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

[Mike Eagling]

Edit - And on that note I'll bow out of this. People just cannot debate these issues sensibly. I've no doubt D&D Next will bow to political pressure about diveristy; anyone who thinks things are fine as they are and actually speaks up about it is going to get shot down just like me.

I'm fairly sure the only shooting that's happened here has been done by yourself in you foot...

 

[Obryn]

But don't listen to me, what do I know, apparantly I'm a racist for using the word coloured (!)

Not just for that, no.

Edit - And on that note I'll bow out of this. People just cannot debate these issues sensibly. I've no doubt D&D Next will bow to political pressure about diveristy; anyone who thinks things are fine as they are and actually speaks up about it is going to get shot down just like me.

"Sensibly" = "agreeing with kingius"

I am certain no government authority gives a damn what's in an rpg book. We have FATAL, remember.

You're facing opposition in your arguments. Don't pull the victim card about how put out you are that people are disagreeing with you. You are being neither censored nor mistreated, and don't have strong evidence to back your position.

I'm certainly not a victim because you are disagreeing with me. And you're certainly not censoring me.

-O

 

[pemerton]

Well that's how it starts. D&D becomes a political football.

Two comments.

First, as I pointed out (but you edited in quoting me) it was Gygax who characterised dwarves and gnomes as having brown skin tones. That was how the game started. It is the subsequent artists who have not drawn these characters in accordance with Gygax's descriptions of them.

Second, I don't understand how drawing people as other than white is a "political football". Are white people the only normal, non-political people?

 

[Morrus]

Edit - And on that note I'll bow out of this. People just cannot debate these issues sensibly.

Does "debate these issues sensibly" = "agree with kingius", perchance?

 

[billd91]

Second, I don't understand how drawing people as other than white is a "political football". Are white people the only normal, non-political people?

Gets at the point precisely. If race weren't an issue, it wouldn't matter what race was depicted as the subject of the art. But, despite his protestations, I think kingius has made abundantly clear that's not the case.

What's being discussed here is the removal of white folk from artwork in line with a misperception that somehow not seeing a black dwarf is putting people of other races off playing.

That sounds an awful lot to me like "It's ok to exclude racial minorities because including them would come at the expense of the white majority." That's the very burden of minorities in a racist system when it comes to improvement. Improvement is seen by the white, privileged majority as coming at their cost.

 

[Dausuul]

Second, I don't understand how drawing people as other than white is a "political football". Are white people the only normal, non-political people?

Of course. Educated, white, middle- to upper-class American men are entirely apolitical, and their view of the world is unbiased and based on nothing but pure, clear-eyed reason. Everyone else is a political interest group driven by an emotional and unwarranted sense of grievance. I am an educated white middle-class American man, so when I say this, you know it is true.

*choke* *twitch* ...whoa, the levels of sarcasm and cynicism in my brain are getting dangerously high. I need to go watch some animated kitten GIFs.

 

[technoextreme]

Nobody is censoring you.

But nobody is going to take seriously your claim that you aren't being racist when you casually throw "coloured" into your posts, either.

-O

Honestly that wasn't the only part. This quote below kind of confused the ever living hell out of me given that I live in the west and the racial depiction as seen RPG books is not even close to being correct as its all just a bunch of white guys. Admittedly I'm not entirely sure about where you're from but from where Umbram and I am from its not even close. Its literally insinuating that there is no racial diversity at all even though that is a complete lie.

But considering that D&D is a western RPG it would look kind of commical if everybody you saw was oriental, wouldn't it.

 

[pemerton]

when statements are made to the effect of calling something "bad" or "wrong," that sounds much closer to a moral judgment than a statement of personal like or dislike.

<snip>

any argument in regards to moral philosophy is going to come down to personal choice

<snip>

Moral philosophy ultimately comes down to a personal system of beliefs.

Presumably, given that you think that moral philosophy ultimately comes down to a personal system of beliefs, you don't think there is much difference between calling something wrong, and expressing a pesonal dislike. So I don't really understand your contrast.

Presuming that you're attempting to showcase an instance where a positive duty should overcome a negative duty, then I disagree completely.

No. I'm showing that you're wrong to assert that the negative duty you referred to, and the positive duty you referred to, conflict. That you have a duty to X, and a negative right not to be forced to X, are not in conflict. The only conflict that would arise is someone tried to force you to X. And no one here is trying to force anyone to do anything. They are not "suppressing" (your word) or "censoring" (a word others have used) anything. They are simply exhorting WotC to do one thing rather than another.

As people (understandably) want to see immoral actions curbed, that's something that I find discomforting.

No one is asking for actions to be "curbed". They are asking for people not to perform them. In this context, they are asking them not to create offensive/sexist/racist things.

Rather, it's the duty of that person not to control the distribution of the free expression of others based on their own personal taste. Even if they feel the work is immoral, it's more important that they let others view it and decide for themselves.

Do you have any theory of how people can fulfill this duty in an environment in which the work in question is produced only if there is a commercial market for it? For instance, am I obliged to buy copies of every work every person in the world wants to publish? What if I run out of money? Or what to spend my money on other things?

To clarify, I'm attempting to highlight the nature of actions that are without virtue but that are also without fault (since I think that's an area that is being overlooked), whether because they have no moral dimension whatsoever, or whether because they fall under the category of supererogatory actions.

But you have presented no argument that deciding to portray image X rather than image Y is not a decision to which moral considerations are relevant.

the hypothetical you raised is one that's uncomfortable, but not at all difficult to defend. You may not like such an image, but that's a matter of personal taste, not morality (since ink on paper isn't an actual person, and so should not be judged by that same standard).

<snip>

It's entirely possible to ask "what should I do, morally speaking?" and find that the answer is "not applicable." At the risk of sounding tautological, morality is relevant except for where it's not relevant.

<snip>

That is my argument, that such materials don't have the moral characteristics that others imbue them with.

It would be nice to see some arguments for these claims. (That a picture is not a real person is true. But production of it is still an action. What is the argument that there are some actions upon which morality has no bearing as to whether or not we may, or ought to, perform them?)

You have not actually produced any argument that images cannot, by their nature, be offensive, sexist or racist. And your arguments that particular images aren't sexist because perhaps (for instance) the picture is of a woman arching her back after tripping while walking to a cocktail party is pretty weak - in part because you haven't really addressed the question of why the artist thinks that, of all the things in the world that might be drawn, that image is worth presenting.

Appeals to authority can be helpful, but they're not the be-all end-all of the discussion.

<snip>

Leaving aside the continued appeal to authority you keep making here, if you want to posit that someone's position backs up your own, please cite an actual source.

I'm not going to refer you to particular pages in essays or books by Gardner, Duff et al - their works are well-known by those who work in the field and Google or Wikipedia will give you lists of their principal works.

On the issue of authority - you are the one who introduced technical notions from moral philosophy (eg the character of deontological vs consequentialist reasoning) into the debate, as if they made a difference. My view is that they don't - the only consequentialist argument being made in this thread is the "marketing" one, that racist/sexist artwork loses customers - and unless you think that WotC has a duty to publish such artwork even if that costs its customers then that particular consequentialist argument looks pretty sound to me, assuming its empirical premises are sound.

But the main argument being run by posters on this thread - namely, that sexist and racist artwork is wrong because derogatory, offensive et al - is a quintessential example of a deontological argument. In contending that it's not, for instance because it turns in part (but not completely) on the hurt felt by those who are derided by such artwork, all you show is that you don't understand what contrasts deontological and consequentialist arguments in moral philosophy.

Your political and moral opinions are your own business, and no concern of mine. My only concern in responding to you on these points is with technical accuracy in my professional field. (And on this point, I note that you use the phrase "what action is it", but give no account of what makes an action the action that it is. In particular, you have not provided an account of the individuation of actions that does not make reference either to the results, or the intended results, of the action - be those results internal and necessary, or contingent.)

 

[Umbran]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

No Politics.

Remember that? It is in the Rules of EN World. Very clearly. You agreed to it when you created your account.

So, everyone, dial back the rhetoric a couple of steps, please. Thanks much.

 

[Gorgoroth]

First, "censored." Who or what has censored D&D art?

See the depiction of the harpy over the editions to see the censorship. I'm not saying we need to see boobies when we open our D&D rulebooks, I'm saying someone at TSR and at Wizards made a decision to not continue that trend (i.e. censor the !). And yes, D&D has been purged of this artwork. Just look in the Monstrous Manual from AD&D 1e and compare to 3e and 4e to understand a huge effort has gone into removing 'bad images'.

Edit - In fact, one issue of Fight On!, which deals with old school roleplaying OSR, actually has an article where the writer argues to bring this back because it is 'old school'. Worth a look if you are interested. I'm not with him on his definition of old school though, which for me is more about freeform sandboxes and rules light freedoms in play than it is about nudity.

Yeah, it always makes me laugh when I hear american media get into an uproar about wardrobe malfunctions, not realizing they are making fools of themselves with the puritanism. (and hypocrisy)

Every time I see people say we should limit our discourse "for the sake of the children", I see society regressing. Let parents decide what's appropriate for their kids, and not buy the books. As a 13 year old, I never had any difficulty finding pornographic material on my own (this was back in the era of BBSes!), and certainly no force on earth could have prevented me from acquiring a copy of the 2nd edition PHB when it came out.

Extreme forms of political correctness reduces all of us, because it enforces a warped / skewed view of sexuality based on shame, which creates far more problems than it solves. Humans are born naked, we all have bits n pieces, it's ludicrous to cover up Sirens and Harpies...If the D&D artwork were published in Europe, like Age of Conan, we could enjoy the hobby as adults without being patronized by the sanctimonious censors. When society gives into fringe puritanism, it limits the product choices that ADULTS make.

Who said that D&D is G-rated? PG-13, maybe, but I personally PG-13, if anything, should include (tasteful, and artful) nudity. It speaks volumes when I hear people say PARENTAL GUIDANCE - 13 to mean : good for a 5 year old's birthday party, without any supervision whatsoever.

Removing all nudity from D&D books, have long since been purged. Why? Because middle america is puritanical. That's a known fact. Several of the opinions here, despite disavowals, are transparently repeating those assumptions without admitting to it. I have nothing against showing male nudity either, where appropriate. The kind of society you have when you cannot trust parents will use oversight to judge what they buy their children, meaning that adults should have to be treated all as children, leads to a sort of hypocritical perversion that frankly, is reminiscent of Dark Age mentality.

Protecting women from nudity (oh my) is the same. Ask yourselves, who are in favor of having sanitized art, is it for the children, or it to avoid offending women? (or both? i.e. seeing/treating women as children, who need to be protected from the scourge of Big Bad Nipples!!! and needing protection like a knight in shining armor, riding in to protect their purity and honour from the filth of sexual thoughts and mummy-datty bits being portrayed in art).

Anyone who thinks mythological creatures don't belong in D&D Monster Manuals, so long as they're merely murderous and scary, rather than seductive and scary, are the very definition of puritanical and biased. Denying it seems to be wanting it both ways. You get to whitewash art from generating "bad thoughts" (highly subjective that a scary monster is better for a child's mind than a boobie), while at the same time, pretending like you support freedom of thought! It's perfect! I'd never imagined that puritans could also be hypocrits! //sarcasm

We had 2000 years of art and literature being censored, and some of us enjoy living in the free, modern world. This type of "cleansing" is happening and does happen. Calling it "marketing" is a cop out : until we see the data of D&D book sales being hurt by showing Harpies or Sirens or Succubi as being nude, it is pure conjecture to assume that it's increased market share. The last time I checked, art schools weren't exactly devoid of women. I guess it's a popular thing.

And before anyone repeats the meme that it isn't censorship to draw over parts of classic creatures, it IS. You have the choice to live in a cave and not expose yourself to the big bad world, just don't deny me the right to boldly go out there and open my eyes and ears. It's amazing to me, the idea that people think limiting everyone else's experiences to be somehow moral. Let alone liberal.

If you're a quaker and afraid of D&D showing greek sirens, turn off the TV, turn off the internet, and just hide in your basement. The big bad world is out there, waiting to corrupt your innocent minds.