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

[Aldarc]

@Voadam, then I may be misremembering how easily I found his tweets, since I barely scrolled down his Twitter feed and found some examples he posted. Still. Less than 30 seconds of detective work.

 

[Remathilis]

Are classes stereotypes?

Yes, in the broadest sense. There is certain assumptions people make about most classes (feeble wizards, dumb barbarians, greedy rogues, holier-than-thou paladins, etc.) Some of these can be viewed in the same light that people view real world professions, such as popular views on lawyers, supermodels, and cops.

It's a different question to ask if such assumptions hurt the game, but class does assume a lot about a character, hence stereotype.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I've never heard any serious conversation about the useful generalizations that humans make in order to process information that refers to that process as making use of stereotypes. As laid out earlier, stereotypes are by definition bad things. This is not debatable.

But isn't that just using definitions to say one thing is bad, and the other thing is fine? A good thing is a generalization, and a bad thing is a stereotype. Why? Because you've defined them that way!

I think, pace Umbran, we tend to overlook how often we rely on generalizations/stereotypes. Not just of other countries and places that we aren't familiar with, but even our own country. Here, let's try a few examples:

A. If you grew up and spent your whole life in Arizona, what is your conception of New England? Do you have a meaningful way to understand the difference between Maine, NH, Vermont, Mass, Conn., and RI? On the other hand, if you grew up and spent all of your life in Maine, how do you view the American Southwest? Is it all cactuses? Is it Sedona? Do you think about the differences between Las Cruces and Flagstaff? Between the area near the Rio Grande and the base of the Rockies?

B. If you live in New York, what do you think of when someone says, "California?" LA? San Francisco? Northern California and Southern California are very different, and there are additional differences (San Diego to LA, Sacramento to San Francisco). And that's before getting to the mountains, or the inland empire. And when I said New York, you probably thought city, right? What about upstate?

I could keep going, but you get the idea- Southern Florida is completely different than Northern Florida, the Pacific Northwest west of the Cascades is drastically different than the part east of it.

Our minds constantly make these generalizations- these stereotypes, based on media, based on information that we are given. And that's fine! So long as we recognize that these shortcuts are being made, we should be okay.

Again, as Umbran pointed out, the real harm usually only occurs when we apply them to people.

 

[Fenris-77]

Generalizations and stereotypes are not the same thing, by which I mean those two words do not mean the same thing by definition. They share some conceptual space, sure, but they aren't the same and can't be used interchangeably.

Stereotype - a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing.

Generalization - a general statement or concept obtained by inference from specific cases.

 

[Sadras]

Perhaps try explaining how classes are or might be stereotypes, rather than just stating that they are. Just asking the question and expecting someone else to do the heavy lifting is lazy, or possibly rhetorically shady if the point is to set up a future reply. I'll even get you started, here's a common definition of stereotype:

1. a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing.

@Fenris-77 there was nothing shady or lazy about my point and I didn't want to Cathy Newman @ART!
I was asking the question because he made a value statement on the word stereotypes which I'm not sure I agree with.
Someone called the class kits tropes earlier. I looked at the definition of trope and didn't quite agree with that assessment, although I'm happy to admit I could be wrong. I looked at the definition of stereotype - and there was no value statement provided (just like your definition).

ART! presents the word as a negative from a position of no doubt.
To me the classes fit the mould of a stereotype. If ART! is correct, then it would mean the use of classes must be viewed as negative, right?

Also I would appreciate it if you didn't indirectly slander me from your first post to me. You might disagree with me in this thread's issue, but you certainly could treat me with more respect.

 

[Sadras]

Yes, in the broadest sense. There is certain assumptions people make about most classes (feeble wizards, dumb barbarians, greedy rogues, holier-than-thou paladins, etc.) Some of these can be viewed in the same light that people view real world professions, such as popular views on lawyers, supermodels, and cops.

It's a different question to ask if such assumptions hurt the game, but class does assume a lot about a character, hence stereotype.

Thanks my follow-up post to @Fenris-77 describes my train of thought with this question.

 

[Danzauker]

@Voadam, then I may be misremembering how easily I found his tweets, since I barely scrolled down his Twitter feed and found some examples he posted. Still. Less than 30 seconds of detective work.

The lines that Voadam quoted are not EXAMPLES. Thei're CLAIMS. Without addressing the source material directly (quotation, paraphrases), they are unsupported claims.

I read some of the comments below the tweet, hough. I found that a good half, both asian and not asian, were disagreeing with this guy.

The funniest was more or less: "based on videogames, the typical Brasilian should be a green beast that shoots lightnings".

So I'm more and more on the idea of dismissing him as not reliable.

 

[Fenris-77]

@Sadras - There is some value judgement in the definition I provided, specifically the part that reads "fixed and oversimplified", especially the 'fixed' part. It means that the stereotype isn't changed by experience or additional information but is uncritically applied in every instance. "All Asians know martial arts" would be a topical example. There's a good reason why people say stereotyping is bad. So to say classes are stereotypes, one is either suggesting that classes are bad in that same way, or that one don't understand what a stereotype is. Classes are not by definition stereotypes btw, not even the Basic edition ones, although they certainly can be based on stereotypes in some cases.

You'll also notice I kept my post to referencing the action, not the poster, so your use of slander is probably an overblown response. Even if I had directly called you argumentatively lazy, and not just your post, that still falls short of "making false or damaging statements of someone". You taking offense isn't 'damage', especially when the term fits the evidence at hand.

 

[Chaosmancer]

"If you disagree, you have clearly never had a piece of pop culture harm you. Books like this take my culture, oversimplify the nuances that make it beautiful, mash it together with other cultural reductions, and present it as THE WAY others should view our stories."


Second, the second period, I found that absolutely absurd. It's not THE WAY, it's ONE WAY to tell a story. I keep supporting the fact that mashing cultures together in a fictional literary work is perfectly normal. Sorry if someone disagrees with me. It's my opinion and I defend it.

Snipped a lot here, but you are misunderstanding the point.

These works don't say "this is only a single caricatured way to view this culture" They say "look at this exotic and strange culture"

To the point where it is a documented phenomena that people are likely to assume that any person from China, Korea, Vietnam, or Japan knows martial arts. I actually remember a friend in elementary school getting asked what kind of martial arts he knew. We were like, seven. He was American, yet the pervasiveness of these stereotypes meant that people just assumed that of course he knew martial arts.

Yes, people mash cultures all the time, but when they are doing it to European cultures we can at least tell they are over-simplifying. I don't need a degree in cultural studies to know that not all people from England have Butlers, snarky maids, or would stop a fist-fight midway through for "a spot of tea". But that is because there are plenty of other depictions of England and it's culture for me to understand that.

But places like Korea or Vietnam? I literally don't have a clue. I can't even tell you which depictions have a grain of truth and which are just China yet again. And that is part of the problem. We've only ever shown the stereotypes, to the point where there are large groups of people who don't even realize those stereotypes aren't true. That is what he is saying there.

But isn't that just using definitions to say one thing is bad, and the other thing is fine? A good thing is a generalization, and a bad thing is a stereotype. Why? Because you've defined them that way!

I think, pace Umbran, we tend to overlook how often we rely on generalizations/stereotypes. Not just of other countries and places that we aren't familiar with, but even our own country. Here, let's try a few examples:

A. If you grew up and spent your whole life in Arizona, what is your conception of New England? Do you have a meaningful way to understand the difference between Maine, NH, Vermont, Mass, Conn., and RI? On the other hand, if you grew up and spent all of your life in Maine, how do you view the American Southwest? Is it all cactuses? Is it Sedona? Do you think about the differences between Las Cruces and Flagstaff? Between the area near the Rio Grande and the base of the Rockies?

B. If you live in New York, what do you think of when someone says, "California?" LA? San Francisco? Northern California and Southern California are very different, and there are additional differences (San Diego to LA, Sacramento to San Francisco). And that's before getting to the mountains, or the inland empire. And when I said New York, you probably thought city, right? What about upstate?

I could keep going, but you get the idea- Southern Florida is completely different than Northern Florida, the Pacific Northwest west of the Cascades is drastically different than the part east of it.

Our minds constantly make these generalizations- these stereotypes, based on media, based on information that we are given. And that's fine! So long as we recognize that these shortcuts are being made, we should be okay.

Again, as Umbran pointed out, the real harm usually only occurs when we apply them to people.

I'd say you are generally correct, but the bolded part is the problem.

If you never show anything except the stereotypes, if you never present anything to people that is more nuanced, how are they supposed to know you are taking a shortcut?

There are still people who believe that all Vikings had horned helms, even though we know that is not true, but that was the only depiction they ever came across, so they had no way of knowing it wasn't accurate.

Therein lies the problem.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I got exactly the opposite impression. I got the impression that the moral was supposed to be that white people are bad and that the whole thing was a centuries late allegory about European colonialism and/or the westward expansion in America.

Well, it's kind of both. It's saying colonialism is bad, but that the only one who can stop colonialism is the white protagonist helping to stop his own team; the natives would lose without his help.

A lot like the Disney Pocahontas film, although at least Pocahontas is the protagonist in that film, though she needs John Smith to suceed. Also just learned John Smith is voiced by Mel Gibson, and whough that is ironic.