Quote from: pawsplay on December 01, 2023, 02:44:16 AM

Quote from: yosemitemike on December 01, 2023, 02:24:48 AM
One table, a picture and a mention of a marriage.  That's not much of anything.

It's an example each of sexual liberality, sexual manipulation, and sexual reproduction within a heterosexual marriage. That pretty much covers all bases. Having demonstrated how obvious and well-known these examples are, I'm not going to encyclopedically list every other example. If you need a bunch of other examples in a hurry, just read up on the Guide to Hell and virtually anything involving drow.

It's an example of a random table common in old school games,  a traditional depiction of a mythic creature and the most common kind of marriage throughout history.  This covers nothing.  It means nothing.  This is not the gotcha you think it is.  It is not much of anything.

Neither is a pair of married, gay NPCs. But it was actively censored by all sorts of media companies throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s.

Got a concrete example?

Quote from: pawsplay on December 01, 2023, 02:00:54 AM

Quote from: BadApple on December 01, 2023, 01:41:09 AM
Try to find much of anything about sexuality in D&D products before 2000. 

Random harlot table. Naked succubus. The Grand Duchy of Karameikos is ruled by Stefan Karameikos, and his wife, Olivia, with whom he has three children.

And how many hundreds off books did you have to scour before you found those examples? 

The vast majority of the books are completely devoid of that kind of thing entirely and where it does exist, it's scant pieces that barely get any play or page real estate.  Face it, homosexuality wasn't censored and edited out, normal guys ( I guess you use your made up term of cishet) just don't think about homosexual or other queer relationships and so it wasn't added.  Neither was corn harvesting, trade systems for beeswax, or how to schedule traveling barber visits.  Normal sexuality was barely added.

Now sexuality has to be in everything and it has to be gay.  In gaming print, there is more gay content than straight and the more it's pushed in a particular book the lower the sales numbers.  (on a full scale, anything WOTC or Pathfinder will outsell indie products no mater the content but with in their own brand they do much less unit sales)  It's a sickness and it's destroying the companies that sell it.  You really don't have anything to offer humanity when your sexuality and sexual identity is the most important thing about you.

I don't dislike gay people, I just don't care about it.  I don't sit and talk about my sexuality with other straight guys, I damn sure don't want to talk about the subject when I have no personal interest in it like so much of "queerness."  But I guess that enough for you to go ahead and call me a homophobe and you might as well throw transphobe in there too. 

Quote from: BadApple on December 01, 2023, 06:35:38 AM

And how many hundreds off books did you have to scour before you found those examples? 

This is the standard cherry-picked list of things the SJW types invoke to excuse the current writers' obsession with sex, sexuality and, now, pronouns.  They claim the game has always been like that.  No, it hasn't.  The game was never obsessed with sex and sexuality like it is now.  The vast majority of the time we didn't even know what the character's sexuality and, if we did, it was mentioned in passing and not significant.  Now we have to know everyone's sexuality.  It's the same shit in comics.  They all cite the same few cherry-picked things to pretend that comics were always political to justify the current absurdly partisan political obsessions of comic writers.

Quote from: pawsplay on December 01, 2023, 02:56:08 AM
Neither is a pair of married, gay NPCs. But it was actively censored by all sorts of media companies throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s.

  You do not have to censor something that is such a tiny, tiny marginal portion of the population is interested in.  Its not censorship to just not go with something only a itty bitty tiny portion of the population would want or even care about.   Its just not bothering to show something no one gave two craps about.

  They were not printing pornographic images either...was that censorship? 

Quote from: BadApple on December 01, 2023, 06:35:38 AM

Quote from: pawsplay on December 01, 2023, 02:00:54 AM

Quote from: BadApple on December 01, 2023, 01:41:09 AM
Try to find much of anything about sexuality in D&D products before 2000. 

Random harlot table. Naked succubus. The Grand Duchy of Karameikos is ruled by Stefan Karameikos, and his wife, Olivia, with whom he has three children.

And how many hundreds off books did you have to scour before you found those examples? 

His examples were from the DM's Guide, the Monster Manual, and... I'm pretty sure the basic D&D Expert rulebook, but if not there, then from the basic D&D gazeteers. There wasn't a lot of scouring involved, really; these are core books for AD&D 1e and the setting books for D&D.

Quote from: BadApple on December 01, 2023, 06:35:38 AM
And how many hundreds off books did you have to scour before you found those examples? 

I spend three seconds consulting my own brain. Okay, I did fire up my copy of the Rules Cyclopedia to see how many children Stefan and Olivia have.

QuoteDivine command morality is the stupidest shit. You literally cannot create an actual set of moral values from it, because good becomes equivalent to evil if God commands it. Which means there actually isn't any such thing as morality.

On the contrary. If Divine is ontological source of all existence - therefore everything exist by God's command. If this means God ordained morality do not exist, that also means that created human or orc or elf does not exist. Therefore you return to ancient Parmenides statement that all observable world does not exist - because existing being needs to be autothelic (ergo self-created, otherwise external creator can revoke existence) and eternal.

In world with God - he commands all existence, and define all existence.

QuoteMorality can be extracted from the struggle for survival and our social instincts as human beings. Morality is, roughly, what is good for you, and the people you care about, where "good" means beneficial.

Sure that's materialistic perspective and I'm gonna argue in such case morality exists way way less than Divine Ordained one.

QuoteOne could also accepts that morality exists within the human imagination, which is sufficient, because we are humans. But in any case, morality is what you make of it. Divine command is just abandoning your post, ethically speaking; divine command purports to establish morality, but actually establishes the nihilistic case.

No it does not. Because if there is objective morality/ethics imbued in nature of reality by Creator, then it exist and we can seek it, research it and so on.
If it merely exist in your imagination - then the post also exist there and you are NOT obliged to research morality whatsoever because it's fake fairy tale.

QuoteHow is that nihilistic? Are you saying the birth, life and deaths of a few apes isn't significant to you? Sad.

Sad only to you. Not objectively. Ergo pure solipsism.

Quote from: Wrath of God on December 01, 2023, 06:21:21 PM

On the contrary. If Divine is ontological source of all existence - therefore everything exist by God's command. If this means God ordained morality do not exist, that also means that created human or orc or elf does not exist. Therefore you return to ancient Parmenides statement that all observable world does not exist - because existing being needs to be autothelic (ergo self-created, otherwise external creator can revoke existence) and eternal.

Let's reverse this. If God's existence defines all order, and morality exists because he chooses and establishes it, then in a universe with no God, why can't morality exists because a person exists, and their opinion is the only one that matters? It's a bankrupt position.

Let's try this.

Let's say that tomorrow, all-out warfare breaks out and a nuclear exchange occurs that wipes out 90% of the human species in a month. Is that a good thing, or a bad thing? If you think that's objectively a bad thing, then we can talk about the particulars of what is moral in different circumstances. If you don't believe that is objectively a bad thing, you don't believe in morality. You're not even a very serious human being, you are a bystander.

If you believe that if God, or His agents, ordered us to initiate a nuclear exchange, wiping out 90% of humanity, and we did, that it would be good because it is God commands, then "good" doesn't mean anything I care about.

And this concludes the first nine weeks grading period of Ethics 201. Hope you got something out of it.

Last I checked, from what I understood of our prior discussion, you yourself don't believe it is an objectively immoral thing? Are you calling yourself a bystander?

It's not even clear how that definition you had of good, as somehow separate to morality and tied to normative terms but also objective trends in evolution, would apply here. If the metric would consider it a thing that isn't good, if it somehow forwards evolution in a beneficial manner. Which is kind of irrelevant to moral discussion of the event to begin with, if it's distinct from morality within an objective context.

Also, under the terms discussed where there is an objective morality, even if good or moral didn't mean anything you care about, and even if what objective morality commanded was subjectively weird as shit, the moral imperative would still exist. I mean, people can be evil or want things for themselves or others that are not moral. Your not caring wouldn't stop you from being morally in the wrong. Indeed, the "But I don't like it." defense could just as easily be used by people who hate you for say your ethnicity, identity, and all that other stuff you seemed to care about in that other thread, and be just as (in)valid. I guess your reasoning might even imply moreso within a subjective societal or cultural context, because they have large global numbers and probably hate quite strongly. Indeed, nobody does stuff they don't agree is best from their perspective on some level, so it's not like doing what you want is a groundbreaking tactic, it's just the inevitable default, but seemingly combined in your case with closing your eyes to the possibility of objective morality. Abandoning your ethical post, to use your earlier words.

To tie this back into the discussion at hand, I note you don't seem to have contested most of my posts as regards the actual state of corporate practices within the ttrpg market. Nor have you made a moral case for the practices mentioned. If we're really going to go off onto moral tangents, we may as well tie them into the topic at hand and not derail.

Quote from: KindaMeh on December 01, 2023, 07:35:42 PM
Your not caring wouldn't stop you from being morally in the wrong.

Being "in the wrong" is a valueless statement in that context. Being "wrong" with a God that wants us to die in nuclear warfare is not a moral condition I'm afraid of... nor should it be for any rational human being, or anyone with an actual, functional sense of morality.

But to bring this back around, neither moral relativism nor moral cynicism are characters of "woke" political movements in general, nor to RPG segments of the community specifically. That's just a silly notion. People support BLM because they believe protecting Black people's safety and dignity is good, and overbearing, violent, and unregulated policing is bad. Saying something is harmful or something is beneficial is something about which you can debate the objective truth. There may not be a final, monumental statement that succinctly describes every situation; some situations are complex; any moral argument based on actual justice or utility requires some kind of framing in time; and yet, we can still broadly agree on things like it's wrong to hurt innocent people, either willfully or through unconscionable neglect. People who don't agree on stuff like aren't actually concerned with right or wrong in the first place.

Quote from: KindaMeh on December 01, 2023, 07:35:42 PM
Last I checked, from what I understood of our prior discussion, you yourself don't believe it is an objectively immoral thing? Are you calling yourself a bystander?

It's not even clear how that definition you had of good, as somehow separate to morality and tied to normative terms but also objective trends in evolution, would apply here. If the metric would consider it a thing that isn't good, if it somehow forwards evolution in a beneficial manner. Which is kind of irrelevant to moral discussion of the event to begin with, if it's distinct from morality within an objective context.

Also, under the terms discussed where there is an objective morality, even if good or moral didn't mean anything you care about, and even if what objective morality commanded was subjectively weird as shit, the moral imperative would still exist. I mean, people can be evil or want things for themselves or others that are not moral. Your not caring wouldn't stop you from being morally in the wrong. Indeed, the "But I don't like it." defense could just as easily be used by people who hate you for say your ethnicity, identity, and all that other stuff you seemed to care about in that other thread, and be just as (in)valid. I guess your reasoning might even imply moreso within a subjective societal or cultural context, because they have large global numbers and probably hate quite strongly. Indeed, nobody does stuff they don't agree is best from their perspective on some level, so it's not like doing what you want is a groundbreaking tactic, it's just the inevitable default, but seemingly combined in your case with closing your eyes to the possibility of objective morality. Abandoning your ethical post, to use your earlier words.

To tie this back into the discussion at hand, I note you don't seem to have contested most of my posts as regards the actual state of corporate practices within the ttrpg market. Nor have you made a moral case for the practices mentioned. If we're really going to go off onto moral tangents, we may as well tie them into the topic at hand and not derail.

His goal is to derail.

Yes, the big players are overwhelmingly woke:

Baizuo, WotZi, Evil Twat, SJG, and others, fuck they even got to Goodperson Games.

So you have the biggest, the second bigest and several of the other bigger publishers in that camp.

This isn't a matter of opinion but veryfiable fact, some leftard could argue this is a good thing but denying it with the ammount of evidence?

Only a disingenuous twat would attempt that.

Quote from: pawsplay on December 01, 2023, 07:45:18 PM

...nor should it be for any rational human being, or anyone with an actual, functional sense of morality.

Quote from: pawsplay on December 01, 2023, 07:45:18 PM

Saying something is harmful or something is beneficial is something about which you can debate the objective truth. There may not be a final, monumental statement that succinctly describes every situation; some situations are complex; any moral argument based on actual justice or utility...

So you DO believe in some degree of discernable objective morality. Good. Some dissonance there with prior statements, and perhaps not fully rationally warranted if you don't believe in a moral communicative force or related indicators, but very glad to hear it. Legitimately very positive about this, because it's a stance that isn't morally bankrupt. I would also agree that a lot of people on the left and right, and even within the woke left, legitimately believe in what they support from a moral perspective. Doesn't stop people across the political spectrum, and especially at the far edges such as say the far left from getting it wrong, but this is indeed a good thing.

That said, I earlier spoke of many specific corporate practices within the industry, and tied them to rising censorship trends within the industry and concerning trends within politics more broadly. I do not see support for them or those trends as potentially morally justified in the sense that even support for BLM could be argued potentially justified, at the individual level, at least in terms of some of the values you could theoretically hold or beliefs one might have about the situation. So with respect to the first sentence of this paragraph segment... Do you disagree with my earlier interpretation of trends, my moral interpretation of the implications of the same, or believe something else altogether?

(Personally, as a side note, I have a more complex take on policing than just defunding the police or leaving everything as is, and largely mistrust the official "marxist" fraudster heads of the BLM organization for perhaps good reason. I also think the movement has brought some good attention to policing and the fact that they are asked to deal with a lot of tasks they are not adequately trained for, including mental health crises. And that better safeguards for civilian life and liberty via better support for the police but also related liability reform may even be warranted. But I likewise think there were a lot of statistical lies tied up in the origins of the "hands up don't shoot" movement, and that a lot of people have been broadly deceived on a fair number of things. Which is why while I would agree with your characterization of most of the movement's intentions, we may well disagree as regards facts, outcomes and how policing in America specifically should move forward. I would not consider that a sign of myself or those with more conservative views being not "actually concerned with right or wrong in the first place".)

Quote from: GeekyBugle on December 01, 2023, 08:13:49 PM

Yes, the big players are overwhelmingly woke:

Baizuo, WotZi, Evil Twat, SJG, and others, fuck they even got to Goodperson Games.

So you have the biggest, the second bigest and several of the other bigger publishers in that camp.

Actually this is a very interesting point. What is their market share at this point? I'd imagine pretty damn big. And they're aiming at controlling through places like Drivethrurpg who and what ideas do and do not get access to the marketplace. I feel like that's potential market manipulation if it winds up working in the end.