D&D General (Anecdotal) conversations with Asian gamers on some problems they currently face in the D&D world of RPG gaming

[Micah Sweet]

I'm still not sure what are the principles at play on the side arguing against taking down OA. I know why the people who are asking OA to be taken down are taking their stance, but I'd like to know the non-selfish reason why OA should absolutely be kept up, especially if the owners of the work decide to pull it down of their own accord.

As for Skokie... Personally I don't believe in tolerating intolerance. Displaying Nazi symbolism is not free speech, it's an assault, a psychological attack, a threat. If I see a Nazi, I will punch them... but this is not really the place for this discussion.

At this point, if they do take it down, there's no way to know if it's of their own accord, or in response to the protests.

 

[Umbran]

When they removed the book of racist, I believed it was good. When they removed the book of liberals I did not care about cause I'm not liberal. When they removed my book, nobody was left to defend me.

Slippery slope arguments are not compelling.

Tons of words to circle around the true point. Censorship.

Neither is hyperbolic use of emotionally charged words.

 

[Aldarc]

When they removed the book of racist, I believed it was good. When they removed the book of liberals I did not care about cause I'm not liberal. When they removed my book, nobody was left to defend me.

Yes, if WotC chooses to remove publication of OA from their online distribution, it will truly lead to Shoah. Again, please listen to yourself.

Tons of words to circle around the true point. Censorship.

...involving a fantasy elf game.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Slippery slope arguments are not compelling.

They can be. It depends on how warranted the claims are. I think when you are talking about censorship, or removing content, slippery slope arguments do have a lot more traction because we see time and again, if one thing is brought down because it is bad thing X, it is almost inevitable that other things are brought down because they are also bad thing X, and the reasoning for removing bad thing X sets a precedent and establishes logic for allowing the removal of bad thing Y or Z. Slippery slope itself isn't a fallacy. It just needs to be applied judiciously and responded to with caution more likely outcomes are not being ignored. Again though, I think in the case of OA, I see no reason why other content wouldn't also be subject to this kind of pressure if they were to remove OA. Because then WOTC (and even OBS if it becomes about pressuring them to take down content off the platform) are in a position of explaining why something just as objectionable as OA is allowed to remain for sale. There are plenty of good reasons to think about the slippery slope in this case.

 

[Eric V]

I've added some bold parts to your quote above.

I somewhat addressed your questions in the post above, but to add a bit more. "Taking offense" is a subjective process, based upon interpretation and identification. Subjectivity changes. Our frameworks of interpretation change; what we identify with changes. We are, as individuals and cultures, constantly in flux.

OA is a cultural artifact. It is a moment in time. By changing or removing it, we artificially alter or bury the past, and we diminish our capacity to see where we've been and thus consciously determine where we might go.

If people are offended by it, that is their right -- just as it is their right to voice their offense. But it is my opinion that their underlying concerns are better addressed by suggesting a path forward, not negating the past. "OK, that was 35 years ago. What might an Asian-themed D&D book look like now? What have we learned?"

To take a more extreme case, Andrew Jackson's "Indian Removal Act" was deeply offensive by almost any measure of interpretation. But should we, ah, remove it from the record? It is a very important historical document that tells us how the POTUS--and many people--viewed the native people of North America. OA's level of offensiveness is obviously miniscule by comparison, and of course it differs in that it is a privately owned property. But within the context of D&D, doesn't the same logic apply? Don't we need our cultural and historical artifacts to help us redefine ourselves, again and again?

Ugh.

It's objective that they are reporting themselves as offended. "How offended are they, really?" is just a gross question. Time to stop interrogating people of color when they report their lived experiences of prejudice (whether major or microaggression), and instead authentically listen to their accounts in an effort to try and do better. If WotC tries to do better by no longer having anything to do with OA, great. To continue to make money off the tone-deaf work, in 2020, is completely unnecessary.

In another post, I said all active links to a current PDF of OA can now contain a message from WotC describing how it's a tone-deaf piece of work, written by North Americans with virtually no input by any East Asian people containing stereotypes hurtful to the communities mentioned and how they will try to do better. Done. Place in history, assured.

No one is making money off of the Indian Removal Act. No one is using it to play out scenarios wherein the adventurers remove Indians from their homes. No one is using it in games with people of Indian descent. Its place in history is fine. Honestly, that was a really terrible comparison, no offense.

 

[Mercurius]

Ugh.

It's objective that they are reporting themselves as offended. "How offended are they, really?" is just a gross question. Time to stop interrogating people of color when they report their lived experiences of prejudice (whether major or microaggression), and instead authentically listen to their accounts in an effort to try and do better. If WotC tries to do better by no longer having anything to do with OA, great. To continue to make money off the tone-deaf work, in 2020, is completely unnecessary.

In another post, I said all active links to a current PDF of OA can now contain a message from WotC describing how it's a tone-deaf piece of work, written by North Americans with virtually no input by any East Asian people containing stereotypes hurtful to the communities mentioned and how they will try to do better. Done. Place in history, assured.

No one is making money off of the Indian Removal Act. No one is using it to play out scenarios wherein the adventurers remove Indians from their homes. No one is using it in games with people of Indian descent. Its place in history is fine. Honestly, that was a really terrible comparison, no offense.

I think you're missing the main point I was trying to make.

But yes, that some people are reporting offense is objective, nor am I saying "how offended are they"--although degrees and quantity of offended folks matter. I'm not "interrogating" anyone, and I have "authentically listened" to various accounts.

But the point I'm trying to make is that regardless of offense, removing a historical/cultural artifact is not the best approach, imo. I gave reasons above and don't wish to re-type what I already said. Feel free to address that.

I think your message is extreme. I don't have a problem with a message, but think the Disney approach is more appropriate.

If you don't like the Indian Removal Act as an analogy, there are countless fictional works that can be used. The Adventures of Tom Sawyer includes many uses of the "n-word"...should we remove that? Change it? Or leave it as a historical artifact?

 

[Myrdin Potter]

It's objective that they are reporting themselves as offended.

That certainly is objective. It also is not in dispute by anyone and not the point. No one can live their life pinballing from action to action based on people being offended.

That is where the discussion gets subjective.

 

[Derren]

They can be. It depends on how warranted the claims are. I think when you are talking about censorship, or removing content, slippery slope arguments do have a lot more traction because we see time and again, if one thing is brought down because it is bad thing X, it is almost inevitable that other things are brought down because they are also bad thing X, and the reasoning for removing bad thing X sets a precedent and establishes logic for allowing the removal of bad thing Y or Z. Slippery slope itself isn't a fallacy. It just needs to be applied judiciously and responded to with caution more likely outcomes are not being ignored. Again though, I think in the case of OA, I see no reason why other content wouldn't also be subject to this kind of pressure if they were to remove OA. Because then WOTC (and even OBS if it becomes about pressuring them to take down content off the platform) are in a position of explaining why something just as objectionable as OA is allowed to remain for sale. There are plenty of good reasons to think about the slippery slope in this case.

Just look how this whole thing here evolved.
It started with not having always evil orcs, quickly branched out to OA ist racist and now the first people are calling for the removal of ability modifiers because having different races be actually different is racism to them.
There is not just a threat of a slippery slope any more, we are already on a very fast, very steep slide.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

"We recognize that some of the legacy content available on this website, does not reflect the values of the Dungeon & Dragons franchise today. Some older content may reflect ethnic, racial and gender prejudice that were commonplace in American society at that time. These depictions were wrong then and are wrong today. This content is presented as it was originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed. Dungeons & Dragons teaches that diversity is a strength, and we strive to make our D&D products as welcoming and inclusive as possible. This part of our work will never end."

WoTC labeled all their old material like this on DMsGuild. We should be done now.

 

[Derren]

"We recognize that some of the legacy content available on this website, does not reflect the values of the Dungeon & Dragons franchise today. Some older content may reflect ethnic, racial and gender prejudice that were commonplace in American society at that time. These depictions were wrong then and are wrong today. This content is presented as it was originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed. Dungeons & Dragons teaches that diversity is a strength, and we strive to make our D&D products as welcoming and inclusive as possible. This part of our work will never end."

WoTC labeled all their old material like this on DMsGuild. We should be done now.

Do you really think this will stop the "all is racist" complainers?