D&D General Two underlying truths: D&D heritage and inclusivity

[Aldarc]

The problem with that is at some point or another all negative language has been used to denigrate and dehumanize a section of society, so are you saying we can't speak negatively about any monsters?

I think that it means that we shouldn’t talk about most creatures in a way reminiscent of how white supremacists talk about fellow humans. I’m not sure why people have such difficulty with stepping over a bar as low as that.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I'm back.

I think there are several issues here that people are worried about:

1. Censorship, changing sensibilities and the ability to have discussion.

Why not just excise the objectionable stuff?

To Kill a Mockingbird is a classic Novel that has, on and off in history, has been the target of censorship. Pulled from schools and libraries and various special interest groups wanting to take it out of print.

Would it be better to 'edit' the book to make it less offensive to more modern sensibilities or does it have value for what it is?

I have on my shelf a "superhero" story. It falls under fantasy in that it is not real. Superheroes do not exist, superpowers do not exist. Within this story the main organization for superheroes abducts children with powers and trains them to be child soldiers, sent on kill missions against any hero that leaves the organization, because that person is a villain (by the way, this is the Velveteen Vs. series if people are interested)

Is this organization right to do so? Wrong to do so? By your premise, I cannot say. I literally cannot say that training children to kill traitors is wrong, or evil, or good, or anything. It is a fantasy story. Real World Ethics do not apply.

So should you no longer have stories about child abduction or child abuse or are these stories only acceptable if the villain is doing it? What if someone is the victim of child abuse, should the book be changed or taken down?

In this book, which I do not remember the name of, nor will I give the author any business if I could, a man recieves a message in his brain that he will gain power if he kills three people in the next minute. He hates people, so he does so. And he is reborn with the ability to control insects. He is a tiny gemstone, buried underground. He gains more power by killing more living things. At the climax of the story, he is controlling a swarm of wasps to torture and kill a family of five. He takes great pleasure in doing so, and finds the act very rewarding. Funny too since he has the insects stalk them for about a day, and the people are completely unaware that he exists, or that these are anything other than normal wasps.

Judging this story based solely on the morality it presents, in this world of the book, murder and torture are fulfilling and amusing actions that have great rewards attached to them. This is truth, because it is presented to us in this story, and this is a fantasy story, so only the morality within the story applies.

Is it wrong or even in bad taste to have a book that glorifies torture and killing? Are there no discussions to be had? Is a book to be changed or shelved because it is morally depraved? To me, That conversation, in itself, is worth having.

This is why your continued assertions fall apart Mercurius. We have to be able to apply real world ethics and reasoning to our stories. Otherwise every author would have to explain why kindness is good and torture is bad.

I'm not sure Mercurius is saying we should divorce our own experience and morality or that of society from the book. I think he's saying that something isn't inherently immoral just because it depicts immoral/amoral behavior.

Just because literature depicts something that people find offensive, must it be changed?

2. Future Materials

It's been stated several times that 'only orcs and drow' are going to be changed so people should just stop arguing and that discussing things like Necromancers isn't an issue so stop playing gotcha.

The issue is that sensibilities change. Today it's Orcs and Drow but what about in five years? It really is an issue if the answer to #1 is, change it, take it off the shelves and censor it. That limits discussion. It sets a precedent as well. Today, Necromancers(or goblins, or Giants) aren't a big deal but it doesn't mean they won't be in the future. It just might be the thing you didn't think was offensive. Will there be no room for your opinions or sensibilities when they change it?

What kind of effect will it have on published materials if writers must worry about their stories being changed or censored because it no longer fits the sensibilities of the day, or a specific group? Does it limit the material we will have access to? That is a personal concern for me. Who should be the judge of what material I'm allowed to read? Whoever shouts the loudest?

2. WotC responsibilities

Is it the responsibility of Wizard of the Coast to censor the content they provide? Are they essentially selling 'toys' that should be moral or can they be edgy and provocative? Is it their responsibility to be the moral compass of their consumers? In the end, They are a company and they have a reputation and they want to sell books. I think it goes without saying that they want to publish material that is 'responsible' and inclusive, and they should. But Should all past material be changed? Can we still be inclusive by saying, "This was thing back then but now it's not."

This illustrates progress and understanding for the society we were. "can you believe people used to smoke in airplanes?! that's crazy!"

In the end, I feel, they want to expand their base so they'll do whatever makes them more successful.

 

[Aldarc]

These were all conversations that past writers and publishers for D&D have faced in their own time as well about various related issues (e.g. misogyny, homophobia, racism, etc.) and the hobby has survived with little difficulty. We should not spend our time worrying where to draw the arbitrary line in the sand about “what’s next?” and let the game evolve with the sentiments of the changing body of people who play it. The game is for the people, not the people for the game.

 

[Hussar]

I've seen others disagree, but certainly they don't seem to be the main target at the moment.



Ogres are more or less giant orcs, so I'm not sure what difference is enough to give them a pass?

I suspect Trolls, Giants, etc. are getting a pass as they are established in folklore? The fact that much of this folklore is based on the "fear of the other" which is a criticism thrown at orcs seems to be ignored at least at the moment.

As @Aldarc said, the fact that trolls, giants, goblins and ogres are not described using language reminiscent of white supremacists means that they aren't really an issue.

Maybe it would help if you actually READ what people are complaining about, rather than inventing things that they aren't complaining about?

 

[Neonchameleon]

I suspect Trolls, Giants, etc. are getting a pass as they are established in folklore? The fact that much of this folklore is based on the "fear of the other" which is a criticism thrown at orcs seems to be ignored at least at the moment.

I think the large "Single entity or tiny group" monsters are getting a pass not because of the folklore roots but because of the social structures and a lack of mapping. No one sees themselves as eight foot or more tall, and ogres and trolls almost never have complex societies. Meanwhile orcs are on a human scale and have more social interactions.

Alternatively what @Hussar said may be more accurate.

Edit: More accurately I'm going for why the association doesn't get made much in the first place. Hussar is going for the complaints themselves.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

These were all conversations that past writers and publishers for D&D have faced in their own time as well about various related issues (e.g. misogyny, homophobia, racism, etc.) and the hobby has survived with little difficulty. We should not spend our time worrying where to draw the arbitrary line in the sand about “what’s next?” and let the game evolve with the sentiments of the changing body of people who play it. The game is for the people, not the people for the game.

In my entire post, you focused on 'What's Next'. I think there's way more in there. I mean, you've spent most of this thread defending the change to orcs. Was that a good use of your time?

 

[Hussar]

I'm back.

I think there are several issues here that people are worried about:

1. Censorship, changing sensibilities and the ability to have discussion.



To Kill a Mockingbird is a classic Novel that has, on and off in history, has been the target of censorship. Pulled from schools and libraries and various special interest groups wanting to take it out of print.

Would it be better to 'edit' the book to make it less offensive to more modern sensibilities or does it have value for what it is?

Are you seriously comparing To Kill a Mockingbird to the Monster Manual?

Note, "pulled from schools and libraries" isn't quite the same thing. Also note, there are significantly different reasons why To Kill a Mockingbird was objectionable at the time. So, in other words, you are again dragging in material that has NOTHING TO DO with what we are talking about.

So should you no longer have stories about child abduction or child abuse or are these stories only acceptable if the villain is doing it? What if someone is the victim of child abuse, should the book be changed or taken down?

A: We want to change the language used in some monsters so that it no longer parallels real world descriptions that were used to denigrate and dehumanize people.
B: I don't see the problem with this language, so, you must have some other problem. What about being evil?

Is it wrong or even in bad taste to have a book that glorifies torture and killing? Are there no discussions to be had? Is a book to be changed or shelved because it is morally depraved? To me, That conversation, in itself, is worth having.

A: We want to change the language used in some monsters so that it no longer parallels real world descriptions that were used to denigrate and dehumanize people.
B: I don't see the problem with this language, so, you must have some other problem. What about being evil?

I'm not sure Mercurius is saying we should divorce our own experience and morality or that of society from the book. I think he's saying that something isn't inherently immoral just because it depicts immoral/amoral behavior.

Just because literature depicts something that people find offensive, must it be changed?

2. Future Materials

It's been stated several times that 'only orcs and drow' are going to be changed so people should just stop arguing and that discussing things like Necromancers isn't an issue so stop playing gotcha.

The issue is that sensibilities change. Today it's Orcs and Drow but what about in five years? It really is an issue if the answer to #1 is, change it, take it off the shelves and censor it. That limits discussion. It sets a precedent as well. Today, Necromancers(or goblins, or Giants) aren't a big deal but it doesn't mean they won't be in the future. It just might be the thing you didn't think was offensive. Will there be no room for your opinions or sensibilities when they change it?

What kind of effect will it have on published materials if writers must worry about their stories being changed or censored because it no longer fits the sensibilities of the day, or a specific group? Does it limit the material we will have access to? That is a personal concern for me. Who should be the judge of what material I'm allowed to read? Whoever shouts the loudest?

A: We want to change the language used in some monsters so that it no longer parallels real world descriptions that were used to denigrate and dehumanize people.
B: I don't see the problem with this language, so, you must have some other problem. What about being evil?

Are the descriptions of necromancers using denigrating language? No? Then why are you bringing it up, yet again?

2. WotC responsibilities

Is it the responsibility of Wizard of the Coast to censor the content they provide? Are they essentially selling 'toys' that should be moral or can they be edgy and provocative? Is it their responsibility to be the moral compass of their consumers? In the end, They are a company and they have a reputation and they want to sell books. I think it goes without saying that they want to publish material that is 'responsible' and inclusive, and they should. But Should all past material be changed? Can we still be inclusive by saying, "This was thing back then but now it's not."

This illustrates progress and understanding for the society we were. "can you believe people used to smoke in airplanes?! that's crazy!"

In the end, I feel, they want to expand their base so they'll do whatever makes them more successful.

A: We want to change the language used in some monsters so that it no longer parallels real world descriptions that were used to denigrate and dehumanize people.
B: I don't see the problem with this language, so, you must have some other problem. What about being evil?

When "all past material" is up for change, then you have a point. Until then, you're not actually engaging with the topic at hand but are still swirling around in the air of "whatabouts" trying to invent issues that don't actually exist.

 

[Aldarc]

In my entire post, you focused on 'What's Next'. I think there's way more in there. I mean, you've spent most of this thread defending the change to orcs. Was that a good use of your time?

My focus speaks more to the limitations of writing on my phone while commuting than anything else.

I believe that it has been a good use of my time. My mind has changed on a number of issues, though not always all at once, because people planted the seed in my mind and heart through raising a basic awareness of the issues. I may have ignored it or dismissed it as a problem, but what has been seen can’t be unseen. And there will always be a part of your mind, as it was with mine, that will remember these conversations about those problematic aspects of the hobby.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

When "all past material" is up for change, then you have a point. Until then, you're not actually engaging with the topic at hand but are still swirling around in the air of "whatabouts" trying to invent issues that don't actually exist.

Some past material is up for a change. Also, Oriental Adventures is being asked to be pulled from the shelves. Everything you mentioned in your post before that is just a repetition of things you've said about my posts and have completely missed the mark.

B: I don't see the problem with this language, so, you must have some other problem. What about being evil?

I never said this. I never said you have a problem or that I don't see the problem. Try reading it without thinking I'm disagreeing with you and then maybe you'll understand. Otherwise, it's pretty pointless.

 

[Scott Christian]

Is this organization right to do so? Wrong to do so? By your premise, I cannot say. I literally cannot say that training children to kill traitors is wrong, or evil, or good, or anything. It is a fantasy story. Real World Ethics do not apply.

I am sorry Chaosmancer, I really don't get it. I know you are against the bolded. That real world ethics do apply. But my take is some real world ethics apply to some fantasy cultures. Other fantasy cultures, not so much. That's why fantasy is unique. It is why exploring other cultures in real life is interesting. Sometimes their ethics bring unique points of view.
In your example you cannot say it is right or wrong. I know in real life we can. But, depending on the point of view in this fantasy story, it may be right. It may be wrong. Again, in fantasy, good people can do bad things for good reasons; bad people can do good things for bad reasons. Ethical parameters all depends on who is telling the tale...
Have you read Black Leopard Red Wolf by Marlon James? (Excellent fantasy book!) It is a great example of this.