|
Sodomy Hussein posted:This is mainly to my mind because 5E charop is by comparison so boring that there's barely anything to discuss. "Hi guys, nice to meet you. I've brought a character named Dip Warlock." There's also been a relative paucity of new material for 5e, at least in terms of player options, compared to other editions of D&D. CharOp-type discussions tend to thrive on new material being added as grist for the mill of discussion, it's much harder to sustain when there's much less to actually talk about in that vein. Epicurius posted:The caster supremacy thing became a real problem, as I see it, in 3-3.5, and part of the problem was not entirely intention, but due to the number of books that came out causing weird synergies. I play clerics a lot, and to give you a cleric example, clerics gain the ability to turn or destroy undead for a number of times a day (and the number of times go up as the level increases). It's a good ability, but it's also situational. If you're not fighting undead, you're not going to use it. There's a magical item in one of the books that lets you, I think, triple your turn undead "slots" per day. This is fair, but a PHB only Cleric or Druid in 3.5 is still one of the strongest classes in the game because of how potent the divine buff spells are (and/or wild shape, even with just the base monster manual). CoDzilla became a meme for a reason and it doesn't rely on anything that didn't come out in the first set of books, although there's definitely a bunch of things like converting turn undead into metamagic that can amp that up still further.
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 06:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 19:01 |
|
|
Shrecknet posted:so like, how do churches even operate? you gotta be a lot more transactional in your operations when your followers can just go worship a different God down the street if the Raven Queen doesn't sufficiently increase harvest yields Anyway, what do people dislike about 5e? My impressions are mostly second-hand, but it feels fairly fresh - both stories and games seem to have moved away from fighter-wizard-cleric-thief \ human-elf-dward-halfling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 07:21
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:I mean, leaving aside how transactional you find the most immaterial good promised by Monotheistic faiths... yeah, that's how pantheons operate. You pray and sacrifice (now that the satanic panic is largely in the past, it would be neat to have some ritual \ sacrifice rules) in return for actual benefits. this is a good series of articles about how polytheism worked irl from an actual religious studies scholar (in comparison to fantasy RPGs), and honestly I read most of this earlier in the day and it matches up pretty well with the Forgotten Realms, which is the most detailed polytheist setup in D&D https://acoup.blog/2019/10/25/collections-practical-polytheism-part-i-knowledge/ (obligatory note that other games do do religion better when they're not shackled to D&D, like glorantha) also, there were sacrifice rules in the Book of Vile Darkness for 3e, but they were pretty skimpy and were just for "evil person sacrifices the innocent maiden for an unholy ritual" not general "please make an offering to the harvest god for good apple crops this year" e: i'm passing on the 5e question because I've been talking a lot and don't want to come off as dominating the thread/being an edition warrior Arivia fucked around with this message at 07:54 on Nov 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 07:49
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Do they? I think divinity is a much more complicated and culture-dependent thing - ironically, what you're doing here is D&Ding our world. Yeah, an important thing to consider with (at least Mediterranean polytheism, though the general trend often applies to traditional non-organized, non-dogmatic religions and belief systems in general) is that individual belief is irrelevant and basically a non-question, the important thing is ritual and sacrifice, that is the religion which is about appeasing the Gods and calling upon their aid whenever you do anything really by sacrificing or pledging to sacrifice something. You don't pick and choose which gods you believe in, you honor all of them, though depending on what you do you might sacrifice to some more often than others, essentially there is basically nothing that goes on in society that is not inherently a religious action. Again important to stress there isn't really a dogma or scripture or anything like that, the rituals, diviniations, ceremonies and festivals (all of which revolve around sacrifice) are the religion. Also another important fact to consider is that this type of religious practice, especially when it involves calling on the more important Gods, is essentially communal in nature and because the gods do demand and expect sacrifice everyone has to participate or it could actually negatively impact society (also important to remember that the gods are fickle so when and how their favor or disfavor is manifested is not immediately apparent), participation is mandatory and again the question of individual belief is irrelevant (though that's not to insinuate that people didn't believe in the gods, as a general fact everyone did, because obviously the gods existed, they were apparent everywhere). This last bit I always found interesting because it kind of elegantly demonstrates what made the Christians so disturbing to Roman pagans and why (even though they were bad at it) they saw it necessary to try to persecute and root out Christians, who to Roman pagan eyes were atheists who denied the Gods' existence and refused to sacrifice, even to the Emperor's spirit (something the Jews kind of accepted as a compromise in many cases, though Judaism also had the advantage of being kind of acceptable even though it was weird, because it was very old and that basically good enough), and thus Christians were a danger that could call down divine wrath upon all of society. Xander77 posted:Anyway, what do people dislike about 5e? My impressions are mostly second-hand, but it feels fairly fresh - both stories and games seem to have moved away from fighter-wizard-cleric-thief \ human-elf-dward-halfling. I've both played and GMed a bit of 5e and generally found it pretty fun. We haven't played in a while, but my group generally plays fast and loose with the rules and we spend alot of time on non-combat encounters, but generally always managed to find stuff for everyone to do, though I can't necessarily say whether that was 5e's doing rather than just that gaming group working out pretty well, and especially some individual players just going the extra mile in living their characters which really made the whole thing really fun. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 07:58 on Nov 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 07:52
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:
Very briefly because I don't want to turn it into a giant edition war thing, but the two biggest criticisms are : 1) The head of the project, one poo poo bird named Mike Mearls, got into bed with some egregiously heinous people. Like one of the contributors is an overt misogynist neo-Nazi, and he's not the one that most people complain about because another one is worse. 2) The rules barely exist. They're a paper-thin coating of some numbers over a flowchart that says, "How does this work? =====> The DM will have to figure something out, we don't have an answer." And not in a cool, rules-lite way either. I could make a pretty solid argument that PbtA games have way more mechanical heft and crunch, plus they're better thought out. 5e has a poo poo-ton of rules that don't help you at all and can often get in the way : they're like wearing a blindfold to make you better at baking. I'm cool with just playing pretend, but fuuuuuuck spending $150 on books that actively hinder my ability to tell a story. But its debut coincided with a lot of media attention and the rise of a bunch of actual play series that got a bunch of people into the hobby who have latched onto 5e and god are they willing to paper over a lot of cracks. And these new players have also done a good job at pulling the design crew kicking and screaming into a place where they have to at least appear to be more socially progressive and accepting than earlier. And some of them have genuinely great experiences despite the system, although the classic things seem to be happening where people are trying to shove D&D rules into playing Ocean's 11 and being shocked it doesn't work, or assuming houserules they made up apply to everything or the exact same dumb jokes from whenever you last played. So basically that part is business as usual but there's a lot more people so it's a net win.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 08:01
|
|
|
In an indirect way it also leads to a kind of 'cultural flattening' that you could draw parallels to the MCU with - like for how example even Dune (itself a big budget corporate product) had some viewers complain that there were no quips or jokes. It being the 'first experience' in many minds also creates a lot of preconceptions, such as "all games have combat systems" or "all games are this difficult to learn" (although this is not specific to the latest edition). This combined with the parasocial aspects of streaming and fan communities can make it hard to convince people that yes, there actually are better games for playing out a queer tiefling romance adventure than a game whose major feature is attrition-based tactical combat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 09:04
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:I mean, leaving aside how transactional you find the most immaterial good promised by Monotheistic faiths... yeah, that's how pantheons operate. You pray and sacrifice (now that the satanic panic is largely in the past, it would be neat to have some ritual \ sacrifice rules) in return for actual benefits. Having played two and a half modules, I'd say my main complaint is that they took out a bunch of stuff from 4e, but then just kinda didn't put anything in the void it left. Martials in particular don't really have much to do beyond "I move to flank and full attack" in every single round. Even if you take feats to open up more options, those often just work out to "get a +X to your roll in this situation". This means gameplay can feel a bit passive, in that if feels like you're supposed to stack bonuses on the one thing you always do and hope the dice go your way, rather than creatively finding new ways to approach an obstacle. Last but not least it shares the issue of just about all versions in that the out-of-combat rules are really rather sparse. Then again my group uses GURPS half the time, so perhaps we're just addicted to crunch  .Though not to be all negative, I will say in its favour that the overall presentation feels much better and more approachable. It's quite easy to get started and there's a decent number of ways to build a fun character without having to dive into a million splatbooks. Perestroika fucked around with this message at 12:57 on Nov 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 11:35
|
|
|
Big problem for 5e was the open playtesting process... there was a lot more interesting stuff but groups complained that the martial characters were now too complicated (all marital characters had battle master maneuvers by default, instead of one type of fighter) or that sorcerers didn't work just like wizards (They only had spell points and became more like their origin as they spent them for the day) A lot of the neat things were dropped to be more like an OSR type game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 11:44
|
|
|
Guys this thread is about the politics and commentary in tabletop games, not which versions of D&D are a better play experience.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 18:30
|
|
|
Edition wars should have their own thread. So, uh...what about kender? Bad attempt at modeling neuroatypicality? Joke dragged out too far? Just terrible idea in general?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 20:44
|
|
|
Cobalt-60 posted:Edition wars should have their own thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 20:53
|
|
|
Cobalt-60 posted:Edition wars should have their own thread. I feel like several races exist purely because they wanted to fill in every box on the alignment chart
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 21:01
|
|
|
Cobalt-60 posted:Edition wars should have their own thread. Interesting attempt at modeling what actual Garden of Eden style 'innocence' would look like, without actually thinking it through to it's logical conclusion. For example, if Kender have no concept of 'ownership,' how would that affect their sexual relationships? Are all Kender inherently non-monogamous? How do they deal with issues of consent?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 21:14
|
|
|
TheCenturion posted:Interesting attempt at modeling what actual Garden of Eden style 'innocence' would look like, without actually thinking it through to it's logical conclusion. For example, if Kender have no concept of 'ownership,' how would that affect their sexual relationships? Are all Kender inherently non-monogamous? How do they deal with issues of consent? ......how does the concept of ownership effect your sexual relationships and monogamy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 21:17
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:......how does the concept of ownership effect your sexual relationships and monogamy? If you believe anything you see, that you want, is free to take and use as you see fit, how do you see and relate to people you are sexually interested in? If you have no concept of 'exclusivity,' how can you have monogamy? If you don't mind if your neighbour Ken the Kender comes over and wanders off with your favorite gardening implement because he thought it looked cool, what happens if he thinks your partner is attractive?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 21:23
|
|
|
Cobalt-60 posted:Edition wars should have their own thread. I mean, Kender exist because Tracy Hickman is a religious Mormon and he didn't want to play a thief as a heroic character. So he invented Kender, who do thief things but not out of greed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 21:44
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:I mean, Kender exist because Tracy Hickman is a religious Mormon and he didn't want to play a thief as a heroic character. So he invented Kender, who do thief things but not out of greed. Uh... did you mistype something there? He didn't want to play a heroic thief, so he made a race of creatures to be non-bad thieves? Though that is exactly how stupid I would expect someone who thought Kenders were a good idea to be. I'm happy Thief became Rogue later on, then you can also do non-Thief things with it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 21:58
|
|
|
TheCenturion posted:If you believe anything you see, that you want, is free to take and use as you see fit, how do you see and relate to people you are sexually interested in? Pretty sure the answer is to stop seeing other people as things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 22:04
|
|
|
TheCenturion posted:If you believe anything you see, that you want, is free to take and use as you see fit, how do you see and relate to people you are sexually interested in? Do you feel like the reason you are monogamous is because you own the women?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 22:21
|
|
|
Many animals are monogamous but have no concept of property, so this doesn’t even pass my sniff test of “can I think of counter examples while even reading the idea”. And vague analogs of “ownership” like territory defence don’t seem to correlate to monogamy in animals either, e.g. eagles mate for life but are relatively willing to share (they’ll guard their nests, of course, but stop caring once they’re done using them) and penguins care enough about “ownership” to have a currency-adjacent function for nesting rocks, but that’s most commonly observed in the cases of what is de facto bird prostitution. I don’t think you thought this through.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 22:38
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Guys this thread is about the politics and commentary in tabletop games, not which versions of D&D are a better play experience. Is this weird enough or do I need to dig weirder? 
Dr. Arbitrary fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Nov 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 22:55
|
|
|
Randalor posted:Uh... did you mistype something there? He didn't want to play a heroic thief, so he made a race of creatures to be non-bad thieves? Though that is exactly how stupid I would expect someone who thought Kenders were a good idea to be. I'm happy Thief became Rogue later on, then you can also do non-Thief things with it. I might have phrased it badly. He didn't want to play a character who was a professional thief due to greed, because he thinks theft due to greed is immoral and didn't want to play that type of person. But, since a balanced party has to have a thief, he made a race of people for the Dragonlance world who were good at those thief skills but didn't have that greed motivation. They were good people who pick pocketed people out of natural curiosity and because they were communitarians who didn't have an idea of personal property.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 23:03
|
|
|
 This is the official material from 3rd edition (commentary unknown). Don't know if 2nd ed was as bad, but this is terrible. Nothing nuanced or interesting, like "belief in common property," this is "kleptomania is just fine(by authorial fiat)!" You could do something with this (maybe), if the setting wasn't so insistent that being an immature sticky-fingered walking annoyance was a GOOD thing, and only BAD people hate kender. Doubling down on the "kender ban" a number of tables instituted after every lolrandumb player and every party thief latched on to the race in 2ed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 23:44
|
|
|
Cobalt-60 posted:
Here's how Kender Handling is described in first edition quote:The kender concept of personal property and theft deserves special attention. Because many kender develop thieving talents, most people assume they are merely innocent looking but sneaky burglars. This is just not so. The intense curiosity that kender feel feeds their desire to know how locks can be opened, how to approach people unseen and listen in on their conversations, and how to reach into pockets or pouches to find interesting things to look at. Thieving comes naturally to them--so naturally that they do not see it as thieving. Generally, in first edition, Kender can be plenty obnoxious, but they're less saccharine than the 3rd edition writeup. The first edition writeup specifically points out "Kender society can also be hard to take." 1st edition also points out that most people run into kender during wanderlust, a period in their early 20s when a newly adult kender's "natural curiosity and desire for action suddenly go into overdrive at this time, and kender are driven to wander the land as far as they can go.", and that they eventually get a lot of it out of their system, settle down and raise families (but kender at home do tend to be still pretty up for anything, and are natural anarchists). At the same time, "Kender are masters of taunting, sarcasm, and outright rudeness when they are riled. Their intense curiosity gives them shocking insights into the characters and natures of other people, though such an awareness is generally shallow. It is acute enough, however, for a kender to forge an idea of another person's character flaws, giving the kender the ability to create the most stinging insults that can be imagined. Full-scale riots have been started by irritated kender who opened up on someone with their verbal guns." There's certainly no "only evil people dislike kender." First edition pretty much realizes that while kender are basically good and mean well, they also can be hard to take and that a lot of non-kender are uncomfortable around them (and also at the same time kender don't tend to much care what most people think of them).
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 00:37
|
|
|
Technocracy defender arriving. Between 2nd edition and 2.5 or 3rd or whatever edition, the World of Darkness' Mage setting had the Avatar Storm. This was basically just magical razors cutting up anyone trying to go between earth and the outer realms - outer space, the spirit realm, the eternal aether, whatever. This also meant that everyone on earth was suddenly cut off from everyone currently in the great beyond. The thing is, that for Traditional mages - the witchy Verbena, the traditional occult Hermetics, the god botherer Choristers - the inevitable result of being more powerful is moving further and further out from earth. So all the 100+ year old masters are out doing their own thing in realms of pure magic. In comparison, the Technocrats treat the great beyond as outer space; so they build space stations and exploration platforms and planet colonies. All of these different extraterrestrial strongholds are cut off and basically lost, never to be seen again. It wouldn't really hit me personally if my CEO disappeared tomorrow. It would completely gently caress me up if everyone at Site B disappeared, however. It's reflected in the writing; the Technocracy is supremely hosed up and wounded from losing family and friends.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 00:56
|
|
|
moths posted:Pretty sure the answer is to stop seeing other people as things. That's my point. If you have a race of creatures who, by divine fiat or whatever reason, don't care about objects, how would that shape their outlook and culture differently? Lots of human cultures have 'property' inextricably intertwined with concepts like 'marriage.' From outright 'I'll trade you my daughter for a diplomatic alliance' to 'our children shall be wed, uniting our houses' to dowries, bride prices, etc. Owlofcreamcheese posted:Do you feel like the reason you are monogamous is because you own the women? No, but there are concepts of exclusivity built up in it. Adultery or cheating are considered bad because they're an explicit betrayal of an implicit, or explicit, agreement that 'nobody else gets access,' be it sexual, emotional, whatever, to either partner, be they male or female. Kender don't have a concept of 'this is your shiny thing, therefore I shouldn't take it;' would they have a concept of 'that's your partner, therefore I shouldn't hit on them?' Xiahou Dun posted:Many animals are monogamous but have no concept of property, so this doesn’t even pass my sniff test of “can I think of counter examples while even reading the idea”. I'm not sure what 'some animals are monogamous' has to do with cultural ideas of what a romantic partnership looks like, unless you're advocating for biological determinism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 01:48
|
|
|
You're postulating biological determinism, you goober. Then I'm pointing out that your idea of biological determinism affecting other parts of a species falls apart if you look at animal models. Do you not know how the concept of correlation itself works? Also, the fact that you posted this weird idea and everyone is responding, "What? No, that's weird," should probably be some kind of clue that it's at least not intuitive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 01:55
|
|
|
The bit that really shows kender as totally nonsensical is that they simultaneously (a) supposedly have no understanding of personal property and (b) constantly claim evasive excuses for taking personal property. It's like having a group of people who don't understand that death exists, but when you catch one standing over a dead body he immediately claims "He was already dead when I got here".
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 02:42
|
|
|
WendyO posted:Technocracy defender arriving. M20 extended the idea that perhaps this could be positive for the technocracy as a positive force. Without the power-hungry and those just damaged by the Ascension War, the ones left alone to do their own thing made more inclusive decisions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 03:58
|
|
|
Roadie posted:The bit that really shows kender as totally nonsensical is that they simultaneously (a) supposedly have no understanding of personal property and (b) constantly claim evasive excuses for taking personal property. The source quote points out that they literally have stereotypical goldfish brain and don't remember stealing poo poo. So their excuses are them also rationalizing why they have it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 05:50
|
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:The source quote points out that they literally have stereotypical goldfish brain and don't remember stealing poo poo. So their excuses are them also rationalizing why they have it. My point is that if they don't understand what personal property is, they shouldn't be capable of automatically making excuses centering on the idea of personal property. "You must have dropped it" only makes any sense in a context where I'm not supposed to have it and I know I'm not supposed to have it... but kender don't understand why they're not supposed to have stuff. This is some real Julian Jaynes stuff where you have to end up with kender who have half a brain that understands personal property and half that doesn't. Roadie fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Nov 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 06:33
|
|
|
Everything about Dragonlance is exceptionally dumb and Kender are no exception. Dragonlance is a prime example about how most D&D aggressively avoids making any internal sense and just tries to perpetuate Saturday morning cartoon logic to everything. Evil wizards wear black robes and good ones white. If you are non-committal to good or evil you wear red. Being a black robe isn't really enough to get you killed on sight by anyone unless you officially join a war, because black robes are subtle whenever possible you see, aside from wearing their morality as an armband that is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 06:52
|
|
|
TheCenturion posted:That's my point. If you have a race of creatures who, by divine fiat or whatever reason, don't care about objects, how would that shape their outlook and culture differently? Lots of human cultures have 'property' inextricably intertwined with concepts like 'marriage.' From outright 'I'll trade you my daughter for a diplomatic alliance' to 'our children shall be wed, uniting our houses' to dowries, bride prices, etc. Hilariously enough, divine fiat would make far more sense than what i'm seeing. Like, I can buy that some trickster god made The Most Annoying Species Ever™ as a way of screwing with everyone else. If you wrote something like the Kender version of Coyote or Loki or whatever the heck being up in the astral plane giggling his rear end off due to them creating this species of kleptomaniac gold fish brained jerks (who don't realize they're jerks) that cause almost everyone to foam at the mouth in rage and frustration after interacting with them for five minutes then yeah, sure. That's kind of clever in a meta sort of way since you've got to interact with these people (and it gives both the players and their characters a reason to be mildly annoyed with said deity) and funny to boot. But "person who can pathologically steal something and then the writing gives them a partial free stealing poo poo pass because they don't have a concept of property despite making excuses for stealing the property" is stupidly circular writing that hedges on a lot of leeway that not everyone might want to give them. The fact that some of the excuses are portrayed as excuses that someone who got caught stealing something in real life might give is even more suspect and calls to mind the OWoD's "Gypsies" fiasco on the first page. Archonex fucked around with this message at 07:56 on Nov 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 06:57
|
|
|
Roadie posted:My point is that if they don't understand what personal property is, they shouldn't be capable of automatically making excuses centering on the idea of personal property. "You must have dropped it" only makes any sense in a context where I'm not supposed to have it and I know I'm not supposed to have it... but kender don't understand why they're not supposed to have stuff. The quoted bit says they do have a concept of theft sort of, at least enough of one to know what a thief is and identify as not that. So technically the writers thought about it, but only enough to say, "Uh yeah but it's not a problem because ummm. look over there!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 06:59
|
|
|
One thing I'll give Kender is that having a radically alien morality that's incomprehensible to humans is a better idea than the rest of D&D's "every sapient species is just people." I mean, usually it's wiring orc brains as evil and using them as a stand-in for indigenous peoples. So "minds capable only of mischief" is a step in the right direction, if only a small one. It also brings up and questions the notion that "if they're capable of thought, they should agree with us" that usually permeates these discussions, but not in a way that actively pushes for  by then linking them to a particular real-world people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 10:37
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:Everything about Dragonlance is exceptionally dumb and Kender are no exception. Dragonlance is a prime example about how most D&D aggressively avoids making any internal sense and just tries to perpetuate Saturday morning cartoon logic to everything. Evil wizards wear black robes and good ones white. If you are non-committal to good or evil you wear red. Being a black robe isn't really enough to get you killed on sight by anyone unless you officially join a war, because black robes are subtle whenever possible you see, aside from wearing their morality as an armband that is. Aside from Kender there were also the Gully Dwarves, a degenerate subspecies of dwarf that was smaller, incredibly stupid and uncultured, and tended to live in slums, ruins, and garbage dumps. When I last looked at any Dragonlance stuff in detail I was young and not prone to think hard about a lot of implications past them being a dumb comic relief race, but in retrospect it sounds worse than that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 12:52
|
|
|
moths posted:One thing I'll give Kender is that having a radically alien morality that's incomprehensible to humans is a better idea than the rest of D&D's "every sapient species is just people."
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 13:08
|
|
|
It's nowhere near as bad as a lot of other stuff in the setting, but for some reason the "dumb Dragonlance thing" that has stuck with me for like 30 years is that Weiss and/or Hickman forgot the difference between a "halberd" (i.e. a polearm) and a "hauberk" (a shirt of mail armor), so there's at least one entire scene in one of the original novels where Our Heroes are menaced by outerwear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 13:10
|
|
|
Roadie posted:My point is that if they don't understand what personal property is, they shouldn't be capable of automatically making excuses centering on the idea of personal property. "You must have dropped it" only makes any sense in a context where I'm not supposed to have it and I know I'm not supposed to have it... but kender don't understand why they're not supposed to have stuff. I feel like someone can engage with the thing they are being yelled at without really "getting it". Like if someone ran up to you angry that the bills in your pocket had a serial number that ended in 2453Z and it *SHOULD* end in 2453T and you need to explain yourself. Your answers would probably pretty converge into "I don't know, maybe the bank gave me the wrong one" which agrees there was a right one. It doesn't mean you understand the system he's going by, just that you understand what answers he is looking for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 13:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 19:01 |
|
|
The Artificial Kid posted:Are you saying it's better to have individuals' traits heavily determined by their race, instead of allowing all beings to be "people"? In a fantasy setting, yeah, sure. Thinking about how things could be different is an interesting way to think about the human condition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2021 13:31
|
|