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

[Snarf Zagyg]

No, it's not.

Kwan actually addresses this in a later podcast episode, that the Comeliness stat was introduced in Unearthed Arcana before being included in Oriental Adventures (he wasn't aware of this when first making the criticism). He sticks to his critique, as he doesn't see why a Comeliness stat needed to be included in OA at all . . . and that regardless of author intent, it comes across as racist to Asian Americans. He specifically points out multiple times in his podcast series that he isn't critiquing Oriental Adventures from the point-of-view of the author, or with any knowledge of authorial intent, but rather as an Asian American reacting to the tropes and stereotypes in the book. He also points out that, while he IS a D&D gamer and part of our hobby, he isn't an encyclopedic expert on the game's history . . . . and that you shouldn't have to be to have a problem with Oriental Adventures or any other book.

His argument isn't "tripe" or wrong or unsupported by the facts . . . it's an honest reaction of an Asian American (actually, several) upon reading through a book problematically titled Oriental Adventures.

...because of course he does!

See, here's the issue that I keep seeing. As part of the process of attempting to understand, you need to actually .... understand. Instead of just constantly doubling down.

"Wait, I'm wrong about this? Well, instead of acknowledging that I'm wrong and adjusting my overall thesis, I am going to explain how being wrong can in no way impact what I am saying."

This is incredibly disheartening, because it just keeps showing that absolutely no understanding can be had about these types of issues, because all that matters is the nature of the offense taken (which will always be personal) and even if there is a misunderstanding of the nature of the offense, according to this theory of offense, even when you're wrong, you are right.

In the late '90s, I was out for cocktails with a groups of friends (yes, there was cocktail culture before now ... we even had this thing called 'the internet' and a website on 'hotwired' with cocktails); at a bar, one of my friends ordered a Negroni. The bartender, who was white (because of course), tried to lecture my friend about the inappropriateness of the drink because of the offense caused, having no idea what the drink was ... or, to use your terms, the bartender wasn't an encyclopedic expert on cocktail history.

The moral of the story, of course, is that the 90s were a wasteland outside of a few areas when bartenders still couldn't make a decent cocktail. No, wait, that's not it.....

Facts should matter. Context matters. Knowledge matters. For someone to say, "It doesn't matter that I was wrong and ignorant about something .... my lack of knowledge allows me to feel offense over this, and will not be corrected," shouldn't be acceptable. At that point, how can you even discuss anything?

This, to me, is worse than anything else. "Fanaticism consists of redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim." There are many valid criticisms to be had about OA, but comeliness isn't one of them.

 

[Fenris-77]

Yes, tripe.

UA and OA both reflect where the design of D&D was in 1985. UA introduced new options for the game, options which TSR obviously felt were positive additions. OA includes them for that reason. Those were the new toys, so those went in to OA. The argument that the addition of comeliness to OA plays on Asian effeminate stereotypes, rather than reflecting the current state of the rules, almost beggars belief. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether the stat should have been included in OA at all. The fact that Comeliness can, in retrospect, and without context, be read as supporting a harmful trope about Asian is, frankly, spurious. It's unfortunate, but what it boils down to is "I can read X like Y and am offended by it". If there were even the slightest notion that Comeliness was included in order to play on Asian stereotypes then I would be fully behind the outrage. But there isn't, and I'm not.

On a related note, I find Mr. Kwan's contention that " he isn't an encyclopedic expert on the game's history . . . . and that you shouldn't have to be to have a problem with Oriental Adventures or any other book" a little bit problematic. He obviously expects the writers to have been informed and aware of harmful Asian stereotypes (at a 2020 level no less), and he obviously expects them to be well read, informed, and respectful of the thing their writing about, but curiously declines to expect the same of himself. If someone wants to dig 35 years into the past to lay a critique on something, I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect them to be at least moderately well informed about that subject, which is all that would have been necessary in this case. Mr. Kwan's reaction to Comeliness (which I did actually listen to) was very much informed by his ignorance of the context, he doesn't get to backpedal that after the fact.

To be crystal clear about the more general topic here, I am not suggesting that there is nothing objectionable about OA. Nor that Mr. Kwan shouldn't feel the way he feels. I am, however, suggesting that the status of his reading as 'honest reaction' does not, in any way, immunize him from critique.

 

[Remathilis]

I'll be really shocked if they don't remove the book from their list. I can't imagine anyone at the company doing a cost-benefit analysis and deciding, "I don't care how bad the PR gets, no way we can let go of this cash cow!" Given the amount of content that some very vocal critics deem problematic (up to and including the whole IP), they'll have much more difficult decisions to make. I suppose they are fortunate that problematic content is so starkly and clearly defined, so that slippery slopes needn't be a concern.

How Dungeons & Dragons Appropriated the Orient | Analog Game Studies

ETA: Article from 2016, complete with the Comeliness critique.

To address this, WotC now needs to slap a warning label on the 5e PHB (including it's digital sales) and/ or pull the book from sale.

Damn, that slope was slick...

 

[Warren Ellis]

Definitely make sure to check out the comments section at the end, where none other than D&D historian Jon Peterson, of Playing at the World fame, makes some salient observations about this article.

My position on the critique probably isn't important, but to be clear, I don't find it particularly persuasive. I posted it because 1) it was striking the way even the factual inaccuracies have been repeated by Mr. Kwan four years later*, and 2) as one piece of evidence that the critique will be (well, or will continue to be) extended to the whole IP. It's happening now in online discussion, but this article just shows that it's gaining volume, not that it's new.

So is this Kwan guy known for either not presenting all the facts or attempting to twist things to suit a personal narrative? Because that comment from Peterson mentions Kwan apparently tried to bury evidence against his accusations.

 

[MGibster]

Okay, but that means the disclaimer doesn't mean anything. Oh, look, you've found something you think is offensive; WotC has a universal disclaimer. It doesn't mean that WotC actually cares about the problem or is going to avoid it in their new books. It doesn't warn new readers that, e.g., the word "oriental" is considered offensive.

If WotC didn't care about the problem they wouldn't have bothered adding a disclaimer. What exactly do you want out of WotC? As I said earlier, it would be a colossal waste of time and money to comb through products in their back catalog in order to write a unique disclaimer for each one.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If WotC didn't care about the problem they wouldn't have bothered adding a disclaimer. What exactly do you want out of WotC? As I said earlier, it would be a colossal waste of time and money to comb through products in their back catalog in order to write a unique disclaimer for each one.

No need to - "the entire back catalogue" hasn't been called out, just the one specific product.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

No need to - "the entire back catalogue" hasn't been called out, just the one specific product.

HA! You're kidding, right?

Luckily for right now, neither Mr. Kwan nor most of the people commenting in support of his position have a grasp of the history of products in the D&D back catalog that extends very far.

Because if they did, they would know that while OA is an easy mark because of the title, there are worse things.

After all, if 5e is having to rewrite sections and APs now .... which were written in the last 5 years, do you really think that books written in the 70s and 80s are going to pass muster?

 

[BigZebra]

This Jackie Chan movie should be taken down. It's like he doesn't know chop sticks are for eating only. Such a racist.

And yes, sarcasm.

 

[MGibster]

Should they stop selling modern Wonder Woman? No. Should they stop selling those issues? I don't know.

Well I know the answer. No, they should not stop selling those issues just because it contains offensive imagery.

Frankly, I really don't know. I'd never buy and read a work of Lovecraft directly by this stage, I've seen and heard far too much about what some of his works are like, and I can get my existential horror somewhere else.

Whether you'll ever read Lovecraft or not isn't germane. Odds are good I'm never going to read Precious or Beyond Megenta but that has no bearing on whether or not it's okay to have them removed from libraries.

If they stop selling his works, because no one buys them, because the consensus is that the racism is too much to stomach... isn't that still censorship like has been claimed here?

No.

I don't know. But I can't say that calling for something to no longer be sold is the same as banning books.

You're deliberately making an effort to limit other's access to a book based on what you deem to be objectionable content. You're essentially taking the same position as people who want Beyond Magenta removed from the library because the contents are offensive to them.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Because if they did, they would know that while OA is an easy mark because of the title, there are worse things.

You can't be offended by something you don't know exists. Titles matter - they are what show up on searches.

If someone happens to stumble across something else offensive they can bring it to WotC's attention and they can deal with it then. There is no need for WotC to "comb through the entire back catalogue" - that is just yet another strawman.