D&D General Old School DND talks if DND is racist.

[Scribe]

Ah, well now thats a debate I could waste a lot of virtual ink on.

 

[Oofta]

Ah, well now thats a debate I could waste a lot of virtual ink on.

Yep, once again okay to kill the thing that doesn't look human, but bad to kill the cyborg that looks like Tricia Helfer.

 

[Scribe]

Yep, once again okay to kill the thing that doesn't look human, but bad to kill the cyborg that looks like Tricia Helfer.

After some quick research...well moving on now.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You use that word "absurd" a lot when what you're really saying is "I disagree".

It's okay to disagree.

No, I don't. I use when people make arguments that leap from a premise without any actual reasoning, to an ridiculous conclusion.

 

[Charlaquin]

I also think there's an overlying assumption that some people truly identify with orcs but not other creatures. I have never heard that claim in person, I don't know of anyone who has proven otherwise. The source of the blogosphere complaints doesn't seem to come from people that (in theory) would identify with orcs. Then again, I don't pay a lot of attention to the blogosphere.

Everything else is just "orcs look a lot more like people than these other creatures so they're different". That form follows function, which to me is a bias. The mind behind the mask is what should matter, not the physical implementation.

Oh, there are absolutely people who identify with orcs!

 

[MGibster]

That the conflict has meaning and serves some greater purpose the story and setting I'm trying to weave. I should be asking "Does this situation need a racial conflict? Does it add something interesting or thoughtful?" so that it isn't just gratuitous. For me, if someone from outside my group were to watch and see what I did, they'd not be offended or think I was taking the subject lightly.

You're moving the goalpost here. You initially wrote the following:

The biggest thing to remember is whatever you put in has to be justified by you and not the fiction.

In the first paragraph above, you're arguing the opposite. That the conflict must serve some greater purpose for the story or the setting. i.e. You're using the fiction to justify the decision. So which is it? Do we need to justify the inclusion of unpleasant elements based on the fiction or does the author need to justify their decision based on some other criteria? It looks to me like we both agree that it can be justified by the fiction.

 

[Oofta]

No, I don't. I use when people make arguments that leap from a premise without any actual reasoning, to an ridiculous conclusion.

Yeah, and anyone with an opinion different than yours is making a ridiculous conclusion is not insulting at all.

 

[Scribe]

Yeah, and anyone with an opinion different than yours is making a ridiculous conclusion is not insulting at all.

Eh, its irrelevant and not worth the keystrokes.

Oh, there are absolutely people who identify with orcs!

In the interests of learning, how or why? Even a link to something to read?

 

[Democratus]

Which is a problematic setup, that dnd has moved away from, for the better. Even DDO, which has the Keep on The Borderlands as a starter adventure option, draws lines between the Cult of Elemental Evil or whatever, and the regular "monster" folk of the region. Your goal quickly becomes to take down the cult, and the bugbears and goblins and kobolds and orcs you're slaying are members of the cult primarily, which is a much better setup than "orcs and such are inherently beings of violent chaos that want to burn your house and eat your kids. Go kill them!"

Is it though? You've just changed the narrative to, "That religion is evil. Kill everyone who claims to be a member!"

 

[Justice and Rule]

You're moving the goalpost here. You initially wrote the following:

In the first paragraph above, you're arguing the opposite. That the conflict must serve some greater purpose for the story or the setting. i.e. You're using the fiction to justify the decision. So which is it? Do we need to justify the inclusion of unpleasant elements based on the fiction or does the author need to justify their decision based on some other criteria? It looks to me like we both agree that it can be justified by the fiction.

No, you're mistaking what I'm saying. When I say "Justify it yourself, not by the fiction", I'm talking about not letting the fiction be a justification unto itself. I pointed to the Thermian Argument as an example of this. Does that make more sense?