| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Artemel
Learned Scribe
USA
110 Posts |
 Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 04:05:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
Aldrick: Lambskin condom, absolutely. But the syringe wasn't invented until 1844. Again you're using modern or near-modern tech for your Realms turkey baster method. 
Piston syringes go back to at least 1st century AD and the Romans.
"During the 1st century AD Aulus Cornelius Celsus mentions the use of them to treat medical complications in his De Medicina." -Wiki |
 |
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 04:06:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
Aldrick: Lambskin condom, absolutely. But the syringe wasn't invented until 1844. Again you're using modern or near-modern tech for your Realms turkey baster method.
Not according to Wikipedia.  Here is the historical timeline.
==========
The first piston syringes were used in Roman times. During the 1st century AD Aulus Cornelius Celsus mentions the use of them to treat medical complications in his De Medicina.
9th century AD: The Iraqi/Egyptian surgeon Ammar ibn 'Ali al-Mawsili' created a syringe in the 9th century using a hollow glass tube, and suction to remove cataracts from patients' eyes, a practice that remained in use until at least the 13th century.
c. 1650: Blaise Pascal invented a syringe (not necessarily hypodermic) as an application of what is now called Pascal's law.
1844: Irish physician Francis Rynd invented the hollow needle and used it to make the first recorded subcutaneous injections, specifically a sedative to treat neuralgia.
1853: Charles Pravaz and Alexander Wood developed a medical hypodermic syringe with a needle fine enough to pierce the skin. Alexander Wood experimented with injected morphine to treat neuralgia. He and his wife became addicted to it. His wife was the first woman to die of an injected drug overdose.
1946: Chance Brothers in Smethwick, Birmingham, England produce the first all-glass syringe with interchangeable barrel and plunger, thereby allowing mass-sterilisation of components without the need for matching them.
1956: New Zealand pharmacist and inventor Colin Murdoch was granted New Zealand and Australian patents for a disposable plastic syringe.
==========
As you can see, 1844 is when the hollow needle was invented. You don't need a hollow needle to use the Turkey Baster Method. |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 05:18:47
|
I stand corrected. They're far older than I thought.
Thinking of that, has anyone here played the card game Timeline? It's basically that concept as a game: everyone has a group of inventions, and you have to guess whether they came before or after inventions that have already been dated. Definitely a fun with history kind of game. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
Artemel
Learned Scribe
USA
110 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 12:20:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
I stand corrected. They're far older than I thought.
Thinking of that, has anyone here played the card game Timeline? It's basically that concept as a game: everyone has a group of inventions, and you have to guess whether they came before or after inventions that have already been dated. Definitely a fun with history kind of game.
Oh, I just saw that game this past weekend. If anyone has an opinion on it that would be great. My limited budget forced me to choose between one set of Timeline or the new D&D Starter Set... 5e won. Barely. And mainly because someone had posted that the adventure inside was very good. |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 13:34:34
|
| I like it. The cards are too small, and difficult to shuffle, but the premise is really good. And you really do want to shuffle the cards well, otherwise you start getting a bunch of inventions within a few years of each other in the middle of the 1800's, and it becomes REALLY hard. But it's definitely a fun game, especially if you have even the mild interest in history. I definitely recommend it. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
xaviera
Learned Scribe
Canada
149 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 14:36:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
I am glad to see this topic changing more towards a productive turn. The discussion of using magic to change genders is especially interesting. This is perhaps the kind of method that WotC should have presented such discussion. To further such, lets take some examples and see how they might affect the world.
From a purely gaming standpoint, yes, discussing game-world impacts is more 'productive', though I'd argue that even having discussions about LGBTQ issues is productive in real world terms.
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
Thinking of that, has anyone here played the card game Timeline? It's basically that concept as a game: everyone has a group of inventions, and you have to guess whether they came before or after inventions that have already been dated. Definitely a fun with history kind of game.
It's not bad as a party game (a la Trivial Pursuit) or filler. There are a number of different variants including one with animal sizes, but to me they get somewhat repetitive after a while (and having played several times probably gives you a distinct advantage). Personally, I'd rather play Love Letter (nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that I'm a Sharess fan - really!  ).
|
Writings on Sharess: Thoughts & Prayers by Xaviera ~ High Priestess of Sharess |
|
|
|
Demzer
Senior Scribe
873 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 15:10:36
|
I think sex change spells are readily available for adventuring folks even in shadier places and from temples of Mask, Shar or other mischievious deities.
The reason is that magically changing your sex completely throws off many attempts at divining and scrying your person from would be capturers, as the vast majority of divination spells requires that the caster has some kind of description of the target, and a sex change is way more reliable than most of the shielding spells (that would have to be continually recast).
So i see a lot of rich criminals, adventurers at odds with powerful enemies in a particular region, hunted individuals and members of secret societies changing their sex and travelling far away to avoid capture, death, justice or whatever.
EDIT: Let my ignorance shine bright! LGBT...Q? What does the Q stands for? |
Edited by - Demzer on 09 Jul 2014 15:13:47 |
|
|
|
xaviera
Learned Scribe
Canada
149 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 17:50:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Demzer
EDIT: Let my ignorance shine bright! LGBT...Q? What does the Q stands for?
Usually 'Queer' [a]. Occasionally you'll see ultra-inclusive acronyms like LGBTQQIP2SAA, which stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans* [b], queer, questioning [c], intersex, pansexual, two-spirited, asexual and ally.
[a] Generally an umbrella term for alternative sexualities in general; includes 'genderqueer', i.e. a non-binary gender or mode of gender expression.
[b] Usually 'transgender', but includes subsidiary terms such as 'trans man', 'trans woman', etc. as well as non-binary genders (including intersex) and gender expressions (e.g. drag) - see also 'genderqueer'. It includes 'transsexual' as well, which was the old term for transgender people but which is generally falling out of favour as it tends to emphasize biology and physical characteristics (genitalia). I don't belive that it includes 'transvestite', which is a psychiatric term that has been replaced by 'cross-dresser'. The queer communities are diverse and have different views on different words, but in general do not use the words 'tranny' or 'shemale' for trans women unless you are RuPaul and even then prepare to take flak for it 
[c] a.k.a uncertain (or curious)
For more info, see the following links:
Hope this helps.
~ X
|
Writings on Sharess: Thoughts & Prayers by Xaviera ~ High Priestess of Sharess |
Edited by - xaviera on 09 Jul 2014 18:13:55 |
|
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1844 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 18:42:19
|
Pleas don't shoot me, please don't shoot me, please don't shoot me but...the very idea that some would even feel they need such a long arcronym (LGBTQQIP2SAA) is part of my problem with some of the movement towards 'inclusiveness' and political correctness. I stopped at LGBT because it's good enough, IMO, to get the point across during a discussion. The rest is just too much and is unwieldy at best. Some of this stuff is simply taken too far, IMHO.
Now to tie this directly to the OP, this is what some folks meant when they expressed concerns over word space (someday) being spent on 'shout outs' to other groups (such as the BDSM community mentioned earlier). When does it stop? When is enough actually enough? Today it's a simple 82 word blurb, tomorrow it's an entire chapter on LGBTQQIP2SAA-BDSM-WASPCM (that's white anglo-saxon protestant conservative male lol). My point is it NEVER seems to stop at what (at least I believe to be) a reasonable point. And the fact that some folks would need such a long acronym simply proves my point. That, and I don't think it does anything for the movement when people go that far.
Oh and also, the same is true if a (insert religious text of choice here)-toting group goes too far in expressing (read: pushing onto others) their religious beliefs to the point of causing trouble for others. That's another discussion, but I do want to be on record as saying that things flow in multiple directions when speaking about topics like this.
Cheers. |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
|
|
|
Demzer
Senior Scribe
873 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 20:06:04
|
Eh ... it's like that Simpson episode (season 15 episode 8) with the SSCCATAGAPP (Singles Seniors Childless Couples And Teens And Gays Against Parassite Parents) against Marge's PPASSCCATAG (Proud Parents Against [all the above]).
Ok, sorry, going back to my cave. |
|
|
|
xaviera
Learned Scribe
Canada
149 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2014 : 20:07:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
Pleas don't shoot me, please don't shoot me, please don't shoot me but...the very idea that some would even feel they need such a long arcronym (LGBTQQIP2SAA) is part of my problem with some of the movement towards 'inclusiveness' and political correctness. I stopped at LGBT because it's good enough, IMO, to get the point across during a discussion. The rest is just too much and is unwieldy at best. Some of this stuff is simply taken too far, IMHO.
I understand your point, and I'll confess that's a discussion I don't feel qualified to have in any great depth because I'm not sufficiently familiar with the nuances. I'll just say (without intending to cast any aspersions on you) that 'good enough for you' is not necessarily 'good enough for others', especially when we're talking about those who have relatively less social power. Many whites, for example, think that our society as a whole is no longer particularly racist; many non-whites would disagree.
I think that we can be sensitive to others' feelings by acknowledging and accepting the distinctions they make about themselves (e.g. 'queer femme lesbian-identified trans woman of colour') or the identities they choose (for example, referring to trans* people by their preferred pronouns) without necessarily needing to understand the details - as WotC has done by including these words. In most cases, LGBTQ should suffice for everyday use.
|
Writings on Sharess: Thoughts & Prayers by Xaviera ~ High Priestess of Sharess |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11719 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jul 2014 : 12:46:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
A high level mage is turned down by a woman. He pays someone to acquire a quantity of her hair. He then makes a simulacrum of her and is seen "dating" her around town. He does not bother to make people aware of the fact that this is NOT the real woman. News of this "cheating" scandal gets back to the woman's lover.
A high level male mage attempts to seduce a heterosexual male. When the male turns him down, he makes a simulacrum of the man. In the "privacy" of his own home, the mage uses his new construct to pleasure himself. The mage is scried upon by another mage, who believes the construct is the actual male. This may be in a society that shuns such interactions. The heterosexual male is then shunned for something he never did. He hires adventurers to find the simulacrum of him and destroy it.
There's probably some other options out there that can involve magic. Can anyone think of such?
Well, aside from being creepy... it's just an illusion. So, it's not rape or anything because the simulacrum isn't sentient. Wizards can do far more to indulge their sexual fantasies that don't cost them as much as a simulacrum.
I'm not sure that these things would necessarily create problems for individuals in the Realms. In the case of the first issue, it's easily solved by her showing up and appearing at the same time the simulacrum is walking around. Non-monogamy isn't a huge thing in the Realms like in the real world, so it wouldn't really be a scandal per-say. It's more a problem of the creep factor.
There may be some laws on the books regarding false impersonation, though, which could land the wizard in some trouble with local law enforcement.
As for the second problem involving the male... it's even less of an issue since engaging in a romance or sexual activity with someone of the same sex isn't frowned upon. If the guy finds out he might be creeped out about it, not because of the same sex sexual activity, but the fact that the wizard is actively fantasizing about him to the point that he's creating illusions to simulate him to stimulate his own sexual fantasies.
Then again, it depends on personality and the relationship he has with the wizard. If they are friends, it might end up with some teasing. "So, how good was I? Was I all that you expected?" After all, it's happening in the privacy of the wizards home, so he's assuming that no one else knows what he is doing. So that could lead to some amusing conversations / friendly teasing. It depends on the personality of the individual and their pre-existing relationship with the wizard.
If someone (Manshoon?  ) was caught having sex with a simulacrum of Elminster, and he found out about it, I'm pretty sure he'd find it hilarious. Just one example.
Agree, totally creepy. However, the idea is to create adventure opportunities. For instance, in the aforementioned case of the woman, her showing up at the same spot as the man would indeed clarify things. However, her knowing when to do so would be the problem. She might have to hire adventurer's as private eyes for this purpose. This makes for a nice side adventure which doesn't involve the adventurers having to kill something (hopefully) and allows them to use some of their more social skills.
On the previous instance about the males... while a lot of the realms would turn a blind eye, there are some cultures in the realms which I don't believe would be as accepting. For instance, the Damara, Vaasa, Impiltur area might be less inclined to such (and in fact, this may be why Sune convinced Lord of Imphras II, Rilaunyr, to change his sex from male to female.... to make the area less stodgy). Mulhorand, Unther, the dwarves of the Great Rift, sections of Tethyr, would also seem less open to me as well. Therefore, one could see the opportunity for such a "kill the simulacrum" adventure. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11719 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jul 2014 : 12:49:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
Pleas don't shoot me, please don't shoot me, please don't shoot me but...the very idea that some would even feel they need such a long arcronym (LGBTQQIP2SAA) is part of my problem with some of the movement towards 'inclusiveness' and political correctness. I stopped at LGBT because it's good enough, IMO, to get the point across during a discussion. The rest is just too much and is unwieldy at best. Some of this stuff is simply taken too far, IMHO.
Now to tie this directly to the OP, this is what some folks meant when they expressed concerns over word space (someday) being spent on 'shout outs' to other groups (such as the BDSM community mentioned earlier). When does it stop? When is enough actually enough? Today it's a simple 82 word blurb, tomorrow it's an entire chapter on LGBTQQIP2SAA-BDSM-WASPCM (that's white anglo-saxon protestant conservative male lol). My point is it NEVER seems to stop at what (at least I believe to be) a reasonable point. And the fact that some folks would need such a long acronym simply proves my point. That, and I don't think it does anything for the movement when people go that far.
Oh and also, the same is true if a (insert religious text of choice here)-toting group goes too far in expressing (read: pushing onto others) their religious beliefs to the point of causing trouble for others. That's another discussion, but I do want to be on record as saying that things flow in multiple directions when speaking about topics like this.
Cheers.
Arcanamach, you expressed my feeling much better than I ever could have. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jul 2014 : 20:31:00
|
Wow I came in to this discussion late. I am glad they mentioned Corellon being non-binary, but it might have been better suited for his profile. I missed where they put this blurb. But elves often have statues of their gods depicted as both male and female.
Redking: I get what you are saying, but terms like gender dysmorphia or however you spell it are offensive because it implies those who are "genderqueer" have some sort of disorder. Homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality.
Wizards should be careful about how they present the material, but as someone who is passionate about LGBTQ rights, I applaud their efforts. I would like to read more FR novels with non-binary characters, be it gender or sexuality. |
Sweet water and light laughter |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jul 2014 : 22:42:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by xaviera
[quote]Originally posted by The Arcanamach
Pleas don't shoot me, please don't shoot me, please don't shoot me but...the very idea that some would even feel they need such a long arcronym (LGBTQQIP2SAA) is part of my problem with some of the movement towards 'inclusiveness' and political correctness.
*Stamp**
BEAST-HTBAR
Big Emergency Assistance Search Transport-Houston, Texas, Born and Raised! |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
|
|
|
Roseweave
Learned Scribe
Ireland
212 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2014 : 23:20:37
|
Okay, I just read through this thread and have a lot of thoughts.
First off, I want to make one thing clear. The definition of for example "Homophobia", "Transphobia" etc. that the general public uses is different from the one in activist communities. A lot of people seem to only consider very blatant discrimination to be classified as such and when other still quite obvious forms of inequality are presented people tend to shrug them off or label us as oversensitive for even drawing attention to them. Many straight cisgender people get extremely defensive when something they say is called out as homophobic. This is a problem - as many people quickly show that they care far more about whether or not they're labelled as homophobic than the people actually affected by what they might be saying. It's important for people who are not, or less affected (as white, middle class homosexual men who tend to be a little more sheltered from the effects of homophobia than the rest of us have long been the figureheads of the queer community) not to speak over or attempt to erase the voices of those who try to speak out about their experiences and educate others about the appropriate way to discuss these issues.
What I'm getting at is that ultimately only queer people can decide what is queerphobic. It's not for other people who do not have first hand experiences with our issues to decide how sensitive we should be. Also, what one queer person says does not hold for all. Do not use a more convenient queer person as a defensive for not showing sensitivity and respect towards another. We all have different experiences, and many of us unfortunately internalise harmful values as a coping mechanism - this is often especially true of transgender people who desperately want to fit in. So basically - if a queer person has a concern, remember we are a marginalised group, listen, and don't try to talk over us. I'll also be using the word queer to remember to LGBT*QQIA etc. issues as I believe it's a more elegant catch all. I know some assimilationists don't like it but I don't have much time for that.
With that out of the way - I'm shooting down a couple of red flags.
Political Correctness/PC. No. Just no. Even if it's coming from a queer person - ultimately, this is effectively a weasel word as it is nowhere near as meaningful or profound as it sounds. Exactly what Political Correctness is, is poorly defined, but generally completely at odds with it's original definition which was for something to be in line with the general establishment/institution. Of course a lot of people pretend that the establishment is a lot more pro queer and pro minority than it really is, or mistake where the "establishment" begins and ends(as is the case with the trend of right wing libertarianism etc. in the US). When we talk about things like homophobia as an institution, we mean it in a similar way to marriage being an institution, and how that has certain values and ideas associated with it abstract of legality.
There are a number terms that are used as silencing/erasure tactics in these discussions - Political Correctness is a favourite, but more commonly these days you see words like "Social Justice Warrior" or various references to sites like tumblr. The ultimate intent of these words is to deny the voices of outspoken memebers of a marginalised group, either by their oppressors or those who would ally with them in order to "Fit in". If you are going to have a mature discussion with me on queer issues, please do not use that term. It has far too many negative connotations.
Ed said that queer relationships aren't a big deal in the realms, so there isn't any problem. Again, no. While I'm aware this has been said, actual queer characters that get a significant mention in the lore are relatively rare and I can't think of any transgender ones(granted we are a smaller minority again - but given the setting one might assume it would be more visible). A lot of people seem to think that queer rights begins and ends with gay marriage and the like, and there's something similar going on here. I'm actually glad Ed said that there may be some degree of discrimination because I feel like that gives the opportunity for queer players to build characters they can relate to - but the option is also there if they want to build ones for which their sexuality was no issue(as I have done with my current 4E Neverwinter campaign character). What I'm trying to say though is that just because the creator of a setting says it's accepted, doesn't mean the setting has no problem with queer representation. This should be obvious, but it needs to be said outright.
And that brings me to the actual paragraph itself - again, it's something that should be obvious, but it still needs to be said outright. Yes, we have been playing queer characters ourselves for years without issue. But this is official recognisation of that fact, and it's huge. Again - I talked about the idea of an institution earlier. Officially having the concept of gender identity and sexuality recognised in the 5E Player's Handbook of the original and most famous roleplay system is huge for the institution of gaming. Because it CAN tip the fence for many GMs, or many players. While people who are firmly queer will likely play queer characters, there are a lot of people who may have not had the confidence to do so. In fact - given how a lot of people come to terms with such things THROUGH the game, being able to give fence sitters that little nudge could lead to many gamers outright coming out of the closest.
I can see the point that it does feel a bit insulting towards those who have already been playing queer characters, but most people I know do not feel this way. I think it could have been worded better, especially with regards trans issues. I think however the fact that a game is officially recognising this outweighs that by quite a bit. I have already been playing a queer character(a ravenously pansexual courtesan) but I feel more confident doing so for a number of reasons.
And again - because the lore still tends to reflect real world homonormativity to some degree, it is really nice to have this "shout out". With something like atheism - I Think that's more relative to the world you're in. It's not about denying the existence of a God after all, but about being rational, at least in theory. So you could still have atheist-type characters who are not outright atheists, who acknowledge the existence of god like beings but not their divinity, or are highly sceptical about various spiritual or magical claims until they see them for themselves. I do think this would be interesting to get more into. Rat Queens is currently pulling it with Dee the "atheist cleric".
|
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 06 Aug 2014 : 01:11:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
As someone who has been an atheist even longer than a Realms fan (and I go back to the start of 2e), I've never been bothered with a lack of Realms atheists. I don't have a problem imagining a world where not only are there gods, but they make themselves known to everyone in at least small ways, for instance the mention Ed made about godly presence in firelight late at night or just before sleep (I can't remember the exact quote).
But the problem is that when people demand that the gods actively help them out if the gods want active worship, all too often the trite cliché response is that that is not how the gods behave in the Realms. Call it an edict of Ao or whatever, but the gods generally refrain from direct intervention.
Now, if they are going to be so passive for whatever reason, then that opens the door to doubt as to their intentions/motives, or even existence.
So someone saw a "god" in a firepit just before bed? Big deal. People see "ghosts" all the time. That doesn't make any of them real. I say that this observation holds particularly true if you're being told that that god loves you and wants you to fare well in life, but you find your life to be especially sucky. It doesn't sound like that loving god's love counts for much, does it? So what kind of a loving god is he/she? Is he/she really even all that loving, after all? Is he/she really even a god, after all?
Are you sure you really even saw what you think you saw? People still have hallucinations in the Realms, don't they?
It's annoying to me that the gods' existence is taken for granted, and yet they get such a free pass to not help their believers any more than they actually do. It's like people are paying protection money to gangsters, when the gangsters don't really do any protecting, but they sure do love to collect the money though.
In the name of drama, in the name of courageous heroism, I'd like to see more characters stand up to and defy the gods. Call them on their inactivity or passivity. Call them on their making escuses for their failure to help people any more than they do. To me, that's the ultimate form of goodly defiance--more than any war against another nation, or resistance against orc invasion, or sneaking around drow caverns. Refuse to bend a knee to he/she who won't even give you the time of day!
quote:
And wasn't that crazy halfling Cyric killed during the Avatar books an atheist? Not that that's the best example (villain in a horrible series).
I haven't read that series yet, precisely because so many have characterized it as pretty weak, like that.
But I have heard great things about Prince of Lies, however. I don't know if a main character is an atheist, per sé, but it definitely sounds as if someone is an anti-theist, there.
I realize this response is late, but I didn't see this post at first. There are several series I have read in which the gods DO play an active role, and not just the Avatar books. There are a lack of atheists in the Realms because it is a world in which the gods are known to exist. That's how the world was designed. There are those who defy the gods or don't pray. They don't care about the gods, but they know they exist. They just aren't "atheists" in the real world sense.
The motives of the gods can be difficult to understand, and the compassion of the deity depends on the personality/profile of the god. Ed said in a seminar that he wants the gods to be mysterious, using visions, dreams, an various symbolic sightings to communicate with their followers, and it's up to the followers (particularly in game setting, because it adds to roleplay) to intrepret. But the Realms is a place where the gods are real.
Again, sorry I commented on this late. This thread is long and I didn't see it at first. ^^; |
Sweet water and light laughter |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 06 Aug 2014 : 03:45:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
The motives of the gods can be difficult to understand, and the compassion of the deity depends on the personality/profile of the god. Ed said in a seminar that he wants the gods to be mysterious, using visions, dreams, an various symbolic sightings to communicate with their followers, and it's up to the followers (particularly in game setting, because it adds to roleplay) to intrepret.
Since the gods are so difficult to understand, then there ought to be a whole lot more Realmsians who say "screw it" to those gods and live godless lives.
If it's really up to the followers, then more followers should interpret the gods as fake and imaginary and so much horsepuckey.
That we are told that the existence of the gods is taken for granted sounds loaded and biased, to me. That's not a reflection of liberty of the mind, or of a full range of interpretations and belief. |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
|
|
|
Delwa
Master of Realmslore
USA
1268 Posts |
Posted - 06 Aug 2014 : 05:50:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
The motives of the gods can be difficult to understand, and the compassion of the deity depends on the personality/profile of the god. Ed said in a seminar that he wants the gods to be mysterious, using visions, dreams, an various symbolic sightings to communicate with their followers, and it's up to the followers (particularly in game setting, because it adds to roleplay) to intrepret.
Since the gods are so difficult to understand, then there ought to be a whole lot more Realmsians who say "screw it" to those gods and live godless lives.
If it's really up to the followers, then more followers should interpret the gods as fake and imaginary and so much horsepuckey.
That we are told that the existence of the gods is taken for granted sounds loaded and biased, to me. That's not a reflection of liberty of the mind, or of a full range of interpretations and belief.
I've never understood the general acceptance of the gods in Toril to be absolute. Every time I recall it being mentioned, there is allowance for the rare exception that rejects the gods' existence, but it is rare. Even in our own world, there are periods of history where most people accepted the existence of gods as fact, and atheists were in the vast minority. Just look at America's history. If you dig, yes, you can find people in the nation's early history who denied the existence of a deity. But by comparison to present day, they were scarce.
To say that most people in the Realms believe or accept as fact the existence of gods doesn't, therefore, strain credulity; it reinforces it. With the existence of seemingly unexplainable (magical) phenomenon, that even the learned sages attribute to a divine source, humans would tend to accept divine presence as fact.
You're essentially living in a world where Darwin's Origin of Species hasn't happened yet. It took how many thousands of years for that idea to be published, take root, and become accepted as the popular theory?
Why should Faerūn be different?
|
- Delwa Aunglor
I am off to slay yon refrigerator and spoil it's horde. Go for the cheese, Boo!
"The Realms change; seldom at the speed desired of those who strive, but far too quickly for those who resist." - The Simbul, taken from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Conspectus |
Edited by - Delwa on 06 Aug 2014 05:54:19 |
|
|
|
The Masked Mage
Great Reader
USA
2420 Posts |
Posted - 06 Aug 2014 : 05:58:56
|
| I'd say its different because the gods regularly take a hand in Faerun. In the TOT they were all over - walking talking blasting the world a new one gods. Since then its been god turmoil making turmoil for everyone else. I can't imagine there would be many true disbelievers. |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6651 Posts |
Posted - 06 Aug 2014 : 09:44:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Roseweave
Ed said that queer relationships aren't a big deal in the realms, so there isn't any problem. Again, no.
Ed isn't speaking about the Realms as a published campaign setting here, but rather "his" Realms as he envisaged it, shapes it, writes in it and presents it. In his Realms, queer relationships aren't a big deal. Considering he's the only game designer I've ever seen put in print a lesbian relationship in a D&D sourcebook as far back as 25 years ago, I think you can safely take him at his word on that one.
-- George Krashos |
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 06 Aug 2014 : 13:32:13
|
| @BEAST: the gods being difficult to understand doesn't mean more people should necessarily reject them. That's like saying any concept that is difficult to understand should be rejected. The gods were meant to be mysterious figures, just like magic is, to some extent. Even the mightiest of wizards don't fully understand how it works. And some gods are a little more "forward" in what they want, if you will. Some are more passivrly involved, others more active. |
Sweet water and light laughter |
|
|
|
hammer of Moradin
Senior Scribe
USA
758 Posts |
Posted - 06 Aug 2014 : 22:14:57
|
My thoughts on the matter are strictly about the placement of the paragraph. I feel like this should have been in the first five pages of the introduction, which is where I see some of the dispute is coming from. This is not a rule by any definition I can wrap my head around. This is basic gaming information, introductory guidelines. It would have been more effective there as well.
Putting it in the rules does open it up for further interpretation and explanation within the rules, as many here have been disputing.
When you do get into the rules and canon I feel that not including and reflecting viewpoints, right or wrong, from RL is disingenuous to the gamer. Sure there will be prejudices and hate, and the characters producing these viewpoints, from either side, are not the enemy, not wrong, not right although you and/or the DM can make them that way. My opinion is and is not right, is not wrong; it is my viewpoint and opinion. Same as yours. Having a discussion about it like we are here (mostly) helps. I do have to say though that Roseweave went way over my head. 
Also, why can't there be atheists? Just because there are clerics doesn't mean most commoners have to believe their powers come from a god? To them they might equate the power with that of a mage. Even if they encounter the avatar of a deity they can still believe that it is just a powerful mortal, and some of the gods stat out that way, as mortals. I would think that with all of the magic present that there just might be a good number of atheists in the Realms. |
"Hurling himself upon his enemies, he terrified them with slaughter!"
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium
Candlekeep proverb: If a thing is said often enough, fools aplenty will believe it to be true. |
|
|
|
Roseweave
Learned Scribe
Ireland
212 Posts |
|
|
Eilserus
Master of Realmslore
USA
1446 Posts |
Posted - 07 Aug 2014 : 01:05:19
|
| There probably are a good number of atheists in the Realms. Netheril was full of them if I recall. And that Wall of the Faithless won't build itself. ;) |
|
|
|
Cards77
Senior Scribe
USA
745 Posts |
Posted - 07 Aug 2014 : 01:51:58
|
Unnecessary political statement that reeks of token political correctness for all the wrong reasons. Statements like these shouldn't even need to be made.
My experience has been very different. Our local gamers were by definition marginalized, stigmatized, and overall viewed as "different"...."drama freaks" etc. So we have ALWAYS been by nature inclusive in our gaming because frankly us misfits weren't accepted anywhere else. The result being similar to what Wooly said, because of our diversity as "gamers", "nerds", whatever...we have been by definition more sensitive and inclusive. |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 07 Aug 2014 : 02:14:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by hammer of Moradin
My thoughts on the matter are strictly about the placement of the paragraph. I feel like this should have been in the first five pages of the introduction, which is where I see some of the dispute is coming from. This is not a rule by any definition I can wrap my head around. This is basic gaming information, introductory guidelines. It would have been more effective there as well.
Putting it in the rules does open it up for further interpretation and explanation within the rules, as many here have been disputing.
When you do get into the rules and canon I feel that not including and reflecting viewpoints, right or wrong, from RL is disingenuous to the gamer. Sure there will be prejudices and hate, and the characters producing these viewpoints, from either side, are not the enemy, not wrong, not right although you and/or the DM can make them that way. My opinion is and is not right, is not wrong; it is my viewpoint and opinion. Same as yours. Having a discussion about it like we are here (mostly) helps. I do have to say though that Roseweave went way over my head.
Also, why can't there be atheists? Just because there are clerics doesn't mean most commoners have to believe their powers come from a god? To them they might equate the power with that of a mage. Even if they encounter the avatar of a deity they can still believe that it is just a powerful mortal, and some of the gods stat out that way, as mortals. I would think that with all of the magic present that there just might be a good number of atheists in the Realms.
There are people in the Realms who don't pray to the gods or defy them (Nethril is a good example, as you pointed out), but they aren't necessarily "atheists" in the real world sense. Most Realmsians know the gods exist, even if they don't pay attention to them. Are there Realmsians who give the gods the middle finger? Yes, there are those who defy the gods. But they doesn't make them atheists. |
Sweet water and light laughter |
|
|
|
hammer of Moradin
Senior Scribe
USA
758 Posts |
Posted - 07 Aug 2014 : 16:29:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Roseweave
quote:
I do have to say though that Roseweave went way over my head.
You guys probably need to start here then.
http://borderhouseblog.com/?page_id=54
Too much schooling has taught me to stay away from editorial and opinion pieces unless I'm looking for some entertainment. These subjects are not for entertainment and don't seem to have a lot of source materials, so I'll skim and skip. Not that I don't value opinions on these subjects.
|
"Hurling himself upon his enemies, he terrified them with slaughter!"
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium
Candlekeep proverb: If a thing is said often enough, fools aplenty will believe it to be true. |
Edited by - hammer of Moradin on 07 Aug 2014 16:31:44 |
|
|
|
Kyrel
Learned Scribe
151 Posts |
Posted - 08 Aug 2014 : 14:27:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
Kyrel: How is merely acknowledging someone's existence political correctness?
Hoondatha. Though I intended not to bother with this thread any further, you do ask me a direct question, so here goes:
The reason I feel like this is political correctness, is because I'm pretty sure that there isn't a significant percentage of neither the world population in general, nor the D&D customer base, that belong to the LGBT crowd. For that reason, I'm fairly certain that this is not a nod to this group of people, that has been motivated by any research into the customerbase, but rather it shows up in the book, simply because this particular minority group and their "supporters" (can't think of a better word atm) have brought the matter into the public sphere through various debates in the past few years. If this debate had not taken place, I seriously doubt that this little passage would have been in the book, and that's the reason I name this as political correctness.
In my view these 82 words do not seriously contribute anything to the game or the setting, and for that reason I would have preferred another couple of sentences that did. Also, if we are seriously going to start down this road, giving nods to various real world minority groups, which population group should get a nod in the next edition, just as a recognition of their existence? The BDSM crowd? The Furry's? The balloon or latex lover crowd, or perhaps the drug addicts or alcoholics? You can say that this is obviously silly, but ask yourself if the same thing wouldn't have been said about these 82 words 25 years ago.
I have nothing against the existence of all sorts of real world matters existing within the game world, and I have played both male, female, straight, bi, and homosexual/lesbian characters in various games over the years. But I see no particular reason to include a reference to something like this, just to indicate that the game creators recognize that a particular demographic exists in the real world, and that it is therefor OK for it to also exist in the game world too. |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 08 Aug 2014 : 17:42:31
|
| We call the LGBTQ the minority, but actually, a significant percent of the US population would identify as queer". They aren't as "minor" as people like to make them out to be. WotC might have gone about it a different way, because the words might be considered isolating or something, but I do applaud their efforts. |
Sweet water and light laughter |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
I think WOTC entered the modern age
Topic Locked
