TSR Running list of potential problematic issues in TSR era DnD

[HJFudge]

Somewhere in another thread, I took the idea of the katana and brought it down to the base concept: it's a weapon that's only to be used by a certain caste, who must follow a specific code, and it's made by folding fairly poor-quality steel a zillion times until its really strong (I realize it's more complicated that that).

So in a fantasy world, you have a people--which can be of any species--that uses a weapon made of what others would consider a sub-par material, but the material is treated in such a way that it's actually really effective. And only a certain group of people within that culture can use the weapon. The weapon can be made of anything, from poor-quality steel to magic wood to monster teeth, and the subgroup can be anything from a caste to a specific order of warriors to people who are all born with one purple eye. And the code they must follow would probably take at least some cues from bushido, or European chivalry (which is actually quite similar), but could easily include other details based on whatever species you're dealing with.

You could still be probably accused of appropriation because you were using what they call 'coding', or words that have traditionally been used to represent a specific group (in this case its a part of that groups culture).

Would the accusation come off as silly? To me, yes. But there would be a segment who would see it as anything but.

 

[billd91]

Somewhere in another thread, I took the idea of the katana and brought it down to the base concept: it's a weapon that's only to be used by a certain caste, who must follow a specific code, and it's made by folding fairly poor-quality steel a zillion times until its really strong (I realize it's more complicated that that).

So in a fantasy world, you have a people--which can be of any species--that uses a weapon made of what others would consider a sub-par material, but the material is treated in such a way that it's actually really effective. And only a certain group of people within that culture can use the weapon. The weapon can be made of anything, from poor-quality steel to magic wood to monster teeth, and the subgroup can be anything from a caste to a specific order of warriors to people who are all born with one purple eye. And the code they must follow would probably take at least some cues from bushido, or European chivalry (which is actually quite similar), but could easily include other details based on whatever species you're dealing with.

But how do you draw or paint it? How do you give it a visual without incorporating a cultural artifact?

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Thanks, at this point (it's been years), I'm used to it. And there are many substitutes that you can barely tell aren't the real thing. A good cheesecake slice, though, I've yet to really find something that is close enough to not remind me of how good the real thing is.

Oy, my condolences. That sucks.

Back to the subject at hand, the thing about equity and inclusion is that it's not a destination, it's a journey. People make mistakes, learn, do better. There's never a point where you say "oh good, we are now inclusive and done with that."

 

[HJFudge]

Back to the subject at hand, the thing about equity and inclusion is that it's not a destination, it's a journey. People make mistakes, learn, do better. There's never a point where you say "oh good, we are now inclusive and done with that."

It makes me philosophically uncomfortable to think that there is a point where we can never, as a culture, be Inclusive. The idea of an unwashable stain that can never be cleaned is a very religious one that I just do not like, conceptually.

I can unwaveringly and with 100% confidence point to my gaming table and say "We are inclusive." As a statement of fact. A destination reached. We do not discriminate based on political opinion, race, gender identity, skin color, anything.

That said, a company with millions of customers might find this much harder to do. Impossible? I...actually am not sure, to be honest. I do not think it is possible in todays climate, let us say.

 

[ccs]

So how do you depict, in art, any character without any cultural artifacts whatsoever?

I think this'll cover it. Lacks something though....

 

[HJFudge]

View attachment 133327
I think this'll cover it. Lacks something though....

No no, that white skin tone is non-representative and you are assuming the base culture is white. Also the eye-shape is also non-representative and problematic. Not to mention the fact that such an image plays into 'Thin is In' beauty stereotypes.

 

[auburn2]

Not at all. It was simply an observation that when we include diverse ethnicities, we often portray them as being part of a european culture. Like putting a black man in plate armor. It's still european culture, and we're still not depicting african (any african) culture.

It would be like depicting native americans in our art, but only in western white attire and saying we're being diverse for including them. Needless to say, taking a diverse person of color and depicting them in eurocentric attire has about a million problematic issues going on from a historical standpoint. Like how we did that as a way to eradicate their culture.

Some people are going to have a problem regardless. If you put him in African garb, some will appreciate the diversity represented in such a depiction, while others would see it as either cultural appropriation or tokenism.

The big problem is stereotypes. When context and meaning are not clearly and unequivocally spelled out people are going to make a judgement based on their own biases, stereotypes and assumptions. Some people will see lack of African culture, other people will see cultural appropriation when it is included. Certainly both of these things exist and without knowing the intent or frame of reference of the person who drew the depiction, you can't really say what it is or isn't.

People's opinions on on inclusion and diversity or lack thereof are usually framed in stereotypes rather than in in context or in actual meaning. For example, above you use the term "person of color", you could have instead used "colored person". If you did your sentence in the English Language would literally mean the same thing, your point would still be every bit as valid and the point you were intending to make would be the same either way. However it would not be taken the same. Both of these phrases mean the exact same thing; yet one is strongly associated with inclusion, while the other is strongly associated with racism. The reason they are taken differently is the stereotype associated with what kind of people have historically used these terms.

 

[ccs]

No no, that white skin tone is non-representative and you are assuming the base culture is white. Also the eye-shape is also non-representative and problematic. Not to mention the fact that such an image plays into 'Thin is In' beauty stereotypes.

No, the skin tone here is black. The white is just the paper he was drawn on showing through.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I fail to see why it should make you uncomfortable. The act of being a good person is one that continues throughout life.

It's not that we are guilty of some misdeed by default, it's that our understanding of the world is evolving and continues to evolve. Ten years ago, I don't know that I would have known what an ace person was, or the term nonbinary. Times will continue to change.

It makes me philosophically uncomfortable to think that there is a point where we can never, as a culture, be Inclusive. The idea of an unwashable stain that can never be cleaned is a very religious one that I just do not like, conceptually.

I can unwaveringly and with 100% confidence point to my gaming table and say "We are inclusive." As a statement of fact. A destination reached. We do not discriminate based on political opinion, race, gender identity, skin color, anything.

That said, a company with millions of customers might find this much harder to do. Impossible? I...actually am not sure, to be honest. I do not think it is possible in todays climate, let us say.

 

[HJFudge]

I fail to see why it should make you uncomfortable. The act of being a good person is one that continues throughout life.

It's not that we are guilty of some misdeed by default, it's that our understanding of the world is evolving and continues to evolve. Ten years ago, I don't know that I would have known what an ace person was, or the term nonbinary. Times will continue to change.

Because the statement: There's never a point where you say "oh good, we are now inclusive and done with that."

Directly implies one can never be inclusive. Of course one can reach a state of inclusivity.

Much like one can never be free of sin in a religious context, this statement and those like it (inclusivity isn't a destination) says that one can never be free of non-inclusivity. That we as a people/culture/society can never be inclusive, that there will always be some things we do or say that are non-inclusive. Much like no matter how much you do or say, you are never going to be free of original sin according to some religions.

I disagree with the premise. I think there is very much a point one can reach and say "We are inclusive."