Because I am a mad man, I statted up a bone chair over in the magic items thread. Come at me, peasants!

Quote from: Shasarak;1145658I was pleasantly suprised with your take on this one, Pundit.  It does seem that it is not about the Wheelchair at all.

No, it really isn't. I mean, the wheelchair is silly, sure. But try to name all the things in the Forgotten Realm that are silly...

Quote from: kythri;1145671Learn a bit about "the one who made it" - "the one who made it" isn't in a wheelchair.  The one who made it is self-diagnosed with such a mild form of Ehlers-Danlos - so mild that it doesn't impact her life in any way, other than giving her the abilithy to virtue signal by appropriating disability, and using it to get sham jobs like "disability consultant" and "sensitivity reader - she's the "disabled" version of Rachel Dolezal.

Do you have links/data to back this up?

Quote from: Zalman;1145813I wonder how all the defenders of this concept would feel about an able person asking to play a disabled character. I mean, since it's so "OK" and all. So far, all I'm really seeing is the idea that a player would want to play themselves in the game, and therefore including wheelchairs is inclusive.

Is your defense only about "inclusiveness", or is there something in there about, you know, gaming?

That's what I tell people that want to roleplay a Wizard character.  I say are you a Wizard, Harry?  No I did not think so just stick to your 2nd level Computer Programer and do not get any big ideas.

Like I have said before, for this to work you need to change the world, and that's their goal, to control how you play. If you don't accommodate them you're an Istophobe of course.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4780[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Brad;1145831You're both right, but that's not what this thread is about. It's about some dumbass telling us that if you don't include fucking wheelchairs and disabled people in your elf game, you're a bigot and need to be scorned and avoided like the plague.

And it's a stupid ass idea. The whole thing is stupid. I honestly think this is just some munchkin bullshit that is being passed off as "inclusive" so the retard munchkin who came up with it can force it into D&D Adventurers League.

Greetings!

I agree, my friend. If a character loses an arm, or a leg or whatever during the campaign, the hopefully some kind of accommodation can be made--such may be entirely too difficult though, in the case of legs especially. Character mobility and ruggedness is essential to adventuring.

The party isn't a group of urban-based SJW community activists or lawyers, playing grab-ass in a courtroom, or posturing at the local Starbucks at the city park--they are adventurers. Either they can keep up, or they get left behind and retired. Time to roll up a new character. This same consideration is also true why I would not allow a character to create a handicapped character at the beginning of the campaign. As you mentioned, this whole thing is a stupid fucking idea. While some might whince and stutter at the thought, the idea is stupid, but even more stupid and pernicious is the ideological motivation running underneath the stupid fucking idea.

Why the fuck would any normal person *want* to play a dysfunctional, slow, handicapped character that has a fucking trainload of problems and conditions? We are talking about nearly adventuring SEAL teams here. They need to shut the fuck up and stop hallucinating weird fucking fantasies. Adventuring groups are for hard, rugged beasts! It's all so fucking dumb. Just another example of SJW's trying to pour shit into everything, including RPG gaming and D&D in particular.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1145883Like I have said before, for this to work you need to change the world, and that's their goal, to control how you play. If you don't accommodate them you're an Istophobe of course.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4780[/ATTACH]

How is it you don't see it's you that's trying to control my game?

I never said or implied or hinted you need to adopt this house rule.

You, and several others here, went full-on Twitter mob on me for a while there because I dared to say I liked it.

How do you not look at yourself in the mirror and see the devil you're condemning. You're that dude. You're the one who attempted to control my game. You're the one who called names and demeaned and exaggerated and went hysterical about futurecrimes of WOTC because someone said the liked a fucking houserule you don't, and how it couldn't possibly just be a houserule you don't like it had to be so much more because you disliked it so much and the motives of some people who liked it.  Wake the fuck up dude, YOU'RE THE BADDIES IN THIS SCENARIO.

[video=youtube;hn1VxaMEjRU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU[/youtube]

Quote from: Mistwell;1145895How is it you don't see it's you that's trying to control my game?

I never said or implied or hinted you need to adopt this house rule.

You, and several others here, went full-on Twitter mob on me for a while there because I dared to say I liked it.

How do you not look at yourself in the mirror and see the devil you're condemning. You're that dude. You're the one who attempted to control my game. You're the one who called names and demeaned and exaggerated and went hysterical about futurecrimes of WOTC because someone said the liked a fucking houserule you don't, and how it couldn't possibly just be a houserule you don't like it had to be so much more because you disliked it so much and the motives of some people who liked it.  Wake the fuck up dude, YOU'RE THE BADDIES IN THIS SCENARIO.

[video=youtube;hn1VxaMEjRU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU[/youtube]

Except you're lying thru your teeth. As usual, From the word go I said I would even accept it at my table but would not change the world to accommodate it. And have never demanded you don't play whatever in whatever way you want (I dare you to prove I have).

What I have said is this doesn't make sense (because it doesn't) and it's stupid (because it is) and that you have a right to hold your opinion that it's cool and I have a right to criticize your opinion.

Now go and find where I'm saying you shouldn't play in whatever way you want, I'll wait.

On the other side I have provided evidence of the "moral" shaming if I choose not to accommodate this idiocy.

Which is sorta, kinda what you and others here (the others more so than you) have done to any that dares criticize the contraption.

But please, do keep on strawmaning and lying as is your way.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1145903But please, do keep on strawmaning and lying as is your way.

I feel this is part of the modern problem of that people still believe there is a 'Truly Neutral' position. Every position advocates for some sort of worldview.
Also funny I was just saying he was hyperbolizing the position of....having a position to be that of nazis but I guess he really does believe that.

I just imagine him in 1939: "What you're upset about the germans taking Chekoslovakia? Well your the ones advocating for military actions so YOUR The bad guys in this situation! They are just reunifying with german brethren!"

Quote from: SHARK;1145885Why the fuck would any normal person *want* to play a dysfunctional, slow, handicapped character that has a fucking trainload of problems and conditions? We are talking about nearly adventuring SEAL teams here. They need to shut the fuck up and stop hallucinating weird fucking fantasies. Adventuring groups are for hard, rugged beasts! It's all so fucking dumb. Just another example of SJW's trying to pour shit into everything, including RPG gaming and D&D in particular.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1145923I feel this is part of the modern problem of that people still believe there is a 'Truly Neutral' position. Every position advocates for some sort of worldview.

I agree that there is no true neutral -- but there are more than two positions that can both be wrong.

SHARK has taken an extremely broad position not just against this specific combat wheelchair option, but against disabled PCs in general. I fundamentally disagree with SHARK's premise that having disabled PCs is adding shit to play. I've had a bunch of disabled PCs in play, and they have been a lot of fun.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1145923I feel this is part of the modern problem of that people still believe there is a 'Truly Neutral' position. Every position advocates for some sort of worldview.
Also funny I was just saying he was hyperbolizing the position of....having a position to be that of nazis but I guess he really does believe that.

I just imagine him in 1939: "What you're upset about the germans taking Chekoslovakia? Well your the ones advocating for military actions so YOUR The bad guys in this situation! They are just reunifying with german brethren!"

Of all the disingenuous shits on this forum he's on the top 5

Quote from: jhkim;1145939I agree that there is no true neutral -- but there are more than two positions that can both be wrong.

SHARK has taken an extremely broad position not just against this specific combat wheelchair option, but against disabled PCs in general. I fundamentally disagree with SHARK's premise that having disabled PCs is adding shit to play. I've had a bunch of disabled PCs in play, and they have been a lot of fun.

So Shark's subjective opinion is wrong because your subjective opinion is that it's fun?

Why are you engaging on moral shaming?

He has a right to his opinion just like you have a right to yours.

But no, he's a terribad person for daring to disagree with you...

Quote from: jhkim;1145939I agree that there is no true neutral -- but there are more than two positions that can both be wrong.

SHARK has taken an extremely broad position not just against this specific combat wheelchair option, but against disabled PCs in general. I fundamentally disagree with SHARK's premise that having disabled PCs is adding shit to play. I've had a bunch of disabled PCs in play, and they have been a lot of fun.

Greetings!

Yeah, that's right. Most of my groups run like teams of Marine Infantry or Navy Seals. Lots of riding, running, mountain climbing, swimming, and digging. Lots of tunnels to crawl through, shafts to rappel down, traps and chasms to negotiate. Walls to scale, rivers to cross, marshes and jungles to slog through, often while fighting every step of the way.

Slow, dysfunctional, handicapped characters would be a hopeless liability in such endeavors. Thus, in such a demanding, harsh, and unforgiving environment, handicapped characters simply don't fit in.

Handicapped *people* can certainly find ways to survive within a society, and contribute in meaningful ways to their family and community around them. Handicapped characters are however, generally entirely unsuitable for operating with an adventuring group. An Adventuring Team is much like a squad of Marine Infantry or Navy Seals. Just like in the real world, no one in their right minds would *expect* a squad of Marines or Navy Seals to take handicapped person along with them into the field. No one would even suggest it. In a similar fashion, in a harsh, brutal, unforgiving ancient world, no one would embrace the idea of bringing handicapped characters along with an Adventurer team going out into the savage wilderness, either.

Periodically, a dedicated character might lose *one* eye, or a hand, for example. Some such disabilities can occasionally be successfully dealt with on an individual, case by case basis. Generally speaking, however, severely handicapped characters are either not allowed, or if such befalls a character, they can be retired in a local village, where they can build a new life as a handicapped character. The Player then simply rolls up a new character that is healthy, vigorous, and strong. A character that is fully functional and capable of facing the harsh environment with their team, and not be a liability to the team and otherwise jeopardize the mission's success.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Just off the top of my head, some fun characters that could be considered disabled, that don't require the introduction of incongruous and complex artefacts. Because even without Combat Wheelchairs, D&D does not discriminate:

- Aforementioned half legged mastiff riding Gnome wizard.

- Blind Monk or Fighter class (Daredevil or Zaitoichi) Just give them Blindsight 20ft, & advantage on perception (hearing) checks.

- Paraplegic Ranger, modelled after Clytemnestra (Horsewoman) from DC comics. A modified Animal Companion could be played in dungeons while she keeps watch outside, or goes on to the dungeon exit.

- One armed finesse weapon dex fighter/rogue (disadvantage climbing, and no two handed weapons, but that's about it for penalties. Throw in a feat and call it even. I can already imagine them as a discharged musketeer.)

- Wildshape druid, who spends as much time as possible wildshaped for ease of locomotion. Maybe just allow permanent Wildshape, it rarely runs out in practice anyway.

- Muscle-wasted Wizard (Raistlin comes to mind, but basically every low str & con wizard ever made)

- Paladin who's quadriplegia is nullified by her blessed plate armour (think Batman's exosuit immediately post Bane)

- Asperger's Bard who can't understand that this is not the time and place for one of his songs!

- Burn-victim low dex barbarian, who wears her dragon scorched skin with pride.

- EVERY SINGLE LOW INT FIGHTER CLASS CHARACTER

It's almost endless.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1145923I feel this is part of the modern problem of that people still believe there is a 'Truly Neutral' position. Every position advocates for some sort of worldview.
Also funny I was just saying he was hyperbolizing the position of....having a position to be that of nazis but I guess he really does believe that.

I just imagine him in 1939: "What you're upset about the germans taking Chekoslovakia? Well your the ones advocating for military actions so YOUR The bad guys in this situation! They are just reunifying with german brethren!"

Nobody compared him to Nazis. "Are we the baddies" is a comedy thing. And it's funny. But, it's a joke.

Sometimes a houserule is just a houserule and really isn't advocacy. I have a worldview on disabilities, but it's not as relevant as the fact I like these rules for a issue in my games. My saying I like a houserule you do not like is not an invitation for you to make up shit about my hidden motives and then bash me for that made up shit.