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

[Fenris-77]

The fact that fiction doesn't have a moral directive to educate doesn't mean that it cannot do so. Fiction gets written for all sorts of purposes, including to educate the reader. And no, the list I provided are not forms of entertainment.

 

[Umbran]

I think it is quite a feat to jump from "bring about distortion, misunderstanding or error" to "unfavorable, undesirable" and then "harmful".

What?

You think going from error, to undesirable, to harmful is a BIG leap?

That sounds to me more like... the normal path. Someone makes an error - that error has undesirable effects, which harm someone. That's like... life in a nutshell! A very normal path through human existence.

 

[Danzauker]

The fact that fiction doesn't have a moral directive to educate doesn't mean that it cannot do so. Fiction gets written for all sorts of purposes, including to educate the reader. And no, the list I provided are not forms of entertainment.

It can surely do so. But if I do not want to educate, why should I be forced to to it?

And what i wanted to tell, is that if you do something freely, because you like it, then it's entertainment. Some don't like to be scared. Some other people go see horror movies voluntarily.

And, well, being provoked and informed entertains me, otherwise I wouldn't be here of my will discussing with people with different ideas than my own.

 

[DEFCON 1]

No one's claiming that we should make it now but eventually you're going to have to say don't like it don't consume it.

I mean what are you gonna do. Destroy/hide ever thing that's older than 5 years ago?

Diversity means exactly that. It also includes stuff you don't like.

I presume you meant to quote someone else? Because I'm not understanding your post in response to me answering Sadras' question of whether or not I found the kit name 'Savage' a stereotype or not.

 

[Aldarc]

@Danzauker, it may help you to think of your responsibility less as a function of education and more as an extension of the Wheaton Rule: i.e, “don’t be a dick.” This applies to people but also to their cultures. Sure the game world may be a piece of fiction but if it’s one where in an alternate real world or one with thinly-veiled earth cultures and your fiction goes about disrespecting those cultures, then you are being a dick to those people. So it may become a responsibility for you to educate yourself so that you’re not inadvertently a massive wang rod to other people.

 

[Sadras]

Absolutely. Because all the things you mention are aligned in our heads, like it or not, to only certain peoples in the world (via the tropes, media and stereotypes we as a society have created and been given to us over the centuries.) And guess what? That "Savage" identity? When we think of it, it doesn't evoke White people.

What do we call White people who are more inuitive with nature, takes issues with certain laws or customs, are untrusting of steel, and marvel at the sights (of presumably "cities")? They get called Druids. Not Savages. Funny how that works?

Unless I make a conscious decision to roleplay a non-white non-male - that is going to be my default. So the Savage in my head is by default white. UNLESS I find a pic on the net which inspires me to go a different direction. So when I google for a portrait - I'm going to google a combination of SAVAGE, BARBARIAN, D&D, PORTRAITS...etc I will go with the most inspiring pic at the time.

And lets be honest, at one time or another the civilised of Europe thought of the uncivilised Europeans as Savages, Pagans, Heathens, Brutes, Unwashed...etc

I mean, name the one single "White savage" that you can think of right now. If I had to guess... most likely it was Tarzan. But what do we know about Tarzan? He was born the child of a civilized lord and lady and then found himself abandoned in the jungle. So the one instance of a White "savage" wasn't really a savage, he instead fell into it by circumstance. And if that's the only one we can come up with... then yeah, the identity of the "Savage" is stereotyped to be 'ferocious', 'brutal' and 'cruel' Non-White people.

Tarzan is one of those examples within the Savage kit.

EDIT: I'm not saying you wrong, that it is not viewed as a stereotype by some, but you have highlighted my point about generalisations, archetypes and stereotypes. They can be subjective.

 

[Fenris-77]

Tarzan is a character with his own issues. People have been living in the jungle for thousands of years and surviving just fine, but one white boy gets marooned there and he's Lord of the Jungle? C'mon.

 

[Aldarc]

Tarzan is a character with his own issues. People have been living in the jungle for thousands of years and surviving just fine, but one white boy gets marooned there and he's Lord of the Jungle? C'mon.

He also knows about five languages so it’s not as if he a wolf child or something. He’s also presented as a white savior figure.

 

[Sadras]

I am quite familiar with 2E and the kit system. I should perhaps have been more specific above that I was outlining classes in general. You have hit on an example, in the Savage, where there is indeed a stereotype of sorts at work. You can indeed play that character in a bunch of ways, but the kit itself is based in some slightly uncomfortable colonialist imagery of non-European cultures. A lot of that is loaded into the word 'Savage' which is undoubtedly a loaded term with racist overtones. The word 'primitive' also comes pre-loaded with a lot of negative connotations.

In both cases the issue is 'savage' or 'primitive' compared to what? With the answer generally being European culture, often specifically 'white' northern European culture. If you want to represent a culture like that without the racists and colonial overtones, then it should be described in its own terms, rather than in terms that implicitly index a pejorative comparison to some other, ostensibly superior culture.

Similar as what I answered @DEFCON 1, the initial image of Savage to me would be white male. I'm pretty sure most people's initial image is that of their own skin. Funny enough if I had to select the Samurai kit, that is the only time where I would immediately have a mental image of an Asian. Savage (despite all its negative historical connotations), still reminds me of the Gauls, the Ostrogoths, the Vikings - hence the image of white male - maybe because of all these Viking shows, maybe because my lens bends Eurocentric, maybe because of my upbringing - I cannot say.

But please do note I certainly can see and understand where you are coming from, hence my intial delve into this.
It was to highlight that what one may view as negative i.e. stereotype, another may not. I hope I'm making sense here.

Also, I'll point out that the phrase 'Noble Savage' is probably one you want to avoid. It's a specific term related to some pretty egregious racial stereotyping.

Thanks for this, didn't know about the term other than its mention within the CFH, will check it out.

 

[Voadam]

Really? I think he makes a decent point. If I was running a jukebox at my house, and a song came on that someone went "ugh, that song." I'd probably offer to change it. Maybe if it was a song I liked I'd ask "what's wrong with this song?" but I wouldn't be resistant to changing it. It is probably one of hundreds on tracks, what do I care if we skip this one for something else?

Really.

If I was at a party and a song came on that I felt was annoying or overplayed (as given in the example) I might want it changed as if I was in my car by myself. However by definition there are more than myself at this person's party. Musical tastes vary and someone else there might be feeling "I love this song!" There is a good chance the host chose it because they like the song or thought many of their guests would like it. Cutting out midstream on a song someone is enjoying would probably annoy them. These considerations cut against it being appropriate to act on my individual desire to change the song for the entire group just because I personally dislike it.

Also I would not generally think it appropriate to attempt to commandeer control of the entertainment provided at someone else's party.

In the example given the annoyed person has given zero thought to anybody but themselves and expects their veto preferences to be unquestionably met by others for the entire group.