Suggestions

for some reason i thought that was implied but definitely support to clear it up at least [quote name="NatashaRomanov" date="2023-02-21 08:54:43" ] While we're at it let's take out the potential for music and stuff because that may bother the harpies that are potentially sound sensitive. No support. We've messed with the lore enough. Speaking as a disabled POC. Also why is everyone so obsessed with seeing themselves in these feral half breed creatures like what happened to "it's bad to associate minorities with animals" [/quote] i don't see how adding a single word is "messing with the lore"? there's already canonically disabled dragons so why not make the phrasing here reflect that

[quote name="snackeater" date="2023-02-21 11:14:54" ] [quote name="NatashaRomanov" date="2023-02-21 08:54:43" ] While we're at it let's take out the potential for music and stuff because that may bother the harpies that are potentially sound sensitive. No support. We've messed with the lore enough. Speaking as a disabled POC. Also why is everyone so obsessed with seeing themselves in these feral half breed creatures like what happened to "it's bad to associate minorities with animals" [/quote] i don't see how adding a single word is "messing with the lore"? there's already canonically disabled dragons so why not make the phrasing here reflect that [/quote] I imagine they meant something like... it's an encyclopedia page? Like, we don't have any indication of, for example, how many feather colors the Harpies come in, though that would probably be just as important to know. For example, parrot-esque Harpies live in Nature territory, and, I dunno, vulture- or hawk-esque Harpies live in Lightning or something. My point is that, while this wouldn't be a bad thing to have (though I disagree it would be just a one-word difference, because the OP mentions wanting to know how exactly these are accommodated), the encyclopedia article on literally anything isn't exhaustive. And it shouldn't be. It's an encyclopedia entry - no class on Art History uses the encyclopedia entry for Manet and calls it a day. There are all kinds of facets of [pick just about anything, and apply it double for a people group] that isn't covered in a brief overview like the encyclopedia entry, but it doesn't mean those facets don't exist - much less are they being maliciously overlooked. I'm wondering if in Harpy society anyone who can't fly is considered "unfledged," and maybe that is their term for "flight disabled." After all, a Harpy with a non-flight-related disability wouldn't consider themselves "left out," because they can reach their homes just fine as written. So it's not as if disabilities as a whole are being overlooked here. We do see in the article the Harpies call their young "fledglings," not "unfledged." These may be different things to Harpies. And why wouldn't they be? Flight is a very important part of their vocabulary, so it's possible these words mean different things to them in the same way "teal" and "aqua" do to us, however similar they might seem. All the same, my suggestion: [quote=Current]Family dwellings are stand-alone buildings, accessible only by flight, and only by invitation. [/quote] [quote=Updated]Family dwellings are stand-alone buildings, accessible primarily by flight, and only by invitation. For the flightless family members and friends, intricate passageways and tunnels built by Harpies (and sometimes their Ridgeback allies) provide alternative means of entrance to family homes.[/quote] I added the bit about Ridgebacks because they dig a lot and it doesn't strike me as a particular Harpy activity to be carving out tunnels. Though maybe it is. I imagine the paintings in these hidden hallways would be quite beautiful. Also, given the less xenophobic nature of the Harpies based on the new entry, it makes me think that they might even have mixed families, especially with Longnecks if their cooperative lore stays. For example, Harpies with an adopted Longneck child would still need a way to get their kid home. Their kid would be "unfledged" even if he weren't a "fledgling." EDIT: And if this seems ableist, I would appreciate a message letting me know what so I can know! Thanks in advance.

The harpy clans are lorewise now given the same respect as the other sentient species of sornieth. Why wouldn’t they want to give their disabled people autonomy? We’ve now canonically seen a dragon with a mobility aid so why wouldn’t the harpies make accommodations for their own people. Support.

[quote name="Churrell" date="2023-02-21 14:40:14" ] If “unfledged” were to mean “flightless for any reason,” maybe it would be good to explicitly define it as such in the entry, both for inclusiveness and because this encyclopedia is written for us, the human players/dragon player characters who don’t start off knowing Beastclan vernacular. As to whether the word “unfledged” itself is an appropriate word for disability within this fantasy context, I think real disabled people should be consulted [/quote] @churrell Considering unfledged likely means children who don't have their flight feathers (considering what fledgling means in real life) I think it'd be best to distance the term from disability, since infantilization is a serious issue (tbc i mean this as a response to your last point instead of arguing with the rest of your post!!)