I would hesitate to argue that different values would work that way wrt PTSD. This comes across as shifting goalposts.
It wouldn't necessarily be identical to how it appears now, but it would likely be caused by the same kinds of experiences, regardless of what one's culture says about those experiences.
What is recent is the diagnostic construct of PTSD, but that the ways people react to life-threatening situations, violations of body integrity, intense combat, etc. likely have not changed over time. I would argue that the problem of soldiers suffering from trauma is probably a very old situation.
I'd rather focus on genre conventions than sweeping claims because the latter is making statements about reality that aren't really justifiable, whereas at least with genre conventions we know how human experiences are interpreted and explained.
It's more probable that the shape of war - less explosions, bullets, and other extremely stressful "death in a moment's notice" situations - would result in less stress disorders. I am not particularly knowledgeable of either war nor stress psychology but if I remember correctly most ptsd is caused by having stress hormones elevated to traumatic levels, without relief, and over an extended period of time. It would appear likely to me that a slower kind of warfare with a battlefield that a easier for our primitive brain to get a grip of (As in where the dangers and the enemies are) would result in less prolonged stress. I've also heard that ancient and medieval war was unlike ours in that most of the casualties did not occur during the actual battling but after one side breaks rank and runs and the other side pursue and run them down. Such a "rush of victory" could in itself have been a great stress reliever after a pitched battle.
But as I said. This is me being both an armchair general and an armchair psychologist. I'm just putting forth what makes sense from my position.
The core issue I'm trying to get here is that certain terms & writing are feeling more like a running gag that never stops, and it also baffles me that every character must say "well met" for the 100th time.
And how many times have you said "Hello" to someone in your life? "Well Met" is just another variation, and a stock greeting that all cultures have when meeting someone.
You're missing the point...you talk about cultures, but not everyone needs to say Well Met all over the place! There are other words for hello or hell make up some fantasy based word just for different ethnicities of Toril to give it some sense of a realistic world (which has been done somewhat, but it is not put into the games very often).
I don't know how many times I have to clarify my position on this.
All that I'm asking for is be original & varied in responses instead of using the same stock greeting over, and over again.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I think you missed my point entirely.
A Privateer is any individual granted license by their government to attack (usually shipping) assets belonging to an enemy government, usually during a war. Privateers are like private contractors: They receive a Letter of Marque from their nation’s Generals or Admiralty, which grants them permission to raid the enemy and keep a percentage of the spoils – so long as they pay a cut of that bounty back to the government. The bearer of the Letter of Marque would then go about hiring his or her own party (crew) at their own expense. A Privateer is operating legally, so long as they have the Letter of Marque.
Scum bags and Grave robbers are other terms I would use...
I think "mercenary" kind of has negative connotations; it means "money motivated", and suggests that you'd do anything for money, even if it meant beating on a bunch of children. When you say "adventurer", it broadens the scope of what you do, since it's not limited to fighting... kind of a "every mercenary is an adventurer but not every adventurer is a mercenary" kind of thing... or maybe "an adventurer is a mercenary with a moral code", or something.
I actually once toyed with the idea of creating a world that has an "Adventurer class" of society - kind of a unique, independent caste, if you like, of people who go out taking extreme risks for the sake of glory and tales to be written about them. They'd be really annoying people who see themselves as above everyone (even the nobility), have no respect for society (or even each other), and when a fellow adventurer dies their first response is to loot his corpse and divvy up his possessions, and they treat normal working class people like crap, often barging into their houses and even taking stuff, and routinely dragging civilians into their disputes (which often result in the destruction of trade goods and even a working man's livelihood)... kind of a "dickhead superhero" type of person. Everybody hates them because they're such horrible people, but unfortunately they're needed to solve a lot of the problems that plague the area, because nobody else will take on a dragon.
So if everyone said "bloglob begrob benggrom gro" you would be happy?
Not very funny, no, and this does not help the conversation any. All I'm saying is "Don't use the same stock greeting for almost every single individual when it is not realistic". Not all of Toril uses old English use of words & slangs. The Drow were a perfect example of doing things right, and this is what I've been trying to get at.
I don't believe that is a unfair assessment.
Honestly this just reminding me why I don't post much here due to the subtle hostility of going against the grain when something needs to be discussed.
Everything needs to be discussed. How else would thieves-in-training know that eating raw carrots causes hiccups. And thus should not be consumed when they're hiding in shadows? You won't learn something like that in Candlekeep.
So if everyone said "bloglob begrob benggrom gro" you would be happy?
Not very funny, no, and this does not help the conversation any. All I'm saying is "Don't use the same stock greeting for almost every single individual when it is not realistic". Not all of Toril uses old English use of words & slangs. The Drow were a perfect example of doing things right, and this is what I've been trying to get at.
I don't believe that is a unfair assessment.
Honestly this just reminding me why I don't post much here due to the subtle hostility of going against the grain when something needs to be discussed.
Baldur's Gate does not visit "the whole of Toril" and the only Drow who says "well met" is Drzzt, who would obviously know the correct greeting for the Sword Coast region.
If Baldur's Gate had visited Kara-Tur, and people had said "well met" then your argument may have had some merit. But it doesn't and they don't.
Why are you bringing Baldur's Gate into this when I said BG & IWD was barely a issue? I'm talking about later DnD games that don't take some things into account.
Which games in particular? The only recent one I can think of is Sword Coast Legends, which is set in the same part of Faerun as Baldur's Gate, and the Neverwinter MMO, which is set in the same part of Faerun as Baldur's Gate....
Comments
It wouldn't necessarily be identical to how it appears now, but it would likely be caused by the same kinds of experiences, regardless of what one's culture says about those experiences.
What is recent is the diagnostic construct of PTSD, but that the ways people react to life-threatening situations, violations of body integrity, intense combat, etc. likely have not changed over time. I would argue that the problem of soldiers suffering from trauma is probably a very old situation.
I'd rather focus on genre conventions than sweeping claims because the latter is making statements about reality that aren't really justifiable, whereas at least with genre conventions we know how human experiences are interpreted and explained.
But as I said. This is me being both an armchair general and an armchair psychologist. I'm just putting forth what makes sense from my position.
I don't know how many times I have to clarify my position on this.
All that I'm asking for is be original & varied in responses instead of using the same stock greeting over, and over again.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I think you missed my point entirely.
A Privateer is any individual granted license by their government to attack (usually shipping) assets belonging to an enemy government, usually during a war. Privateers are like private contractors: They receive a Letter of Marque from their nation’s Generals or Admiralty, which grants them permission to raid the enemy and keep a percentage of the spoils – so long as they pay a cut of that bounty back to the government. The bearer of the Letter of Marque would then go about hiring his or her own party (crew) at their own expense. A Privateer is operating legally, so long as they have the Letter of Marque.
Scum bags and Grave robbers are other terms I would use...
I actually once toyed with the idea of creating a world that has an "Adventurer class" of society - kind of a unique, independent caste, if you like, of people who go out taking extreme risks for the sake of glory and tales to be written about them. They'd be really annoying people who see themselves as above everyone (even the nobility), have no respect for society (or even each other), and when a fellow adventurer dies their first response is to loot his corpse and divvy up his possessions, and they treat normal working class people like crap, often barging into their houses and even taking stuff, and routinely dragging civilians into their disputes (which often result in the destruction of trade goods and even a working man's livelihood)... kind of a "dickhead superhero" type of person.
I don't believe that is a unfair assessment.
Honestly this just reminding me why I don't post much here due to the subtle hostility of going against the grain when something needs to be discussed.
If Baldur's Gate had visited Kara-Tur, and people had said "well met" then your argument may have had some merit. But it doesn't and they don't.