Quote from: stupidquestion;7962341. I know this is probably not the right forum and subforum to ask, but as far as i checked, there is none and on the official D&D forum the question will probably not be answered.

2. The background of the question is the following:
I consider buying D&D stuff. But the last time i bought RPG stuff, i realized i did not get what i wanted and was ready to pay for. Instead of getting "RPG rules stuff", "RPG background stuff" and "RPG adventure stuff", i got the three and a heavy dose of what i call "political commentary" in the form of storylines, world ideas and other stuff, which directly reflected and made a stand in regard to some topics i could also read in newspapers about.

But if i would want that, i would buy a newspaper and not RPG stuff. Furthermore, it was blatantly unfitting to the whole fictional concept in my eyes.

Hence, i want to avoid to pay for "political commentary" when buying RPG stuff.

3. D & D rules have a single small paragraph which was hailed as inclusive. I do not mind. But the way some people wrote about it, i fear it might foreshadow more "political commentary".

Hence, the question, if there is much to expect from D & D in this direction.


4. If you do not know what i am talking about, i cannot do anything, because any details would probably get this thread banned or whatever is done in this forum (since tolerance must reign supreme, which makes it unavoidable to delete post and close threads - or something like that, i did not realy understand).

Thanks for any tips regarding what to expect from D&D products.

It's only going to get worse from here on out.

SJWs are hijacking RPGs to appease the 2-3% of the North American population that is gay/whatever.

Pathfinder already prouldy trumpets these anomalies and shoves them down your throat. D&D is close at hand.

It's been stated for the record, by the D&D lead designer, that if you don't accept/endorse homosexual acts, then you are a bigot.

I won't buy it.

1989, don't worry, you'll always have RaHoWa.

Quote from: 1989;796410It's been stated for the record, by the D&D lead designer, that if you don't accept/endorse homosexual acts, then you are a bigot.

Link?

I found this:
http://www.themarysue.com/sexuality-and-gender-diversity-dungeons-and-dragons-next/
"MM: Any social change takes time. My personal sense is that I’ve always been much more leery about offending gay and transgender folks by fumbling the issue in an effort to include them. I’m not worried about offending bigots – quite the opposite, in fact. The value lies simply in acknowledgement, and realizing that it’s better to put something out there than remain quiet out of a misplaced bout of sensitivity."

Thats not directly saying anyone not endorsing homosexual acts is a bigot. He just names two groups, one are "gay and transgender folks", the other are "bigots" but i do not see the indication there are no further groups.

but that part realy makes me wonder, how limited some people's imagination must be:
"JC: Including the material brings value in two big ways:... and it encourages our other players to consider the spectacular array of characters that they can create in D&D."

Why should one need "encouragement" to realize that girdle of sex change, animate dead and its ilk, awaken, the ability to summon and enslave succubi and the wide arrange of intelligent but non-human creatures of various sizes allow for a throng of different sexual orientation concepts without ever breaching the rule of "only between consenting adults"?
(Ok, with succubi it would not be consenting, but i guess thats ok with demons.)

Quote from: Will;796408If the weapon is sold or destroyed, the paladin is at a -1 penalty to attacks/damage and can't bind with another weapon for a month... and then can pick up any sword and be fine.

So in terms of 'effectiveness at fighting demons,' it's making a life-changing benefit to someone vs. one month of being slightly sub-par in combat. And, depending, the party might have another sword on hand that will do at least ok.

Rules here:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin

Since when are battles to defend innocents vs demon forces restricted to 15 min adventuring day?

Only then the pal skill can compensate for the lack of magic sword.

Quote from: 1989;796410SJWs are hijacking RPGs to appease the 2-3% of the North American population that is gay/whatever.

SJW means social justice warrior?

Quote from: stupidquestion;796419SJW means social justice warrior?

Yes !

There was a thread on this topic a little while ago.

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=30886

SJW is social justice warrior, yes.

Quote from: stupidquestion;796339Paizo Adventure Path 73, Paladin selling the magic sword inherited from her father to pay for "gender reassignment magic" as a wedding gift to her spouse suffering from biologically being male, so that their marriage can be more happy and complete.

The problem is you're using Paizo adventure paths. They're chock full of anachronistic behavior and attitudes. If it's not a transgender sex change, it's a single mom tending bar to put herself through university, or a teenaged runaway who resents his step-dad. If you want D&D material without goofy modern tropes, then stop buying Paizo material. I'd also recommend you focus on setting-based material, instead of the soap-opera, deep-background railroads Paizo puts out. Frog God and Goodman Games are publishers who pretty much ignore this stuff and focus on adventure setting content.

As for WotC D&D, it's not clear how much of the material is going to be of the 'modern 20-something Seattle hipster in the body of a Ranger' stripe. It looks like they'll be outsourcing a lot of their adventure content, so it will probably depend on the publisher.

Quote from: stupidquestion;796373@Bren
I prefer not to pay for stuff, which needs to be repaired directly, if there is chance i might get stuff that works as i prefer.

Good luck with that.

I've seldom used an adventure anyone else wrote without it needing some revision to fit some aspect of my campaign, the setting, a particular set of PCs, the likes and dislikes of my players, and my likes and dislikes. In addition, I routinely adapt adventures to different systems, settings, genres etc. That's part of my fun in being the GM. The notion that a minor adjustment like which genders are attracted to which is so onerous as to change the value ratio for you just boggles my mind...well really it just makes me think that this isn't at all about you being ripped off in your purchase because you have to do a tiny bit of work. This is about you looking to be offfended and using the adventure path as an excuse for you to vent your rage at changing mores in western society.

Quote from: Critias;796394Okay, well I'm glad this guy answered/asked, at least, so I can safely ignore his opinions, now.

And yes, there is that as well.

Quote from: CRKrueger;796247First post, username "Stupid Question"?  Obvious trollsock.  This Halloween Jack again begging for morsels to feed his masters?

I thought the SA-authorities finally got sick of all the shit they were getting for Grog.txt and shut the thing down for the last time?

I guess Jack may have moved on to other pastures.  Lately, I saw him flaming on a German forum, of all places, where he was trying to sabotage a thread about a recent interview I'd given.

Obsessive-compulsives are funny. In a tragic way, but funny.

Quote from: stupidquestion;796418Since when are battles to defend innocents vs demon forces restricted to 15 min adventuring day?

Only then the pal skill can compensate for the lack of magic sword.

Since when isn't it?

You're also noticeably avoiding the point that magic weapons aren't rare.

Giving your love a life-changing gift because you sold a family heirloom is great story that is likely to have 0 impact on your actual adventuring power.

Quote from: danskmacabre;796274The only political commentary about the 5th Ed MM was someone saying the representation of males creatures vs Female creatures was apparently swayed more in favour of males over females.
It seemed to me like the person in question was looking for an excuse to be outraged, but hey, whatever.

Wasn't this from Tracy Hurley, the same 'feminist' who thinks that Aleena the Cleric from the old D&D basic red box, in her full head-to-toe armor, looks like a slut...



 with her "come hither" look and "Money shot" posture? (those last two are literal quotes, by the way)


If it is Hurley, no one in the hobby takes her seriously anymore. Because, well, stuff like the above; plus being caught in outright lies told to try to destroy people she disagreed with.

Quote from: Ashoka;796300I saw the original post that this guy's talking about. Basically, because PF and 5e have decided to be inclusive by including LBTQ-friendly elements and statements about choosing whatever gender you want, he feels excluded due to the fact that he supposedly can't outlaw these things by RAW. PF is the worse offender, because they've apparently produced adventures that very explicitly include same-sex love and marriage. There's also gay people writing some of these things.

It's all very frightening.

Maybe we should tell him that about slavery in Athas.

Somehow, I think the idiots that would have a problem with the idea of having two guys in a fantasy RPG setting being in love with each other would have fuck-all problem with slavery.

Quote from: stupidquestion;796339Paizo Adventure Path 73, Paladin selling the magic sword inherited from her father to pay for "gender reassignment magic" as a wedding gift to her spouse suffering from biologically being male, so that their marriage can be more happy and complete.

Considering that a paladin per RAW must be lawful good and may not commit an evil act or act against code of conduct, especially act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), without losing Pal class abilities, and that the repective pal did not have any such problems, the respectives paladins actions are declared by the respective authors (and Paizo leadership agrees as far as i know) to be exemplary conduct and any suggestions, that what that pal did was wrong in some way, are without base according to Paizo. Thats "political commentary" or maybe more precisely "moral commentary about issues currently fought about in politics".

So you would define it as "wrong" to give up a treasured possession to help someone you love who is suffering terribly?

Is that your argument? Because if so, ok, you could certainly try to argue that the problem here has nothing to do with it happening to be a couple where one person is transgender and it is all about how it is a Moral Wrong to put one's own happiness or even the happiness of the person you love above your greater religious and moral duty to fight evil. Totally possible.
But then... what does any of that have to do with "moral commentary about issues currently fought"?

Either shit or get off the pot: are you pissed off because they are not portraying a Paladin in the way you expect and sexual identity has nothing at all to do with that... in which case you have no issue with "current events"?
Or are you pissed off because you think transgender people are icky or wrong, and this whole "a Paladin has a special duty" thing is a bullshit argument you've set up to try to divert well-deserved criticism for being such a prejudiced fuckwit?

Quote from: RPGPundit;796437Somehow, I think the idiots that would have a problem with the idea of having two guys in a fantasy RPG setting being in love with each other would have fuck-all problem with slavery.

I think I'll put this right here.