As a parent who has grown children who have friends who participate in cosplay regularly, I am all too aware of furries and all of the connotations associated with them.
In spite of that, I really do think cosplay is pretty cool. Some amazing costumes created by total amateurs that would look perfectly fine in many high-budget Hollywood blockbusters. Amazing stuff really.
151 posts and counting. Furry Flamewar is still on.
(someone either help the OP with his post or let it die plz T_T thank you)
The majority of this thread is not addressing furries, and some of the posts on furries are not flames.
|
The main difference between playing an anthropomorphic animal and a furry are the sexual connotations. People just tend to forget that last part because it's easy to just lump an entire group together and hate them.
Yes. It is.
I'm talking about inertia here, Odraude; not the presumption that I hate people who play Anthromorphs. Or that other people assume he is furry role-player and think the worst. The fact is, he created a character that is totally outside of the boundaries of my world, and I've worked pretty hard with him to get it in the boundaries.
I asked for advice, and I got it.
He asked for gunpowder last night. I flat out said no. No gunpowder -- since everything he learned in "The Scorpion King" is wrong. I then presented him with a timeline of Chinese inventions, and showed him that gunpowder was invented some 800 years from the time period we were playing.
I've been saying no to a quite a few requests he's been making that didn't fit with what I was trying to present. Is that clear?
Ok... so to be straight without googling japaneese animal porn;
I can play a catfolk and NOT be a furry.... but if it gets my goodies in a stir, Im a furry? Yes?
Assuming the above is true, and this guy IS a furry. SO what does that mean?
So what, is he getting his goodies in a stir, at the table, in such a way as it's public to the rest f the the players?
I mean again, if there is alots of art he has displayed, or he's constantly talking about this that and the other explicit focus... then that can be addressed directly.
But if on his mind is where the stuff stays...who cares.
This , by the way, is the main reason I don't like players to play characters that aren't the same sex as the player. Because every time it happens, it's like a 12 year old the first discovered girl parts.
the ridiculous stuff they constantly describe the character wearing, doing, etc.
If that's whats going on?
THIS IS SPARTA....deep well.
IF it's just a foot fetish and he keeps his shoes on...who cares.
I'm just documenting the point now that the OP has said he's pretty much got all answers and feedback that he needs and also that he has implemented the good advice he has been given.
And by documenting I mean I want to see all the rest of this beautiful disaster as it unfolds.
A quest. He has to find a Stargate, dial Golarion's Gate to open a stable wormhole, and then travel to Golarion to get his nekojin and travel back. Simplicity itself.
1.) It's not a compromise if you then say "Nope, you can't do that". After he takes you up on your compromise.
2.) Your world of Hellenistic tech is not thrown off in the slightest by a freakin' Stargate, and yet Catfolk "ruin" it?
So what we have learned is that when in doubt, the GM should say no with absolute conviction, because otherwise he is asking for whatever comes.
Is that about right?
Not at all. What we've learned is "Say what you mean and mean what you say."
Say "Yes", "No", or "Maybe" and stick with it. Don't go "Yeah so you can do this here to get your thing." and then go "No sorry I was just saying that to be nice, you still can't haz."
The man is a furry roleplayer, so yes, that pretty much confirms to all their suspicions. I allowed the Catfolk first on story, but I reconsidered that it could make a bad precedent for my world. Some Pathfinder GMs may allow Fursona and allow their players to create all sorts of Anthropormorphic characters -- I felt it might lead to an over furrization of my campaign. No room for humans, elves, or dwarves.
I still feel that a Nagaji would satisfy his "furry" need and it is lore friendly. He's still out of place (his PC name makes no sense in strict context of the setting), but I worked with him to have his character be more appropriately dressed for the campaign's feel.
What "bad precedent" does it set, and how does it push Humans/Elves/Dwarves right out if one person wants to play a catfolk?
Are you afraid the guy's going to make 16 characters, all of "Animalfolk" races just to spite you? Obviously it's not because of the other players, since the mere mention of a catfolk makes at least one of their skin crawl because f+%$ if I know why.
Also, I'm going to channel a good friend of mine for a second and tell you that there is a difference between furries and scalies, so allowing a snake person for a furry is like confusing a hand and a foot fetish. Superficially similar but different.
Sometimes I don't like that I know these things.
Pendagast, I'm no expert, but my understanding from what my kids have told me is that you aren't a furry unless you actually cosplay. If you have latent sexual tendencies you might BECOME a furry, but until you put that tail or ears on, you don't actually qualify.
I play opposite and non-sex characters fairly regularly. So far none of them have ever been involved in any sexual activity, although they are sometimes the target of boorish jokes from playmates.
I actually don't have any problem if a furry wants to play in my games, but our group prefers to keep our gaming at worst, in the PG range. An innuendo here and there, a joke or snark, but nothing really explicit.
But we're old fogies and our kids sometimes come in the room while we play...
The main difference between playing an anthropomorphic animal and a furry are the sexual connotations. People just tend to forget that last part because it's easy to just lump an entire group together and hate them.Yes. It is.
I'm talking about inertia here, Odraude; not the presumption that I hate people who play Anthromorphs. Or that other people assume he is furry role-player and think the worst. The fact is, he created a character that is totally outside of the boundaries of my world, and I've worked pretty hard with him to get it in the boundaries.
I asked for advice, and I got it.
He asked for gunpowder last night. I flat out said no. No gunpowder -- since everything he learned in "The Scorpion King" is wrong. I then presented him with a timeline of Chinese inventions, and showed him that gunpowder was invented some 800 years from the time period we were playing.
I've been saying no to a quite a few requests he's been making that didn't fit with what I was trying to present. Is that clear?
Crystal. Let's just forget the furry part for a moment. You have a players that is being disruptive and constantly asking for things that clearly don't fit the setting. Maybe he sees the psionics in there and thinks that all bets are off. I don't know.
As I've said earlier, it's about time you sit down and lay down the facts that the requests he's making aren't reasonable for the setting. The gunpowder, the cohort, whatever else... Instead of just saying know, he has to know that what he's asking for isn't in the scope of the setting and it's starting to get on your nerves. It might help to describe the setting more in detail so he knows what to expect. The more open you are to him, the better.
can someone explain what a furry roleplayer is?
Is that simply someone who always wants to play chewbacca and never han?
Or does it mean something else?
Simply. A player that plays the role of an anthromorph animal.
Complexly, a player who. . . well . . . google is your friend.
Just because someone wants to play a anthropomorphic animal, doesn't mean they are furry.
It also maybe seem like your gut reaction against catfolk isn't because of keeping the tone of your setting a certain way, but rather because you hate less traditional humanoid races...
I'm still amused with the idea of a mob of fans constantly following this cohort around. i mean if this guy thinks nekojin are cool why not EVERYONE?
The cat girl could be kidnapped every other game session by someone obsessed. LOL.
Think about having the ONLY lightsabre or the ONLY car, this thing would be a target for theft constantly. It's unique and people are envious.
IF you were to roleplay it out, THAT's what disturbs the continuity of the game, because all the focus is on this alien from another world, who is a cohort NPC, not the PC, not the story, this one catgirl.
If you totally down played the whole uniqueness thing, oh look, huh, where was I oh yes my coffee... you could literally just ignore what race the NPC was entirely.
That way the fact the NPC has 'catfolk' written in the race blank was literally NO effect on the game what so ever.
You as the GM can just ignore it (or rather have your wold ignore it) at your leisure.
He asked for a feline cohort, and was told yes, and then later, no. He asked for gunpowder, and was told no.
Context is everything here. From those facts alone, he sounds like a polite guy who keeps getting shot down. When you throw in the fact that he's making other players uncomfortable... why is he allowed to stay?
But, on the other hand, I'm kind of swayed by Rynjin. What's everybody's problem? If it's a bunch of innuendo... what's the prob, exactly? I mean, is he deliberately out to sabotage a campaign? If not, why go shutting down someone's character choices?
I mean, don't get me wrong, I've been around a furry that definitely gave me the creeps. With his furriness. But I opted to go sit somewhere else. I certainly wouldn't invite him to a RP game. Certainly not one I was running. How is this guy in your campaign, anyway?
|
Why? Why not allow the cat-folk after the quest?Nope. The answer is for all three to sit down and (I know this sounds crazy, but...) talk this out like adults.And that conversation should go:
DM: "Hey, sorry dude, made a mistake in trying to give you a hint about cat people not being in my world. Fixing that now. No cat people. Any questions?"
Same reason not allowing mechahitler is ok.
|
|
What "bad precedent" does it set, and how does it push Humans/Elves/Dwarves right out if one person wants to play a Mechahitler?
Are you afraid the guy's going to make 16 characters, all of "Mecha-Dictator" races just to spite you? Obviously it's not because of the other players, since the mere mention of a Mechahitler makes at least one of their skin crawl because f@@~ if I know why.
I'm still sorta stuck on the "how did the player's character know anything about catfolk?" question...
But it may mean they can't play in the setting being run by the GM.
Just because someone wants to play a anthropomorphic animal, doesn't mean they are furry.
Which is fine, but if I did ask to play, say a ratfolk rogue, and my GM's response was "NO I DON'T CATER TO FURRIES", I would probably be pretty ticked that the assumption was being made that I was solely interested in sexy mouse women.
What "bad precedent" does it set, and how does it push Humans/Elves/Dwarves right out if one person wants to play a Mechahitler?
Are you afraid the guy's going to make 16 characters, all of "Mecha-Dictator" races just to spite you? Obviously it's not because of the other players, since the mere mention of a Mechahitler makes at least one of their skin crawl because f@@~ if I know why.
Of course, my mistake.
I forgot Catfolk were an imaginary race based on a dictator, and thus are inherently disruptive.
It's good to know you never use strawmen, eh Ciretose?
|
|
What "bad precedent" does it set, and how does it push Humans/Elves/Dwarves right out if one person wants to play a Mechahitler?
Are you afraid the guy's going to make 16 characters, all of "Mecha-Dictator" races just to spite you? Obviously it's not because of the other players, since the mere mention of a Mechahitler makes at least one of their skin crawl because f@@~ if I know why.
Of course, my mistake.
I forgot Catfolk were an imaginary race based on a dictator, and thus are inherently disruptive.
It's good to know you never use strawmen, eh Ciretose?
Actually it was word replacement.
A strawman would be if I said "Why do you want to allow mechahitlers into the setting!" or "Are you afraid the guy's going to make 16 characters"
If a GM doesn't want Catfolk in the setting, it's the GMs call. If a GM wants Catfolk in the setting, it's the GMs call.
If the GM wants to have an arena full of Mecha-Dictators, it is the GMs call...and it would be AWESOME!
But in all those situations, the player has a right to want to play in the GMs world or not. And then on top of that, the player should try not to annoy fellow players.
That is why there are many tables and many option.
Catfolk play isn't wrongbadfun. Hell Mechahitler play isn't wrongbadfun.
But if the GM can't decide what is or isn't in the setting, who can?
I'm still sorta stuck on the "how did the player's character know anything about catfolk?" question...
I think i brought that up, saying that there would need to be a great deal of RP involved in this, and the DM had control of it.
Maybe, the characters started at a higher level, or this was a replacement character and as such the character would start with a cohort in game play, and the worm hole was the reasoning of how it came to be a cat person. Basically metagamming to fit he story and move on.
|
|
I mean, don't get me wrong, I've been around a furry that definitely gave me the creeps. With his furriness. But I opted to go sit somewhere else. I certainly wouldn't invite him to a RP game. Certainly not one I was running. How is this guy in your campaign, anyway?
I'm running the only pathfinder game on OpenRPG on thursdays. That's how he got into my campaign. Secondly, someone complained that I "stole" his DM for that day.
So, I run my games online in real time using Open RPG.
Actually it was word replacement.
A strawman would be if I said "Why do you want to allow mechahitlers into the setting!" or "Are you afraid the guy's going to make 16 characters"
You replaced the words for the sole purpose of creating a situation nobody was fighting for (allowing an inherently disruptive and ENTIRELY anachronistic "race" into the game) just so you could point out how stupid your imaginary situation was.
If a GM doesn't want Catfolk in the setting, it's the GMs call. If a GM wants Catfolk in the setting, it's the GMs call.
Then he should make the f&&#ing call instead of beating around the bush and making up excuses for cutting them out and beating around the bush.
But in all those situations, the player has a right to want to play in the GMs world or not. And then on top of that, the player should try not to annoy fellow players.
And the GM has a right to not be a prick about it, one he should exercise.
But if the GM can't decide what is or isn't in the setting, who can?
And if the GM can't come up with a better reason than "Well furries make another of my players uncomfortable, even though that has nothing to do with the situation", then he shouldn't be making any decisions at all. There always need to be REASONS for cutting things out. At first he said "they're anachronistic", which I bought, fine, whatever.
But the more info that comes out, the situation goes from "Well yeah okay they're anachronistic don't allow them" to one of a few situations:
1.) The GM is withholding this race from the player because it would make him happy, and one of the other players doesn't like that. Not a good reason.
2.) The GM is trolling this forum by fabricating a scenario and going along with the whole "It's a furry fetish thing" nonsense.
3.) The GM doesn't like this particular player ("I'm sorry, gunpowder's too advanced. But you can walk through a Stargate to get your cat!" b&$$+$!*) and is going out of his way to stymie him.
4.) This is all one big misunderstanding on my part because the GM refuses to share the whole story in anything more than a snippet of a sentence here and there.
Either way "I dun like it bawwww" is not a good enough reason to cut something out regardless, not when that something is an officially released part of the game. "It's unbalanced!" is valid. 'It's anachronistic!" is valid. "One of my players has a cat phobia!" is valid. And even "This guy gets really creepy with this stuff." is valid, but I have heard none of that except the anachronistic part, which this GM has proven he only cares about when it suits him to, so it is no longer valid.
|
|
I replaced the words to show the fallacy in your argument. Because you aren't bothered by catfolk, you seems to be saying no one should be.
Let me do it again, since this is your continuing argument.
And if the GM can't come up with a better reason than "Well Mechahitler make another of my players uncomfortable, even though that has nothing to do with the situation", then he shouldn't be making any decisions at all. There always need to be REASONS for cutting things out. At first he said "they're anachronistic", which I bought, fine, whatever.
But the more info that comes out, the situation goes from "Well yeah okay they're anachronistic don't allow them" to one of a few situations:
1.) The GM is withholding this race from the player because it would make him happy, and one of the other players doesn't like that. Not a good reason.
2.) The GM is trolling this forum by fabricating a scenario and going along with the whole "It's a Robot Dictator fetish thing" nonsense.
3.) The GM doesn't like this particular player ("I'm sorry, gunpowder's too advanced. But you can walk through a Stargate to get your Robo-Massmurdered!" b$*!!!~!) and is going out of his way to stymie him.
4.) This is all one big misunderstanding on my part because the GM refuses to share the whole story in anything more than a snippet of a sentence here and there.
Either way "I dun like it bawwww" is not a good enough reason to cut something out regardless, not when that something is an officially released part of the game. "It's unbalanced!" is valid. 'It's anachronistic!" is balanced. "One of my players has a Mechahitler phobia!" is valid. And even "This guy gets really creepy with this stuff." is valid, but I have heard none of that except the anachronistic part, which this GM has proven he only cares about when it suits him to, so it is no longer valid.
Except that still has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS SITUATION. There is no Mechahitler in this game, so by default it is not allowed, and requires GM Fiat to make exist. The Catfolk is a race in this game, so by default it is allowed. Give me a reason why it's not. Are all the Catfolk extinct? Do they just not exist? Or are you doing this just because you don't like this player?
He has answered none of these questions whatsoever.
As for me not being bothered by the catfolk, that also has nothing to do with this. Maybe the other player would like to step up as well. Why does s/he not like the idea? Why should you shoot down one player's idea to accommodate another's unexplained mild annoyance?
He needs to give the whole story here instead of morphing it to suit his needs, because so far he's gone along with every half-baked "Why" that's been thrown out speculatively by other posters.
|
|
My position is the GM is on an open forum, explained his scenario and a player he didn't know said "Hey, can I have a cat cohort" and he said "There aren't any catfolk in this world, but I guess I can try to work with you to make it happen eventually, maybe." and then the game started to be less fun.
And then other players complained.
So now the GM has a player who he was too nice to upfront who he wants to bring back in line, and he's coming to the forum for advice.
And people are complaining he won't cave to the problem players request, despite an equally valid complaint from another player and...and here is the kicker, the fact that it is his setting and therefore he is the one who says what races are allowed.
This is a no brainer. The catfolk guy can either lose the concept or walk from the game.
|
|
I'm the GM of a very fun city setting: Phoenicia, the City of Psionics. (Doesn't mean I'm running sci-fi).
One of my newest players is slowly mangling my setting around a bit. He wanted to have a Nekojin as his cohort. Initially I said yes, but she had to come from another world via Gate Spell. Which is a way of saying, "No, you can't have cat folk."
He didn't get the hint. Diplomacy time might be over, what's your advice?
Literally the first post. There are no catfolk on Phoneicia. They are not in a box, they are not with a fox. They are literally not on the planet.
Should he have said no outright? Yes. Was he trying to be nice and give an option to try and meet the players request, yup. Did he get burned for being nice? Yup.
All the threads about how GMs should try to accomodate players, and then when they do, threads about how you should say no...
Because none of these people are trying to accommodate the players, they are trying to PRETEND to accommodate the players and then come here asking "Now how do I renege on that accommodation" and are surprised when people say "Say what you mean, stupid, instead of beating around teh bush and pretending you're okay with something just so you can snatch it away later."
He didn't get "burned for being nice" he's just scrambling to cover his ass now that he's realized he didn't want to do something.
I have accomodated a lot, and nothing has gone wrong so far.
So how long do you think we'll have to wait till I make a thread like that?
|
|
I love hitlerJust a word replacement. Thats fine with you right?
If it was only one word that was a grammatical functional equivilent AND it wasn't attributed to me as a quote, sure.
For example
I love lamp
is attributing something to you that you didn't say. I am accusing you of loving lamp, when I don't know that to be true.
Now if I say
I love lamp
I am only asserting that I am writing that I love lamp.
Make sense?
|
|
Then he should have had the balls to say "no cat folk" when originally asked.
I think everyone, including him, agrees with you.
But now he's got a player that is ruining his game for him and at least another player so the player should either adjust or will need to leave and run a game full of as many catfolk as he wants.
So I think maybe you should just REQUIRE him to dress like his furry companion.... at least there would be comic relief at the table.... thundercats are gooooooooo!
|
|
Lets say you invited people over to the house for dinner, and one of them asked if he could take his coat off to make himself comfortable. You agreed, not realizing he was completely naked underneath.
Perhaps you should have been suspicious because of the trenchcoat, but you made an error in judgement and now there is a naked man in your living room.
Sure, some people would be ok with it. There is nothing wrong with it, technically. But you would rather not have it in your house. And it is your house. And it is bothering some of the guests.
Is it rude to say "Yeah...actually, can you put your coat back on?"
That is a strawman, Rynjin. Just wanted to illustrate the difference so when it comes up in other threads you can tell the difference.
On topic, dude don't want catfolk in his game, dude should man up and say so now, just like he should have at the start. Pussyfooting around (see what I did there) is what caused the problem in the first place.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, good news.
I had a chance to explain the setting fully to him, and now he feels much more alright to play in it. He just can't wait to meet someone like Heron of Alexandria or Archimedes now. He's been wondering if the proto-steam engine can be retrofitted to power a steam cannon.
Well, good news.
I had a chance to explain the setting fully to him, and now he feels much more alright to play in it. He just can't wait to meet someone like Heron of Alexandria or Archimedes now. He's been wondering if the proto-steam engine can be retrofitted to power a steam cannon.
Awesome. Like i said, mutual respect all the way.
Lets say you invited people over to the house for dinner, and one of them asked if he could take his coat off to make himself comfortable. You agreed, not realizing he was completely naked underneath.
Perhaps you should have been suspicious because of the trenchcoat, but you made an error in judgement and now there is a naked man in your living room.
Sure, some people would be ok with it. There is nothing wrong with it, technically. But you would rather not have it in your house. And it is your house. And it is bothering some of the guests.
Is it rude to say "Yeah...actually, can you put your coat back on?"
That is a strawman, Rynjin. Just wanted to illustrate the difference so when it comes up in other threads you can tell the difference.
Ciretose, I'm not sure YOU understand what you're talking about.
What you did was the simplest form of a strawman. You misrepresented my argument to something superficially similar that was in fact entirely different. By changing the word "Catfolk" to "Mecha-Hitler" you have changed the context of the argument from "Something that is officially in the game, and which has rules for play and is generally considered balanced mechanics-wise" to "Something that is either completely non-existent or a custom race, which does not have rules for play precisely and is possibly unbalanced due to lack of playtesting of whatever features it may have". That is a strawman, pure and simple.
|
|
Well since the thread is over and GM Elton won the internets, lets follow this through so we don't have to discuss this later.
First, as to strawman you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means..
I posted an example above.
Changing "catfolk" to "mechahitler" demonstrated that your argument was based on an assumed value ascribed to catfolk, not on the logic of the argument itself. If the logic itself held and it wasn't about catfolk, the logic would have held regardless. But of course, when we are talking about something you don't want in the setting (mechahitler) vs something the GM didn't want in the setting (Catfolk) it became clear it was an opinion and not a logical conclusion.
If someone doesn't want catfolk to be in a setting, that is a choice they made about catfolk.
If someone doesn't want mechahitler to be in a setting, that is also a choice they make.
You believe catfolk should be in the setting, but you don't believe mechahitler should be in the setting.
Why? I don't know. The GM said they weren't, he would know since he made it up...but you disagreed with him.
Because that is what you believe. There is no more reason for catfolk to be in a setting without catfolk than for mechahitler to be in a setting without mechahitlers.
The GM can ban whatever the GM wants to ban. That is a power ascribed to the GM in the social contract of gaming.
The player can choose not to play with a GM running a setting they don't want to play. You, for example, can say "I don't want to play unless I can be a catfolk"
That is a power the player is granted in the social contract.
|
|
To put another way, I didn't ascribe anything to your argument. I stated an argument using your logic with different subjects to demonstrate that your argument was based on the value you invest in "Catfolk" and not based on the argument itself.
I didn't say you said it, I made a statement with the same "logic" in a different context, demonstrating the flaw in the logic of your argument.
I replaced the words to show the fallacy in your argument. Because you aren't bothered by catfolk, you seems to be saying no one should be.
Let me do it again, since this is your continuing argument.
And if the GM can't come up with a better reason than "Well Mechahitler make another of my players uncomfortable, even though that has nothing to do with the situation", then he shouldn't be making any decisions at all. There always need to be REASONS for cutting things out. At first he said "they're anachronistic", which I bought, fine, whatever.
But the more info that comes out, the situation goes from "Well yeah okay they're anachronistic don't allow them" to one of a few situations:
1.) The GM is withholding this race from the player because it would make him happy, and one of the other players doesn't like that. Not a good reason.
2.) The GM is trolling this forum by fabricating a scenario and going along with the whole "It's a Robot Dictator fetish thing" nonsense.
3.) The GM doesn't like this particular player ("I'm sorry, gunpowder's too advanced. But you can walk through a Stargate to get your Robo-Massmurdered!" b$*!!!~!) and is going out of his way to stymie him.
4.) This is all one big misunderstanding on my part because the GM refuses to share the whole story in anything more than a snippet of a sentence here and there.
Either way "I dun like it bawwww" is not a good enough reason to cut something out regardless, not when that something is an officially released part of the game. "It's unbalanced!" is valid. 'It's anachronistic!" is balanced. "One of my players has a Mechahitler phobia!" is valid. And even "This guy gets really creepy with this stuff." is valid, but I have heard none of that except the anachronistic part, which this GM has proven he only cares about when it suits him to, so it is no longer valid.
I think you should stop doing this. It's really annoying. I don't think it makes your point at all.
To put another way, I didn't ascribe anything to your argument. I stated an argument using your logic with different subjects to demonstrate that your argument was based on the value you invest in "Catfolk" and not based on the argument itself.
I didn't say you said it, I made a statement with the same "logic" in a different context, demonstrating the flaw in the logic of your argument.
Except you completely miss the fact that this logic is based on context, and anything removed from its original context is likely to change completely.
If I took the statement "I am a man and I like women. Women are who I want to be with, and I want to marry women." and I went in and changed every instance of "women" with the word "sheep" that completely changes the meaning of the statement.
Do you see what I'm sating? That's what you have done by replacing words with something completely unrelated to the argument at hand.
And perhaps you should look at your own link:
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.
That is what you did. You exaggerated the perceived problem by replacing the word "Catfolk" (an extant race with no negative connotations attached either in the word or in mechanics) with "Mecha-Hitler" (a nonexistent race whose name implies a negative connotation), thus misrepresenting my argument to make it seem as if I were advocating something unreasonable by asking what sort of problem it would cause to allow Catfolk.
You represented my argument to make it seem unreasonable, for the sole purpose of making your argument (such as it is) seem better by comparison.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In debate, you don't make it your goal to persuade people who doesn't already agree with you?
That... actually explains quite a lot.
Well, you aren't on my side of the debate, so that isn't surprising.
I wasn't really on either side of the debate. I wanted more information. As it turned out, a lack of information/communication seemed to be at the heart of the conflict (which was actually confusion).
Don't like Straw Man? How about Godwin's Law? Specifically, Godwin's Corollary.
|
|
The context was that there are no catfolk in the world. And the GM told him that.
You literally accused the GM of either withholding something that he said wasn't in the setting which he said from the first post, trolling, hating the player, or withholding info...which is particularly ironic since the very first post said there are no cat people in the setting. Which he told the player.
Because something is in a guide doesn't mean it exists in the world. The GM didn't say "This is a world with cat people." On the contrary he said it wasn't. He left the door cracked, which was a mistake, but there are no cat people in the setting, says the guy who made up the setting.
The argument was unreasonable. That was my point. There are as many mecha-hitlers on that world as there are cat people. Zero.
No GM is obligated to include alternative races in homebrew settings. Hell, no GM is obligated to include core races in homebrew settings.
Lets look at what you wrote
"I am a man and I like women. Women are who I want to be with, and I want to marry women."
You are correct that if I change women to sheep, the meaning of the sentence changes to replace "women" with "sheep"
But the logic doesn't.
"I am a man and I like sheep. Sheep are who I want to be with, and I want to marry Sheep."
Logically, the sentence follows. The man is now engaging in bestiality, but he clearly likes a thing, that thing is who he wants to be with, and he wants to marry that thing.
My replacement of catfolk with Mecha-hitler showed that much like when you change "women" to "sheep" the outcome of the logic is different because you view "Catpeople" as a positive and "mechahitler" as a negative.
Much like love of women is accepted by society and love of sheep is only socially accepted in Scotland and New Zealand (I keed!)
Your love of Catpeople isn't universal, in the same way the love of sheep is universal. So your assertion made an assumption about the value of cat people.
Which was exactly what I was demonstrating by changing the words. That the value you ascribed to cat people was why you thought it made sense, not the logic behind your argument.
|
|
In debate, you don't make it your goal to persuade people who doesn't already agree with you?
That... actually explains quite a lot.
In personal interactions, yes.
This is the internet, I'm not going to convince everyone. There will always be someone who says you are wrong on the internet, no matter how right you are. So I don't worry about the individual I am debating in a given situation as much as look for the answer to the question at hand and let the larger audience come to their own conclusion.
There are far more lurkers than posters. That is who I am generally trying to convince. The person I am engaging generally has a position they are more interested in defending than discussing. Particularly on here.