For an rpg release on the scale of D&D Next? No.
I disagree; I see that as a false dichotomy.
Kamikaze Midget said:
I think it's important to note that it's kind of impossible to take a "blind" stance. You can't escape the implications of your actions. If WotC for some reason thought "fun" was best served by grim-looking Caucasian males, they'd be expressing a cultural view, just as if they decided that "fun" was best served by excluding those characters, or in including a diversity.
The implications of something are the conclusions that can be drawn from something, or the likely consequences. Leaving aside the diffuse nature of what the consequences are of people looking at artwork and reading text - to say nothing of the aforementioned problems of trying to draw conclusions of the creators' intent based on their work - even for sociologists, that's often guesswork at best.
That, however, is straying somewhat from the point I was originally trying to make.
What I'm attempting to convey is that people who are not concerned with promoting or reflecting what we consider to be positive ethics/morals in their works of fiction should not (to me) be villainized for that alone. It's worth noting that if they do decide to promote or reflect those values, that is a good thing; just that the mere absence of them is not, in and of itself, bad.
I'm trying to convey, in this instance, a popular method of morality (though I can't quite recall the name of it or who invented it; I do know it goes back to the Greeks at least) that uses a three-fold hierarchy to measure how moral something is.
The highest level consists of the
negative acts. These are the things that must NOT be done; that is, it is bad if you do this. A good example is murdering someone; it's an immortal act. (This is usually where people start chiming in with exceptions to the rule, such as killing in defense of yourself or others, which isn't murder - these are guidelines, rather than hard-and-fast rules.)
The second level consists of the
positive acts or
duties. These are the things that MUST be done; that is, it is good if you do them, and bad if you fail to do them. A good example is helping someone in your immediate area who is in imminent danger.
The third level consists of the
supererogatory acts, or the things that are
above and beyond the call of duty. These are the things that are good if you do them, but NOT bad if you do not do them. A good example is donating your money/free time to a charity.
What I'm attempting to communicate is that I see being socially conscious in creating artwork as belonging in the realm of supererogatory acts. It's a good thing to do, but choosing not to do so is not a bad thing. As an extension to that, I'm protesting what I see as a lot of people arguing that this should be moved up a level, to being a duty (which makes it a moral failing to not do so).
It's worth noting that these are tiered because, in the event of a conflict between the two, the moral action is to follow the higher tier over the lower one. For example, if two people are dying, and you can murder and innocent bystander and harvest their organs to save the two people, you should not do so. Despite the fact that only one person will die that way, murder is a more morally reprehensible act than failing to help people who require immediate aid.
Making ethics a concern when creating fiction is, to me, a purely supererogatory act. (I'm anticipating that someone will say that there's a conflict between your duty to be a good person, and the supererogation of minding social mores when creating fiction. I disagree with that sentiment, as the end result of it is to fold all supererogatory acts into the duties...that's how you end up with that annoyingly smug person who implies that if you don't do all sorts of good things all the time, you're a bad person.)
I think that social consciousness is good. I think that inclusiveness is good. I think that having these things reflected in our popular media and artwork is good.
I just don't think that artwork (which includes, to me, all fiction) needs to do this as a duty. When your primary goal is to entertain, doing something more than that is an extra, not a requirement.