Actually, I spend very little time on the internet. I've never been to Twitter or Reddit. I learned about logical fallacies mostly in my undergrad.
Now if the conversation is about whether you should have inherently evil races in the FR lore, and you respond with:
"That doesnt mean that you cannot have any dehumanized Evil Races that specifically are a stand in of a NON EMPHATIC threat."
Then I am sorry, but this is an absolute red herring fallacy. Orcs and Drow are not personified Climate Change or symbols for anything. Therefore, this statement is an abstraction that does not have relevance to the issue being discussed. That is not me having a different argument than you, that is me pointing out specifically where your argument has little bearing. If you don't like that assessment, you could try and mount a counter argument instead of stomping your feet and making a stink out of it. I'd be happy to hear it.
Your distinction between stand in and metaphor is nonsense. A metaphor is language used symbolically, which is to say, standing in for something else. You yourself said that the White Walkers are an analogy for climate change. If White Walkers represent climate change, White Walkers are a metaphor for climate change. That is just what the word metaphor means.
Here are the two definitions for metaphor listed by Dictionary.com
1. a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.”Compare mixed metaphor, simile(def 1).
2. something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.
Neither of them mention explaining anything because that is not what a metaphor is. You might be thinking of allegory.
Your opinion on whether purely evil races are more interesting than nuanced characters is purely your opinion, and you are welcome to it.
"Not to mention you making nonsense arguments. Where are we? How about you read the thread title. or the URL of the website youre on.
On my table, i can decide what Drow and Orcs are (and especialy i can have them not exist). In baldurs gate 3 i dont get to make that choice. Im at the mercy of a few hacks like mearls and crawford to not force a passionate developer to accept their california drivel."
I think it is weird that you think a particular political ideology is emanating from California which is victimizing Larian on the other side of the world. Do you know the prevailing world view of Larian? Do you know whether or not Sven was just wokeAF long before making his deal with WotC? Anyway, BG3 is a 5e game, and 5e, as we have already established, had already moved away from inherent evil races. We all saw the way goblins are handled in the demonstration, so we already know what to expect. This is a solved mystery. Soooo...much ado about nothing?
And, to your question, I am here, in this thread, to say this is a silly concern and much ado about nothing.
"Tolkien is afterall not the final arbiter of fantasy" (I never claimed or insinuated he was)
"Tolkien was a christian, christians did afterall try to convert imaginary dog headed people in india." (This gem that has nothing to do with anything was thrown in with no explanation)
"Wether or not they were meant to be evil to be walking speedbumps is irrelevant to the question." (I never made anything close to that claim, sooo what?)
"a metaphor and a stand in is something different." (Nope, they aren't)
"and no, "nuance" is not an argment here, not everyhting is improved by bringing moral relativism into it." (I never mentioned moral relativism, but that is not the same thing as or implied by nuance)
"Also my argument comes from a place of someone who likes telling stories within the genre, WOTCs move comes out of fear of beeing labled Evil by the California crowd." (does not play with the California crowd)
But not only am I the one making nonsense arguments, but it is actually I who am projecting. You are just charming, you know that? But if you so inclined, how exactly am I diverting? Reading my previous replies I see my posts as being quite on point and that you are the one meandering all over the place.
