D&D 5E Should the next edition of D&D promote more equality?

[Dannyalcatraz]

Besides, why are there no gay or lesbian couples? All questions of diversity aside, that ought to screw up verisimilitude for anybody. Even if the fictional society is extremely homophobic (and if all the fictional societies in D&D fit this description, that's another problem), there will still be plenty of same-sex couples around. They'll keep it quiet, but the omniscient narrator of a sourcebook can see into any closet no matter how deep.

But artistic visual depictions of such will be, at best, anachronistic or characatures, assuming you're trying to make the art alone tell the viewer "this character is homosexual."

So that's problematic.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Aren't those wood elves?

No, those guys are too macho to be gay, right? We should be talking about those metrosexuelves in the cities.

 

[Dausuul]

But artistic visual depictions of such will be, at best, anachronistic or characatures, assuming you're trying to make the art alone tell the viewer "this character is homosexual."

First of all, I think the discussion had branched out to include written text as well as art. But even so, D&D has always had the occasional artistic piece implying a romantic or sexual relationship; a knight and lady gazing soulfully into each other's eyes, a succubus pressing herself against some mortal adventurer, et cetera. It'd be easy enough to flip one character's gender in one or two of those pieces.

I cannot agree that your average RPG writer has the chops to write what he doesn't know though. I'd rather have no gay characters than caricatures of gay characters.

Do you really think that the very nature of what it is to love or desire or lust after someone is different because the gender of the person so loved or desired is male rather than female?

Exactly. And besides, this is an RPG sourcebook, not a steamy romance novel. Typically, all you're doing is stating, "Sir So-And-So is the lover of Lady Whatsername." Just replace "Lady Whatsername" with "Sir Whatsisname" and you're all set. In a situation like that, you have to work at it to introduce offensive stereotypes.

 

[Alzrius]

Yes, well, the Fat Man variant of the Trolley Problem is a thought experiment that, to me, shows the basic problem of formalized ethical philosophy. It creates a highly unrealistic situation, positing an issue that is unlikely to exist in the real world with an unrealistic restriction of options, and implies that there is, in fact, a right answer and a wrong answer that you can come to in split seconds of ethical consideration. As opposed to recognizing that we live in a non-ideal world that sometimes kinda sucks in that it doesn't always have digital right and wrong answers.

While the thought experiment does place artificial limits on your parameters in terms of what actions you can take, I disagree with the idea that there is a "right and a wrong" answer to it. It is, as you said of real life, a non-ideal situation that doesn't have a right or wrong answer (digital or otherwise). To be clear, I'm using "right or wrong" here as shorthand. "Right" is an answer that satisfies all moral issues, whereas "wrong" is an answer that leaves some moral principles abrogated.

Deontological ethics groups actions into a hierarchy because, in the event of a conflict between two principles, it posits that the preferable action is the one that satisfies the higher tier at the expense of the lower (presuming that no reconciliation can be found). That's why it has you not kill the fat man (satisfying the negative duty of "do not murder people") at the expense of the lives of five other people (violating the positive duty of "save people in your immediate area who require assistance"). That's not what I'd necessarily call the "right" answer, since you still fail to take a moral action in not saving the other people, but it's the least wrong answer (which is where, I suppose, gradations of morality come into play).

The Fat Man is, in reality, just another Kobyashi Maru. Which is fine, except that the Kobyashi Maru isn't about finding the right answer, but is instead about discovering how you cope with there not being a right answer!

I don't disagree, which is why I think it's a good test case for a moral framework, since it helps to show what it recommends in a difficult situation.

 

[bogmad]

I'm of the opinion that quite often, while you can predict things like this on a larger scale (e.g. what "most" of the people are likely to do, and then figure out how many actually did), it's harder on an individual level, simply because we can't predict how people will react to things with complete certainty.

But I'm not talking about actions on an individual level. Perhaps you are, and that's fine. But the thread is about how the actions of a large company impacts a large number of individuals.

Aren't those wood elves?

You have a point. We should probably start portraying all wood elves in core as primarily being interested in same sex partners romantically. I'm sure Gorgoroth would be on the same page as me
[can this please lead to a large argument advocating for metrosexuelves?]

 

[Alzrius]

But I'm not talking about actions on an individual level. Perhaps you are, and that's fine. But the thread is about how the actions of a large company impacts a large number of individuals.

I disagree; I see this thread as being about whether or not the action(s) of a large company are immoral or amoral when they choose not to act virtuously.

[can this please lead to a large argument advocating for metrosexuelves?]

The name alone makes it worthwhile.

 

[Dragoslav]

Yes, well, the Fat Man variant of the Trolley Problem is a thought experiment that, to me, shows the basic problem of formalized ethical philosophy. It creates a highly unrealistic situation, positing an issue that is unlikely to exist in the real world with an unrealistic restriction of options, and implies that there is, in fact, a right answer and a wrong answer that you can come to in split seconds of ethical consideration.

It implies no such thing. It's not a mathematical "solve for X problem" -- the purpose of thought experiments is to make people question their own certainty about morality, which presumably is something that you would approve of. If someone says, "I know exactly what is right and what is wrong," you can say, "Okay, what's the right thing to do in this situation?" and get the likely response of "Well... er... I'm not sure."

You then extrapolate that to a more common, real-life scenario, and there you go. That's your practical value for this kind of discussion.

The Fat Man is, in reality, just another Kobyashi Maru. Which is fine, except that the Kobyashi Maru isn't about finding the right answer, but is instead about discovering how you cope with there not being a right answer!

"Figuring out what you should do in a non-ideal situation" is the heart of moral thinking (i.e. moral philosophy).

EDIT: Unfortunately, I feel like in this thread we've already exhausted all of the superficial aspects of the topic, and the only thing really left is these difficult meta-questions. "Should WotC have more representations of these demographics?" "Yes/No." "Why?" "Well, you see..."

 

[bogmad]

I disagree; I see this thread as being about whether or not the action(s) of a large company are immoral or amoral when they choose not to act virtuously.

Forget failure to act for a second, what about the claims by a group that a large company's actions are non-virtuous? Say, "You're current action of publishing [what they deem]sexist and ethnocentric material are actively harming me"
Can doing nothing, or maintaining the status quo can be deemed an action worth examining the morality of?

 

[Dausuul]

I didn't want to get into the philosophy debate, but...

It implies no such thing. It's not a mathematical "solve for X problem" -- the purpose of thought experiments is to make people question their own certainty about morality, which presumably is something that you would approve of. If someone says, "I know exactly what is right and what is wrong," you can say, "Okay, what's the right thing to do in this situation?" and get the likely response of "Well... er... I'm not sure."

Not really. What such thought experiments typically do is this:

1. Set up a situation in which the moral decision is fairly obvious. (A trolley is careening toward a group of five people. There's a fat man standing next to you. Do you shove him in front of the trolley? Answer: Of course not. You have no guarantee that those people would die without your intervention or that the fat man would stop the trolley. What you do know is that you're going to cause death or severe harm to the fat man. Look for a better solution.)

2. Introduce a set of bizarre constraints which would never apply in the real world. (You magically know that the trolley will kill those people, that the fat man will stop it, and that there are no better solutions.)

3. Watch as people's moral intuition, which is designed to guide them in the real world and not crazy-thought-experiment-land, shorts out.

4. Act smug about it.

A much more sensible approach to the Trolley Problem is this version: You're on an out-of-control trolley speeding down a track. There are five people working on the track ahead of you. There's a switch you can pull that will send the trolley onto another track, with only one person working on it. Do you pull the switch?

Here, you're presenting the same basic question (take action and kill one person, or do nothing and kill five), but there are no crazy impossible constraints. This is a situation that could actually happen, and the two outcomes can reasonably be evaluated in the time available. But it's no fun for the philosopher, because "Yes, I pull the switch" is a pretty easy answer.

 

[Alzrius]

Forget failure to act for a second, what about the claims by a group that a large company's actions are non-virtuous? Say, "You're current action of publishing [what they deem]sexist and ethnocentric material are actively harming me"
Can doing nothing, or maintaining the status quo can be deemed an action worth examining the morality of?

Any action is worth examining its morality. That said, I think you're asking the same question I am, just with different phrasing. We're agreeing that publishing material that doesn't promote inclusivity is not virtuous. You say that a group of people are stating that this is worse than lacking virtue, but is immoral (e.g. causing them harm by lack of virtue); I disagree, saying that it's not virtuous, but neither is it immoral.