Quote from: S'mon on February 24, 2023, 03:27:12 AM

Quote from: Wasteland Sniper on February 24, 2023, 03:16:29 AM
One of the things I absolutely hate about the whole "it's fantasy, you can do what you want" view is that the word fantasy doesn't mean nonsensical. Even fantasy worlds have to abide by rules.

It should make sense to the inhabitants of the world. The NPCs know what their daily lives are, where their food comes from, how dangerous the wilds are, that sort of thing. One common trope I dislike is the undefended village surrounded by dangerous wilds full of hostile monsters. Even when I first started RPGs age 11 I naturally created fantasy villages with palisades to keep the monsters out. I was shocked when I first started encountering these unwalled 'starter town' villages. It only makes sense if the monsters are entering a previously safe area. No one is going to settle the wilds of the Sword Coast or Varisia and not build a wall!

Even or especially whimsical fantasy has to abide by rules or everything falls appart.

If I were village Elder, I'd build a wall and make the Kappa pay for it.

Quote from: S'mon on February 24, 2023, 03:27:12 AM
It should make sense to the inhabitants of the world. The NPCs know what their daily lives are, where their food comes from, how dangerous the wilds are, that sort of thing. One common trope I dislike is the undefended village surrounded by dangerous wilds full of hostile monsters. Even when I first started RPGs age 11 I naturally created fantasy villages with palisades to keep the monsters out. I was shocked when I first started encountering these unwalled 'starter town' villages. It only makes sense if the monsters are entering a previously safe area. No one is going to settle the wilds of the Sword Coast or Varisia and not build a wall!

I agree about the palisade - and there are a ton of things that don't make sense about typical D&D community. D&D communities are very high-magic, with even a small-village portrayed as having multiple spell casters. They have polytheistic religions, where the gods' wills are known since clerics lose their magic if they turn away from their god. They have mixes of demi-human beings living in society, and bands of monsters wandering around in the vast open wilderness.

As people have noted, the villages tend to be portrayed more like Wild West small towns rather than medieval Europe -- but that doesn't make any more sense. The social structures are bizarre. In Village of Hommlet, Rufus and Byrne aren't portrayed as the feudal lords of the town. They're two "retired adventurer" who just happened to settle there, and are now with their men-at-arms are twenty single men living in a tower. They are supposedly "friends" of the people of the town.

Logically, the magic and religion should have profound influence on the fabric of society, but instead, everything is just based on generic fantasy tropes rather than being true to the worldbuilding logic. I'm not a stickler for world-building, but yeah, I never got into the typical D&D society as portrayed - either by TSR or WotC. For worldbuilding, something like Harn was much more coherent.

Quote from: jhkim on February 24, 2023, 01:18:32 PM
As people have noted, the villages tend to be portrayed more like Wild West small towns rather than medieval Europe -- but that doesn't make any more sense. The social structures are bizarre. In Village of Hommlet, Rufus and Byrne aren't portrayed as the feudal lords of the town. They're two "retired adventurer" who just happened to settle there, and are now with their men-at-arms are twenty single men living in a tower. They are supposedly "friends" of the people of the town.

Yeah, I found that really weird too when I noticed it. In my Damara campaign I used Hommlet and made Rufus 'Thane' of Hommlet, basically something between a Reeve and a landed Knight, below Baron rank, vassal to the Duke of Arcata.

One of the PC adventurer groups in the campaign took over a ruined Keep (after killing some orc brigands), then recruited some ex-bandits to man it. They needed to regularise their position, luckily one of them Sir Thibault was an aristocrat/knight and was able to get a manor grant from the new Duchess of Carmathan. When he died his NPC friend Sir Sirondar Altur Banacath, another knight and a relative of the King, took over the manor. So the PCs get to live there, but they don't own it.

Quote from: S'mon on February 24, 2023, 01:39:33 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 24, 2023, 01:18:32 PM
As people have noted, the villages tend to be portrayed more like Wild West small towns rather than medieval Europe -- but that doesn't make any more sense. The social structures are bizarre. In Village of Hommlet, Rufus and Byrne aren't portrayed as the feudal lords of the town. They're two "retired adventurer" who just happened to settle there, and are now with their men-at-arms are twenty single men living in a tower. They are supposedly "friends" of the people of the town.

Yeah, I found that really weird too when I noticed it. In my Damara campaign I used Hommlet and made Rufus 'Thane' of Hommlet, basically something between a Reeve and a landed Knight, below Baron rank, vassal to the Duke of Arcata.

One of the PC adventurer groups in the campaign took over a ruined Keep (after killing some orc brigands), then recruited some ex-bandits to man it. They needed to regularise their position, luckily one of them Sir Thibault was an aristocrat/knight and was able to get a manor grant from the new Duchess of Carmathan. When he died his NPC friend Sir Sirondar Altur Banacath, another knight and a relative of the King, took over the manor. So the PCs get to live there, but they don't own it.

Interesting. Sounds like you made a bunch of changes in how the setting. Did Rufus as Thane still have 18 soldiers encamped in barracks in his tower?

The last time I used Village of Hommlet, it was in a sort of mirror universe where Rufus and Byrne were slaving warlords, so I had changed it even more -- though I will say that twenty armed single men in a tower makes more sense as a war band than as peaceful friends of the town. It brings to mind SHARK's earlier comment:

Quote from: SHARK on February 23, 2023, 06:34:38 PM
It also reminded me of the rather frequent occasions I've read about Medieval Nobles and such, with their retainers and hangers-on. I can recall a mix of lesser nobles, middle-class Yeomen, veteran mercenaries, as well as barbarian raiders--or "former barbarian marauders" as well as the occasional "Former criminal" or scandalized ex-clergyman, serving as retainers or whatever nobleman. And these retainers were also often very much *Murder Hobos* *Laughing*

Technically, the war band weren't hobos since they had permanent living quarters, but they were certainly murderous. :-)

Quote from: S'mon on February 24, 2023, 02:07:10 AM

Quote from: SHARK on February 23, 2023, 05:44:31 PM
Greetings!

Context. Hmmm...well, single mommies in the ancient and medieval worlds were generally shafted, and hard. Unless the mommy had close family to take care of her and her children, she and the kids were screwed. Kids were either abandoned by the mommy, given away to family--or whoever, and the mommy becomes a prostitute. That was the "good" outcome. For the mommies that were young, sexy, and beautiful. The ugly women, the fat women, they routinely became impoverished beggars, and starved in the streets and gutters.

This was the constant reality facing unmarried single mommies throughout history. These dynamics have only changed because of the current reign of cucked and feminized social welfare states.

Having single mommies can be realistically portrayed in the game campaign. Typically, such women fill in the ranks of the hordes of prostitutes that throng most cities and towns, or, as mentioned, lay about in the gutters begging. A few more fortunate single mommies can maybe get by in large cities by working long, hard days as a laundry woman, cook, or also being a bar girl, or maybe working at a bathhouse. If she is not willing to be  prostitute, such jobs don't pay much at all, so they must more than likely work two jobs, or three, six or seven days a week. That's just to get by, without being a prostitute or a starving beggar in the streets. Ancient Roman sources even describe how vast numbers of "ordinary" women, single women, that may have not been professional prostitutes, still practiced regular "part-time" prostitution, such as some laundry women or cooks working their normal, grinding jobs for much of the week, but for one or two nights per week, such women embraced opportunities serving as prostitutes. Such women were also opportunistic, in that they would indulge prostitution whenever very appealing opportunities presented themselves at any given time.

Throughout the world, such as in Egypt, Persia, Britain, India, or China, these dynamics expressed themselves as constant realities for lower class women, for poor women in general, and especially for single mommies.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Although that's historical, Phandalin is D&D American Frontier/Wild West not historical medieval or ancient world. The societies you describe were at or close to Malthusian limits. In Phandalin etc there's plenty of farm land for everyone, and not even any taxes to pay. Of course a widowed farm-wife in the Old West would still remarry as fast as possible, unless maybe she had plenty of adult male children/siblings/uncles.

Edit: An issue I do have with modern left-coast D&D (& Pathfinder) is that they keep the Wild West setup but then the characters have the mores of 21st century Seattle, a completely different society. So you have all these 'strong independent women' NPCs, most of the NPCs are unmarried, the gender/sex balance is either 50-50 or skewed female, and lots of homosexual 'married' couples ofc. I appreciate it's a fantasy game, but I like things to be justifiable. If you want a setting with Seattle mores, do an urban fantasy high magic setting, something like Eberron maybe.

Greetings!

Hah! *Laughing* S'mon, that's interesting! Your commentary bout the American Wild West made me remember something. I read some scholarly article or book for research--for one of my US History classes at college, where the author--a woman--wrote about women on the American frontier, with some focus especially on how and who survived as "single women". I also note that the economy was *physical*--not especially industrial, but also none of this "Pink Collar" Information Age or Service Economy nonsense going on. I guess Agricultural would be appropriate. Everything was physical, and men exelled. Men, of almost any age, could go anywhere and do almost anything, and thrive or at least survive. Women, on the other hand, not counting the actually married women--but the single women--were typically absolutely useless, and utterly helpless. Most that were single or became single mommies--left quickly to return to civilization, if they could manage it. Otherwise, they typically--and quickly--died from poverty, leading to malnutrition, starvation, and disease. The often brutal weather also became lethal--most especially the cold winters. They lasted weeks, maybe a few months, and that was it. More bodies to be buried. So, who survived, and perhaps thrived?

According to the woman scholar--I think she was a historian or anthropologist--she wrote that for most women that survived on their own--becoming a prostitute was the main avenue, and seemed to be the primary way that the women survived. Some, interestingly, were smart, saved their money, and opened up their own brothel, and became *wealthy*. Some even managed to become prominent citizens of the community--sort of. Behind closed doors, besides their explicit services and obvious profession--some were well known for their generous charity, funding orphanages, medical clinics, soup kitchens, schools, and even, *ahem*--churches. *Laughing* Yes, most of the proper folks in society--especially the preachers, but vociferously, nearly all of the married women--contantly condemned the prostitute women, and spoke scathingly against them at every opportunity. Being attacked, beaten, and even killed--by married wives, or even various men from society--was a frequent concern for many of the prostitute women. So, yeah. There's that. Interesting stuff! Prostitutes often lived *interesting* lives, getting into fights with women, violent, drunk men, jealous lovers, jealous wives seeking revenge, a whole trainload of drama was frequent for most of them.

I thought it was especially interesting when the woman scholar talked also about the single women, the single mommies--that managed to survive or thrive, and not do so by becoming prostitutes. Options were definitely limited, as I mentioned earlier. Women are small, and weak, compared to men. In such environments, women were generally useless, often helpless, and more or less a burden. There were some that managed to prosper, and also maintain their dignity and virtue. Such driven, resourceful women would set up their own bake shop--even out of their log cabin house, or something little more than a shack. Baking fresh bread, pies, and such like. Other women got busy cooking for real--making soups for the miners, sandwiches or other meals for lumberjacks, wagon drivers, farmers, what have you. In areas where men outnumbered women 100 to 1, or 200, or 300 to 1--these women were quickly seen as an absolute *treasure* to all of the men around. Also, some women opened up their own medical clinics. Obviously, such as these required considerable skills and knowledge, and a few women got involved, and did their best. Mining communities, logging camps, and such--needed all the help they could get. A trained doctor was typically *days* away, sometimes longer. So, having a few women about that provided some kind of nursing or medical service, was definitely appreciated. Another, much more common service than medical, was apparently a decent number of women got busy doing laundry, like, massive amounts of laundry, cleaning and washing clothes for dozens of men, each and every day. These women, too, became well-respected and valued. A few women also managed to get involved with setting up a boarding house, where they also cooked, cleaned, and did laundry, for mostly entirely a clientele made up of men. Some women also helped establish local churches, and provided food, board, and support for traveling preachers, often of course encouraging a traveling preacher to settle down permanently, as a local, and establish a Church. Strangely, while prostitutes were of course popular with these numerous communities of men--having a church or a preacher about was also a priority, despite the obvious philosophical and moral conflicts. Miners, loggers, workmen, ranchers--all wanted a preacher in their midst, to teach them, and preach to them the Bible. Men gave them money, and provided support for Godly men to be preachers, and to live safely and securely within their community.

Most of the successful single women--many of which were also single mommies--eventually also managed to get married, typically within a few years, sometimes five or ten. It's also interesting to note how all of these single women that thrived in male dominated communities--many of which actually eventually developed into villages and towns themselves--were, if they were not prostitutes--they were strictly moral, and very disciplined and upright. The local men came to respect them, value them, and more than a few of them were protected from violent, predatory men, or men seeking to rob them, cheat them, or otherwise abuse them--by many men, with guns, knives, and axe handles. Fucking with these women in a bad way was a quick way for a villainous man to get himself beaten to death, shot, or stretched up quick hanging from a nearby tree.

No judges around, no courts, no lawmen. If the baker girl said you cheated her of what you owed--or tried to force her, yeah. Her word to the other local men, and this guy was fucked. It is interesting to see how many of these local men, were of course regular customers, to the baker girl, the cook, the laundry girl, the girl making beer, often on a daily basis, were straight, respectful, and honourable to such women--even while being often rough and vulgar themselves. These frontier communities were fiercely protective of the precious few single women that lived in their midst.

When the single women or the single mommies--became involved with a new man, it was virtually always leading to marriage. The women openly made their relationship with such a man--very prominent, and known to everyone. Being married and having a husband was extremely valued and important, even for a single woman that had somehow managed to survive on her own, or with a couple of kids. Women needed men, and men, also needed women. It was considered the proper and right way for everyone to live, as a preference, and an absolute standard and ideal. Most such local men--friends and customers of such women--were proud and happy when these women found themselves married, or remarried, after losing their original husband for whatever reason. These single women, and even the single mommies in such frontier settlements, often had a frequent and growing list of men, eager and willing to marry them. Most of these women never married a wealthy man at all, but typically a longstanding local man, a miner, rancher, lumberjack, that had been persistent, and just got on with her well, and also willing to accept any children she had from her earlier life. Some also married traveling preachers, who then settled down with them to establish a local church and also have a bunch of kids together.

Very interesting reading. I wish I could remember the author, and the name of the article or book. Ah well, that's how it goes. The knowledge she wrote about and discussed has stayed with me, though. Very interesting how men--and women--survived in these communities out on the frontiers of the Old West!

From a gaming perspective--I think that embracing some of these otherwise harsh and often ugly realities makes for not just a more believable game, with a more immersive feel to it, but also far more interesting and entertaining than having some kind of cookie-cutter like middle class upright and prosperous community that seems to come out of a real estate magazine, all the while embracing some bizarre Seattle 2023 vibe where women are empowered, and all races and rainbow hippos are celebrated--instead of actually being modeled on something close to a frontier reality.

Good stuff, my friend!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK 

Quote from: SHARK on February 24, 2023, 03:34:18 PM
I thought it was especially interesting when the woman scholar talked also about the single women, the single mommies--that managed to survive or thrive, and not do so by becoming prostitutes. Options were definitely limited, as I mentioned earlier. Women are small, and weak, compared to men. In such environments, women were generally useless, often helpless, and more or less a burden. There were some that managed to prosper, and also maintain their dignity and virtue. Such driven, resourceful women would set up their own bake shop--even out of their log cabin house, or something little more than a shack. Baking fresh bread, pies, and such like. Other women got busy cooking for real--making soups for the miners, sandwiches or other meals for lumberjacks, wagon drivers, farmers, what have you. In areas where men outnumbered women 100 to 1, or 200, or 300 to 1--these women were quickly seen as an absolute *treasure* to all of the men around.

The American frontier where there were areas of 100:1 men to women is an unusual situation, though -- and not necessarily a good fit for a medieval fantasy town. It seems obvious to me that if there are vastly more men than women, then prostitution will be a much more common and profitable occupation than normal.

In more typical communities where there are 50% women, prostitution still existed and was common, but it wasn't necessarily the dominant profession of women. The archetypal occupation of an unmarried woman in medieval Europe was combing, carding, and spinning wool -- hence the term "spinster" became synonymous with a single woman. But many women had other professions, like midwifery, brewing, weaving, dairymaking, and candle making. All of these were often seen as predominantly female professions - though not necessarily by single women. Depending on the area, women could also have professions in more typically male trades, though that was often restricted by law.

My current campaign is based on the Incan Empire, where similarly women often had positions as skilled crafters - especially in brewing chicha and weaving wool. So that's similar to Europe, though in the Andes, brewery and weaving were much higher status than in Europe.

Quote from: jhkim on February 24, 2023, 04:51:40 PM

Quote from: SHARK on February 24, 2023, 03:34:18 PM
I thought it was especially interesting when the woman scholar talked also about the single women, the single mommies--that managed to survive or thrive, and not do so by becoming prostitutes. Options were definitely limited, as I mentioned earlier. Women are small, and weak, compared to men. In such environments, women were generally useless, often helpless, and more or less a burden. There were some that managed to prosper, and also maintain their dignity and virtue. Such driven, resourceful women would set up their own bake shop--even out of their log cabin house, or something little more than a shack. Baking fresh bread, pies, and such like. Other women got busy cooking for real--making soups for the miners, sandwiches or other meals for lumberjacks, wagon drivers, farmers, what have you. In areas where men outnumbered women 100 to 1, or 200, or 300 to 1--these women were quickly seen as an absolute *treasure* to all of the men around.

The American frontier where there were areas of 100:1 men to women is an unusual situation, though -- and not necessarily a good fit for a medieval fantasy town. It seems obvious to me that if there are vastly more men than women, then prostitution will be a much more common and profitable occupation than normal.

In more typical communities where there are 50% women, prostitution still existed and was common, but it wasn't necessarily the dominant profession of women. The archetypal occupation of an unmarried woman in medieval Europe was combing, carding, and spinning wool -- hence the term "spinster" became synonymous with a single woman. But many women had other professions, like midwifery, brewing, weaving, dairymaking, and candle making. All of these were often seen as predominantly female professions - though not necessarily by single women. Depending on the area, women could also have professions in more typically male trades, though that was often restricted by law.

My current campaign is based on the Incan Empire, where similarly women often had positions as skilled crafters - especially in brewing chicha and weaving wool. So that's similar to Europe, though in the Andes, brewery and weaving were much higher status than in Europe.

Greetings!

Right, Jhkim, the Old West environment is considerably different from a Medieval environment. However, I was directing my commentary to S'mon's excellent observation that Frontier Settlements and Communities--as presented in modules, etc, by TSR and WOTC--have historically been primarily based off of a foundational theme of *The Old West*--and much less so that of an Ancient or Medieval theme. Adding an uber-modernistic, Woke Rainbow Seattle utopian gloss to such presentations, as Honeydipper discussed as well as S'mon--makes the presentation a stylistic and narrative mess. Especially for any DM that seeks to even remotely embrace a historical, Medieval-Fantasy milieu.

As for medieval cities and urban towns--yes, they presented certainly more professional options for women--especially single women, or single mommies--though even in such environments, the professional options available to such women were quite limited, and even in many cases, restricted entirely by law. It's also interesting to note that in Medieval European cultures, society fully expected young, single women--to be married and to be busy with their own children by the age of 21 or their early twenties. Socially, if a woman reached the age of 25 and was unmarried--she would be considered *old* and doomed to being a spinster, as you mentioned.

Unlike in our current, debauched society, in the Medieval society, being *single* was considered to be a necessary--but temporary--condition to be endured, rather than approved of--much less being celebrated or promoted.

For the diligent DM, all of these elements--the social conventions, the religious culture, the economic systems, the professional occupations and avenues, and the entire way that the family was structured, maintained, and viewed throughout society, and also the different social attitudes and relationships regarding different races--are all important factors in developing and presenting a coherent campaign. Even a campaign that by degree is more or less historically medieval--also requires these considerations.

Our own current rainbow-flavoured, feminist society as showcased by Seattle 2023 is an absolute incoherent, dysfunctional mess. Therefore, it isn't surprising that many gamers and DM's in particular--such as Honeydipper and S'mon--find so many of the settlements, villages, and towns presented in WOTC modules as being disturbingly jarring, and consistently an incoherent and dysfunctional narrative mess.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK   

Quote from: jhkim on February 24, 2023, 02:43:59 PM
Interesting. Sounds like you made a bunch of changes in how the setting. Did Rufus as Thane still have 18 soldiers encamped in barracks in his tower?

Yes, but they were a lot more active than presented. Once the PCs discovered the secret Moathouse entrance, Rufus & Burne and their warband of ex-bandits assaulted it and massacred Lareth and his cultists.

Much later, Rufus Burne and most of their men were killed in an ambush by carrion worms of the demon lord Qorgeth in the ruins of another nearby village. Currently Elmo the Ranger is steward of Hommlet, reporting to PC Baron Norrin.

+3

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on February 22, 2023, 02:16:56 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 22, 2023, 12:05:44 AM

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on February 21, 2023, 03:37:12 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 21, 2023, 11:57:38 AM

Quote from: S'mon on February 21, 2023, 05:23:15 AM
I'm not sure it was stupid - WoTC have been working hard on 'divide & conquer' tactics, stirring up race hate, and now Brink has a bunch of lefties defending his comments. Result. Plus it was a deflection tactic - the interviewers want blacks in well paid & powerful executive roles, so Brink starts talking about getting rid of basement dwelling white players, & hiring poorly paid PoC designers...

I agree. I suspect that this has done exactly what it has intended. WotC hasn't had to do any action that is actually leftist - not even hire more poorly-paid PoC designers.

Instead, simply by a few words, he's changed the conversation from being about their corporate overreach of IP (which had gamers united against them) to being about oppression of white people (which left-leaning gamers won't sign on about).

That interview got me to sail the high seas on all D&D content and share the method to do it with all my groups.  Hey its only 12 people, but if they share with 2 more a piece that's 24 and so on.  Kudo's Brink. 

Other people feel the same way.  I'm also OFF D&D Beyond as a platform and using Fantasy Grounds in lieu and training my players to use it as well.  Again, congrats Brink.

Interesting, honeydipperdavid. Many posters here left WotC several years ago, and if not, at least after their attempt to cancel the OGL back in January. Pundit has been very vocal in anti-WotC talk, and it seems like especially conservative posters have tended to agree with him.

Personally, I left WotC over their OGL debacle in January. I never had a D&D Beyond account, but I gave up WotC products after that.

I'd be curious about your staying loyal to them until now, and then leaving after the Brink interview. How would you sum up your view compared to Pundit's and other conservative posters?

I had already cancelled D&D Beyond over OGL, Brink's statement guaranteed I would never resubscribe.  I quit buying any original content once WotC decided to label 4E and earlier content racist on Drivethru.  I've been using existing older content updated to 5E to specifically not give WotC any revenue and using the books I already have owned.  I started working my groups to use other RPG's using the OGL as the excuse to move 12 people away from D&D and it worked.  Brink's behavior got me to show my players ways of getting 5E content without funding WotC.  I've made it a point to mention when visiting a hobby shop if they have the D&D Beyond code bundled in their books?  They say no, and I come back but WotC is planning on doing that, how come they aren't offering it to stores to piss the owners off against WotC.  It would be easier now to spread that little bit of disontent towards WotC at game stores now that the store for D&D with the D&D Beyond code is live.

And no, I'm not a conservative, I'm a moderate.  WotC is went social marxist like most of the dreg misanthropes who work in the far left coast.  A moderate doesn't judge someone based on their skin, a leftist social marxist does, they simply replaced class because the US gives you the opportunity to own private property, run a business and access to decide where you want to work so class based communism didn't work, its why they went to social marxism to use race as the primary attack on the United States.  Moderates and now Conservatives don't support needless wars due to cost and pointless deaths the left meanwhile absorbed the neocon/neolib.  Ask yourself, who will have a Ukrainian flag on, an Antifa member or a small business owner, its the Antifa member.

WotC bowed to the leftists because of twitter bots, well plenty of people can hit them in their bottom line from the people who did buy their content and WotC turned them into anti-consumers directing sales problems to WotC itself.

+5

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on February 15, 2023, 11:03:20 AM
There are study after study where white left talking to blacks talk down to them.  What I want to see is a study when a white leftie is talking to perceived poor whites.  Anecdotally, I have a rich leftard that married into my family and whenever I listen to them talk its nothing but patronizing down to the poor white folk (trans one of the kids, prevented them from doing chores get a job at 16 to learn work ethic, didn't teach them to grow food or can and didn't teach them how to shoot - if the world goes to hell their kids are dead in 3 days).  You know, us poor whites who run million dollar businesses, IT workers who live rural - you know dirt poor.  I mean they must be retards because they grow their own food, can their own food, own firearms and have no issues defending themselves.  I mean they can't even afford a home in Connecticut for peats sake, damn poors.  I wonder what a white leftie would behave around whites who are not middle class?  I'd love to see that study.  /social class based rant.

I'd be surprised if the execs at WotC would even recognize their customers as humans if they aren't worth at least $500K+.

+6

Quote from: Mistwell on February 09, 2023, 01:19:35 AM

He said (if you listen to the whole friggen thing rather than a summary) they want a diverse pool to choose from, and then once thy have that pool, they choose the best candidate. Nothing illegal about that, and he was VERY clear in not talking about the hobby players themselves.

The confusion might be there are TWO interviews now with the guy, talking about similar topics.

But hey, you go on with the "discredit anyone who interferes with our spin" tactics mang. It's what works for threads like this and I am sure you will get lots of backpats and attaboys.

Since when does a "diverse pool" mean fuck all when deciding on quality candidates unless you are virtue signalling? A resume should be judged based on the qualities they think are best for the position. Ideally, names and other identifying information should be redacted and candidates chosen by their achievements. Wasn't it MLK Jr who said that we should judge by the content of character rather than skin color?

Diversity is simply a signal that you are anti-white.

What was up with the banned guy and the "+3, +5, +6..." posts?

Quote from: Aglondir on June 28, 2023, 07:53:09 PM
What was up with the banned guy and the "+3, +5, +6..." posts?

Greetings!

Aglondir! That guy was probably banned for being a spam-bot moron.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK