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

[Panda-s1]

Yuan-ti and lizardfolk came to my mind almost immediately.

Rakshasa, too. also do genies count?

 

[Mecheon]

No one is saying that they are entitled to OA. I'm saying that no one should be entitled to forbid WotC to sell me the book.

Just as likely, WotC don't have to sell the book if its no longer stuff they don't support or believe in. Its an ancient ass book, they are under no obligation to sell anything from pre-5E at this point it time. Just like how I can't just grab a digital copy of the Warcraft RPG

You're twisting arguments. No one says they're entitled to it for cheap.
I REALLY want a first edition of Dracula. That ain't cheap, but I still have the option to read it online, legally, for free. As for OA, I might not have the option to have a digital copy because you and others are proponents for removing it.

Even if removed digitally, you can go and buy one off of Ebay. Like, say, what I have to do when the Warcraft RPG is concerned, because OA is an over 30 year old product we're talking about that has been out of print since before I was born.

You discussed a book. I assume you read it. Now, if you were to discuss a book and ban it afterwards, then I wouldn't be able to refute or amend the opinions of your discussion group.

We're not talking about banning OA. We're saying "If WotC want to support people (per their statements on such), it is hypocritical to leave products like this available for sale by themselves"

Explain to me why banning a 'fantasy elf game' is less of a problem than banning Harry Potter.

We're not banning OA. You can still go out and buy one from a used bookstore or the like. Its just that selling a product ages out of date like that without any notations on it is sort of implying you're totally fine with it and at odds with WotC's other statements.

The people buying OA right now are part of a pressure group (although I'm uncertain if it's actually organised). And what is the motivation of this group? To counter the original pressure group

Well, it won't really accomplish much because they're not saying anything by buying it. Because this just could be interpreted as people wanting to see what all the noise is about just as easily

 

[Aldarc]

Explain to me why banning a 'fantasy elf game' is less of a problem than banning Harry Potter.

The situation we are discussing seems more akin to Disney keeping "Songs of the South" in their vault.

The people buying OA right now are part of a pressure group (although I'm uncertain if it's actually organised). And what is the motivation of this group? To counter the original pressure group.

Are they organized?

You're twisting arguments. No one says they're entitled to it for cheap.
I REALLY want a first edition of Dracula. That ain't cheap, but I still have the option to read it online, legally, for free. As for OA, I might not have the option to have a digital copy because you and others are proponents for removing it.

It's almost as if one book is public domain and the other isn't.

 

[Immeril]

Just as likely, WotC don't have to sell the book if its no longer stuff they don't support or believe in. Its an ancient ass book, they are under no obligation to sell anything from pre-5E at this point it time. Just like how I can't just grab a digital copy of the Warcraft RPG

Even if removed digitally, you can go and buy one off of Ebay. Like, say, what I have to do when the Warcraft RPG is concerned, because OA is an over 30 year old product we're talking about that has been out of print since before I was born.

As previously stated (barely 10 posts earlier), not all reasons to stop printing something hold the same merit. Profit is one: it would be absurd to expect a company to keep something in print if they would do so at a loss.
Another reason is copyright. I'm not familiar with the Warcraft RPG, so I can not make a statement as to why this isn't available online. Is Arthaus still the rights holder?

We're not talking about banning OA. We're saying "If WotC want to support people (per their statements on such), it is hypocritical to leave products like this available for sale by themselves"

Yes, you are. Or at least some are. I refer to one of the earlier posts in this thread:

That is disingenuous, as that is not the point.

The original tweeter explicitly (emphasis as in yours) became more agitated when the price was lowered (therefore, less profits).

And, when someone said that it should not longer be sold at all, and instead be free (NO PROFIT AT ALL), Mr. Kwan was completely incensed:

"You think making a racist product even more accessible is better than removing it?"

In other words, despite the people claiming falsely that this is not a call for a ban, this is, in fact, exactly what is desired.

This point has been made repeatedly, in multiple threads. Now, if you are in favor of banning (removing something completely) a historical product that now causes offense, that is fine. At least own it.

We're not banning OA. You can still go out and buy one from a used bookstore or the like. Its just that selling a product ages out of date like that without any notations on it is sort of implying you're totally fine with it and at odds with WotC's other statements.

You do know that you can buy most 'classic' novels either with or without annotations to the text? To resume my Dracula example: my annotated copy from Penguin informed me that the book contained multiple statements (from characters) in favor of phrenology. Since phrenology is a pseudoscience which has been used as a scientific basis for racism. Now, I dare say that a lot of people who read Dracula without annotations will not understand what these statements are referring to. So, by following your logic, we shouldn't sell 'classic' novels without annotations.

Well, it won't really accomplish much because they're not saying anything by buying it. Because this just could be interpreted as people wanting to see what all the noise is about just as easily

Most are indeed probably curious, but around a dozen of the purchasers talk about preserving the past (and yes, I know that some of them are using pejoratives).

 

[Immeril]

The situation we are discussing seems more akin to Disney keeping "Songs of the South" in their vault.

Not really a good example, since it was already controversial when it was released.

Are they organized?

To the extent that they are incensed by Kwan's campaign for removal.

It's almost as if one book is public domain and the other isn't.

And racist books in the public domain can still be sold for profit, by multiple publishers.

 

[Aldarc]

Not really a good example, since it was already controversial when it was released.

To the extent that they are incensed by Kwan's campaign for removal.

So a statement that could just as easily apply to those who buying it because they are incensed by Kwan's campaign for removal?

And racist books in the public domain can still be sold for profit, by multiple publishers.

Because they are in the public domain, which OA is not.

 

[Immeril]

Pretty poor counter-argument. But yes, Songs of the South doesn't compare to OA. Songs received a lot of criticism in newspaper reviews, and organisations such as the NAACP. In 1946, when the movie was released.
As opposed to OA, which was part of an 80's 'Culture Chop Suey'. As Snarf already stated, the 80's saw a lot of movies/books/... that contain the same problematic content. Karate Kid, Big Trouble in Little China, Temple of Doom, Gremlins, ...
This implies, to me, that the content was, at time of release, seen as normal.

So a statement that could just as easily apply to those who buying it because they are incensed by Kwan's campaign for removal?

Why do you need to argue about every sentence?
I wrote 'although I'm uncertain if it's actually organised'. This is me stating that I wasn't, and still ain't, certain. Which means: I'd be happy if someone could confirm whether or not there is some form of organisation. Maybe there is somebody on Twitter currently saying that people should buy OA. I just don't know.

Because they are in the public domain, which OA is not.

And that makes it somehow better? Socialism in racism? Every publisher gets their fair share of the profits?

 

[Aldarc]

Pretty poor counter-argument.

How dare you impugn my modest meming freely donated to an argument impoverished of substance?

But yes, Songs of the South doesn't compare to OA. Songs received a lot of criticism in newspaper reviews, and organisations such as the NAACP. In 1946, when the movie was released.
As opposed to OA, which was part of an 80's 'Culture Chop Suey'. As Snarf already stated, the 80's saw a lot of movies/books/... that contain the same problematic content. Karate Kid, Big Trouble in Little China, Temple of Doom, Gremlins, ...
This implies, to me, that the content was, at time of release, seen as normal.

(1) So your argument is that it's not comparable because a movie by a mass media giant received more attention than a supplement book for a fringe hobby?
(2) You're argument that "but Songs of the South was controversial even then..." implicitly suggests that there are times when "keeping it in the vault" is warranted or a good idea.
(3) What does it tell you that we have gone from hearing arguments in this thread that "How dare you suggest that OA is racist?!" to appeals of "Yeah, but compared to the time..."?
(4) "The Product of its/their Time" is neither a particularly strong nor compelling defense.

Why do you need to argue about every sentence?

Since you are the one who first quoted my reply to someone else in a wall of quoted text, maybe you can tell me.

And that makes it somehow better? Socialism in racism? Every publisher gets their fair share of the profits?

We are not having an argument about what is "better," but of legality. You can find free digital copies of Bram Stoker's Dracula and various publishers can publish their own editions because it is public domain, whereas OA is not. The fact that Bram Stoker's Dracula is public domain has bearing on the point you were originally trying to make when comparing it to the digital availability of OA.

 

[Immeril]

(1) So your argument is that it's not comparable because a movie by a mass media giant received more attention than a supplement book for a fringe hobby?
(2) You're argument that "but Songs of the South was controversial even then..." implicitly suggests that there are times when "keeping it in the vault" is warranted or a good idea.
(3) What does it tell you that we have gone from hearing arguments in this thread that "How dare you suggest that OA is racist?!" to appeals of "Yeah, but compared to the time..."?
(4) "The Product of its/their Time" is neither a particularly strong nor compelling defense.

(1) More attention at time of release (explicity stated in my post). A publisher/author can not predict how the public will respond to their work in 35/80/... years from now. But they should be smart enough to understand when something is controversial today.
(2) Yes. As I said, Disney was stupid enough to release this movie in a time when it's content wasn't widely accepted. I have previously stated in this thread that I applaud the updates to Curse of Strahd and Tomb of Annihilation. CoS and ToA are part of the now.
(3) This doesn't tell me anything, since I have never stated this. I refer to post #8.
(4) It is the most compelling defence (see (1)). Definitely better than someone saying 'this product is more important/influential than that one'.

Since you are the one who first quoted my reply to someone else in a wall of quoted text, maybe you can tell me.

I should like to think that there is still a difference between countering an argument and nitpicking over an expression of (un)certainty.

We are not having an argument about what is "better," but of legality. You can find free digital copies of Bram Stoker's Dracula and various publishers can publish their own editions because it is public domain, whereas OA is not. The fact that Bram Stoker's Dracula is public domain has bearing on the point you were originally trying to make when comparing it to the digital availability of OA.

We are having an argument about what is "better". You can't agree with the statement 'WotC is being hypocritical for selling OA' while at the same time ignoring the fact that publishers make a profit printing public domain books that have (again, to our current standards) dated and offensive content. Doesn't the publisher have a moral obligation to stop spreading offensive content?
You're also ignoring the fact that different countries have different public domain laws.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Generally when I discuss freedom of speech I am speaking to more than legal codes. I am speaking to the ability to express oneself creatively or intellectually to the public space.

Generally, and I'm not saying this means you in specific, when someone talks about free speech in that way then they are talking about what is freequently called "Freeze Peach" - the concept that free speech means freedom from criticism. That your free speech means that everyone else must shut up and listen in worshipful silence.

Critising something, critiquing it, and calling out flaws is a part of free speech. Pointing out that something is racist is a legitimate use of free speech. If people are to be allowed "to express onesself creatively or intellectually in the public space" then one of the freedoms they must have is the ability to respond freely - and that includes saying when and why they find something offensive. Indeed a coherent critique is expressing oneseself intellectually.

Anyone who thinks that free speech should be an absolute should therefore have not the slightest objection to such callouts because they are an integral part of free speech - and an integral part of free speech specifically in the ways you say are good. Also if we are talking about certain modes of speech stifling discussion then things like racism that attempt to remove people from the conversation because of who they are do that far far more severely than criticism. Therefore you should be more in favour of racists being censored than censoring people pointing out racism.