|
|
|
Volunteer Moderator
|
Volunteer Moderator
Joined: Feb 2022
|
Deciding to do with the world, what you will, on your own, is a type of attitude that could become irksome. Yes, I’ll admit that I would be tempted to see it as a bit disrespectful to the lore creators, and anyone else one is playing with, to use the flexibility we’re given (at least in part so the rules can be used in various settings including ones created by individual DMs) to create characters that make no sense in the actual setting we’re playing in. But on the other hand, if some players don’t prioritise roleplay and want to focus on mechanics or just do things that they see as weird and fun, I guess it’s actually no skin off my nose. And given that the rules are there, I’d see it as officious of WotC or Larian to ban certain combinations from use in the specific Faerun or BG setting, when it is theoretically possible that someone could create a feasible if unlikely story to justify them. If the player is part of a group, though, I’d expect them to listen to their DM or fellow players and adjust their plans if the wackiness of their character concept would undermine immersion for everyone else. I like all your character ideas, I bet it also helped having played the game beforehand writing in some points of potential conflict, but, and not to make this about generic Tav again, I've complained enough about how the world can't recognize certain contradictions people can make in their characters. The further into the lore you get the worse it becomes, see the recent Githyanki thread, and a number of Drow threads before that. Allowing people to toy with these things doesn't strike me as great if the game can't account for them. Yes, you’re absolutely spot on that EA has been really useful in helping come up with characters I think have potential to drive some interesting roleplay opportunities and come to life in the game  . I see that as part of the challenge and responsibility for me as a player, to use what the game gives me to come up with interesting stories. If there were a human DM they’d take more of that load, but due to the limitations of a computer game I feel that I need to be willing to share the work there given that the game DM, in my view, quite correctly errs on the side of too much flexibility. To me, not every character combo seems to have the same potential for interesting roleplay, and though I do think Larian should try to do what they can to support any character a player might create, which I guess is what they’re trying with the class, race and background dialogue options, I also recognise there’s going to be a limit to what they can do if the player isn’t willing to lean in to the story they are telling and connect their character to it imaginatively. I do think they could give some hints to first time players to help them create characters for which those connections are going to be possible, but perhaps that’s what they think they’re doing with the origin characters. And I do absolutely think they can do more to create possible connection points than we’ve seen in EA. But I wouldn’t be in favour of Larian deciding themselves which combos have potential and outright preventing any others, as that would seem an unwarranted limitation on player imagination and freedom, given that the rules are already implemented to support flexibility, and just because I or Larian can’t imagine that a particular combo makes sense, that doesn’t mean there’s not a creative player out there who can do something with it. EDIT: And I now realise that while one of the character concepts I mentioned is one of the two non-binary characters I’ve been developing, this post is not otherwise relevant to the topic at hand and I’ve probably said it before elsewhere too. Sorry!
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
|
'one might expect' is an interesting way of putting a tyrannical theocracy with elements of mind-control. The harmful stereotypes work both ways.
I think if you want to be the exception to the rule, it has to come from somewhere more than your backstory. Otherwise, why involve the canon at all, or other players for that matter. I'm.... not quite sure what you're getting at here, to be honest. All respect, but something has been lost in communication here, to me. All other things being normal in a world of established lore, if you find yourself assaulted by a furious Githyanki brandishing a silver sword that bursts with necrotic energy every strike... the name you would most likely expect them to be calling out, if they are calling one out at all, would be Vlaakith. That is what one might expect in such a situation. It would be surprising and unusual if they were calling out dedication to a different higher power. Being a paladin at all is also unusual, since they have a fairly rigid rank system, but in the case of an outlier who is dedicated to the lich queen and gains the power to smite foes as boon from her, and must have class levels, what would you call them? It doesn't much matter in this case - the example was that they were a paladin of Llira, after all - the extremely unusual factor was that they as an individual were dedicated to someone other than Vlaakith... which is unusual and unexpected. I'm really not understanding the latter sentence either... Anything at all that is a part of anything that has happened to or around your character before the point of adventure - anything at all that has set them up to be different, unusual or exceptional, is backstory. It quite literally cannot 'come from' anything else... because anything that creates that exceptional circumstance Is backstory, by definition. How those elements fall in with or stray apart from the relevant world lore are also a part of backstory, regardless of which they do; what is relevant is how those elements have affected the person your character has become up to the point of beginning your current adventure. So, I do apologise, but I feel as though I must have misunderstood or failed to grasp what you were getting at or trying to say there, because the comment just doesn't make intelligible sense to me. I am sorry, that's not intended as an attack, just a note of confusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I'm guessing the confusion comes from the perspective of the statements. I'm talking about 'one' a person in universe, you're talking about 'one' a player. One might expect a tyrannical magic theocracy to be nearly monolithic in it's culture and worldview, in a fantasy setting it can actually be monolithic. The other 'one', might expect that because this is a story being written for players to interact with, that every rule and expectation has an exception, the one that lets them be the exception. So it wasn't being a paladin that was unexpected, it was the cavalier way you had some random Gith being devoted to an alien god. "My grandfather was a gith, one of the good ones". Using the Gith as examples for this is strange to begin with. All the rules in FR become a little less distinct extra-planar, different types of allegory, cultures made totally out of time, and without historical antecedent. It's the difference between Medieval Fantasy and Space Fantasy. These perspectives apply elsewhere. "Paladin" is a player term, it might also exist in-universe, but classes and the concept of levels don't. Everything to do with the mechanics of the game is an abstraction of what is going on in-universe, made so that a person with a twenty sided die can interact with it. In universe, people don't choose a class, their lives are mapped to the class closest to that abstraction. As with 'Common', it's not any language of Earth, but is abstracted onto our languages so that we can interact with the world. Sozz="I think if you want to be the exception to the rule, it has to come from somewhere more than your backstory." There are the exceptional circumstances you give yourself, and there are ones that come from choices you actually have to make. If you want to play a Githyanki paladin of Lliira, making it as easy as toggling the deity you worship over to Lliira, is a monumental character arc that occurs off-screen. It cheapens the choice, and by extension the strictures that make such a choice...'dramatic'. That's all, I suppose it's a little hyperbolic to say it 'has' to come from somewhere else, but maybe I've made myself more clear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
|
… But in case anyone has taken it that way, I am definitively not saying we can’t discuss this topic, but that in so doing we should do our best to be constructive, avoiding insulting those with views other than our own and keeping it relevant to the game rather than wandering off into more general theorising about gender or politics … No. The topic reminds me of the queer stuff which is a bit alien to me since I'm lucky enough not live in a surrounding that full of that kind of vanguard culture overly manipulative on populist movement ... Okay. You know I said we should try to avoid insulting people with views other than our own, keep it relevant to the game and avoid wandering off into more general theorising in the very quote of mine you replied to? Your post failed on that so badly that I’m tempted to think it was deliberate trolling but I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and one more chance. If you actually don’t understand why what you have posted is not appropriate here, then please PM me and I can explain in more detail. Ah, I see, you are waving your moderator club. BTW, it's actually an axe, in case you haven't realizing it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
|
Eh... still not really sure where you're coming from, I'm sorry. I don't mean to be obtuse, I'm just not understanding the issue that you're feeling.
When I say "one" I mean any one, any individual randomly average person, if they have any reason to expect something at all, will expect a particular thing - so no, the average peasant farmer who has never been further than the township half a mile away would not 'expect' the angry githyanki to be screaming Vlaakith's name... they don't have a reason or grounds to expect anything... but a person, such as a planar scholar from waterdeep, who would reasonably be in a position to have an expectation - that expectation would be that if this githyanki worships anyone, that one will be Vlaakith. That is a reasonable expectation, and it will be an accurate expectation the extreme vast majority of the time. If their expectation is incorrect, that's a surprise.
If the expectation is wrong and the githyanki is extremely unusual, that will require some explaining, and probably a decent amount of initial mistrust from those who have enough knowledge to expect otherwise. It's not a story device to say that there can - and will - be exceptions: it's a universal truth; nothing is absolute and exceptions can always occur in a fantasy setting full of strangeness. So... I'm not seeing why you're identifying anything here as objectionable. Really, I'm a little hurt and perhaps mildly offended that you'd liken anything I'm saying here to being in alignment with that kind of 'good one' racism. I feel like you're jousting at a far distant hill by making that leap of connection. The difference here is that it is factually true that githyanki culture is intrinsically evil as defined by the world space, and that githyanki, in their majority are culturally evil when they exist as part of their native society - which does, factually, cover the extreme vast majority of all githyanki. Are githyanki themselves intrinsically evil? No, of course not... and the entire point of this section of discussion is making a point of that very fact.
Sorcerer, Wizard, Druid, Paladin, Warlock, Bard, Cleric and Ranger are all in-universe, living terms (less so Barbarian in direct reference to the class); no-one in universe will look at you funny if you say you are a Paladin of Lliira (unless they think that the joydancers don't have paladins... they do), not in the same way they will look at you funny for saying you're level 12. So the Githyanki that introduces themselves cautiously at the Laughing Beholder, on the Rock of Bral, as being a Paladin of Lliira, who considers their home to be Faerun, on Toril, and not the creche where they were first raised... would likely raise eyebrows for its unusualness, but not for saying that they were a paladin at all. What's the concern or problem that you have with this? I simply do not understand why you feel like that's something to object to.
For the rest...
I'm really not sure I understand why you're objecting to that either... backstory is backstory; it's the stuff that happened to you before the adventure that is now beginning. It's the stuff that was formative towards putting you in the position you are now in, as the person you now are. If you are a representative of something particularly unusual or strange, then there's probably a wonderful story to go along with how that came about - that's called backstory! The adventure is not the story of how those events came to be - they're backstory. They are the choices that the character made that set them on the path to end up here, instead of somewhere else - the adventure is not concerned with them, save as the repercussions of them may happen to come up if the actual adventure you're embarking upon touches them. That's why it's called Backstory, and not just Story. Whatever it comes from, wherever it comes from, however it comes about, the choices that your character made that ended up setting them on this path and putting them here are all backstory - they cannot 'come from' anywhere else, because they are backstory by definition.
The choices you make now, moving forward, as this person, and the way those choices further impact and change you - they are the focus of the adventure you're now embarking up; they are what matter most, and are what the grand adventure is build out of... how you, as a character approach those choices and make them is, in good character roleplay, at least somewhat influenced by the person you are as brought to this point - by your backstory.
Are you seriously suggesting that if a player came to your table with a character combination that you thought sounded weird, you would insist that that was 'too dramatic' a thing for them to have in their backstory, and you'd insist that it would have to be played out in an adventure first, before you could accept it? Are you saying that a githyanki who participated in a raid on a sword coast city, was injured, left behind, rescued, healed, and came to understand genuine kindness for the first time, and decided to dedicate themselves to a new cause, and a new home... is 'too dramatic' a backstory for you to permit at your table without it being played out in an adventure first? Because that sounds ridiculous, and I do not, for a moment, believe that that is what you are actually saying of yourself... so, because I can't really fathom that that is your actual angle, and I do not know what your actual angle is... No, you have not made yourself more clear, I'm sorry - I'm exactly as confused and oblivious to your complaint as I started.
Again, I know I sound exasperated here, and I am a little, but I don't wish to make this come off as a conflict or as being fighty... I'm just really not understanding your position, at all... I'm trying, I promise!
Last edited by Niara; 22/03/23 04:32 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
|
And then Wyll, [...] why would he want to share that night with a dude Tav? Out of curiosity... what leads you to suppose that Wyll is purely heterosexual? We know that he is open to having attraction to people with gyno-centric physiology, but what leads you to suppose that means he's not equally open to people with andro-centric physiology? Bisexual people exist, after all - please trust that I would know! I didn't brought Wyll, with Astarion or Gale in the same party much, did Wyll try to flirt Astarion or Gale? Astarion flirting others doesn't count though, since he is obviously a bisexual. Actually I don't think Wyll is necessary to be a purely heterosexual to refuse having sex with a dude Tav. Here is my observation, the homosexaul people and the open bisexual ones will flirt someone of same gender rather actively, but not the deep bisexual. This is why some appears to be badass straight dude will start fancy other dude in a disciplineless army or in a prison. The deep bisexual only will fancy those from the same gender 1.when there is no heterogender around and 2. they are in a dominating position or in dire need of protection among the rank/in-mates. The deep bi will most likely turn their mindset into open bi after they tried it and get used to it, but not before they tried it. Back to Wyll, if Wyll did flirt Astarion and Gale whenever he got chance during the adventure, call me a fool, but if he didn't, then I think he either is a hetero or deep bi. He might pick up the open bi mindset during his service among the flaming fist if he happen to be an open bi, but this theory requires the in-game auto-dialogue between Wyll and either Astarion or Gale to support it. If you look back at the previous BG, playing a half-orc means I am unable to pick paladin, how wonderful is that! But now if I play a githyanki, in a blink I got qualified to be a paladin of Faerun!? it was the extension of an invitation of freedom, for players to make ever more creative Indeed, but a terrible example of extension. Because the creativity, as a result, only reinforce the build while ruining the background. If there was dual-class, then a gith warrior + gith paladin of faerun is totally fine and actually great, but not starting as a gith paladin of faerun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Volunteer Moderator
|
|
Volunteer Moderator
Joined: Feb 2022
|
You know I said we should try to avoid insulting people with views other than our own, keep it relevant to the game and avoid wandering off into more general theorising in the very quote of mine you replied to? Your post failed on that so badly that I’m tempted to think it was deliberate trolling but I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and one more chance. If you actually don’t understand why what you have posted is not appropriate here, then please PM me and I can explain in more detail. Ah, I see, you are waving your moderator club. BTW, it's actually an axe, in case you haven't realizing it. Ioci had already had a final caution, but as a fair warning to anyone else who needs it, after multiple moderator interventions I’m now going to operate a zero tolerance policy on this thread and any failure to engage constructively with each other or moderators may result in immediate suspension. And general political commentary, particularly that criticising those with different views, or putting forward your own theories of gender, will be considered not to be constructive. If you are not confident in your ability to discuss this topic in a manner appropriate to an open forum operated by Larian for anyone and everyone interested in their games, then you may be better off avoiding it. But it is not my desire to shut down good faith and relevant debate, so if there is something you want to say but you are not sure if it’s appropriate, please feel free to PM me and I will give you a steer. Though I will say that if you’re already wondering whether you should say something then that’s probably an indication in itself that the answer may well be “noâ€. Questions or concerns about moderator policy on this topic are welcome, but vague insinuations are not. If you have queries or challenges, please state them clearly and courteously and I or one of the other moderators will do our best to respond. If you want to play it safe, or you don’t have particular reason to want to raise your points publicly, again do PM me and we can talk privately. And to avoid any further muddying of the waters, I’m now going to restrict myself to only posting in this thread as a moderator, despite the fact that the topic interests me as a fan and forum member. That means that I hope this is my final post here, though I will continue to follow the discussion with interest.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Volunteer Moderator
|
|
Volunteer Moderator
Joined: Feb 2022
|
Oh, and I’m going to add that any posts against the guidance I have given on forum policy are also subject to deletion. I’m not going to mess about editing them for acceptable and unacceptable content, so if you want your post to stay available here then please take care to be constructive, respectful of different viewpoints and avoid irrelevant and controversial political commentary.
The alternative would be to lock the thread entirely which I am loath to do given that it is a reasonable subject for debate if only we can manage to keep it civil and on topic.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2023
|
Red Queen, what counts as constructive criticism? Since it may vary for people, can you please give an outline?
E.g.
1. Specific problems the current system may cause in your own gameplay: (if you're not planning on using this feature, please skip the question)
2. What could improve the current system in your opinion? (Please mention purely mechanical changes)
3. Should unique dialogue between NPCs and a transgender character be included?
-- > If so, would you like it to be present a few times purely for flavor, or something NPCs routinely comment on?
(Please do not base your answer on unpassing characters. This has been discussed at lenght. Your response should describe NPC behavior when faced with an average character).
If you meant constructive to Larian specifically, a clear format may work?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Volunteer Moderator
|
|
Volunteer Moderator
Joined: Feb 2022
|
Thanks for your questions, Silver/.
I specifically talked about “constructive engagement†(ie discussion and interaction) rather than “constructive criticismâ€. I just mean “constructive†in its dictionary sense of positive, useful and helpful rather than negative and unhelpful, and tending to build to improvements or advances.
I’ve already offered some suggestions for identifying what is or isn’t going to be positive and helpful to discuss here. Including being mindful that people reading and posting on these forums will be diverse and united only in an interest in Larian’s games, doing our best to avoid insulting those who have different outlooks from our own and refraining from wandering off on political, philosophical or ideological analyses, especially ones that involve negative interpretations of others’ behaviour, and instead trying to keep our discourse clear, specific and relevant to the topic at hand (particularly when we know it’s related to a subject that can cause controversy).
Other than asking we all display basic netiquette, I am loath to be any more prescriptive as I in no way want to shut down valid debate. Personally, I think with good will, consideration and respect for other forum members we should all be capable of working out whether something we are tempted to post crosses the line. But I acknowledge there may be grey areas and as I have said, if anyone has something specific they want to post and they are not sure if it is appropriate, they can PM me with a draft. As long as it appears they are asking in good faith and have tried their best to make their post civil and constructive, I will happily provide a steer.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2021
|
I think the addition is fine. It's optional so those who are uninterested in it do not have to use it. To those who value it I'm sure it is appreciated. I think the politics involved are irrelevant to the forum and are best discussed elsewhere (there is definitely no shortage of places to do so).
Last edited by Ranxerox; 22/03/23 11:17 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Eh... still not really sure where you're coming from, I'm sorry. I don't mean to be obtuse, I'm just not understanding the issue that you're feeling.
When I say "one" I mean any one, any individual randomly average person, if they have any reason to expect something at all, will expect a particular thing - so no, the average peasant farmer who has never been further than the township half a mile away would not 'expect' the angry githyanki to be screaming Vlaakith's name... they don't have a reason or grounds to expect anything... but a person, such as a planar scholar from waterdeep, who would reasonably be in a position to have an expectation - that expectation would be that if this githyanki worships anyone, that one will be Vlaakith. That is a reasonable expectation, and it will be an accurate expectation the extreme vast majority of the time. If their expectation is incorrect, that's a surprise.
If the expectation is wrong and the githyanki is extremely unusual, that will require some explaining, and probably a decent amount of initial mistrust from those who have enough knowledge to expect otherwise. It's not a story device to say that there can - and will - be exceptions: it's a universal truth; nothing is absolute and exceptions can always occur in a fantasy setting full of strangeness. So... I'm not seeing why you're identifying anything here as objectionable. Really, I'm a little hurt and perhaps mildly offended that you'd liken anything I'm saying here to being in alignment with that kind of 'good one' racism. I feel like you're jousting at a far distant hill by making that leap of connection. The difference here is that it is factually true that githyanki culture is intrinsically evil as defined by the world space, and that githyanki, in their majority are culturally evil when they exist as part of their native society - which does, factually, cover the extreme vast majority of all githyanki. Are githyanki themselves intrinsically evil? No, of course not... and the entire point of this section of discussion is making a point of that very fact.
Sorcerer, Wizard, Druid, Paladin, Warlock, Bard, Cleric and Ranger are all in-universe, living terms (less so Barbarian in direct reference to the class); no-one in universe will look at you funny if you say you are a Paladin of Lliira (unless they think that the joydancers don't have paladins... they do), not in the same way they will look at you funny for saying you're level 12. So the Githyanki that introduces themselves cautiously at the Laughing Beholder, on the Rock of Bral, as being a Paladin of Lliira, who considers their home to be Faerun, on Toril, and not the creche where they were first raised... would likely raise eyebrows for its unusualness, but not for saying that they were a paladin at all. What's the concern or problem that you have with this? I simply do not understand why you feel like that's something to object to.
For the rest...
I'm really not sure I understand why you're objecting to that either... backstory is backstory; it's the stuff that happened to you before the adventure that is now beginning. It's the stuff that was formative towards putting you in the position you are now in, as the person you now are. If you are a representative of something particularly unusual or strange, then there's probably a wonderful story to go along with how that came about - that's called backstory! The adventure is not the story of how those events came to be - they're backstory. They are the choices that the character made that set them on the path to end up here, instead of somewhere else - the adventure is not concerned with them, save as the repercussions of them may happen to come up if the actual adventure you're embarking upon touches them. That's why it's called Backstory, and not just Story. Whatever it comes from, wherever it comes from, however it comes about, the choices that your character made that ended up setting them on this path and putting them here are all backstory - they cannot 'come from' anywhere else, because they are backstory by definition.
The choices you make now, moving forward, as this person, and the way those choices further impact and change you - they are the focus of the adventure you're now embarking up; they are what matter most, and are what the grand adventure is build out of... how you, as a character approach those choices and make them is, in good character roleplay, at least somewhat influenced by the person you are as brought to this point - by your backstory.
Are you seriously suggesting that if a player came to your table with a character combination that you thought sounded weird, you would insist that that was 'too dramatic' a thing for them to have in their backstory, and you'd insist that it would have to be played out in an adventure first, before you could accept it? Are you saying that a githyanki who participated in a raid on a sword coast city, was injured, left behind, rescued, healed, and came to understand genuine kindness for the first time, and decided to dedicate themselves to a new cause, and a new home... is 'too dramatic' a backstory for you to permit at your table without it being played out in an adventure first? Because that sounds ridiculous, and I do not, for a moment, believe that that is what you are actually saying of yourself... so, because I can't really fathom that that is your actual angle, and I do not know what your actual angle is... No, you have not made yourself more clear, I'm sorry - I'm exactly as confused and oblivious to your complaint as I started.
Again, I know I sound exasperated here, and I am a little, but I don't wish to make this come off as a conflict or as being fighty... I'm just really not understanding your position, at all... I'm trying, I promise! I'll work backwards because the last point is probably the more important. Are you seriously suggesting that if a player came to your table with a character combination that you thought sounded weird, you would insist that that was 'too dramatic' a thing for them to have in their backstory, and you'd insist that it would have to be played out in an adventure first, before you could accept it?... I think I'll address this by asking you a question. Every table has a line, where do you draw it? To bring it back to perspectives, I consider the line to be drawn by the universe, while you consider it to be drawn by the people at the table. The 'one' and the 'one' from before. Both are perfectly valid, depending on the table, but I consider one more conducive to meaningful play. For a level 1 Forgotten Realms game, having a Githyanki PC doesn't immediately cross the line, but it does bring us to it, and because I, or someone like me, is there to accommodate and arbitrate, it becomes a matter of negotiation. Every interaction at the table can be considered a negotiation, between the world, the characters, the rules, and the players; with the DM trying to make it a coherent entity. Now, because this is actually a conversation about a video game, that negotiation can't happen. For the story to be coherent the game has to have already accommodated the choices made. So, when you allow players to make choices that that aren't in the matrix, you're making the story less coherent. Sorcerer, Wizard, Druid, Paladin, Warlock, Bard, Cleric and Ranger are all in-universe, living terms (less so Barbarian in direct reference to the class); no-one in universe will look at you funny if you say you are a Paladin of Lliira (unless they think that the joydancers don't have paladins... they do), not in the same way they will look at you funny for saying you're level 12. Sorcerer, Wizard, Druid, Paladin, Warlock, Bard, Cleric and Ranger exist in Toril the same way they exist in our world. They are words used to describe things, they might carry extra weight other than that for metatextual reasons. A character with class levels in Wizard, might never have heard the term wizard used to describe him, or possibly can only call himself that after getting a diploma from a certified and sanctioned School of Magic (which itself might not be recognized or understood very far afield). Considering the myriad ways different religions and even sects within a religion, have terms for their priesthoods, the very idea that Cleric is used to describe all users of divine magic would strike me as narrowminded. The distinction between a Cleric and a Paladin in-universe, might be as little as where they were assigned or it could be political, like Charlemagne's own, or on if your Paladins represent the militant orders or the knightly ones more. A Fighter, might have no connection to any higher power beyond his service, and still be considered a priest or paladin. It's not a story device to say that there can - and will - be exceptions: it's a universal truth; nothing is absolute and exceptions can always occur in a fantasy setting full of strangeness. So... I'm not seeing why you're identifying anything here as objectionable. Really, I'm a little hurt and perhaps mildly offended that you'd liken anything I'm saying here to being in alignment with that kind of 'good one' racism. "good one" as my link was meant to convey had nothing to do with race, something I hadn't even considered, +1 internet discourse. More to do with the way people when given an opportunity will minimize the possibility that they would be as evil as the society they live in conditions them to be. Exceptions to the rule, are a trope of fantasy, especially when people are writing themselves into the narrative. Trope has become a dirty word for some reason, but I love a tropey tale, but just like with the aforementioned ' fridging' there are fine lines between a trope being used effectively and it being a crutch, pretentious or cliché.
Last edited by Sozz; 23/03/23 12:58 AM. Reason: fridging was a different thread, link
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
|
Spoiler tagging because the back and forth between Sozz and I is quite apart from the core topic of the thread at this stage. Honestly, Sozz, and again, this is said in friendship and with good intentions, but I feel that you're quite determinedly (though I'm sure not deliberately) mischaracterising me and what I'm saying - to reiterate where you say I stand, despite the fact that I just corrected you on that and informed you that that take was not accurate - to repeat, again, no, I do not stand there, and the 'one' I use is an entirely in-universe 'one', like I said previously. Please don't ignore and disregard that in order to characterise me otherwise a second time. I think I'll address this by asking you a question. Every table has a line, where do you draw it? To bring it back to perspectives, I consider the line to be drawn by the universe, while you consider it to be drawn by the people at the table. The 'one' and the 'one' from before. Both are perfectly valid, depending on the table, but I consider one more conducive to meaningful play. For a level 1 Forgotten Realms game, having a Githyanki PC doesn't immediately cross the line, but it does bring us to it, and because I, or someone like me, is there to accommodate and arbitrate, it becomes a matter of negotiation. Every interaction at the table can be considered a negotiation, between the world, the characters, the rules, and the players; with the DM trying to make it a coherent entity.
Now, because this is actually a conversation about a video game, that negotiation can't happen. For the story to be coherent the game has to have already accommodated the choices made. So, when you allow players to make choices that that aren't in the matrix, you're making the story less coherent. I would prefer it if you answered my question by answering my question - because your answer feels like you're trying to avoid saying openly "Yes, if a player came to my table with a character combination that I thought sounded weird, I would disallow it regardless of whether it was officially permitted or not, and I would not accept an unusual or unique backstory as an appropriate vehicle for explaining or justifying their character's unusual situation". That's not a DM I would ever want to sit at a table with, and that's not a DM anyone should ever want to sit at a table with. It sounds like that's where you actually stand, because of how you chose to address the question - if that's not correct, then you might do better clarifying yourself by answering the question clearly... if that's not how you feel, then a straight "No, that's not accurate" would do well here... and if it is, then don't dance around it as though you know it for the bad take that it is already - because that is how it comes off when you do. So no; a githyanki playable character does not immediately come up to the line and require negotiation, unless the Dm is ruling to lock out official content ahead of time - and that weight is on the DM for being more restrictive than the game world and game lore suggests they should be. It's an officially published race set up and presented as a playable character, well before any content related to astral play and spelljammer was raised. A DM that would deny that is the one stepping on extant world lore, and disregarding it - not the player. It's their right to do that if it fits their game of course (the entry even says as much), but make no mistake - it is the DM straying from the world presented by the lore, not the player, in that case. Not allowing them in your game space as players is a DM choice to remove something from the world. A githyanki joining the game to assist an otherwise good and neutral neutral aligned group of people for a quest based on Toril would almost certainly need to have backstory elements that explained how this came to be, because it's incredibly unusual - that's what backstory is literally for; to do that exact work. That's part of the game, not straying from it or taking away from it. Certainly, a player who has no interest in providing any kind of backstory to support their unusual situation is potentially posing immersion difficulties or world coherency concerns... but again, that's what backstory is for; to do that work; a DM should ask the player, during character generation or during pre-session or session zero discussions, how their unsual situation came about and work out those backstory elements... not tell them flat that their choice is to weird and requires a live adventure to explain, so they cannot do it. Do you doubt that I can present you a perfectly believable backstory to explain how and why this githynaki character lives on the outskirts of Daggerford, pays dedication to Lliira and gives thanks in her name, and is interested in joining the group of adventurers who are now embarking on an adventure to explore the recently uncovered dungeon of the mad mage Halaster Blackcloak, and is approximately at the same level of skill and prowess as the other adventurers setting out (level 1)? Because I can, very easily... and if you would not doubt it of me, then why would you doubt it of anyone else, to the point of ruling it out of your games for being 'incoherent'? Break for air and space: I don't want this to feel like an argument and I'm trying to vet my wording to be as even-handed as I can. I'm still trying to work out and be clear where you stand, or stood, when you objected to the example I make initially, and why you did so, and there's no hostility. == In universe, a Bard is very different from a bard - that's entirely in universe and has no meta-break involved in it at all. One of them is a person with a natural talent for manipulating the world around them through song, sound and word magic, while the other is a lute player, and their skill at playing the lute is not a relevant consideration in the distinction. Yes folks who speak different languages in different parts of the world will naturally use different words for it, but the term of reference is 100% an in-universe term of reference for a person with that particular capability, whatever language it is spoken in. The same is true of Sorcerer, of Warlock and of Druids, and yes, of Paladin too. I'll give that there's a lot more fuzz surrounding some of the others, that's fair. A Fighter, might have no connection to any higher power beyond his service, and still be considered a [...] paladin. No, they would not. You can insert our-world fuzziness into your organisations in your own world if you want, but that's you harming the coherency of the world and stepping away from its established structures of lore... in any Toril-based situation they would be frowned on for misleading and misrepresenting themselves if they did so - Paladins are a tangibly definable thing, and no fighter who fought for a deity as part of an organisation would be called or be permitted to call themselves a paladin if they were not one - unless it were an unscrupulous order, or particular individual, that actively sought to deceive people. Yes the exact word used would change in different languages and different nations, but that's neither here nor there and is irrelevant to the point. == On topic (sort of, but, erm, not really)... To Ioci, I would very much appreciate it if you would not make commentary to the tune of erasing or denying my sexual preference from legitimacy. It is rude and harmful to front the idea that someone is not 'really' bisexual if they are not actively flirting with men and women around them irrespective of their particular tastes and interests, or that they are somehow hiding it or in denial if they are not. You as a heterosexual male (I presume, and sorry if I'm mistaken) do not flirt with every woman you see - you are not required to perform your sexual preference publicly and consistently in order to be considered legitimate. Do not put that on others, as you did in your above post, please. I'd also appreciate it greatly if you could avoid speaking about people of sexual preferences other than your own as though they were alien species or single homogeneous groups that were all the same. == Actually, none of this is really on the core topic of the thread, which is related to gender and gender presentation in the video game... so considering I've spoken my own consideration on that score, I'll probably excuse myself from the thread as well now - I'm happy to continue discussion via pm with others if they still wish to pursue or clarify them further.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
This topic is about translating player concepts into the game world. Identity or gender identity specifically, but talking about any character concept that might trigger the same response seems on topic enough to me. It wasn't my intent to mischaracterize you, I merely interpreted what you said, such as: "Githyanki are not intrinsically evil", that's an out of universe take, you might not agree, it's not an attack on you. Whether or not they are, if your character lived as a Githyanki for any amount of time, they are. If a Githyanki crashes in the woods, but there is no Waterdeep scholar to observe them, are they expected to be anything? The perspectives used in your example are not the ones I'm interested in, I'm interested in the Githyanki character who is now in the woods, you want them to be good, I want them to be Githyanki. That doesn't preclude them from being good, but it's not something I want to handwave. Just don't tell me your perspective is in-universe and consider the matter settled. That's not a DM I would ever want to sit at a table with, and that's not a DM anyone should ever want to sit at a table with. If I made the statement, what would that make me? You have a line Niara: its me! It doesn't sound like I'd have fun at your table, and it doesn't sound like you'd have fun at mine, but there are people for each and both. I can't help but feel like I'd either be discomfited with the leave given, or totally disinterested during a game where Githyanki show up without causing significant ramifications to the world and story. Regardless, despite your belief that I'm equivocating, when I said it wouldn't immediately cross the line, I meant it. If someone wants to go extraplanar at level 1 in the Forgotten Realms, that's going to require a lot of work. I would probably ask them why they want to play a Githyanki, why they don't think playing anything else would equate that, and whether or not they would rather play an extraplanar campaign. Their reasoning doesn't have to be compelling, but they have to work with me to hammer this into the square peg. Again though, we're not talking about the start of some hypothetical tabletop game, we have actual evidence of what we're talking about. The DM wants us to have the option to play Githyanki in a level 1 FR campaign, and to do it...a Mind-Flayer ship, attacked by a Githyanki war party, crash lands in the wilderness outside Baldur's Gate. Of those abducted by the Mind-Flayers is the Githyanki T'av. Good so far. Unfortunately the game is inconsistently able to accommodate us further, slightly incoherent even. This is what happened to an option that is supposed to be in the game, now multiply it by all the options that aren't part of Larian's mission statement and the problems will only compound themselves. The idea that people in Kara-Tur use the term Bard doesn't sound right to me. Has Kara-Tur been dealt with in 5e yet? Still, yes Bard is a special term, like I said, for completely metatextual reasons. The game has been passed through a lot of hands, some where less adroit than others, a person can be referred to as Bard, and it can still be the abstraction of bard. I'm reminded of MMO dialogue, because there's so little effort for people to behave 'in-character' the veil between story and game is often transparent. Probably not, casting divine magic is probably required, and yet...If you chose to take holy vows, but not "levels" in paladin, what would the end result be? This last line was maybe a stretch, but the overarching point still stands. If you think that one point undoes it all, that's fine. I didn't want to have to go through every class. It was about the imperfect translation of the world to the table, do you have anything to say about that, or is it just that one point that you wanted to make? I was going to put in a little light-hearted blurb here, about a small hamlet's public house being 'terrorized' by a Githyanki paladin, and a Drow ranger, but it's too late, so just enjoy the concept. There was a great bit in there about Astral Plains...oh well.
Last edited by Sozz; 23/03/23 06:50 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Mar 2023
|
The background is just to give you a slight advantage on rolls, now if they give us a place of origin like example instead of Baulders Gate you are from Elturel that would lead to some very interesting dialogue and be be pretty cool.
My Name is Regulator and im a Hoarder in the lands of Faerûn.
how much stuff is to much stuff, because its certainly not enough stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
OP
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2012
|
A final (unless I get another severe itch to overzealously rummage for data) bit of research - apparently, as it turns out, the identity selector from character creation is only there in the English version of the game to begin with (which makes sense considering the wording of the text of the update that introduced it, but I thought that they'd have it throughout but only the English version will recognize the dialogue changes? Or something to that extent).
In any event, given the aforementioned language specifics, I have doubts that the supposed plan to support the identity selection in all the languages will come through in the end. We'll see, I guess. It is curious to see discrepancy in UI elements of all things between the languages the game's available in, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jul 2022
|
A final (unless I get another severe itch to overzealously rummage for data) bit of research - apparently, as it turns out, the identity selector from character creation is only there in the English version of the game to begin with (which makes sense considering the wording of the text of the update that introduced it, but I thought that they'd have it throughout but only the English version will recognize the dialogue changes? Or something to that extent).
In any event, given the aforementioned language specifics, I have doubts that the supposed plan to support the identity selection in all the languages will come through in the end. We'll see, I guess. It is curious to see discrepancy in UI elements of all things between the languages the game's available in, though. Omg how they dear this. I want to be identified in any language. Joke aside. I agree with you. I think in a game like Cyberpunk it totally fit in the theme to have this gender..... It. And I have zero problem with that. But seriously I don't think there are plastic surgery clinic's in dnd. If somone want to identify as a women or a man they can just use a f.... Ing disguse/polimorph spell. Or better if someone feels him self to be a Pikachu chose the druid class. But common do not expect as a druid male person (shape changed to a wolf) to be identifyed as a women leaporad. This is some next level of bull...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jhe'stil Kith'rak
|
|
Jhe'stil Kith'rak
Joined: Oct 2021
|
A final (unless I get another severe itch to overzealously rummage for data) bit of research - apparently, as it turns out, the identity selector from character creation is only there in the English version of the game to begin with (which makes sense considering the wording of the text of the update that introduced it, but I thought that they'd have it throughout but only the English version will recognize the dialogue changes? Or something to that extent).
In any event, given the aforementioned language specifics, I have doubts that the supposed plan to support the identity selection in all the languages will come through in the end. We'll see, I guess. It is curious to see discrepancy in UI elements of all things between the languages the game's available in, though. Omg how they dear this. I want to be identified in any language. Joke aside. I agree with you. I think in a game like Cyberpunk it totally fit in the theme to have this gender..... It. And I have zero problem with that. But seriously I don't think there are plastic surgery clinic's in dnd. If somone want to identify as a women or a man they can just use a f.... Ing disguse/polimorph spell. Or better if someone feels him self to be a Pikachu chose the druid class. But common do not expect as a druid male person (shape changed to a wolf) to be identifyed as a women leaporad. This is some next level of bull... What is the option for people who feel that they are neither man nor woman? That's not covered under polymorph or disguise spells, and not covered by druid shapechanges either. It is specifically how they present to society rather than any specific physical feature. What is the solution for them?
Remember the human (This is a forum for a video game):
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2021
|
A final (unless I get another severe itch to overzealously rummage for data) bit of research - apparently, as it turns out, the identity selector from character creation is only there in the English version of the game to begin with (which makes sense considering the wording of the text of the update that introduced it, but I thought that they'd have it throughout but only the English version will recognize the dialogue changes? Or something to that extent).
In any event, given the aforementioned language specifics, I have doubts that the supposed plan to support the identity selection in all the languages will come through in the end. We'll see, I guess. It is curious to see discrepancy in UI elements of all things between the languages the game's available in, though. Omg how they dear this. I want to be identified in any language. Joke aside. I agree with you. I think in a game like Cyberpunk it totally fit in the theme to have this gender..... It. And I have zero problem with that. But seriously I don't think there are plastic surgery clinic's in dnd. If somone want to identify as a women or a man they can just use a f.... Ing disguse/polimorph spell. Or better if someone feels him self to be a Pikachu chose the druid class. But common do not expect as a druid male person (shape changed to a wolf) to be identifyed as a women leaporad. This is some next level of bull... ..but if the identity feature is optional why would it bother you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Volunteer Moderator
|
|
Volunteer Moderator
Joined: Feb 2022
|
This is some next level of bull... I’m going to appeal to everyone to try to take the heat out of their language on this topic and, as I’ve said, do their best to engage constructively and without insulting those who have different views. There is nothing necessarily offensive about thinking that gender nonconformity wouldn’t be a thing in Faerun, and folk who believe that it wouldn’t be are free to explain clearly, calmly why this is so. As long as they are showing good will and at least attempting to avoid insulting those whose real life experiences might be unavoidably bound up in such a discussion. And to avoid dragging in modern real world politics or events, as far as that’s possible when such a debate would need to involve extrapolating from our world to Faerun. However, it is not clearly “bull†to think that there would and should be trans individuals on Faerun on the basis that it’s not a modern setting. Though specific modern meanings of terms related to gender have only been coming into currency over the last 60 or so years, there’s evidence of various kinds of gender non-conformity throughout human history and in multiple cultures, even in some where there would have been strong taboos against it. Plus, of course, someone might argue that the purpose of the world as a game setting in which players have the flexibility to create the characters they want to play takes precedence over any considerations of “realism†anyway. In that context, calling allowing players to create trans PCs “next level bull†seems unnecessarily dismissive, though of course people could reasonably disagree that the sorts of considerations I’ve suggested above are compelling or decisive.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
|
|
|
|
|
