Is anybody else sick of PC D&D?

[Tarren Dei]

Sebastian wrote:

Also, I just got a notice from the Department of Irony. It seems that complaining about pronoun usage in a paragraph written without any regard for the basic rules of grammar is cause for a citation. Go figure.

What are you, the irony police now?

*goes away to make an 'Irony Police' avatar*

[magdalena thiriet]

Stebehil wrote:

Well, not being rude to other people should not just stem from PC, which many folks see as being forced upon them. It is a matter of personal politeness - it does not hurt to think before talking and try to avoid unpoliteness. IOW, you don´t need PC if everybody tries to be polite to each other.

Well, in my opinion (as a person who doesn't treat PC as a curse word) this is what political correctness is about: being polite and thinking about other people when you talk. Not everyone is male. Not everyone is Christian. Not everyone is white. Not everyone is heterosexual. Not everyone has two arms, legs, working eyes or ears. Etc.

Then again, I don't think about being politically correct as a binding dogma, it is just something to keep in mind: You are not the center of universe and not everyone is like you, nor do they all secretly want to be like you.

Now, I admit that several feminist thinkers have gone far over sensible thinking, nevertheless I am a feminist. So here I enter the discussion...the thing about languages: a) they mirror the society which uses them, and b) they can be changed. Using "he" as a gender-neutral pronoun and "men" as generic description of humans suggests that "she" and "women" are Others, being a woman is a strange and atypical condition, potentially an injury or a fault, nevertheless it suggests that women are not subjects, they are defined by men, through men, for men.
As for languages evolving: indeed even if something is a custom now, it does not mean that it is necessarily a good thing and should be kept as a rule for ever and ever. As I am writing this, I am not wearing a bulky dress which extends to the ground; even though men around me cannot actually see my legs, they can see that I have them and general whereabouts where they are. I have a university degree. I can vote. I have a right for possessions. All this has been gained by breaking the rules.

As for "herstory", etymologically it is not correct, I agree, but it is an interesting word to use as a stylistic point, to emphasize subjectivity of history.

[Tobrian]

[Part 1 of 2]

Tarren Dei wrote:

Tobrian wrote:

Unfortunately, English, in contrast to German, does not have a "gender-neutral" pronoun.

English has had gender neutral pronouns and many people do use 'they' as a gender neutral pronoun. (snip)

You're right, of course. That's a bit of a nonsense I've written up there. I shouldn't post when I'm tired. I suddenly noticed, but then I was in bed already and couldn't be bothered to get up again.

What I meant to say was, English has "it" as a neutral pronoun, but "it" is rarely used for actual persons (except for Terry Pratchett's Discworld elves). "They" works, but is plural. German has "man" in addition to "er" (he), "sie" (she) and "es" (it), as in "man sagt" (they say), but it's a very.... generic pronoun, used mostly in conversation, not written German. *sigh* Oh well, genders of German pronouns are crazy anyway. If "der Mann" (the man) is male and "die Frau" (the woman) is female, why is "das Kind" (the child) neural? Even "das Mädchen" (the girl) has a neutral pronoun, while the boy is properly male. *cough* Some sexism right there. On the other hand I think (I might be wrong) that German is the only European language where the moon is male, and the sun female. Quite reversed from standard mythology.

But I'm getting more and more off-topic, am I? Sorry.

Mikaze wrote:

Just have to point out that Planescape was rocking the female pronoun before 3.x came along. In fact, it was the primary pronoun of choice IIRC.

Of course there was probably an in-game reason for that.
[/PSfanboymode]

Heh, yes. After I sent my players through Sigil, their characters were the hell afraid of pissing off the Lady, and they hadn't even met her personally. Well, alright, one of them, the fighter, had been mazed by her, but that was a bit of a misunderstanding as the planar stuff he became inadvertendly involved in wasn't even his fault (it had been the fault of the party's bard, messing around with ancient mirror magic, tsk). Not that the Lady could care less. It was rather amusing to see the player of the group's paladin try to argue with the Lady's Dabus and getting annoyed when his "reasonable arguments" were ignored. Heh. I think the player hadn't quite gotten the message. "What part of 'She is a goddess' do you not understand?" The fighter was finally let off for good behaviour and kicked out of Sigil after the others had jumped through enough hoops. And that was a hole the players had dug themselves. Female authority figures.

As a female (married) GM, am I an authority figure? Would male players react differently to me if I was male? I think so, yes. It has its advantages and its disadvantages. *shrug*

Lich-Loved wrote:

Fantastic comments, Tobrian! You have a new fan :)

Thanks. :)

I just get this... twitch... when I am confronted with behaviorism, sorry. I'm an ecologist, and anthropology is one of my hobbies. The role of women in Western Society in the 20th century was massively influenced by 19th century sensibilities, which were the Dark Ages *cough* compared to the actual "Dark Ages".

To tell the truth, it might be amusing to write an essay on gender roles in a fictional fantasy universe, where shapeshifting races abound and polymorph spells allow gender-bending. Science Fiction authors have tackled that topic long before. I mean, D&D is full of interracial interbreeding, resulting in half-elf-half-dragons, half-demons, half-whatnots. That's a messed up identity crisis right there. *chuckles* How does the Campbellian Hero's Journey go if you're a sentient fungus-plant organism with sixteen genders, who's fallen in love with a dandelion?

As for inserting "politically correct" modern of law, morals, skin colour and gender ideas into the standard pseudo-medieval fantasy world, let's not kid outselves, D&D is the modern world dressed up in Ren-Fair garb (with lots of buckles). If I wanted to insert bizarre screwed-up customs into a campaign, I'd play Fading Suns or Vampire Dark Ages. D&D in my opinion shouldn't be turned into an "awareness" campaign. That's not what people are looking for when they play D&D.

I do believe though, that growing up as a child with things like Star Trek and fantasy/SF literature (the fun-house mirror of our society) has forever lodged the idea in my mind that things like shape or skin colour or gender or religion ultimately should not matter. Because once the alien overlords invade the Earth to lay eggs in our brains or something, all that matters is if they have properly updated their virus protection software. ;-)

[Tobrian]

[Part 2 of 2]

magdalena thiriet wrote:

Well, in my opinion (as a person who doesn't treat PC as a curse word) this is what political correctness is about: being polite and thinking about other people when you talk. Not everyone is male. Not everyone is Christian. Not everyone is white. Not everyone is heterosexual. Not everyone has two arms, legs, working eyes or ears. Etc.

Then again, I don't think about being politically correct as a binding dogma, it is just something to keep in mind: You are not the center of universe and not everyone is like you, nor do they all secretly want to be like you.

Quoted for truth.

I feel it's an important step of enlightenment, of growing up as a person, to come to that conclusion you summed up in that last sentence, and many people never make that step.

As a child, you start working from the assumption that everying is like you, because "you" is all you know. And so do societies as a whole.

magdalena thiriet wrote:

(snip) the thing about languages: a) they mirror the society which uses them, and b) they can be changed. Using "he" as a gender-neutral pronoun and "men" as generic description of humans suggests that "she" and "women" are Others, being a woman is a strange and atypical condition, potentially an injury or a fault, nevertheless it suggests that women are not subjects, they are defined by men, through men, for men.

I have noticed some time ago that, when writing or speaking English, I keep referring to our species as "humans", instead of "men". Most people seem to think that's just a biologist's little quirk. It's easier in German, which offers the words "Menschen" (people, humans) and "Menschheit" (mankind), but "Mensch" means both sexes equally.

magdalena thiriet wrote:

As for languages evolving: indeed even if something is a custom now, it does not mean that it is necessarily a good thing and should be kept as a rule for ever and ever. As I am writing this, I am not wearing a bulky dress which extends to the ground; even though men around me cannot actually see my legs, they can see that I have them and general whereabouts where they are. I have a university degree. I can vote. I have a right for possessions. All this has been gained by breaking the rules.

Very true. The difficulty lies in breaking the rules in such a way so as not to create a backlash. Too much conformity breeds rebellion, too much rebellion in turn breeds conservatism. If there is a grievance, you first have to address it to make the mass of people realize it exists, then convince them that change will actually be advantageous and preferable to the Status Quo. The political correctness movement has managed the first point, I think, but not the second, because people feel it's being rammed down their throats. We're already seeing the backlash.

[Tarren Dei]

Tobrian wrote:

The whole "politically correct talking" idea has been nonsense from the start, because it was based on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis from behaviorism, named after the linguists Edward Sapir (1884-1939) and Benjamin Lee Whorf (1897-1941). Also known as the thesis of linguistic determinism. A hypothesis holding that the structure of a language affects the perceptions of reality of its speakers and thus influences their thought patterns and worldviews. Ergo, if you delete "naughty" words from everyone's vocabulary, people will no longer be able to think the naughty thoughts. Scrub everyone's mind clean, hey presto, everyone's polite, because of course no-one can be mean, bigoted or sadistic without having a word for it, right? Tiny problem though, the whole thing was b!%@*##s from the start. Behaviorism and its ideological underpinnings were very popular with sociologists in the 1960s/70s, when linguists and social engineers dreamed of a bloodless revolution of behavioral modification through linguistics. Feh. Today, no serious scientist, and few social philosophers, will touch behaviorism with a long stick.

It's a big leap from saying that linguistic determinism was overly deterministic to saying that language does not influence thought. Language, the social world, and psychological drives interact. They express themselves through each other and impress themselves on each other. So, while behaviorism is out of favour, other fields and paradigms (most of the humanities, for example) continue to see connections between the social and language. Except for the most extremely postmodern thinkers who call into doubt anything that is not discursive or the most empirical thinkers who doubt anything that cannot be objectively measure, I think most people would agree that language and the social world interact.

[Tarren Dei]

One premise of this entire thread bugs me. The term PC is usually used to describe attempts to change the linguistic behaviours of others to fit within a certain prescribe political framework. People object to being told how they should write or think.

When Paizo or WotC produces a text that use 'she' instead of 'he' to refer to characters, they are not trying to change your behaviour. You can continue to refer to your character as 'he' and barbarians as 'he' and lizardfolk as 'lizardmen'. Unless you are writing for the industry, this is their choice of language and does not foist certain behaviour on you.

If I started petitioning TSR back in the 80's to call lizardmen, 'lizardfolk' you could have called that political correctness. If you start petitioning Paizo to change the call lizardfolk, 'lizardmen' isn't that also political correctness?

Now, starting threads arguing that these gender neutral pronouns are ideologically driven and should be rejected ... that is as much an attempt to change behaviour. It could more properly fit the definition of political correctness, right?

The use of 'he' as a gender neutral pronoun has had a relatively short life in the English language (between 100 and 200 years). It's already dying out.

[Lich-Loved]

magdalena thiriet wrote:

Then again, I don't think about being politically correct as a binding dogma, it is just something to keep in mind: You are not the center of universe and not everyone is like you, nor do they all secretly want to be like you.

I agree with you here, but perhaps not in the way you may initially think.

Your point is spot on. However, not everyone is like you either (and I don't mean you personally, of course). The burden of politeness lies on all parties in the conversation, not just the speaker. Perhaps the speaker has a different set of life experiences that the listener. So what? The speaker may bring a different perspective, with different biases to the conversation. Again, so what? This is diversity in action. Both the speaker and listener need to thicken their skins a bit and accept that not everyone sees the world the same way. When one asks a speaker to change his phrasing to avoid upsetting the listener, he is upsetting the speaker's sensibilities just as much as the speaker is upsetting the listener's.

What makes one's viewpoint more important than another's viewpoint? I think the answer is "nothing". There exists a great deal of common ground where persons of differing backgrounds can speak. We need to stay in that common ground and keep in mind that the speaker as well as the listener bring different backgrounds to the conversation. Outright declaration of one manner of speech as superior or "less offensive" is in itself offensive to the rights of the speaker, it biases the conversation toward the listener, as if they were inherently more important to the discourse.

[Lich-Loved]

Tarren Dei wrote:

The use of 'he' as a gender neutral pronoun has had a relatively short life in the English language (between 100 and 200 years). It's already dying out.

I don't think you can make the claim that, in effect, "it just so happens that the use of 'he' is dying out through natural language change". It seems a tad coincidental, does it not, given all of the other changes of same nature happening? You really don't see this linguistic change occurring because there is an undercurrent of political correctness? Really?

[Sebastian]

Tarren Dei wrote:

Sebastian wrote:

Also, I just got a notice from the Department of Irony. It seems that complaining about pronoun usage in a paragraph written without any regard for the basic rules of grammar is cause for a citation. Go figure.

What are you, the irony police now?

*goes away to make an 'Irony Police' avatar*

What?!?! Me?!?!? Oh, no, no. Not me. I'm like Peter Parker to Spider-Man. We're not the same person! It's just a coincidence that I am the only one who can contact the irony police and that they frequently intervene on my behalf to save my girlfriend.

And we're never in the same place at the same time...

Yes...a coincidence...an elaborate coincidence...

[Emperor7]

Lich-Loved wrote:

Tarren Dei wrote:

The use of 'he' as a gender neutral pronoun has had a relatively short life in the English language (between 100 and 200 years). It's already dying out.

I don't think you can make the claim that, in effect, "it just so happens that the use of 'he' is dying out through natural language change". It seems a tad coincidental, does it not, given all of the other changes of same nature happening? You really don't see this linguistic change occurring because there is an undercurrent of political correctness? Really?

IMO there are a number of factors in play. One connected item might be the globalization of language. As our world/peoples become more globalized there is pressure on the language we use to become more common. This transcends male/female pronouns and includes past tense terms such as lit becoming lighted, for example. PC is just part of the equation.

[Emperor7]

Sebastian wrote:

Tarren Dei wrote:

Sebastian wrote:

Also, I just got a notice from the Department of Irony. It seems that complaining about pronoun usage in a paragraph written without any regard for the basic rules of grammar is cause for a citation. Go figure.

What are you, the irony police now?

*goes away to make an 'Irony Police' avatar*

What?!?! Me?!?!? Oh, no, no. Not me. I'm like Peter Parker to Spider-Man. We're not the same person! It's just a coincidence that I am the only one who can contact the irony police and that they frequently intervene on my behalf to save my girlfriend.

And we're never in the same place at the same time...

Yes...a coincidence...an elaborate coincidence...

You know, we never see you and Michael Jackson in the same place at the same time either.......

[Jason Grubiak]

I kind of like the appearance of more female PCs in art. I think everything that makes female gamers feel more welcome is a good thing.

Almost every campaign or game I ever played had at least 1 female at the table. Only exception is my new current game and their presence is missed.

The only PC decision I really dislike the the whole "Lizardfolk, Merfolk, Spawn of Kyuss" thing.

Bring back Lizardmen, Mermaids and Sons of Kyuss any day!!!!!

[Tarren Dei]

Lich-Loved wrote:

Tarren Dei wrote:

The use of 'he' as a gender neutral pronoun has had a relatively short life in the English language (between 100 and 200 years). It's already dying out.

I don't think you can make the claim that, in effect, "it just so happens that the use of 'he' is dying out through natural language change". It seems a tad coincidental, does it not, given all of the other changes of same nature happening? You really don't see this linguistic change occurring because there is an undercurrent of political correctness? Really?

Language is always influenced by the social worlds in which it lives. The popularity of the gender neutral 'he' was because mostly boys were in educational institutions. Why shouldn't it change now that that is not true.

As for whether or not that is "political correctness", I have no idea what that term is supposed to mean anymore. It seems to be a slur used by conservatives to attack the linguistic habits of others.

EDIT: As a side note, I was once denied a visa because the English translation of a Korean text used 'he' to refer to the Korean partner in a marriage. The immigration officer said that my Korean wife could not, therefore, sponsor me as 'she' was not a 'he'. The Korean translation was much clearer but it was too late. Down with gender-neutral 'he'!!!

[Callous Jack]

Emperor7 wrote:

You know, we never see you and Michael Jackson in the same place at the same time either.......

I knew it!!!

On a side note, herstory/history has to be one of the silliest things I've ever heard.

[Elcian]

Steven Tindall wrote:

the rouge is using ...

Ssssh, don't tell Fakey!

Elcian

[Tarren Dei]

Callous Jack wrote:

Emperor7 wrote:

You know, we never see you and Michael Jackson in the same place at the same time either.......

I knew it!!!

On a side note, herstory/history has to be one of the silliest things I've ever heard.

Out of curiosity, can anyone show me a website where young feminists have declared that YOU should use the term 'herstory'? If feminists want to use the term to describe women's history, why not? It's a play on words. Show me where a feminist organization has attempted to get a university to rename the history department 'the Herstory Department'.

[Jal Dorak]

Tarren Dei wrote:

Callous Jack wrote:

Emperor7 wrote:

You know, we never see you and Michael Jackson in the same place at the same time either.......

I knew it!!!

On a side note, herstory/history has to be one of the silliest things I've ever heard.

Out of curiosity, can anyone show me a website where young feminists have declared that YOU should use the term 'herstory'? If feminists want to use the term to describe women's history, why not? It's a play on words. Show me where a feminist organization has attempted to get a university to rename the history department 'the Herstory Department'.

Exactly. While I agree it is a simplistic, perhaps even forceful, play on words - and thus does make me roll my eyes - what does it matter what terms other people use?

I don't really understand - someone does not mind feminists reclaiming history, but calling it "herstory" in the process bugs them?

[Tarren Dei]

Jal Dorak wrote:

Tarren Dei wrote:

Callous Jack wrote:

Emperor7 wrote:

You know, we never see you and Michael Jackson in the same place at the same time either.......

I knew it!!!

On a side note, herstory/history has to be one of the silliest things I've ever heard.

Out of curiosity, can anyone show me a website where young feminists have declared that YOU should use the term 'herstory'? If feminists want to use the term to describe women's history, why not? It's a play on words. Show me where a feminist organization has attempted to get a university to rename the history department 'the Herstory Department'.

Exactly. While I agree it is a simplistic, perhaps even forceful, play on words - and thus does make me roll my eyes - what does it matter what terms other people use?

I don't really understand - someone does not mind feminists reclaiming history, but calling it "herstory" in the process bugs them?

While trying to answer my own question I this page that says the claim that feminists have tried to foist the word 'herstory' on the world is a myth.

[Callous Jack]

Tarren Dei wrote:

Out of curiosity, can anyone show me a website where young feminists have declared that YOU should use the term 'herstory'? If feminists want to use the term to describe women's history, why not? It's a play on words. Show me where a feminist organization has attempted to get a university to rename the history department 'the Herstory Department'.

While I've had my fair share of run-ins with some crazy feminists, this thread is the first I've heard of the term.

[Krome]

Krypter wrote:

Krome wrote:

Simple fact is, that since the inclusion of the feminine neuter in D&D there has been an explosive growth in female players.

This isn't a fact. It's something you made up.

Ummmm. No. Since the release of 3.0 there HAS been an explosion of female gamers. That is a fact. Whether the gender "friendly" verbiage had anything to do with it, I do not know, but the generally positive portrayal of women inside the game certainly did help. Sort of a combined effort.

Now, if I were an educator I would teach the proper neuter for English. I would also teach that, English being a living language, the accepted neuter is undergoing a change. What that change will be is still unknown. But, until there is a definitive change, any paper turned into me using an improper neuter would be marked incorrect. :)

[magdalena thiriet]

Lich-Loved wrote:

The burden of politeness lies on all parties in the conversation, not just the speaker. Perhaps the speaker has a different set of life experiences that the listener. So what? The speaker may bring a different perspective, with different biases to the conversation. Again, so what? This is diversity in action. Both the speaker and listener need to thicken their skins a bit and accept that not everyone sees the world the same way. When one asks a speaker to change his phrasing to avoid upsetting the listener, he is upsetting the speaker's sensibilities just as much as the speaker is upsetting the listener's.

We are quite well on the level, as I do think that while considering the others is important it does not mean you should not sell yourself short. The listener should also consider the speaker and not wrongly infuse meaning based only on their own experiences.

because of this I am quite fine in eg. reading old books despite occasional rampant racism or strange ideas of capabilities and positions of women...they are of their time. Also I am fine with people wishing Merry Christmas to each other, and answering Happy Hannukah or what have you, as the sentiment behind there is more important than the words.
There has also been a lengthy discussion about using equivalent of the word "negro" in Finnish, as for many people that is completely value-neutral way to describe people of African origin...value-neutrality however seems to be diminishing so I guess the word is on its way out.

Tobrian wrote:

I have noticed some time ago that, when writing or speaking English, I keep referring to our species as "humans", instead of "men". Most people seem to think that's just a biologist's little quirk. It's easier in German, which offers the words "Menschen" (people, humans) and "Menschheit" (mankind), but "Mensch" means both sexes equally.

I am more or less the same, I use "humans" quite naturally and find it strange to use "men" to describe, well, humans. But Finnish is considerably more gender-neutral language anyway (not having separation between "he" and "she", nor grammatical gender).

[eirip]

I am on board with this as well. I have always found it kind of silly when you have people complaining that the fighter isn't as powerful as the wizard at higher levels. In my mind, the mage is supposed to be the top-dog, the one everyone fears when he/she walks into a room. If you notice in a lot of fantasy books this is how it is also. Richard from the Sword of Truth, Gandalf from The Lord of The Rings, etc etc... To me they are the Sh*t in dnd because they are supposed to be the sh*t. Just my thoughts anyway, obviously people are free to complain about what they want to.

[piers]

Shakespeare uses they as a third person pronoun.

I figure if it's good enough for him, it's good enough for me.

[Kirth Gersen]

Steven Tindall wrote:

I am just sick of the fantasy being co opted by political correctness that says everyone MUST be equal no matter what.

Creatures are unequal in power; that's what CR is for. Granted, it's a fairly flawed system, but the idea is that CR 6 monster X is an equal threat to a CR 6 monster Y. Is that evil "political correctness" at work, or simply a useful system for gauging threats?

OK, now let's look at characters. We have this thing called "character level," which in theory is a measure of the character's power. If I understand correctly, you feel that level chould be a measure of power within a certain class only, so that an 11th-level wizard is more powerful than a 6th level wizard, but there is no standard of comparison as to what level fighter he'd be equal to. 1st edition had something like that, using different xp progression tables for different classes.

In 3e, all classes progress at the same xp rate. This implies to me that an 11th level fighter should be just as powerful as an 11th level cleric. But he's obviously not, because his feats really suck compared to the cleric's spells: feats are equivalent to at-will cantrips (which the cleric also gets), but the fighter has no higher-level spells; instead, he gets a slightly higher BAB. And worse saves. So we have a system in which class is the primary indicator of character power, and level is a secondary indicator. I personally find this to be silly, annoying, and deceptive to inexperienced gamers who might fail to realize that their 17th level fighter is equivalent to maybe a 13th level wizard.

I say that a 13th level fighter and a 13th level wizard and a 13th level cleric and a fighter 7/rogue 6 should all be of roughly the same power -- or if not, they should have different xp progressions again. Otherwise, the game is intended to punish people who select certain classes. Does this attitude make me unbearably PC? If so, so be it. I still feel that way.

[Digitalelf]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Otherwise, the game is intended to punish people who select certain classes.

Punish? Nobody is going to stick a gun to your head and tell you what class to play...

You make it sound as though it is a chore to play 3.x D&D...

I mean the game is what it is. Urinate in one hand and complain about it in the other. Notice which hand fills up first?

The beauty of our hobby is that we have a plethora of games to choose from. Why sit there and complain about them? Just choose another that more fills your desires in gaming...

Please don't construe this as me personally telling you "if you don't like it, don't play it", as I am only pointing out that to me, it is silly to complain about something one does not like when there are other choices to be had...

The game has always had its flaws (no matter the edition), but we just lived with them and had fun anyway...

-That One Digitalelf Fellow-

[DoctorRomulus]

Dude,
I am sooooo with you on this. I just wish more of us had the guts to speak our minds on this matter. I'm sure you and I are not the only ones who've taken issue with how Kumbaya'd D&D has been made.

Steven Tindall wrote:

I just want to rant for a quick moment about how sick I am of Politically correct D&D.

First it was Wizards are over powered and they make the butt hurt fighter class feel bad, then it was the clerics that were overpowered cause they could cast spells in armor(OMG!!) then so as not to leave well enough alone lets make sure the druid is nerfed as well cause they can shape change and they make fighters feel bad too.
Maybe it's just my group but we have players that enjoy playing johnny swing-stick and UGH-smash fighters simply because they do not have to have a complicated character such as a wizard or spell caster.
Now that the new Master craftsman feat has been introd. they are chomping at the bit to play a fighter that can do what brunar battlehammer did and make their own ageis-fang type weapon. I would like to say as a player of spellcasting charecters how nice it is to no longer have to take craft arms and armor to keep the fighter types happy.
The language of the game changing to make female pc's feel more welcome was one thing even though the druid in our party says she cant let her daughters read the books because they teach incorrect English, the male pronoun of he is the correct generalization in literary terms.
I can understand some modernization of the game,gone are the days of the bare breasted succubus in the game books or the fully anatomically correct incubus. I am just sick of the fantasy being co opted by political correctness that says everyone MUST be equal no matter what.
I want items that are class only again, with the right feat my mage is wielding a holy avenger and with the right feat the rouge is using the staff of power or the staff of the archmage.
I guess that I can sum up my rant by siting the old adage "if everybody's special, nobody's special" or something like that.
Anybody else wanna rant and rave about PC D&D go for it.

[toyrobots]

The idea that behaviorism is discredited isn't exactly true. After decades of resistance the the idea that you could study thought directly, the dominant paradigm became Cognitive-Behavioral, and remains so to this day. There was nothing silly about insisting on strict empiricism, the chief crime of the behaviorists. The change arose from experimental evidence proving that we could study cognitive processes directly.

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is not bunk, it is still taught in cognitive psychology and has testable results. It is widely used in linguistic and semiotic studies as well.

In the modern sense, the only assertion that they S-P hypothesis makes is that the language you speak has a demonstrable effect on how you think. This is the first I have ever heard of any kind of moral panic around the idea, but I have no doubt that someone made the argument, silly as it is.

[Kirth Gersen]

Digitalelf wrote:

The game has always had its flaws (no matter the edition), but we just lived with them and had fun anyway...

By your logic, Pathfinder itself is a foolish endeavor. But yet now we have an opportunity to take a game that was badly flawed but playable (3.0/3.5), and make it superior. Why not do so, instead of starting over with some totally new system that (a) no one will play, and (b) won't be compatible with Paizo's excellent prewritten adventures?

[Digitalelf]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

By your logic, Pathfinder itself is a foolish endeavor.

I don't see the Pathfinder RPG as foolish, because as Jason Bulmahn has said on many occasions, Paizo cannot continue to put out products that expect the customer to scour book stores and the internet to try and find rule books that are out of print (or force them to just download and play off the SRD for that matter)...

Furthermore, Paizo can't very well just re-print the 3e books verbatim...

So yeah, they are coming up with their own system that happens (by design) to be compatible with 3.0/3.5...

Now if, IF D&D 3.0/3.5 were still being published/supported by WotC, then I would indeed say that the Pathfinder RPG is foolish and unwarranted (but I however, would remain glad of its compatibility with 3.0/3.5 so as to allow me to continue to enjoy their other stuff)...

But I guess I'm just one of those few grognards that does not think 3.0/3.5 to be that "badly" flawed...

-That One Digitalelf Fellow-

[Kirth Gersen]

Digitalelf wrote:

But I guess I'm just one of those few grognards that does not think 3.0/3.5 to be that "badly" flawed...

And here I was thinking that I was the grognard, because 3.0's flaws, in my mind, are in the restructuring of the flow of combat from 1st edition!

[David Fryer]

Sebastian wrote:

And we're never in the same place at the same time...

Much like Janet and Michael Jackson, or Santa and Satan. Come to think about it, I've never seen Sebastian and Satan in the same place at the same time either.

[Digitalelf]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

And here I was thinking that I was the grognard, because 3.0's flaws, in my mind, are in the restructuring of the flow of combat from 1st edition!

Well, I cut my teeth DMing AD&D (though I have been gaming for a lot longer, but that's neither here nor there), and I have managed to embrace the changes of the game up to 3.5e...

Perhaps because I approach gaming today pretty much the same as I did back then, I can overlook the flaws in the system and accept that this class is not equal to that class over there...

But I never play for equality. I play for the experience (handicaps and all). Which also means that if I roll a low strength for my fighter, or a low intelligence for my Wizard, then so be it...

I just don't see the need for my Nth level fighter to be able go toe-to-toe with that Nth level wizard all by himself...

To me, that is NOT what the game is all about! It never has been...

-That One Digitalelf Fellow-

[Bluenose]

eirip wrote:

I am on board with this as well. I have always found it kind of silly when you have people complaining that the fighter isn't as powerful as the wizard at higher levels. In my mind, the mage is supposed to be the top-dog, the one everyone fears when he/she walks into a room. If you notice in a lot of fantasy books this is how it is also. Richard from the Sword of Truth, Gandalf from The Lord of The Rings, etc etc... To me they are the Sh*t in dnd because they are supposed to be the sh*t. Just my thoughts anyway, obviously people are free to complain about what they want to.

Just because it's so in "a lot of fantasy books" doesn't mean that is the only way it can be and any deviation from this universal truth is wrong. I can come up with plenty of examples, many a lot older that Gandalf, where magic isn't sufficient against a hero who lacks it. Try Homer, Hesiod, Euripides, Malory, Shakespeare, Spenser, Howard, Leiber, and others. By your "Logic" high level wizards shouldn't be superior to high level warriors because there's a lot of fantasy books where this is how it is.

[magdalena thiriet]

Bluenose wrote:

Just because it's so in "a lot of fantasy books" doesn't mean that is the only way it can be and any deviation from this universal truth is wrong. I can come up with plenty of examples, many a lot older that Gandalf, where magic isn't sufficient against a hero who lacks it. Try Homer, Hesiod, Euripides, Malory, Shakespeare, Spenser, Howard, Leiber, and others. By your "Logic" high level wizards shouldn't be superior to high level warriors because there's a lot of fantasy books where this is how it is.

...and should we look at the fantasy literature, based on RE Howard wizards should have alignment restriction: evil. Same for several other authors...

And the fact that Gandalf is such attention-grabber is because magic in Middle-Earth is uncommon and wizards are few and far between. Wizards would be completely NPC-only class.

[Bluenose]

magdalena thiriet wrote:

Bluenose wrote:

Just because it's so in "a lot of fantasy books" doesn't mean that is the only way it can be and any deviation from this universal truth is wrong. I can come up with plenty of examples, many a lot older that Gandalf, where magic isn't sufficient against a hero who lacks it. Try Homer, Hesiod, Euripides, Malory, Shakespeare, Spenser, Howard, Leiber, and others. By your "Logic" high level wizards shouldn't be superior to high level warriors because there's a lot of fantasy books where this is how it is.

...and should we look at the fantasy literature, based on RE Howard wizards should have alignment restriction: evil. Same for several other authors...

And the fact that Gandalf is such attention-grabber is because magic in Middle-Earth is uncommon and wizards are few and far between. Wizards would be completely NPC-only class.

I think you got my point. Using literature to support the relative power levels of wizards and others in D&D is pretty stupid.

[Nameless]

David Fryer wrote:

Much like Janet and Michael Jackson, or Santa and Satan. Come to think about it, I've never seen Sebastian and Satan in the same place at the same time either.

I've also never seen you and Satan in the same place at the same time.

!!!

[Lindisty]

Jason Grubiak wrote:

I kind of like the appearance of more female PCs in art. I think everything that makes female gamers feel more welcome is a good thing.

Almost every campaign or game I ever played had at least 1 female at the table. Only exception is my new current game and their presence is missed.

The only PC decision I really dislike the the whole "Lizardfolk, Merfolk, Spawn of Kyuss" thing.

Bring back Lizardmen, Mermaids and Sons of Kyuss any day!!!!!

I find this to be an interesting juxtaposition of opinion.

Speaking only for myself, and not for any other hypothetical 'female gamer', I prefer the terms 'lizardfolk' and 'merfolk' simply because they're more accurate. Assuming that the species in question are indeed mixed-gender, then using gender-specific terms for the whole of the species is misleading, in my opinion. I always found it a bit disconcerting to see female lizardMEN, or male merMAIDs in the game. Not so much that I'd make a big deal of it at the game table, but it definitely impacted my immersion in the game to a certain extent. So my personal preference, at least in that context, is for gender-neutral terms wherever possible, and I'm fortunate enough to play in a group that accommodates that preference. I'm not sure whether or not I'd stick with a group that insisted on gender-specific terms in those contexts these days. Fortunately, the issue just hasn't come up in our group.

[Bill Dunn]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

I say that a 13th level fighter and a 13th level wizard and a 13th level cleric and a fighter 7/rogue 6 should all be of roughly the same power -- or if not, they should have different xp progressions again. Otherwise, the game is intended to punish people who select certain classes. Does this attitude make me unbearably PC? If so, so be it. I still feel that way.

In 3.5, I think it's clear they were all intended to be roughly equal. I'd say that the cleric, without spells like divine power and righteous might and the proliferation of spells from the Spell Compendium isn't head and shoulders more powerful than the fighter at all.

But, as there are with many other things, there are unintended consequences of specific things added to the mix that disrupt the balance between the classes.

[David Fryer]

Nameless wrote:

David Fryer wrote:

Much like Janet and Michael Jackson, or Santa and Satan. Come to think about it, I've never seen Sebastian and Satan in the same place at the same time either.

I've also never seen you and Satan in the same place at the same time.

!!!

Have you ever seen me and Sebastian at the same place at the same time?

[Nameless]

David Fryer wrote:

Have you ever seen me and Sebastian at the same place at the same time?

Actually, no, I've never...

Oh my God. Everyone on the Internet but me is the SAME PERSON!

[Tatterdemalion]

First, I'll say I should never get into these discussions -- I'm just asking for trouble. I'll also warn readers that I find fault with political correctness as often as I approve of it.

However...

magdalena thiriet wrote:

As for "herstory", etymologically it is not correct, I agree, but it is an interesting word to use as a stylistic point, to emphasize subjectivity of history.

With respect, I think the origin and primary use of this word invalidates any useful application.

IMO the word "herstory" is the single most offensive (and abusive) example of political correctness. Its use assigns a non-existent gender bias to the word "history." There are plenty of valid, honest criticisms to be made -- this practice is little more than lying.

I abhor attempts to establish moral high ground through the use of deceit.

A big pet peeve of mine. Regards all :)

[Tarren Dei]

Tatterdemalion wrote:

First, I'll say I should never get into these discussions -- I'm just asking for trouble. I'll also warn readers that I find fault with political correctness as often as I approve of it.

However...

magdalena thiriet wrote:

As for "herstory", etymologically it is not correct, I agree, but it is an interesting word to use as a stylistic point, to emphasize subjectivity of history.

With respect, I think the origin and primary use of this word invalidates any useful application.

IMO the word "herstory" is the single most offensive (and abusive) example of political correctness. Its use assigns a non-existent gender bias to the word "history." There are plenty of valid, honest criticisms to be made -- this practice is little more than lying.

I abhor attempts to establish moral high ground through the use of deceit.

A big pet peeve of mine. Regards all :)

Hi Tatterdemalion,

Can you give an example of where the word has been used deceptively to assign a false etymology to the word history? The link I provided says that this word has been used to critique the subject 'history' not the word 'history' but that the anti-PC crowd have deceptively claimed that the feminists falsely understood the etymology of the word.

Cheers,
Tarren

[David Fryer]

Nameless wrote:

David Fryer wrote:

Have you ever seen me and Sebastian at the same place at the same time?

Actually, no, I've never...

Oh my God. Everyone on the Internet but me is the SAME PERSON!

But have you ever seen anyone else from the internet and you in the same place at the same time? Bwahahahahaha

[Heathanssson]

Nameless wrote:

Oh my God. Everyone on the Internet but me is the SAME PERSON!

Yes, we are all alike on these boards.

[Andreas Skye]

Tarren Dei wrote:

The link I provided says that this word has been used to critique the subject 'history' not the word 'history'

Cool. That is an interesting usage of "fake/funny etymology to highlight an argument. Traditional scholarship did it for millennia,and actually they tended to make it pass for true etymologies...

Perhaps we could keep the same standards in gaming. I do like the usage of the she pronoun in RPG handbooks as it raises issue against a historical problem: prevalent male gamer demographics and male gaming attitudes.
On the other hand, the linguistic fabrication is quite secondary to contents. Take two cases:
1) Paizo products are quite gender-sexuality-race aware in the usage of NPCs, illustrations, relationships, etc. I don't think using a "he" as the non-marked gender would change my comfort with their product line in that area.
2) Grab any 70s-80s Judges Guild product like City State, with their "Random Streetwalker Tables". No PC editing of the language could avoid the embarrassment caused by such product nowadays.

On another content level, I've seen a bit of mixing on this thread: the "power balancing" between classes (and between APL and EL) and notions of non-discrimination in real world correlates in the gaming world. I have to say that such a mixing of notions of "equality" does not reflect me: though the progressive "balancing out" of gaming elements is not my favorite (3.5 was borderline, 4e is a bit too much for my personal taste), I feel quite happy with having a wide representation of roles, genders, sexualities and ethnicities in my favorite hobby without embarrassing resort to traditional male white-centered standards.

[David Fryer]

Generally speaking I think PC is a bunch of balognia. It is generally used to dismiss an idea that one does not want to debate in the arena of ideas, but still wants to get rid of the idea. On the other hand I am sick of people using tolerance as an excuse to commit intolerant actions.Kinda like in the link Tarren provided where they talk about how "herstory" was an indictment of what history was about, not the word itself, and then said that if you find the use of the word to be offensive then you must be a sexist. On the one hand they are asking for tolerence for the viewpoint that using the word suggests, on the other hand the author is very intolerant of anyone who might disagree with the author's viewpoint.

[Tarren Dei]

David Fryer wrote:

Generally speaking I think PC is a bunch of balognia. It is generally used to dismiss an idea that one does not want to debate in the arena of ideas, but still wants to get rid of the idea. On the other hand I am sick of people using tolerance as an excuse to commit intolerant actions.Kinda like in the link Tarren provided where they talk about how "herstory" was an indictment of what history was about, not the word itself, and then said that if you find the use of the word to be offensive then you must be a sexist. On the one hand they are asking for tolerence for the viewpoint that using the word suggests, on the other hand the author is very intolerant of anyone who might disagree with the author's viewpoint.

I find myself agreeing with you once again David. I thought you were supposed to be a conservative. How come I so often agree with you?

I agree that the term PC is often used to dismissively to avoid worthwhile debates.

I agree that labelling people as sexist or racist is often used in the same way.

Good discussions require respective viewpoints that we disagree with and being willing to engage with viewpoints were uncomfortable with.

[Digitalelf]

Tarren Dei wrote:

I find myself agreeing with you once again David. I thought you were supposed to be a conservative. How come I so often agree with you?

I obviously cannot speak for David, but as a "popular" conservative radio talk show host puts it (paraphrased), "Whenever true conservatism is presented at face value (with no hidden agendas), it is generally accepted by most people"...

-That One Dgitalelf Fellow-

[Emperor7]

Tarren Dei wrote:

David Fryer wrote:

Generally speaking I think PC is a bunch of balognia. It is generally used to dismiss an idea that one does not want to debate in the arena of ideas, but still wants to get rid of the idea. On the other hand I am sick of people using tolerance as an excuse to commit intolerant actions.Kinda like in the link Tarren provided where they talk about how "herstory" was an indictment of what history was about, not the word itself, and then said that if you find the use of the word to be offensive then you must be a sexist. On the one hand they are asking for tolerence for the viewpoint that using the word suggests, on the other hand the author is very intolerant of anyone who might disagree with the author's viewpoint.

I find myself agreeing with you once again David. I thought you were supposed to be a conservative. How come I so often agree with you?

I agree that the term PC is often used to dismissively to avoid worthwhile debates.

I agree that labelling people as sexist or racist is often used in the same way.

Good discussions require respective viewpoints that we disagree with and being willing to engage with viewpoints were uncomfortable with.

Come to the dark side Tarren. We have chili. Cooked without adding water. It will be totally yummy goodness by tomorrow. Even better in time for Monday Night Football.

We'll let you bring the canadian beer though, since you can get your hands on the real stuff.

[David Fryer]

Tarren Dei wrote:

I find myself agreeing with you once again David. I thought you were supposed to be a conservative. How come I so often agree with you?

Maybe you're more conservative than you think.