But the problem was several times described as a white man calling a black man "N&!%$$" meant invoking slavery. Asians don't enter into that, to my knowledge. If the asian isn't doing that, then is there a qualitative difference? Should the black man be more or less offended compared to the white man saying it?
I thank my lucky stars there is no Torment movie. If handled as I have every reason to expect it to be handled, it would, yes, it would suck about as much as Dungeons & Dragons the movie.
And, sorry to say this, but I seriously doubt that a Drizzt movie would be any better. Now, Elfshadow, that could go down well.
If I understand him right, he's only upset about it being okay for black people to use the word while it isn't for white people to do so, Irontruth. I would say there is a point to his argument, in that it isn't a good thing either to be seen as part of an ethnic group only instead of as a person, or to single out a specific group for negative treatment. Furthermore, I doubt Andrew is old enough that he can be said to have any direct responsibility for either slavery or dignity-removing laws.
That said, I consider it a pretty small matter to avoid such a word. There are worse things to complain about regarding freedom of speech.
Okay, I made a response earlier, but it got removed. I hope this one is more acceptable. I have no wish to derail the thread further, consider this my response on the earlier discussion.
Spoilered for discretion:
The rape victims I have talked to have told me that it is very difficult to tell anyone about it, at least at first, because then people consider you a rape victim first and a human being second. This makes it difficult to get help during the period when it really matters, namely right after the crime and for the months following.
With reasonable support and professional help, most people do get out of the crisis into a new, worthwhile, life. Except those who accept the idea that it is better to be dead than to be raped and draw the consequnces. Far, far too many, mostly young, people do. And knowing that with a more tolerant attitude in society in general, if it was completely clear that someone's life wasn't without worth or meaning because of something that someone ELSE did to them, we would not lose at least some of those... that is very difficult for me to accept.
The heart of the matter for me is that... the day after you have been through this horror, the sun still rises.
Incidentally, the commonality of rape and death in war is a good enough reason not to accept war. I have talked to enough Bosnians who fled the war in former Yugoslavia to have at least an inkling of what went down. We as humans should be better than that.
I understand perfectly well that rape is a terrible crime, one often used as an "enhanced interrogation technique". What I don't understand is why it would hold a candle to the wickedness that is murder. "A fate worse than death" is only a stupid phrase. There is a reason that the threat of death often works to pacify a victim during a rape.
If we can play games where the alleged heroes enter a communal living space for an underprivileged ethnicity, say, goblins, and murder every living thing there, well, rape seems like pretty close to par for the course.
Guild wars 2 does the questing better... you get a problem, such as "keep the road safe" and you have five or six different ways to reach that goal, such as lighting torches, reviving guards, killing monsters, clearing away carcasses that attract monsters, andso on. Sure, there is still a lot of fighting you need to do, but still.
Andrew Turner wrote:
Yes... but we do get attached to our masks, don't we? Whatever I get stuck with as Sissyl stays with Sissyl, but that is a full body mask I would not gladly give up. The reputation damage still means something, and besides, if I were to dump the Sissyl alias and come back, it would be a fairly transparent little lie. My point is that it is way too easy to ignore that aliases mean something to people. And nothing in this really changes much if you do use your real name as your alias.
Another aspect of this is rarely discussed. When you dish something out to someone you think is wrong on the internet, you DO IT PUBLICLY. This means that not only do you tell the person he or she is wrong, you also put them at either fighting you about it or admitting he or she is wrong before an unknown number of spectators. This is a major deal for most people.
In no particular order:
As for not completely described dungeons, I have a fondness for the House of Stone in the FR setting, a gargantuan fortress with a serious twist. Volo had a guide about it in Dragon.
Finally, one of the encounter books for 2nd edition had a tumbling cloud giant castle which was all kinds of awesome.
Now... Tomb of Horrors... Really? To be honest, I have run it, and most of it was a tedious exercise of "I reach into the third hole in the wall" "You die, no save." Plus... Seriously... A PASTEL coloured dungeon??? That adventure is one that is stupendously overrated.
174. The secrets of Norgorber: This book is nondescript, almost eye catchingly so, with simple gray covers and a simple glued on flap of paper holding the title but no author name. It describes in about a hundred pages the infiltration attempt against a cult of Norgorber in Absalom, in detail, ending with the impassioned plea that "if you are reading this, I am certainly dead, but this book escaped their notice. Make sure it is spread well, to let the world know what is written herein." However, a perceptive enough reader will notice some disparities. For example, the author doesn't say why he or she chose to take such a risk. In truth, far more than half the book is eminently false, the rest describing historical or ineffective methods, often of cults that were eradicated. The true author is, of course, a cultist of Norgorber.
Charisma 5 does not mean he's nice. That could be at 7-8. 3 is the absolute worst possible for a human. I.e. at any scale relating to charisma, he is at rock bottom. He stinks, offends people (though a high wisdom character would not do so knowingly), is horrifically ugly and so on. 5 would mean a little let up from that in some scales. A little.
This is the guy who instantly reads everything worthwhile about a person. The slightest fault in grooming, he notices. Every minor social error, he notices. Everytime someone makes a little white lie, he notices. And, of course, while he's in tune enough not to mention it, YOU CAN ALWAYS TELL. Everyone feels scrutinized, studied and questioned around him. Major creepness.
Well, think about it. Making a single new monster is a pretty involved process. Today, few companies put anything as public domain. If they did, there could be standardized patterns, modding communities, and awesome libraries to use. But the current style copyright is apparently worth more. If no games get made, well.
People miss the central core of the situation here.
When new technology comes knocking, we have a choice. We can adopt it, letting us enjoy the fruits of the new methods, or we can decide it is too dangerous and try to shut it down, which will only delay it for a while unless the repression used is truly monumental in scale.
Of course, there are many people in various positions of entrenched interests in such situations. They will desperately want to abolish the new technology for EVER, because it threatens their business model. They find the issues that will become problematic if we adopt the new technology, and try to sell that "as our society works now, the effects of this technology will be HORRIBLE!!1". Many people listen.
But... society always changes. Gay couples CAN marry in France these days, and they could not only a few weeks ago, right? NOTHING stays the same over enough time. And their argument fails by even discussing "as our society works now". Well, duh! The entire point of technological advances is to ALLOW FOR A DIFFERENT SOCIETY.
I am sure there will be problems in this. There always is, and always has been. But some things are worth changing for, and I have complete confidence that when they show up, ways will be found to deal with them that do not include banning, if they try.
The film industry tried banning the home VCR. When they weren't allowed to, they adopted it, and home movies were a profitable part of their industry ever since.
If the argument is "We can't have this because it makes our gun laws inefficient", I say the gun laws are not what we're trying to protect. Laws can be changed, and should be so, if the potential gain is large enough. 3D-printing more than qualifies.