Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Cultures in D&D/roleplaying: damned if you do, damned if you don't
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Gradine" data-source="post: 7398433" data-attributes="member: 57112"><p>The question was about his group. He literally says he is 99% sure he is never going to publish it. You are the one turning the conversation into something it was not. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You're going to have to explain to me how you get to that point, because the leaps in logic just do not follow for me. Private spaces provide the freedom to explore concepts and discuss honestly topics that many would be extremely uncomfortable speaking openly and honestly about in the public space. Again, I'm not saying this as cover for rampant racism or sexism or what have you, but for people who genuinely mean well but who also genuinely fear saying the wrong thing for either or causing offense or actual harm to other people.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Have you checked out Ehdrighor? You should check out <a href="https://council-of-fools.com/blog/ehdrigohr-rpg/" target="_blank">Ehdrighor</a>.</p><p></p><p>There's a difference between a really-well researched and well-workshopped fantasy world based in part on Indigenous American mythology and religion and one created based on a bunch of Native American tropes and stereotypes you pulled out of your rear end (well, technically, out of popular culture) because you think it sounds cool.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Where you say " avoiding distractions that miss the point", I say "avoiding unintentionally causing harm", though as someone who has never been able to stomach Dickens I can't say I'm familiar with your specific reference here. I think the tipping point here comes with whether how necessary the characteristic is. How <em>essential</em> was it for Fagin to be a Jew? Was it a core part of his character; something that drastically changed the narrative when this was changed? Or was it a minor characteristic, an accident of biography, that hurt nothing to be removed? <em>The Merchant of Venice</em> asked its audience, at a point, to consider sympathy for its Jewish villain (though there is of course plenty to critique elsewhere in the script). <em>Black Panther</em> had a black villain. Both were complex characters, with at least <em>some</em> legitimate grievances based on those identities the audiences are asked to understand. Would that have been true of a Jewish Fagin? I'm genuinely curious here because, like I said, not familiar with the source material. I think if that identity had been as incidental as it sounds, I would also have made the exact same changes Dickens made and you would have made (though clearly not for the same reasons!)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I mean, every movement has those that take concepts well beyond their logical extremes. To the extent that I wouldn't be surprised if either of those examples were meant as satire or parody (see also Poe's Law), but then, I also wouldn't be that surprised if they weren't either.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, I think we're just using different definitions of culture, which is another one of those "academic-critical-race-theory-definition-vs-dictionary-definition" disconnects in which I think of culture in a much more specific context than you are (I also wouldn't consider, for example "drug culture" as a "culture" within the context that I'm using it here). It should be noted that my objections are rooted within this much more specific definition instead of in what you would be technically correct in stating is the dictionary definition. Clearly I do not consider all beliefs, values, and institutions of equal value and worthiness. Also, I would consider the English, Dutch, and Spanish of the Age of Imperialism to be very distinct cultures in this mode, and well, you know how I happen to feel about those cultures already.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I had forgotten the bit about the "sympathizers", though to be honest there's <em>a lot</em> more going on there in terms of gender politics and what certain people have to do for survival that lends that particular scene far more nuance than simply "these are nazi sympathizers getting tortured and murdered".</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm definitely going to now.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>I think there does? I mean, I already know how you feel about Popper's Paradox, but that's the relevant logic I have to turn to here. Except in this instance we're replacing "intolerance" with "eradication". </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>On the one hand, I <em>really</em> want to follow you where you're going with this. On the <em>other hand</em>, ask a Holocaust survivor how they feel about the excuse "I was just following orders." Because that's the <em>best</em> Nazis got. And I understand the appeal of getting swept up in a nationalistic fervor and then feeling kind of forced into following that to some pretty damn evil conclusions but... there were also objectors. There was a resistance. There was a <em>moral</em> choice, certainly not an easy one, but the best of them chose poorly. There's that short story/poem "The Hangman"... there's the line "the only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing", which I have to follow with... are they really good men then? </p><p></p><p>Of course, on the other hand, does that make them all easily disposable? Worth killing? Worth turning into faceless hordes of bad guys to mow through?</p><p></p><p>I'm obviously not convinced of this one way or another. This is an idea that is neither s easy, nor is it something that I think we as a society have spent nearly enough time thinking about. I certainly haven't, and as someone who spends <em>way</em> too much time analyzing game design (including video games) I'd probably count myself as an outlier in that regard.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm with you so far, though I think this can easily be twisted into a form of moral relativity which I don't think either of us are on board for.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>A lot of people have blood on their hands, which is rather their point. You've caught me in a bit of a hypocrisy, and one I'm not sure I can fully square. Partially because I'm human, and mostly because "Nazis". Does history have comparable or even worse villains? Maybe? And who knows, maybe in 800 years we'll be talking about the Nazis in the exact same breath as Pol Pot and Stalin and other horrific and targeted atrocities. That may just be a cultural norm, to equate "Nazi" as "Faceless Villain", that I need to break away from. I tell you though, the recent resurgence in Neo-Nazism sure isn't making that any easier.</p><p></p><p>So yeah, I can see how "It's okay to mow down Nazis with reckless abandon but not the Turks" can seem like a head-scratcher. What can I say? I'm a work in progress. We all have our biases, and maybe I'm not ready to shed that bias of "Nazis" yet. Maybe I need to be.</p><p></p><p>As to the other question, no, you are obviously not required to put a human face on the enemy in a war story. I think that kind of story sounds dreadful and dull to me, personally, and definitely runs the risk of crossing some serious racist lines depending on who is on which side. I think it's a lot <em>better</em> to include that level of nuance, not just to avoid unfortunate implications but also because I think it'd make a better story.</p><p></p><p>But then, I don't particularly like a lot of traditional war stories. In part for those reasons.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Obviously I think I agree about the necessity of the assumption of good will within the public sphere. There's actually been a lot of internal critique recently within social justice and critical race/gender/sexuality/etc/studies about what could be called "call-out culture" and analyzing who that's really benefiting. I don't know how inclined you are to read contrary perspective, but if you are, I've been reading two books called <em>Joyful Militancy</em> and <em>Emergent Strategy</em> that have shifted my perspective quite a bit (and I would argue that it could probably be shifted further).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't necessarily think there's anything shady with what you state either. But I think there's a significant difference between "writing a black protagonist" and "telling a black story". I think you're interpreting what I call "morally gray" as "bad"; which to me are not the same thing. I'm thinking more morally neutral; not bad, but there's an objectively better path to take; one with the side benefit of actually doing more to advance the cause you care for more than publishing your own work about it. If your intention is tell black stories with the intention of reversing racist inequity, for instance, why not invest that power and energy in lifting up black authors to telling their own stories, and to amplify the stories they're already telling?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is answered above. But I'll reiterate: there is something to be said for the power of private spaces built on shared trust that allows us to be more open and honest with each other than in subjecting ourselves to the public sphere. I think you and I would agree that there <em>shouldn't</em> be, but there is. Which is why I think that it is much more complex and fraught to tackle the issue of publishing content inspired by cultures not your own than it is to create content for your home game. I think in both cases it's incumbent on the content creator to do their fracking research, and to try to listen and reflect on any honest, open, criticism they receive. But that bar is <em>much</em> higher once you're publishing content for the public.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Gradine, post: 7398433, member: 57112"] The question was about his group. He literally says he is 99% sure he is never going to publish it. You are the one turning the conversation into something it was not. You're going to have to explain to me how you get to that point, because the leaps in logic just do not follow for me. Private spaces provide the freedom to explore concepts and discuss honestly topics that many would be extremely uncomfortable speaking openly and honestly about in the public space. Again, I'm not saying this as cover for rampant racism or sexism or what have you, but for people who genuinely mean well but who also genuinely fear saying the wrong thing for either or causing offense or actual harm to other people. Have you checked out Ehdrighor? You should check out [URL="https://council-of-fools.com/blog/ehdrigohr-rpg/"]Ehdrighor[/URL]. There's a difference between a really-well researched and well-workshopped fantasy world based in part on Indigenous American mythology and religion and one created based on a bunch of Native American tropes and stereotypes you pulled out of your rear end (well, technically, out of popular culture) because you think it sounds cool. Where you say " avoiding distractions that miss the point", I say "avoiding unintentionally causing harm", though as someone who has never been able to stomach Dickens I can't say I'm familiar with your specific reference here. I think the tipping point here comes with whether how necessary the characteristic is. How [I]essential[/I] was it for Fagin to be a Jew? Was it a core part of his character; something that drastically changed the narrative when this was changed? Or was it a minor characteristic, an accident of biography, that hurt nothing to be removed? [I]The Merchant of Venice[/I] asked its audience, at a point, to consider sympathy for its Jewish villain (though there is of course plenty to critique elsewhere in the script). [I]Black Panther[/I] had a black villain. Both were complex characters, with at least [I]some[/I] legitimate grievances based on those identities the audiences are asked to understand. Would that have been true of a Jewish Fagin? I'm genuinely curious here because, like I said, not familiar with the source material. I think if that identity had been as incidental as it sounds, I would also have made the exact same changes Dickens made and you would have made (though clearly not for the same reasons!) I mean, every movement has those that take concepts well beyond their logical extremes. To the extent that I wouldn't be surprised if either of those examples were meant as satire or parody (see also Poe's Law), but then, I also wouldn't be that surprised if they weren't either. No, I think we're just using different definitions of culture, which is another one of those "academic-critical-race-theory-definition-vs-dictionary-definition" disconnects in which I think of culture in a much more specific context than you are (I also wouldn't consider, for example "drug culture" as a "culture" within the context that I'm using it here). It should be noted that my objections are rooted within this much more specific definition instead of in what you would be technically correct in stating is the dictionary definition. Clearly I do not consider all beliefs, values, and institutions of equal value and worthiness. Also, I would consider the English, Dutch, and Spanish of the Age of Imperialism to be very distinct cultures in this mode, and well, you know how I happen to feel about those cultures already. I had forgotten the bit about the "sympathizers", though to be honest there's [I]a lot[/I] more going on there in terms of gender politics and what certain people have to do for survival that lends that particular scene far more nuance than simply "these are nazi sympathizers getting tortured and murdered". I'm definitely going to now. I think there does? I mean, I already know how you feel about Popper's Paradox, but that's the relevant logic I have to turn to here. Except in this instance we're replacing "intolerance" with "eradication". On the one hand, I [I]really[/I] want to follow you where you're going with this. On the [I]other hand[/I], ask a Holocaust survivor how they feel about the excuse "I was just following orders." Because that's the [I]best[/I] Nazis got. And I understand the appeal of getting swept up in a nationalistic fervor and then feeling kind of forced into following that to some pretty damn evil conclusions but... there were also objectors. There was a resistance. There was a [I]moral[/I] choice, certainly not an easy one, but the best of them chose poorly. There's that short story/poem "The Hangman"... there's the line "the only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing", which I have to follow with... are they really good men then? Of course, on the other hand, does that make them all easily disposable? Worth killing? Worth turning into faceless hordes of bad guys to mow through? I'm obviously not convinced of this one way or another. This is an idea that is neither s easy, nor is it something that I think we as a society have spent nearly enough time thinking about. I certainly haven't, and as someone who spends [I]way[/I] too much time analyzing game design (including video games) I'd probably count myself as an outlier in that regard. I'm with you so far, though I think this can easily be twisted into a form of moral relativity which I don't think either of us are on board for. A lot of people have blood on their hands, which is rather their point. You've caught me in a bit of a hypocrisy, and one I'm not sure I can fully square. Partially because I'm human, and mostly because "Nazis". Does history have comparable or even worse villains? Maybe? And who knows, maybe in 800 years we'll be talking about the Nazis in the exact same breath as Pol Pot and Stalin and other horrific and targeted atrocities. That may just be a cultural norm, to equate "Nazi" as "Faceless Villain", that I need to break away from. I tell you though, the recent resurgence in Neo-Nazism sure isn't making that any easier. So yeah, I can see how "It's okay to mow down Nazis with reckless abandon but not the Turks" can seem like a head-scratcher. What can I say? I'm a work in progress. We all have our biases, and maybe I'm not ready to shed that bias of "Nazis" yet. Maybe I need to be. As to the other question, no, you are obviously not required to put a human face on the enemy in a war story. I think that kind of story sounds dreadful and dull to me, personally, and definitely runs the risk of crossing some serious racist lines depending on who is on which side. I think it's a lot [I]better[/I] to include that level of nuance, not just to avoid unfortunate implications but also because I think it'd make a better story. But then, I don't particularly like a lot of traditional war stories. In part for those reasons. Obviously I think I agree about the necessity of the assumption of good will within the public sphere. There's actually been a lot of internal critique recently within social justice and critical race/gender/sexuality/etc/studies about what could be called "call-out culture" and analyzing who that's really benefiting. I don't know how inclined you are to read contrary perspective, but if you are, I've been reading two books called [I]Joyful Militancy[/I] and [I]Emergent Strategy[/I] that have shifted my perspective quite a bit (and I would argue that it could probably be shifted further). I don't necessarily think there's anything shady with what you state either. But I think there's a significant difference between "writing a black protagonist" and "telling a black story". I think you're interpreting what I call "morally gray" as "bad"; which to me are not the same thing. I'm thinking more morally neutral; not bad, but there's an objectively better path to take; one with the side benefit of actually doing more to advance the cause you care for more than publishing your own work about it. If your intention is tell black stories with the intention of reversing racist inequity, for instance, why not invest that power and energy in lifting up black authors to telling their own stories, and to amplify the stories they're already telling? This is answered above. But I'll reiterate: there is something to be said for the power of private spaces built on shared trust that allows us to be more open and honest with each other than in subjecting ourselves to the public sphere. I think you and I would agree that there [I]shouldn't[/I] be, but there is. Which is why I think that it is much more complex and fraught to tackle the issue of publishing content inspired by cultures not your own than it is to create content for your home game. I think in both cases it's incumbent on the content creator to do their fracking research, and to try to listen and reflect on any honest, open, criticism they receive. But that bar is [I]much[/I] higher once you're publishing content for the public. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Cultures in D&D/roleplaying: damned if you do, damned if you don't
Top