Oriental Adventures, was it really that racist?

[Bedrockgames]

Overall, I think we're still trying to figure out how to come to terms with the problematic nature of the stories that we enjoyed and have continued to influence us. A few years ago, the common refrain was "It's okay to like something that's problematic just so long as you recognize it's problematic," but it appears as though we're moving in a direction where that's no longer true. I say "it appears," because on this message board I've seen people mention that Lovecraft doesn't belong in a school's library, that his work shouldn't appear in any game's bibliography, and of course that OA shouldn't even be sold today. So I guess the purpose of this thread is this: How do we come to terms with the problematic nature of past works?

In a lot of ways I think the veer into Lovecraft territory was probably not terribly helpful to the point about OA (I think the only utility it really had was to help shed some light on why people have different responses to lovecraft). My view on OA is this: it should be available, and we are going to have to live with the fact that different people will have different responses to OA (some will find it problematic, some won't see an issue with it, some will feel it is a product of its own time----even progressive for its time, and some will find it racist). They have a label on it, people do disagree on how productive that is, but I think most posters are not terribly invested in debating the merits or flaws of the label (I don't think they are especially useful, I have my misgivings, but it isn't like they changed content or removed the book). It is unclear if some people want it to be removed or not to me. To me that is the most concerning issue, the potentially removal of the book from sale or some kind of alteration to the content. But I think the best way to come to terms with past works is let people have conversations about them, but understand people will reach different conclusions about the content. Not everyone is going to find something problematic just because you do, not everyone is going to find something unproblematic just because you see no issue (and of course there are nuanced opinions ranging between those two poles). And even then, if people agree a work has problems, people will disagree on what that means in terms of its importance in the history of the hobby, what ought to be done about it (if anything), etc.

For me the other big issue of concern isn't OA itself or whether it is morally good, bad or indifferent, but how these conversations have played out negatively in the hobby. I don't want to dislike people just because they reached a different conclusion about how much stuff in OA is a problem than I have. Like I said, there are always going to be jerks on both side of any discussion, but I'd rather not allow them to be what we use to define the opposing viewpoints. I don't think OA is especially bad, and I disagree with many of the conclusions from the podcasts about it (largely because I don't share the same conclusions they do about Said---which I think really shapes how you see this issue), but I don't have to ascribe anything to that difference beyond they have a different set of assumptions than I do and are reacting to the text honestly (if differently from me). By the same token, people taking more charitable readings of OA are just measuring things differently than those who don't (they see the role of its context as different, they put greater priority on intent----as you see I think in the whole discussion about comlinesss). At the end of the day I am totally fine with others not being convinced of my take on OA, of my opinions about free expression. I think when we take the step beyond that, and start ascribing nefarious motives to people who disagree with us, it is like we are losing our ability to appreciate that other people have different beliefs, emotions, thoughts and perspective than we do. Increasingly this is my biggest concern when I have these conversations.

The fact that people show up to engage in a conversation like this, probably means they are looking for fruitful discussion more than anything. That doesn't mean consensus will be reached, it doesn't mean you will persuade people, but there is at least value is understanding where people are coming from even if their arguments don't convince you.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think the influence of Lovecraft on D&D is pretty big. Not so much on the core game at all, but frequently on the kind of monsters that show up and aspects of the way pulp monsters are used in the game. Obviously there's material like the Illithiads, Aboleth, the Far Realm etc. , but there's also all sorts of world design elements that owe a lot to pulp writers like Clark Ashton Smith and Lovecraft. Kobold's Presses Midgard Setting is really just the latest in a long line of settings that show that influence.

I would tend to agree with this. I don't think we need to keep hashing over Lovecraft, but just to address his influence, I definitely think he's a big one on the game. He also continued to be a well people drew from in later settings and books. The Realm of Terror Boxed set for instance makes extensive use of HP Lovecraft quotations in its horror advice section (and it doesn't just do it in the 'here is a flavorful quote vaguely connected to what I am going to say' kind of way, but the quotes themselves are pretty substantive for the book laying out a philosophy of how to do horror in an RPG).

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I get what you're saying, but I don't really agree that it's true, except in the sense that it's usually more the threat of government action than actual legislation. That's never not been true though.

Apart from MADD, which was largely unsuccessful in its goals, despite pretences by both MADD and D&D players that they were successful, everything I'm aware of only actually started to get any real traction once the government got involved. Music is a good example - when it was just ageing moaners complaining about "That Heavy Metal!", there was no actual impact in most places (and where there was, it was linked to the culture of the area and not something that could be legislated in either direction). Whereas when the explicit lyrics warnings and so on came in, that very much down to the government getting involved, and the RIAA deciding they'd better do something before the government did. Of course that too was a hilarious backfire (if the RIAA even ever intended it to work!) as what label could possibly be more enticing? The logo even looks awesome, and I do not think that was an accident.

I also don't agree at all that attempts to invoke "free speech" were terribly effective in fighting against any of this stuff. I've seen nearly-zero evidence to support that. I mean, obviously I wasn't there, but none of the documentaries and so on I've watched or stuff I've read seems to suggest that had any real impact. What people listen to is the dollar. If people keep buying heavy metal, mainstream retailers aren't going to pull it.

As an aside, I know we can't discuss "politics", but right now, this very minute, the US has a huge problem with people attempting to prevent discussion of certain issues, and actively trying pull books from libraries and schools (kinda funny given the internet exists, I know), and even to burn those books in some cases. And it's pretty much the same people as MADD, and they're absolutely utilizing governmental/hierarchical power (rather than voting with their feet or their dollars), in this case local governmental and school boards and stuff to do this. If they weren't it wouldn't be an issue. And it's rather different to what people seem so worried about here.

So I'm going to address this in three parts-

First, an observation as to why you are, necessarily, wrong. Your takeaway is that this can't be effective because "people listen to the dollar." Obviously, that's exactly why it's effective. Which is why people keep invoking it. Corporations are necessarily risk-averse, and they will usually sacrifice principles in service of money.

Second, as someone who was more than aware of the multi-front battle being fought, I was also very aware that there were companies and people that could consistently be swayed by invoking principles. One of the more famous (which I already mentioned) is Waldenbooks, but this was a consistent mobilizing force from small retailers to larger ones. I truly think that people have no idea how different the landscape was back then; there was little-to-no representation of many concepts that we take for granted in terms of equality (such as LGBTQ+ rights). Films that wouldn't raise much of an eyebrow today (The Last Temptation of Christ) were lighting rods of criticism; the way that people defended having books about these subjects, movies, and having retailers carry them was by invoking these principles, over and over again. The world that we enjoy in America today was paved by these conflicts, and by people that would agree with the principle and not the subject.

Third, those worries that you have now are so minimal compared to what transpired in the past. What, are you worried about school boards removing books from libraries? Well, in the United States this was so common and became such an issue that it reached the Supreme Court ... in 1982 (the case is Pico, is you're wondering). While I am worried as well, the idea that a middle school would have a graphic novel about the Holocaust in the 1980s as part of the curriculum is ... just insane. Partly because it wasn't finished until 1991, but mostly because the world was very different back then. In the 80s, they were still trying to remove Of Mice and Men because it contained profanity.

So when it comes to D&D (and for your reference, MADD is Mothers against Drunk Driving, while BADD was Pullman's group focused on D&D), many of us were quite aware of local FLGS and retailers (like Waldenbooks) that chose to carry D&D because they believed in these principles beyond some simplistic XKCD understanding of the First Amendment. And, yes, it did have an impact as well- the creatives have acknowledged that despite their fiery rhetoric, they not only were changing things from the early 80s on (from the 2e changes, to Legends & Lore and so on), but it had a chilling effect on what they were choosing to release- including the choices of art and subject matter.


So yeah, I'm going to disagree with you on this. But perhaps I haven't watched the same documentaries covering things I experienced that you have?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

First, an observation as to why you are, necessarily, wrong. Your takeaway is that this can't be effective because "people listen to the dollar." Obviously, that's exactly why it's effective. Which is why people keep invoking it. Corporations are necessarily risk-averse, and they will usually sacrifice principles in service of money.

The problem is that history (AFAICT) just does not support the claim that publicly-traded corporations, especially not in the last three decades or so, actually do things that amount to significant or meaningful censorship, rather than mere caution and frankly laughable gestures like "Parental Warning- Explicit Content" (which was basically marketing, not censorship).

I'd like specific examples of real censorship, not gestures or distractions, that happened because of groups like BADD. With The Last Temptation of Christ, it's extremely hard to get any clear information on who refused to show it, and for how long (and some of the information I've seen is contradictory), and that's despite highly organised protests backed by people who stood to financially benefit from those protests happening. Clearly some significant proportion of US cinemas wouldn't show it, but one suspects had it been a movie there was massive demand to see, rather than Scorsese going quasi-arthouse, things might have been different.

Second, as someone who was more than aware of the multi-front battle being fought, I was also very aware that there were companies and people that could consistently be swayed by invoking principles. One of the more famous (which I already mentioned) is Waldenbooks, but this was a consistent mobilizing force from small retailers to larger ones.

This is a huge claim particularly re: larger retailers and doubly-so re: publicly-traded ones, and more than anything else in this thread, it's a [CITATION NEEDED] claim.

I see absolutely no evidence that this "invoking principles" point is really true, both within my lifetime and personal experience, and in the historical record. Particularly re: "free speech". Sometimes a company rolls out that as a half-hearted defense, but they do what they were going to do anyway - I don't see the "Oh we were going to ban it but then people said "FREE SPEECH!!!!" to us enough times and we decided not to".

There could be real examples, maybe I'm just not aware of them or I am but I'm not thinking about it correctly so am missing them, so what are actual examples of specific things which were genuinely likely to get banned (or under threat of such) being protected merely by "invoking principles"? I mean one thing that strikes me is that nothing popular even needs to get to that stage - which is point re: the dollar - Harry Potter, for example, stirred absolutely gigantic idiocy up, but was there any chance at all it would be banned or big stores wouldn't carry it, when it was making that kind of money?

The world that we enjoy in America today was paved by these conflicts, and by people that would agree with the principle and not the subject.

My suggestion (opinion not a claim of fact, to be clear) is that this is largely an illusion, or a belief this not rooted in historical fact but personal experience and desire for something to be the case.

Why?

Because other countries enjoyed more free media without American "principles". That in fact most of what has happened is simply gradual change of values across the generations, and the fact that it's occurred outside the US. Other countries often are both ahead of and behind the US, too, without any strong "1st amendment" or similar. Some are straight-up ahead, despite lacking such a foundational principle. How is that possible if it's all about "invoking principles" and not about gradual change and cash money?

And, yes, it did have an impact as well- the creatives have acknowledged that despite their fiery rhetoric, they not only were changing things from the early 80s on (from the 2e changes, to Legends & Lore and so on), but it had a chilling effect on what they were choosing to release- including the choices of art and subject matter.

I cannot see any real, negative impact that it had when all the numbers are calculated. If anything, like "Parental Advisory - Content Warning", it might have helped D&D in the longer term. Renaming Demons/Devils/Daemons was just not a big deal in real terms, and actually ended up making TSR be more creative with them. 2E was a little more child-friendly and less "edgy" than 1E, for sure, but did that actually hurt 2E, or did it merely change it?

This point very goes to your repeated use of "chilling effect", which I've questioned before, but you haven't responded on, apparently taking it entirely for granted. The art and subject did become less edgy and less sexist and sexualized. You sometimes see how OSR games try to go very hard on the edginess of 1E (going far past what 1E was actually like, of course, c.f. LotFP and to a lesser extent DCC). But was losing that bad for D&D, or good for it? Was that because of BADD, or was it actually because D&D is a business, and likes to make money, and regardless of whether BADD exists, people's moms are going to see it, and if there's a half-naked chick strapped to an altar on some page, and a table listing prostitutes, maybe they don't need BADD to tell them they're against that?

To be clear, I don't think the "chilling effect" here is much of a problem, if it's even a problem at all, at least for the success and profitability of the game.

I think the fact that D&D has never really "gone back" on any of this supports my point. Yeah, as a token gesture they renamed Demons/Devils back, but ultimately it was meaningless PR stuff that they could as easily done in 1993 (indeed Planescape the next year immediately started with cool and likeable demonic princes and so on, the Graz'zt fans were endless), and was because it was a "selling point" (c.f. the aforementioned dollar). It's not like they brought back 1E's giant pile of juvenile edgelord stuff, or the sexist/sexualized artwork, nor went back towards "edgy" subject matter in general. Why? Because there's more money to be made chasing the mainstream market.

Partly because it wasn't finished until 1991, but mostly because the world was very different back then. In the 80s, they were still trying to remove Of Mice and Men because it contained profanity.

That's literally the reason given for removing Maus (and other works) in most cases. Whether that is a good-faith reason is obviously a separate question and I think we all know the answer to that. So is the world very different?

many of us were quite aware of local FLGS and retailers (like Waldenbooks) that chose to carry D&D because they believed in these principles beyond some simplistic XKCD understanding of the First Amendment.

Dude, D&D/AD&D was one of main ways any FLGS in the '80s was going to make money. This is exactly what I'm talking about. If they pulled D&D, they go under, or at least lose huge amounts of money. You seem to want to completely ignore the obvious massive financial benefit of ignoring people like BADD, and to say this was just solely down to "invoking principles". It was a totally principled stand and the fact that D&D was a massively successful brand that was making huge amounts of money for retailers (I mean, in very relative terms - selling books/games is never that profitable at the best of times!) was absolutely nothing to do with it. Please ignore the dollar bills sticking out of my pockets!

If D&D was some obscure little RPG that was attracting the same level of protest, the same level of hostility, you think FLGSes would have been so protective of it? You think Waldenbooks would have? It's always a calculation. Showing apparent "principle" or "spine" is, outside of non-profits and very unusual businesses (never publicly traded ones), always a calculation - "is it worth it?" and "how can we do this without losing anything"?

I strongly suspect it became very quickly obvious that there was absolutely no negative impact on the bottom line for FLGSes or presumably Waldenbooks, and possibly even a positive impact on sales, because when people try to ban something, that tends to happen (c.f. Maus selling insanely more copies lately).

 

[FrogReaver]

Second, as someone who was more than aware of the multi-front battle being fought, I was also very aware that there were companies and people that could consistently be swayed by invoking principles. One of the more famous (which I already mentioned) is Waldenbooks, but this was a consistent mobilizing force from small retailers to larger ones. I truly think that people have no idea how different the landscape was back then; there was little-to-no representation of many concepts that we take for granted in terms of equality (such as LGBTQ+ rights). Films that wouldn't raise much of an eyebrow today (The Last Temptation of Christ) were lighting rods of criticism; the way that people defended having books about these subjects, movies, and having retailers carry them was by invoking these principles, over and over again. The world that we enjoy in America today was paved by these conflicts, and by people that would agree with the principle and not the subject.

Great Summary. I think this is why these topics resound with so many. Rejecting those principles is in large part rejecting the worldview that got us here. That makes me very uneasy about where we are going. Maybe if there were some principles to replace those with, but i've not seen any that anyone is willing to have applied to both themselves and those they disagree with equally.

 

[FrogReaver]

The problem is that history (AFAICT) just does not support the claim that publicly-traded corporations, especially not in the last three decades or so, actually do things that amount to significant or meaningful censorship, rather than mere caution and frankly laughable gestures like "Parental Warning- Explicit Content" (which was basically marketing, not censorship).

IMO that's exactly what corporate censorship looks like. Corporations don't have to actually agree (they aren't even people). They just have to take action that aligns with the demands of those demanding the censorship. They can do so from a purely risk management perspective or because their leaders sympathize with the cause, but it doesn't really matter why they do it.

You asked for some examples of censorship. I'll provide one as I think examples are likely to quickly get into the politics arena. "Major League Baseball swiftly moved the All-Star Game to hitter-friendly Coors Field on Tuesday after pulling the Midsummer Classic from Atlanta over objections to extensive changes to Georgia’s voting laws."

 

[MGibster]

I strongly suspect it became very quickly obvious that there was absolutely no negative impact on the bottom line for FLGSes or presumably Waldenbooks, and possibly even a positive impact on sales, because when people try to ban something, that tends to happen (c.f. Maus selling insanely more copies lately).

It's kind of interesting that role playing games were largely relegated to the boutique stores like FLGS. In the early 80s, you could find D&D in more diverse places like Kaybee toys or even Sears at the local mall. At least in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area, by the late 80s and throughout most of the 90s, you weren't going to find D&D in the mall at Waldenbooks, B. Dalton Booksellers, or in any toy store. I do wonder if the controversy surrounding D&D in the 80s led to many retailers deciding carrying the game just wasn't worth it to them. Places like Sears, Waldenbooks, and Kaybee saw a lot more foot traffic than any of our FLGS ever did. Driving sales to boutique outlets likely limited the number of people who would have been exposed to D&D. If I didn't have friends who played D&D, odds are I never would have run across a D&D product at any of the stores I frequented.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The entanglement between free speech principles, objectionable ideas, and profit means you can never be really sure why a business decision is being made. Or, for that matter, why somebody on the Internet is taking a position.

The same is true on the other side: is XYZ Inc. succumbing to the mob, doing the right thing, or just going after their largest market?

You can never know for sure.

 

[Bill Zebub]

You can never know for sure.

Actually, one caveat: unless you take off and nuke the site from orbit. That's the only way to be sure.

 

[billd91]

It's kind of interesting that role playing games were largely relegated to the boutique stores like FLGS. In the early 80s, you could find D&D in more diverse places like Kaybee toys or even Sears at the local mall. At least in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area, by the late 80s and throughout most of the 90s, you weren't going to find D&D in the mall at Waldenbooks, B. Dalton Booksellers, or in any toy store. I do wonder if the controversy surrounding D&D in the 80s led to many retailers deciding carrying the game just wasn't worth it to them. Places like Sears, Waldenbooks, and Kaybee saw a lot more foot traffic than any of our FLGS ever did. Driving sales to boutique outlets likely limited the number of people who would have been exposed to D&D. If I didn't have friends who played D&D, odds are I never would have run across a D&D product at any of the stores I frequented.

According to a Jim Ward article on this very site, it had an impact.

TSR - Jim Ward: Demons & Devils, NOT!

In the very early to mid '80s religious nongamer people discovered AD&D had magical spells and demons and devils in its rules. The problems started with Sears and Penny's retail stores. TSR was selling thousands of Player Handbooks and Dungeon Master's Guides every month to both of those...

www.enworld.org