Quote from: Shasarak;1109642I have no interest in yet another unoriginal Tolkien rip off.

Why?  Are you too dumb to handle elves, dwarves and hobbits?

See how stupid that sounds?

Quote from: Shasarak;1109642If the retard, I mean DM cant handle a Dragon born then damn right fuck off.  I have no interest in yet another unoriginal Tolkien rip off.

Just interest in yet another WotC kitchen sink fantasy world?

Quote from: Shasarak;1109639Yeah maybe you are running a world that only has Dwarves.

But thats not DnD, thats Dwarfland: The Digging.

Actually theres a few published D&D settings with various tweaks. Some pretty heavy.

D&D Conan: Human only.
Dragonlance: No half-orcs, no halflings.
Dark Sun: No dwarves, Not sure if there were any gnomes or half-elfs. Not sure if halflings were allowed as a PC race? Been 2 decades.
Masque of the Red Death: Human only.
O and BX: No gnomes, half-elfs, or half-orcs. Greyhawk and Blackmoor may have added some but I dont have those on hand to check.
5e Basic and Essentials: No gnomes, half-elfs, half-orcs, tieflings or dragonborn.
Oriental Adventures: no standard races that isnt human or dwarf.
Vikings, Celts, and Rome: Human only.
Don't know about Birthright or Council of Wyrms as the books are in storage.
BECMI: had a set of books that focused on one race and some tertiary ones. Top Ballistia was centered on Gnomes. But other races were still present. But the book was a setting unto itself and could be played so as could the undersea one. Not sure about the others.

And so on.

Quote from: Omega;1109650Actually theres a few published D&D settings with various tweaks. Some pretty heavy.

D&D Conan: Human only.
Dragonlance: No half-orcs, no halflings.
Dark Sun: No dwarves, Not sure if there were any gnomes or half-elfs. Not sure if halflings were allowed as a PC race? Been 2 decades.
Masque of the Red Death: Human only.
O and BX: No gnomes, half-elfs, or half-orcs.
5e Basic and Essentials: No gnomes, half-elfs, half-orcs, tieflings or dragonborn.
Oriental Adventures: humans and dwarves.
Vikings, Celts, and Rome: Human only.
Don't know about Birthright or Council of Wyrms.
BECMI: had a set of books that focused on one race and some tertiary ones. Top Ballistia was centered on Gnomes. But other races were still present. But the book was a setting unto itself and could be played so as could the undersea one. Not sure about the others.

And so on.

Dark Sun had dwarves and half-elves.
Oriental Adventures (the AD&D one) had humans, korobokuru (wild dwarves), hengeyokai (shape-shifting animals), and spirit folk.
I'm not familiar enough with the others to comment.

Quote from: tenbones;1109520Oh so now you're a mind-reader? How about you settle on just being a "reader" - you know, where I keep asking for my Asian Gnomes? Why are you not asking for my Asian Gnomes?

No I am calling you a coward, for pretending you'd care equally about gnomes posing as hobgoblins as you do gnomes who are gay. You argue later why you think them being gay is so important, so you're both admitting this is a lie but for some bizarre reason proclaiming your innocence here. It's a mutually exclusive position you're taking here. No mind-reading necessary because you admit it IS that they're gay that's behind your protest - obviously!

QuoteDo you think two gay gnomish kings is the same thing as gnomes posing as hobgoblins?

Yes, *I* do. You obviously do not. Which is why it's so weird you accused me of mind-reading when I said that's what you appear to think. You're confirming it right here, you DO think being gay is a huge big difference from posing as Hobgoblins. I really do not in this context. Both would be just as meaningless to the adventure.

QuoteYou know... because in a published work meant for all ages, where magic exists and posing as hobgoblins can happen... but implying that two male gnomes having sex (which is the only thing that sets apart two males gnomes from two gay male gnomes - that happen to have titles that do not exist in their culture, nor represented in the actual adventure) seems appropriate or even a quality representation of LGBT "virtues"?

NOBODY is having sex in the adventure. If they were a male and female, would you go right to "Implying they're having sex, in adventure intended for all ages!! Eeek!"? No of course not. You're all concerned because of the possibility that somewhere off-screen people are having gay sex, but would be perfectly fine if that same implication were made of straight sex. And don't fucking deny it, because there ARE married straight characters in many WOTC adventures and you've never had an issue with a single one of them!

Apparently just the thought of gay people having sex gets your knickers in a bunch.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1109652Dark Sun had dwarves and half-elves.
Oriental Adventures (the AD&D one) had humans, korobokuru (wild dwarves), hengeyokai (shape-shifting animals), and spirit folk.
I'm not familiar enough with the others to comment.

I was just commenting on the standard races each does not have. Or what it has.  Not listing every variant or new race. Pretty sure 1st ed Dark Sun did not have dwarves as a PC race? It was stated they were extinct and only half-drarf Muls were left? I could be very wrong on that. Been 2 decades.

Edited my list to be a little more clear.

Quote from: Brendan;1109643I'm currently listening to Dave Rubin's interview with Douglas Murray.  One of Mr. Murray's brilliant observations jarred something loose in my head relevant to our favorite gnay gnome thread.

If the authors were really attempting to build a more diverse and interesting fictional world for adventuring, then they did a piss poor job of it.

If, on the other hand, their real purpose was virtue signaling and tweaking the noses of their ideological opponents, then they succeeded.

Assuming the second motivation, there's no need to flesh out the particulars for the inclusion of TOPIC X within the world.  In fact, the more that TOPIC X stands out in a jarring manner, the more it has in fact served its purpose.  Anyone who notices that it doesn't fit the larger narrative context and is foolish enough to comment on it has in effect "outed" themselves as counter-revolutionary, or at least non-revolutionary which amounts to the same thing.

What we are assuming to be a bug from the standpoint of good writing / module design may actually be a feature, for those with a certain political agenda.

Humm. Good point.

Quote from: Mistwell;1109657Apparently just the thought of gay people having sex gets your knickers in a bunch.

I remember in the late '90s coming home from Tuesday evenings being manly & soldierly with SA80 rifles at the local Territorial Army Reserve base, to find my then-wife watching gay sex on TV (Channel 4's Queer as Folk) with some middle-aged roue buggering jailbait, and feeling vaguely annoyed - getting my knickers in a bunch, as you say. Must be the testosterone.

Quote from: Omega;1109658Pretty sure 1st ed Dark Sun did not have dwarves as a PC race? It was stated they were extinct and only half-drarf Muls were left? I could be very wrong on that.

Both dwarves and muls (sterile half-human/dwarf hybrids) were playable in the original boxed set.  I don't know about the 4ed reboot.  Dwarves had special rules for endurance and playing their obsession/focus.  

Not only were these races very different in Dark Sun, Dark Sun also had feral cannibal halflings, "half-giants" (actually a magically engineered race), and the insectoid Thri-kreen.

Quote from: Shasarak;1109639Yeah maybe you are running a world that only has Dwarves.

But thats not DnD, thats Dwarfland: The Digging.

So we can't run a dwarf only campaign?  What about a fighter or mage or thief only campaign?  What about when the next version of D&D comes along and gender-fluid demi-animals are one of the new standard "core races"?  Are you obligated to fit them into your campaign?

You realize that people have been tweaking the race/class/style of D&D since the beginning, all under the guise of D&D and often in material published by TSR?  

This is getting seriously weird.  Speaking of "The Digging" you're the one doing it.

Quote from: Shasarak;1109639Yeah maybe you are running a world that only has Dwarves.

But thats not DnD, thats Dwarfland: The Digging.

So we can't run a dwarf only campaign?  What about a fighter or mage or thief only campaign?  You realize that people have been tweaking the race/class/style of D&D since the beginning, all under the guise of D&D and often in material published by the copy-right holders?  

This is getting seriously weird.  Speaking of "The Digging" you're the one doing it.

Quote from: jhkimIf you don't like that gnome kings are gay -- you can change them. The module is the module -- you can do with it whatever you like.

But I don't think that modules should be stripped of all color because someone might be offended or someone might think that the wrong motive was behind it.

Quote from: tenbones;1109618The difference no one is talking about here is the intent. Yanseldara and Hawklyn *may* have been intended for some ulterior motive - but it was handled fine and obviously open for consideration.

But today this is not why those two gnomes are gay. They're overtly gay for pandering purposes.

When I'm referring to wrong motives, I am discussing intent. From my view, you would like to say that it's the SJWs who have purity tests, and demand that authors not have any wrongthink on display. But here you're saying the equivalent -- authors should have only the proper intent for creating.

I have no idea of the true reasons why either Yanseldara/Hawklyn or the gnomes were created. And I don't feel I have to know. What matters to me is how well the module plays. I'm still waiting to hear from my son about how well that part of the adventure went. I only know Yanseldara and Hawklyn through mentions -- and I know they are in the novel "The Veiled Dragon". Are they featured in an adventure module?

Quote from: Shasarak;1109642If the retard, I mean DM cant handle a Dragon born then damn right fuck off.  I have no interest in yet another unoriginal Tolkien rip off.

The funny thing is how much you assume about my setting.

But you're demonstrably fucking retarded, so I don't really give two shits about your opinion.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1109648Just interest in yet another WotC kitchen sink fantasy world?

It does not have to be a kitchen sink fantasy world.  Playing the only Dragonborn in Middle Earth would give you a different experience then Hobbit #965 Footy McFurfoot.

How did it get there?  Well if Saruman can make Uruk-hai then he could make Dragonborn as well.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1109683The funny thing is how much you assume about my setting.

But you're demonstrably fucking retarded, so I don't really give two shits about your opinion.

I dont even want one shit from you and if I did your world probably does not even have it!

Quote from: Shasarak;1109702It does not have to be a kitchen sink fantasy world.  Playing the only Dragonborn in Middle Earth would give you a different experience then Hobbit #965 Footy McFurfoot.

How did it get there?  Well if Saruman can make Uruk-hai then he could make Dragonborn as well.

OK, so you're the one that has to demand the GM allow in a special snowflake for your unique enjoyment. I pity such limited imagination in players.