Quote from: AsenRG;1042397You mean they were disbanded:p?
(Yeah, thank you, I know I can. See above).

I really don't see why a DM should feel obliged  to use content just because WotC published content. OR even feel pressured to use it to avoid disappointment from players.
ALL content (including the 3 core books) are optional.  As a GM you can use or not use what you want.
I personally ban all evil alignments in an open table setting I ran and strictly enforce only PHB classes and races.

But I also run stuff that allows lots of the books in a non-open table setting which is more flexible.

Look, I get it's important to consider players wishes, as a GM with no players isn't much good, but I certainly don't think you should feel pressured to use all content either.
And a lot of the added content would simply not be suitable for many DnD campaigns.

And yeah the DnD were disbanded... due to a scandal of brutality charges with a dice bag...     *shudder*

Quote from: danskmacabre;1042407I really don't see why a DM should feel obliged  to use content just because WotC published content. OR even feel pressured to use it to avoid disappointment from players.

I don't get it either. It's not their right to demand specific mechanics:).
All of those people that I've talked with answered something like "I want them to have fun". Further explanations showed that their players at the home table feel sorely disappointed when they're not allowed to use a certain exploit...I mean, a certain class/rass/skills/spells combo.

QuoteAnd a lot of the added content would simply not be suitable for many DnD campaigns.

Agreed.

QuoteAnd yeah the DnD were disbanded... due to a scandal of brutality charges with a dice bag...     *shudder*

Yeah, I remember that one! Did they ever manage to pull the dicebag out of there:D?

The elephant in the room here is that specifying gender fluidity as being a special power granted by a deity implies that gender is biologically based, and not merely a personal choice. Otherwise, why would one require "the blessing" in order to change gender every morning?

Quote from: Zalman;1042581The elephant in the room here is that specifying gender fluidity as being a special power granted by a deity implies that gender is biologically based, and not merely a personal choice. Otherwise, why would one require "the blessing" in order to change gender every morning?

It doesn't say "gender" it says "sex" and it implies that am elf's sex is magically altered, so I don't think your line of reasoning is relevant at all.

Quote from: Brad;1042157The only annoying thing I found in the book that *might* be some SJW nonsense (but, more likely, is just a re-imagining I think is stupid) is this:



It then specifically mentions Glasya, who I remember pretty well from my old Monster Manual. Sure, I can ignore this sidebar, but it really changes just what devils are, fundamentally, and I don't like it. This seems like it'd be much more applicable to demons who never seemed to have any sort of sex; devils, however, were definitely tied to male or female in the old D&D books.

Again, change for a nefarious reason or just a stupid ass one? Why not make this explicit statement about demons instead?

Succubi create incubi from the frozen emissions of men they boff by night.

Not my idea., of course.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1042603It doesn't say "gender" it says "sex" and it implies that am elf's sex is magically altered, so I don't think your line of reasoning is relevant at all.

Mea Culpa. In that case, since sex and gender are entirely separate concepts (in particular to those applauding the "inclusion" of this move), I'm confused as to who this addition is supposed to "represent" ... biological hermaphrodites?

There is, ironically, somewhat of a historical/mythological precedent for the idea of demons being genderless.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1043310There is, ironically, somewhat of a historical/mythological precedent for the idea of demons being genderless.

Unclean spirits and fallen angels, right.

Quote from: Ewan;1043333Unclean spirits and fallen angels, right.

Yeah, it's generally thought that humans have genders. Angels and devils don't, not really.

Quote from: Ewan;1043333Unclean spirits and fallen angels, right.

Actually, the fallen angels should be an argument for them having genders:). They did take the daughters of the human kin, and propagated through them, after all.
Now, incubi and succubi (or rather, incubi/succubi) can be seen as argument against demons having genders, but I'd rather treat them as a special case of demon who needs humans for what it cannot get by itself;).

Quote from: AsenRG;1043873Actually, the fallen angels should be an argument for them having genders:). They did take the daughters of the human kin, and propagated through them, after all.
Now, incubi and succubi (or rather, incubi/succubi) can be seen as argument against demons having genders, but I'd rather treat them as a special case of demon who needs humans for what it cannot get by itself;).

There's been a lively, if rather obscure, debate about Genesis 6:1

Some scholars think that the passage is metaphorical and the 'sons of God' referred to in the verse were human descendants of Seth, while the 'daughters of men' descended from Cain.

But I am inclined to agree with you. I think it refers to some kind of celestial beings.

The thing about angels, as you likely know, is that angel is the office and not the nature. An angel is a messenger. It could be a spirit or a human being (most often a spirit). When we talk about angels now, we almost always mean spirits.


My remarks on succubi, frozen semen, constructed bodies, etc have to do with something from a much\ more recent, extra biblical,  and definitely non-authoritative (even condemned)  source: The Malleus Maleficarum. IIRC. It's been a while. I'm not seriously suggesting that there's any truth in that strange notion. But it seems relevant to the game topic in question. It rather supports the Hasbro idea of genderless or sexless demons/devils who can take on sex as a guise.

Any thing else in the book other than speculations on the plumbing of elves and devils?  

Wemic feature prominently in my setting and I need stats for 'em.  The most recent ones I have are 2nd ed.

Quote from: Headless;1043909Any thing else in the book other than speculations on the plumbing of elves and devils?  

Wemic feature prominently in my setting and I need stats for 'em.  The most recent ones I have are 2nd ed.

Yes, there is stuff in the book other than navel-gazing over demons, elves, and gender. No, there is nothing related to wemics.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1043923Yes, there is stuff in the book other than navel-gazing over demons, elves, and gender. No, there is nothing related to wemics.

Or wemic dicks.

The unasked but important question. Do they have barbs like cats?

Quote from: AsenRG;1043873Actually, the fallen angels should be an argument for them having genders:). They did take the daughters of the human kin, and propagated through them, after all.
Now, incubi and succubi (or rather, incubi/succubi) can be seen as argument against demons having genders, but I'd rather treat them as a special case of demon who needs humans for what it cannot get by itself;).

I have always assumed that the gender of such entities was covered succinctly by Ghostbusters.  The good one.

Winston: "I thought Gozer was a man."
Egon: "It's whatever it wants to be."

Not that I consider Ghostbusters to be an authoritative source on anything, it just covers the idea that these things appear as they want to appear - male, female, terrifying, alluring.  Whatever gets the job done.