
Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:49 pm
by Stormcrow
It's not meant to be followed to its logical conclusion. It's a game convenience. Besides, I very rarely deal with chivalrous characters in the game, and if there are some, it never focuses on male-female interaction. It can be assumed in the background, glossed over. In a game of plundering dungeons and traveling through swamps, wenching and wooing are only background details.
Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 1:55 am
by PapersAndPaychecks
Stormcrow wrote:I very rarely deal with chivalrous characters in the game
... or indeed on the messageboards.
Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:06 am
by Crimhthan_The_Great
Mythmere wrote:It's acceptable to discuss sexism in particular countries, but not how theology specifically applies. We allow controversial political discussion, but not comparative theology.
Discussions of the Norse, Ancient Greek, Ancient Celtic, and other similarly almost-dead religions are probably okay, since they are a common fantasy trope and are largely historical.
Discussion may proceed along those lines, though I don't suggest it.
Historical sexism without reference to religion is an acceptable topic.
I hope I've clarified where the boundaries are, because I'm not trying to stop the thread, just to keep in the realm that's appropriate to the site.
I am asking this for clarification please, real world current religions are prohibited in discussions here, but fantasy religions and real world dead and almost dead religions as noted above are permitted, is this correct?
This reason I ask is that I use real world religions circa remote past to about the 1600s AD in my campaigns.
Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:11 am
by Mythmere
Crimhthan_The_Great wrote:Mythmere wrote:It's acceptable to discuss sexism in particular countries, but not how theology specifically applies. We allow controversial political discussion, but not comparative theology.
Discussions of the Norse, Ancient Greek, Ancient Celtic, and other similarly almost-dead religions are probably okay, since they are a common fantasy trope and are largely historical.
Discussion may proceed along those lines, though I don't suggest it.
Historical sexism without reference to religion is an acceptable topic.
I hope I've clarified where the boundaries are, because I'm not trying to stop the thread, just to keep in the realm that's appropriate to the site.
I am asking this for clarification please, real world current religions are prohibited in discussions here, but fantasy religions and real world dead and almost dead religions as noted above are permitted, is this correct?
This reason I ask is that I use real world religions circa remote past to about the 1600s AD in my campaigns.
Um, the best I can say is that as long as it's gaming related and the other posters keep it gaming related it should be fine. It's a really fuzzy line that I can't nail down in advance. The ban on religious discussion is to prevent controversies that could shatter the community when they get fierce. Discussion of how to portray Cluniac monks in a game setting wouldn't create that risk as long as all the posters stay focused on the game aspect.
So, go ahead and discuss, please!
We'll just have to keep a close eye on moderating the thread, but that's not a big deal.
Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:15 pm
by JDJarvis
PCs in my camapign have to deal with a whole lot of "isms' all the time.
Dwarfism, halflingism, orcism and sexism being just a few of them. Only one of those gets you an arrow in the eye when you show up at the town gate.
Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 1:41 pm
by Mythmere
JDJarvis wrote:PCs in my camapign have to deal with a whole lot of "isms' all the time.
Dwarfism, halflingism, orcism and sexism being just a few of them. Only one of those gets you an arrow in the eye when you show up at the town gate.
Elfism, though, will also get you an arrow in the eye.
Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 1:49 pm
by dcs
Mythmere wrote:JDJarvis wrote:PCs in my camapign have to deal with a whole lot of "isms' all the time.
Dwarfism, halflingism, orcism and sexism being just a few of them. Only one of those gets you an arrow in the eye when you show up at the town gate.
Elfism, though, will also get you an arrow in the eye.
It's funny how sexism and dwarfism mean two wholly different things.
Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:40 pm
by JDJarvis
dcs wrote:
It's funny how sexism and dwarfism mean two wholly different things.
Yeah, I ran with the "isms' anyway. If peopel can encourage you to go kill goblins and loot the remains they certainly can deal with signs at the bar readinf "No Dwarves Allowed" and "Elfie don't let the Sun Set on You in This Town"