Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on January 14, 2021, 08:59:45 AM

I don't think that it's so much that Thief/Paladin makes a character disruptive NEARLY as much as that players who want to be disruptive gravitate to classes such as Thief or Paladin.

It's like Chaotic Neutral. A normal player has no problem playing a Chaotic Neutral character. HOWEVER - a player choosing to play a Chaotic Neutral character is often a red flag, as they picked that so that they have an excuse to do whatever wackiness they want to.

Agreed.

A short-lived campaign I was in had the following party spread (this was 3.5E):

Male human paladin (me), LG
Female elf rogue, CG
Female satyr bard, CG
Female pixie sorcerer, CG

I looked at the other players and the DM, mentally made some adjustments, and said, 'OK, let's do this.' Hijinks ensued.

I commented later, 'I'm not sure if I was playing in a D&D game or in a harem-genre anime'.

Mind you, though: this was with five adults, all in their right minds, and all veteran gamers.

Quote from: sureshot on January 14, 2021, 08:24:15 AMWhy the fuck would I want to play a blind or visually impaired character when I live it 24 fucking 7 365 days a year.

To be fair, when I play characters based on myself (and I do rather enjoy this; most of my characters are a lot like me, in the end), if the opportunity is available to get some character payback in return for taking Bad Sight as a disadvantage or the equivalent, I often will. Why not?  In GURPS, it can be an extra two levels on a psi power in return for the PC having to find his glasses once in a while. And as an experience I'm familiar with, I can play it pretty convincingly and entertainingly.

That said, if I take something as a disadvantage in return for a power boost, I expect it to be a disadvantage. I wouldn't take it solely for colour and expect it to ultimately make no difference to my in-game effectiveness -- if not by reducing it overall, then by visibly affecting how it's realized. The desire for a character to be able to roleplay the emotional elements of having a disability of some variety for personal gratification, while being hindered (or hindering the party) by the (represented) physical elements of that handicap only when one deliberately allows it, is the eat-one's-cake-and-have-it-too approach I've decried before.

QuoteWhat does THAT have anything to do with "Wheelchair Accessible Fucking Dungeons" Why does the game world, and anything and anyone IN THE GAME WORLD so much as give a fuck about disabled people? Disabled people are extremely likely to either live a quiet, uneventful life mostly impoverished and dependent upon charity--either their family or the local temple--or otherwise, they get quickly killed and eaten the fuck up by monsters.

This idea that disabled people--in the fucking game--are somehow going to be these kind of "super hero" characters...geesus. No, they're not. They are crippled, and are fortunate to just get by. They aren't going to be out "fighting" a damned thing.

Because fantasy world is fantasy world and you can... you know put anything there.
It's not like D&D even early on was in any way REALISTIC simulator of being brigand in medieval-magic land. It was always weird blend of opposite concepts, and unholy mix of specific and abstract.
(Not to mention there are lot of disabilities that still have disabled heroes quite easily - blind martial artists, deaf heroes, heroes without arm or leg, and so on. Trope old as world - and now taken to even more absurd levels - now TBH as we had wheelchaired psionics in superhero genre it can be easily adressed to fantasy spellcasters.).

QuoteThe idea of them "fighting" and "going on adventures into dungeons" is just mind bogglingly stupid.

So is taking fireball in your face and keep running, yet 10-lvl fighter can do it

Look Shark I'm not a fan of this really, but hey it's D&D - it a world where a knight have a chance in solo fight with armoured giant size of a skyscraper.

QuoteAs soon as someone said he would be at a disability "your all being Ableist!" came into play and I think he was rude and obnoxious about it that he was banned or given a warning.

So even PAIZO couldn't stomach such bullshit. Good.

QuoteWhy would anyone who actually suffers from a disability for example being in a wheelchair want to keep that same condition when magic can cure it in game. Hell the person who created the so called "wheelchair of representation" likely suffers from mental illness as she can walk and move fine except self-identifies as being wheelchair disabled.

Are you fucking serious?
Overall there is a lot of bullshit propaganda that it is no disability it's just another way of life, equally good - you know to up spirits of disabled people, but I doubt most of them buy such bullshit really.

QuoteIt's like Chaotic Neutral. A normal player has no problem playing a Chaotic Neutral character. HOWEVER - a player choosing to play a Chaotic Neutral character is often a red flag, as they picked that so that they have an excuse to do whatever wackiness they want to.

Well that's a problem TBH with how Chaotic Neutral is described in most books.
Rather than someone commited to case of liberty and anarchy maybe even, someone promoting individualism over comformism you basically get alignment equvialent of Wisdom 2.

(And that's why I always hated this linking Barbarian to Chaos, and Monk to Order, I never treated alignment Chaos and Law as personality traits - so for me furiously disciplined Chaos worshippers, and lously Lawful characters are perfectly fine)

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 14, 2021, 05:47:24 PM

QuoteWhat does THAT have anything to do with "Wheelchair Accessible Fucking Dungeons" Why does the game world, and anything and anyone IN THE GAME WORLD so much as give a fuck about disabled people? Disabled people are extremely likely to either live a quiet, uneventful life mostly impoverished and dependent upon charity--either their family or the local temple--or otherwise, they get quickly killed and eaten the fuck up by monsters.

This idea that disabled people--in the fucking game--are somehow going to be these kind of "super hero" characters...geesus. No, they're not. They are crippled, and are fortunate to just get by. They aren't going to be out "fighting" a damned thing.

Because fantasy world is fantasy world and you can... you know put anything there.
It's not like D&D even early on was in any way REALISTIC simulator of being brigand in medieval-magic land. It was always weird blend of opposite concepts, and unholy mix of specific and abstract.
(Not to mention there are lot of disabilities that still have disabled heroes quite easily - blind martial artists, deaf heroes, heroes without arm or leg, and so on. Trope old as world - and now taken to even more absurd levels - now TBH as we had wheelchaired psionics in superhero genre it can be easily adressed to fantasy spellcasters.).

QuoteThe idea of them "fighting" and "going on adventures into dungeons" is just mind bogglingly stupid.

So is taking fireball in your face and keep running, yet 10-lvl fighter can do it

Look Shark I'm not a fan of this really, but hey it's D&D - it a world where a knight have a chance in solo fight with armoured giant size of a skyscraper.

QuoteAs soon as someone said he would be at a disability "your all being Ableist!" came into play and I think he was rude and obnoxious about it that he was banned or given a warning.

So even PAIZO couldn't stomach such bullshit. Good.

QuoteWhy would anyone who actually suffers from a disability for example being in a wheelchair want to keep that same condition when magic can cure it in game. Hell the person who created the so called "wheelchair of representation" likely suffers from mental illness as she can walk and move fine except self-identifies as being wheelchair disabled.

Are you fucking serious?
Overall there is a lot of bullshit propaganda that it is no disability it's just another way of life, equally good - you know to up spirits of disabled people, but I doubt most of them buy such bullshit really.

QuoteIt's like Chaotic Neutral. A normal player has no problem playing a Chaotic Neutral character. HOWEVER - a player choosing to play a Chaotic Neutral character is often a red flag, as they picked that so that they have an excuse to do whatever wackiness they want to.

Well that's a problem TBH with how Chaotic Neutral is described in most books.
Rather than someone commited to case of liberty and anarchy maybe even, someone promoting individualism over comformism you basically get alignment equvialent of Wisdom 2.

(And that's why I always hated this linking Barbarian to Chaos, and Monk to Order, I never treated alignment Chaos and Law as personality traits - so for me furiously disciplined Chaos worshippers, and lously Lawful characters are perfectly fine)

Greetings!

Hey there, Wicked! Yeah, there are always individualized cases for a player to have a character with some kind of disability. I gave a good example of a player in one of my groups in the past. It is this whole *woke* SJW ideology though, that is the root of the deeper problem. "Disability Representation" is merely one of the menu items these morons use to politicize and divide the gaming hobby. Similar to the endless REEing about being "Inclusive" of Trans, "BIPOC", shrieks of racism, colonialism, misogyny, and on and on. It's the corporatization of intersectionality and identity politics and employing that as a cultural battering ram to destroy yet another community or hobby, much like how these cultural cockroaches approach *everything* in the culture as being "problematic" and needing to be cleansed. Movies, books, comics, Marvel, 007, it just goes on and on, with every subgroup needing to compete and be represented in the "Oppression Olympics".

I've been gaming for decades, and somehow in recent years, months even, there's this sudden awareness that disabled characters *need* to be "represented". Even back in the day, as you mention, there were occasionally encountered or developed!--a character that had some kind of disability--a missing arm or an eye, for example--and no one batted an eye about it. The whole identity politic angle is what I find most mind boggling. No one should even give this kind of nonsense the time of day from these troglodytes, you know?

*Laughing* fighting a giant the size of a skyscraper! Nice imagery there!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote*Laughing* fighting a giant the size of a skyscraper! Nice imagery there!

OK, I overdone it a bit. Nevertheless 24 feet tall Storm Giant is big enough to stomp any human

Quote from: Thornhammer on January 13, 2021, 07:16:33 PM

Quote from: Dropbear on January 13, 2021, 05:55:53 PM
Which book is this? Most of what I%u2019ve heard conjecture-wise is that it will be a Dragonlance setting book. I find it difficult to see where that sort of nonsense will actually fit! Ugh.

The Candlekeep Mysteries book, I think.

That could actually work if any of the librarians are handicapped and/or the place was designed with accessibility for visitors in mind. Which, from what little I have read of the place, it is to some degree.

This being WOTC though all bets are off if they will do it right, or do it ham-handed.

Quote from: sureshot on January 14, 2021, 08:24:15 AMWhy would anyone who actually suffers from a disability for example being in a wheelchair want to keep that same condition when magic can cure it in game. Hell the person who created the so called "wheelchair of representation" likely suffers from mental illness as she can walk and move fine except self-identifies as being wheelchair disabled. While continually going to medical providers to get certified as such and they keep kicking her out of their offices.

I need to wear glasses  the whole day except to sleep for everything else. Why the fuck would I want to play a blind or visually impaired character when I live it 24 fucking 7 365 days a year.

I've discussed this in my thread on both being and playing disabled characters.

A-lot of disabled players do indeed play normal characters. But some do not for various reasons. Sometimes its simply easier to play a similar handicap as that is what they are familiar with. It can even be a certain sense of confidence there. Stephen a few posts abone mentions pretty much exactly this element as to why they play so.

For others, myself included, it may be because they have no experience at all with some perfectly mundane action and either do not feel comfortable playing that and/or flat out lack a frame of reference to play that.

And others love to play their handicap in game and find ways through magic, science, or super powers to overcome it or work around it. This fairly common from the folks I've talked with. Essentially playing a handicapped character who is via other means able to function normally or close enough.

Lots of approaches that WOTC will continue to ignore in favour of their woke agenda.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 14, 2021, 09:37:58 AMI tried playing a Chaotic Neutral warlock in 3e once because alignment requirements were either Chaotic or Evil and the rest of the party was decidedly neutral on the good/evil scale so I figured it would rock the boat too much to play a good PC.

Didn't matter... based on my actions over the first three sessions the DM ruled my alignment was Chaotic Good and the rest of the party would just have to deal with having a guy who tries to do the right thing all the time in the party. It mostly worked out, but it was very amusing having this dark broody figure wielding chaos magic as the party's morality pet.

That is actually rather awesome. And a great example of how to play "I am just playing my character" in a non-malicious way.

Quote from: Omega on January 15, 2021, 01:41:31 AMThat is actually rather awesome. And a great example of how to play "I am just playing my character" in a non-malicious way.

Yeah, so it turns out I am psychologically incapable of playing a non-good PC.

I once guilted a 2e Paladin into giving up his share of a treasure to the slaves we'd just rescued, because even though we were promised the treasure as a reward for freeing the slaves, the Paladin decided it would make his god look bad if my fighter (missed the Paladin Cha requirement by one point) was the only one sacrificing their reward to help out the free but now destitute slaves.

Least good I can reliably attain is a knight in sour armor (I'd link to tvtropes, but that would be an evil act) who is cynical about making any real difference, but keeps on helping people anyway.

You need proper evil campaign

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 15, 2021, 02:01:59 AM
Yeah, so it turns out I am psychologically incapable of playing a non-good PC.

I once guilted a 2e Paladin into giving up his share of a treasure to the slaves we'd just rescued, because even though we were promised the treasure as a reward for freeing the slaves, the Paladin decided it would make his god look bad if my fighter (missed the Paladin Cha requirement by one point) was the only one sacrificing their reward to help out the free but now destitute slaves.

Least good I can reliably attain is a knight in sour armor (I'd link to tvtropes, but that would be an evil act) who is cynical about making any real difference, but keeps on helping people anyway.

Yeah. The evil characters I've played aren't socially unpleasant -- they just usually have a couple traits that make the others look at them funny.

One was a monk who didn't understand why you'd ever let an enemy live. Another was a warlock (3.5) with a necromancy schtick. They could both work in groups and cooperate, but their behavior got more than a few side-eyes at times.

Quote from: Omega on January 15, 2021, 01:20:34 AM
That could actually work if any of the librarians are handicapped and/or the place was designed with accessibility for visitors in mind. Which, from what little I have read of the place, it is to some degree.

This being WOTC though all bets are off if they will do it right, or do it ham-handed.

Sad part is one can't even mention the prevalence of healing magic or miracles because it's being ableist. That somehow someone living in that environment who can afford or knows someone to use both will simply refuse to fix their disability. "Hey buddy I have spell to cure your blindness. Nah I'm good I rather remain blind for the rest of my life thanks." Even then their must be a whole horde of npcs pr pcs in Wotc gaming worlds for the building to be wheelchair accessible that no one knew existed.

Quote from: Omega on January 15, 2021, 01:38:09 AM
I've discussed this in my thread on both being and playing disabled characters.

A-lot of disabled players do indeed play normal characters. But some do not for various reasons. Sometimes its simply easier to play a similar handicap as that is what they are familiar with. It can even be a certain sense of confidence there. Stephen a few posts abone mentions pretty much exactly this element as to why they play so.

For others, myself included, it may be because they have no experience at all with some perfectly mundane action and either do not feel comfortable playing that and/or flat out lack a frame of reference to play that.

And others love to play their handicap in game and find ways through magic, science, or super powers to overcome it or work around it. This fairly common from the folks I've talked with. Essentially playing a handicapped character who is via other means able to function normally or close enough.

Lots of approaches that WOTC will continue to ignore in favour of their woke agenda.

Well if the new book and so called Wheelchair of Representation is anything to by they already seem ready to focus on their woke agenda even if it harms the rpg as a whole.

It's not so much wanting to play a disability that I take issue with it's wanting to play with one while having zero negative consequences for doing so. Playing a character with a limp and somehow the chasing monster is not going to focus on the character. Or wanting to cast all spells perfectly with their feet at no penalty. If one dares to say anything about it one is called ableist.

The Wheelchair I would allow though very nerfed. If allowed as is and upgraded it gives perfect fly and maneuverability speeds, extra attacks, AC and speed. With the DM and the rest of the group not allowed to say anything because we are engaging in Ableist behavior. My adventuring areas may have areas that maybe wheelchair accessible for the most part no. Sorry but the lost temple deep in the darkness is not going to have modern smooth asphalt road leading to and from it. Nor the majority of it be wheelchair accessible. That Wheelchair at least from NPCs or Monster with the right resources or abilities will be prime targets in an encounter. Want to fly up in the dragon face roll save vs Dragon Breath or what's your AC it attacks the character.

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 15, 2021, 07:55:16 AM
You need proper evil campaign

You wouldn't want me in a "proper" evil campaign. Most people have zero concept of what actual evil looks like. They think is something edgy or cool. It's not. It's cruel, vindictive and ultimately nihilistic.

I have no problems running evil NPCs; in large part because they're intended to ultimately fail by the PCs efforts. They're designed to be undone. But that's not a proper evil campaign because the point of an evil PCs is to not be undone and that's a problem.

Case in point, thd last time I was ever asked to actually play an evil character I was tasked by the GM with playing an evil mirror version of my PC (I had a lot of spells, the GM trusted me and was already running several other PCs as evil mirror copies) with the specific goal of "you know what your good self knows and want to hurt your good self as much as possible."

The GM was thinking "let's have a good matched fight", but instead I had to pull them aside and make sure he knew just what my interpretation of his directions were.

See, the thing about playing a "goody-two-shoes" is that you care about a lot of people and help alot of people. So I told the DM that if my goal is "hurt my good self as much as possible" they wouldn't stay and fight... they'd immediately teleport away, leaving their mirror allies in the lurch and start systematically murdering everyone my PC had ever loved or helped (which included a lot of the DMs favorite non-combat NPCs), get a copy of the animate dead spell to turn everyone killed into skeletons (because in 3e your soul can't move on to the afterlife or be resurrected while it is undead) and then scatter them with commands to lay buried and motionless for eternity so their souls would be trapped forever and denied the afterlife. Then I'd send my PC a message via spell of what I'd done and that if they ever helped another soul I'd do the same to them.

The GM decided he should run my evil twin after all and never asked me to play anything evil ever again. Also, no one from that group ever complained that I only played good PCs after that.

I play only good PCs not because I don't know HOW to play evil, but because I cannot understand why anyone would ever WANT to.

Quote from: sureshot on January 15, 2021, 08:31:55 AMEven then their must be a whole horde of npcs pr pcs in Wotc gaming worlds for the building to be wheelchair accessible that no one knew existed.

All you need are one of two factors.

Either the owners who had the building designed were handicapped and built accordingly.

Or a patron funded that feature. (Or they were planning on at least one wealthy patron who was.)

quick RL example: I think I have the only apartment in the complex with a handrail. Why? The prior owner needed one.

Though there is a 3rd possible reason. The place is not really handicapped designed. It is actually designed to accomodate certain non-human visitors or are accessways for wagons or something else that just happens to also be useful for non-related use.

Least those are the sane reasons I can come up with right off the bat that odds are WOTC will never think of because all they want is to virtue signal.