WotC Dungeons & Dragons Fans Seek Removal of Oriental Adventures From Online Marketplace

[Mercurius]

Why the ever-loving bleep do people keep acting like media published in the real world isn't real.

Movies are real. Books are real. This rule book is real. They have real consequences in the real world.

Sure, a book that is published that glorifies genocide isn't as bad as say, an actual genocide, but I am sick and tired of reading on all these websites that this stuff doesn't matter because it is fictional. That isn't an excuse, that isn't a defense, and claiming that there are worse things that could be happening doesn't mean that what is happening is okay.

To use a horrid analogy, the store clerk purposefully giving you the wrong change so they can pocket a dollar isn't okay just because some people break into houses and murder entire families to steal their valuables. Both things are bad, one of them is worse than the other, but that doesn't invalidate the first as being a bad, naughty word thing to do.

You're right: it is a horrid analogy , but because it doesn't seem to apply to what we're talking about. At all.

Here's a simple one. A person writes a story based on the premise, "What if the moon was made of cheese?" People say, "That is stupid! Because the moon couldn't possibly be made of cheese!!!" That's a mis-application of real-world physics to a fantasy world, which has its own internal laws and must only be consistent to itself.

Or what if a group of a fantasy race has something bad done to them, which leaves them open for oppressive control from malignant entities? Do we need to apply real world social ethics to that, or can we recognize it as a What If story?

 

[Seramus]

Didn't I read somewhere that certain cultures in Faerun were made by people from earth? Like, many people from our earth literally came over to Faerun?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think the book with the Savage Kit should be pulled and reprinted with the following name:

Non-Urban Based Person Derived from Colonialist Narratives on Prehistorical Peoples and Indigenous Peoples But Not Really That, Just Think Conan, Tarzan, or Red Sonja But Without the Eurocentrism Kit.

Do you mean The Complete Barbarian's Handbook? Because that actually was pretty gross and racist, and like, I was 14 and not particularly sensitive to that sort of thing when it came out, and even I back then was like "Ummmm, this doesn't feel okay... this feels like... like something is really wrong about this...". Re-reading it later, I was like jeez, I see why I thought this was messed up. It's basically taking every hunter-gatherer culture, including some of the very most oppressed and harmed people on Earth, and making dumb Kits out of them, for an objectively terrible, objectively worse than PHB classes class, called Barbarian, which is like, insulting on so many levels.

If so, that you're acting like it was totally cool and not at all gross is, well, not cool. If not, well, it kind of sounds like you are, so...

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Or what if a group of a fantasy race has something bad done to them, which leaves them open for oppressive control from malignant entities? Do we need to apply real world social ethics to that, or can we recognize it as a What If story?

Here's the thing - if that's how people think of them, great. If that's how the narrative of this fantasy race comes across - victims of an evil power, being exploited by evil powers, that's probably valid, and it's kind of complex and challenging, and suggests people fighting them should avoid fighting the exploited race, and try to find a way to fight the source, or stop the fantasy race from being as vulnerable to oppressive control and so on.

But that's not what's happened. If you look at how Orcs (I assume your point of reference here, correct me if I'm wrong - it could almost equally be Drow) are actually described, they come across as well, a bunch of racist stereotypes from the 1910s, applied to a fantasy race, but that's still a bunch of racist stereotypes, and it's not at all clear from the language and presentation that they're victims (which your description makes extremely clear), because the language is all about how bad, stupid, fast-breed, violent, and so on that they are. The fact that they're victims is almost entirely glossed over in the zeal to make them good targets for killin'.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You're right: it is a horrid analogy , but because it doesn't seem to apply to what we're talking about. At all.

Here's a simple one. A person writes a story based on the premise, "What if the moon was made of cheese?" People say, "That is stupid! Because the moon couldn't possibly be made of cheese!!!" That's a mis-application of real-world physics to a fantasy world, which has its own internal laws and must only be consistent to itself.

Or what if a group of a fantasy race has something bad done to them, which leaves them open for oppressive control from malignant entities? Do we need to apply real world social ethics to that, or can we recognize it as a What If story?

Check the thread you are in, this is about Oriental Adventures and their presentation.

So, I think if someone wrote a story about say... blue-skinned native people needing to be rescued by a white guy, and other people responded "that is problematic, why did they need him to save them" I don't think replying "it is just a what if story, no offense meant" is fully sufficient.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Check the thread you are in, this is about Oriental Adventures and their presentation.

So, I think if someone wrote a story about say... blue-skinned native people needing to be rescued by a white guy, and other people responded "that is problematic, why did they need him to save them" I don't think replying "it is just a what if story, no offense meant" is fully sufficient.

But I think it can be a little more complicated than that. How much does intent (or lack thereof) factor into it. Let's use some examples of exactly the same thing to illustrate, and at the end I can provide a code and some of my thoughts.

Spoiler: Note that this contains references to "blackface"

Blackface and minstrelsy is highly offensive in America, and has been for a very long time. Right? We all agree on that. So:

1. 30 Rock (2012). In one show, there is a brief interlude about the history of NBC, and it shows Tracy Morgan and Jon Hamm in blackface. This is a parody of Amos 'n' Andy, and the intent is to mock the bad portrayal of black people on TV.

2. Oscars (2012). Billy Crystal uses blackface to in a Midnight in Paris parody as Sammy Davis Jr. The intent is to allow Billy Crystal to do a Sammy Davis Jr. impression.

3. Community (2011). Ken Jeong dresses as a drow; there are jokes about it resembling blackface, and the black character on the show says, "So we're just going to ignore that hate crime, huh."

4. Little Britain (2004 & 2005). Matt Lucas uses blackface to play an American Black pastor; David Williaims plays a black woman.

5. Mad Men (2009). John Slattery sings "My Old Kentucky Home" in blackface at a part in 1963.

6. With Bob & David (2015). David Cross plays a libertarian trying to anger a black cop; puts on blackface to provoke a conflict.

Now, most of these have been taken down. Mad Men now has a title card. There is an ongoing list at another website that has tons more examples and shows, and my initial reaction was ... woah. That's a lot! In this decade! I mean, I can remember when Ted Danson got in trouble because everyone knows blackface is wrong ... and that was 1993.

Does the intent matter at all? If I was the arbiter of life, I would say something like (2) and (4) is completely indefensible. But (1), (3), and definitely (6) are ... well, they are specifically using it in a way that is more thought-provoking. And 5 is making an important point (to paraphrase the vampire show, "What (White People) Do In The Shadows").

But then I have to circle back. Because it's easy for me to say. And I remember the Dave Chappelle example. For those who don't remember, before his recent return, Chappelle walked away from more money than most of us could ever imagine in 2006. And he did so because someone (a white person) was laughing at a skit he was performing that involved blackface.

Put simply, something which is an academic and dispassionate matter for me is not for others.

I'm not sure how much intent matters, or should matter, or, quite frankly, a lot of things. "No offense met" is not sufficient.

EDIT: to be more clear, and tie this back into RPGs, creators need to take into account their audience, and evolving standards, and try to make their work inclusive. I happen to think that the best solution for work that we later take issue with, such as that certain Mad Men episode, is to append explanatory material ... not remove it.

I also think that while intent matters to some degree, I think that the subjective belief of one's good intent can cause blind spots with regard to the impact something might have.

 

[Chaosmancer]

But I think it can be a little more complicated than that. How much does intent (or lack thereof) factor into it. Let's use some examples of exactly the same thing to illustrate, and at the end I can provide a code and some of my thoughts.

Spoiler: Note that this contains references to "blackface"

Blackface and minstrelsy is highly offensive in America, and has been for a very long time. Right? We all agree on that. So:

1. 30 Rock (2012). In one show, there is a brief interlude about the history of NBC, and it shows Tracy Morgan and Jon Hamm in blackface. This is a parody of Amos 'n' Andy, and the intent is to mock the bad portrayal of black people on TV.

2. Oscars (2012). Billy Crystal uses blackface to in a Midnight in Paris parody as Sammy Davis Jr. The intent is to allow Billy Crystal to do a Sammy Davis Jr. impression.

3. Community (2011). Ken Jeong dresses as a drow; there are jokes about it resembling blackface, and the black character on the show says, "So we're just going to ignore that hate crime, huh."

4. Little Britain (2004 & 2005). Matt Lucas uses blackface to play an American Black pastor; David Williaims plays a black woman.

5. Mad Men (2009). John Slattery sings "My Old Kentucky Home" in blackface at a part in 1963.

6. With Bob & David (2015). David Cross plays a libertarian trying to anger a black cop; puts on blackface to provoke a conflict.

Now, most of these have been taken down. Mad Men now has a title card. There is an ongoing list at another website, and my initial reaction was ... woah. That's a lot! In this decade! I mean, I can remember when Ted Danson got in trouble because everyone knows blackface is wrong ... and that was 1993.

Does the intent matter at all? If I was the arbiter of life, I would say something like (2) and (4) is completely indefensible. But (1), (3), and definitely (6) are ... well, they are specifically using it in a way that is more thought-provoking. And 5 is making an important point (to paraphrase the vampire show, "What (White People) Do In The Shadows").

But then I have to circle back. Because it's easy for me to say. And I remember the Dave Chappelle example. For those who don't remember, before his recent return, Chappelle walked away from more money than most of us could ever imagine in 2006. And he did so because someone (a white person) was laughing at a skit he was performing that involved blackface.

Put simply, something which is an academic and dispassionate matter for me is not for others.

I'm not sure how much intent matters, or should matter, or, quite frankly, a lot of things. "No offense met" is not sufficient.

I agree that it can be complicated. And I think intent does matter to a degree. You can't talk about mass genocide without showing something to illustrate the point, and showing violence with the intent of it being horrible is different than showing it with the intent of glorifying it.

But especially when it comes to biases, steroeotypes and coding, I don't think "I didn't mean anything by it, so I don't need to change it or examine it" is ever sufficient. That is why I think it is important to examine and look at products. Especially if it is something we are planning to do again in the future. A DnD "Fantasy Asia" setting that dives into their myths and tropes like Theros is doing for the ancient greeks would be amazing, I would love it. But, it needs to be approached with an eye towards inclusion, sensitivity, and a degree of accuracy. 70's and 80's martial arts movies aren't good source material.

Especially considering some of the crazy, wacky and intense myths and monsters from that section of the world.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I agree that it can be complicated. And I think intent does matter to a degree. You can't talk about mass genocide without showing something to illustrate the point, and showing violence with the intent of it being horrible is different than showing it with the intent of glorifying it.

But especially when it comes to biases, steroeotypes and coding, I don't think "I didn't mean anything by it, so I don't need to change it or examine it" is ever sufficient. That is why I think it is important to examine and look at products. Especially if it is something we are planning to do again in the future. A DnD "Fantasy Asia" setting that dives into their myths and tropes like Theros is doing for the ancient greeks would be amazing, I would love it. But, it needs to be approached with an eye towards inclusion, sensitivity, and a degree of accuracy. 70's and 80's martial arts movies aren't good source material.

Especially considering some of the crazy, wacky and intense myths and monsters from that section of the world.

Agree 100%.

I would love to see an amazing, inclusive, and accurate book that wasn't just a rehash of half-remembered Bruce Lee moves and a Jackie Chan marathon. One that did justice to the source material and to the rich diversity and tapestry of cultures.

Of course, then it couldn't just be one book given how many distinct and amazing histories, myths, and traditions they have to mine ... but I'd be happy to buy as many books as they want to sell me!

 

[billd91]

I'm sorry, did I ever say anything about fortune cookies? I am aware they have nothing to do with Chinese cuisine, and I feel like the fact the get presented as such instead of an American invention is pretty gross. I've got no problem eating them, or with people selling them, but I do have a problem with people getting a false view of the culture and food because of them.

Funny thing here. There's a dispute about who invented fortune cookies - there being, apparently, three main contenders for inventor. All of them were working in the United States - but all three of them were also Asian immigrants to the US (2 Japanese, 1 Chinese, I believe). So... are they Asian cuisine or not? Who gets to decide that - people living in China/Japan, the immigrants to the US from those countries who invented them and who nevertheless probably still retain ties to their birth cultures, nobody, somebody?

What's the relevance here? It's a bit tangential to the full topic, but it gets to the question of who do we listen to/who is authoritative in the declaration of what's authentic and what's not when it comes to cuisine? Is deep dish pizza Italian if the cook who invented it is Italian-American? Is the culture too far separated for them to make that distinction? If so, who decides that? And by extension and bringing it back around to the topic, is it authoritative for Asian-American podcasters to decide if Oriental Adventures is offensive to... whom? Themselves? A broader community? And if so, how broad a community?

This is not an uncomplicated set of questions.

 

[Xeviat]

If you can learn to devalue one person's opinion/thoughts/feelings, you can devalue anyone's, context be damned.

This binary approach is not only counter productive, it is outright destructive. It is the first step towards stunting one's ability to learn. It removes the ability to empathize and to sympathize. It encourages the exact thing this entire debate relates to; the rendering of all those different as "the Other".

It only escalates the "Us vs Them" nonsense until it ultimately backfires and metaphorically kicks everyone in the face.

I'm not saying people can't learn, that's a weird direction to take it. I'm saying white people don't get to tell Asian people what they're allowed to be offended by. That's a discussion for Asian people to have.

I'm not going to make a bunch of analogies to prove my point. This is what minority groups have been asking for.

I've certainly heard the word "Orientals" used in a derogatory way. It speaks to the "all you people look alike" narrative, so it's understandable why some people might not like the word.