D&D 5E SKT: The Uthgardt and Modern Sensibilities

[MonsterEnvy]

Also I should point out that once again the Relics you are trying to steal from them belong to the Giant anyway and were initially taken by the Uthgardt. Who are little better then Orcs themselves with how hostile they are to pretty much everyone.

Hell when Many Arrows was at it's strongest Orcs actually had a better reputation in the north then the Uthgardt.

 

[pukunui]

Thanks everyone. I think you've all done a good job putting my mind at ease. The fact that none of my players will be bothered by it either is good too. We'll just roll with it, I think.

 

[clearstream]

The Giants are indigenous to Faerun. The humans arrived later and claimed the Giant relics as their own. So by reclaiming the Giant artifacts and returning them to their rightful owners (the Giants), the party is actually putting things right.

One could say that is part of the problem. Presenting an indigenous race and then going "Oho, others were there before you!" is could be seen as subtly undermining.

 

[Eremite]

I would definitely post about this at RPG.net. This sort of hand-wringing virtue signalling is basically their stock-in-trade now that they've given up on RPGs....

 

[Ancalagon]

I would definitely post about this at RPG.net. This sort of hand-wringing virtue signalling is basically their stock-in-trade now that they've given up on RPGs....

??? What happened at RPG.net?

 

[clearstream]

I would definitely post about this at RPG.net. This sort of hand-wringing virtue signalling is basically their stock-in-trade now that they've given up on RPGs....

But... I admire people who are virtuous and willing to show empathy for others by considering their concerns. Those are good things. If we had more of that, we'd probably see a lot less suffering in the world.

I should have thought an eremite would be all over that.

 

[Motorskills]

I would definitely post about this at RPG.net. This sort of hand-wringing virtue signalling is basically their stock-in-trade now that they've given up on RPGs....

Ah, just what this hitherto-excellent thread needs, a member of the alts throwing grenades.


It's never wrong to have a discussion about these things. D&D is better for it, the hobby is better for it. Your game isn't undermined by having the 5e PHB including more art that features women and minorities.

And equally it isn't wrong to have a discussion about the grave-robbing in SKT.

For myself, I made it a feature of my SKT. I explained that this was serious business, that such desecration could be the one thing that would unite the tribes against them, that it might anger the gods etc. But that they needed to get a relic.
And I had a Barbarian PC with Uthgardt heritage in the party.


It worked great.

 

[Libramarian]

But... I admire people who are virtuous and willing to show empathy for others by considering their concerns. Those are good things. If we had more of that, we'd probably see a lot less suffering in the world.

I should have thought an eremite would be all over that.

The point about virtue-signalling is the empathy is not for those who actually stand to be harmed by a situation, but for the other bystanders and what they think about it.

The goal here is not to help Native Americans, but to show off the subtlety of your sensibilities to other white people.

Thus it's is more like a modern permutation of baroque WASPy social etiquette than moral reasoning grounded in actual human suffering. It becomes grotesque when taken too seriously.

 

[Libramarian]

D&D at it's core can be easily seen as an analogue of colonialism - 'invade the evil Other in their homes, kill them, take their stuff' - so if you focus on that as a whole, and keep the body count of the East India company in mind, that should distract you.

Modern D&D adventures are generally about protecting your people from invading monsters, which is actually analogous to white nationalism NOT colonialism.

 

[clearstream]

The point about virtue-signalling is the empathy is not for those who actually stand to be harmed by a situation, but for the other bystanders and what they think about it.

The goal here is not to help Native Americans, but to show off the subtlety of your sensibilities to other white people.

Interesting. Such capacity to know the inner state of another human. So if I understand correctly, an expression of consideration for another culture must be understood to be an expression of consideration for our own culture? That duality sounds fine: we are always embedded in our own culture while commenting or being considerate to others. Indeed, when publicly expressing consideration for American Indians, we might also be thinking of influencing our own culture. Ultimately having a normative effect.

Of course, were we hostile to the idea of having consideration for other cultures, we would dislike the possibility of any normative effect and seek to undermine it. We would be situated in doing so in some culture or sub-culture, within which our virtue-signalling has a meaning.


[Edited to remove a jibe.]