D&D General "Red Orc" American Indians and "Yellow Orc" Mongolians in D&D

[Snarf Zagyg]

So, to show how hard it should be to come to certainty here, we can also look at it this way - you say you'd be against efforts to remove it. But...

We say the owner has a right to make available any piece they want. They own it, they have rights with respect to that ownership.

The people who raise their voices in effort to have it taken away... they have rights too, to raise their voices, yes?

So, now we are in the position of supporting one group's rights while telling others they should not exercise their own, similar rights? That's... super awkward, and kind of logically dicey stuff. Not a good place to have certainty.


There's a distinction I became aware of over the past couple of years that can serve us here. There is a difference between a problematic past piece being recognized as history, and giving it current representation and voice in culture. Song of the South is a pretty iconic example here - whether or not they have a legal right to do so, it would ethically crummy for Disney to make that piece available for general entertainment - if it showed up on Disney+, even with a strong disclaimer, that would be giving it new and pretty powerful voice. However, making it available to help teach the history and forms of racism in media, would be thoroughly legitimate, to the point where copyright protections would fail anyway as Fair Use.

And it may be helpful to start thinking of unfortuate legacy products in this manner.

No. That's not it at all.

At no point did I say that people were prohibited from agitating for the things they want removed. Putting it that way (which ignores what I wrote) makes this complex issue seem simple- which it isn't.

A person can agitate for removing Melissa from on-line sales. Or removing Song of the South. Totally up to them. Just like a person can agitate to expand the death penalty, or to get rid of it entirely. Heck, subject to very few constraints in the United States, you can advocate for almost anything. Go ahead and advocate for ending the corporate form and universal ownership of all IP. Or advocate for banning anything that Umbran doesn't like. That's totally your right, but is unhelpful to any analysis. Just because you can advocate for something, doesn't mean it's a good idea. People can advocate for removing GAZ10, and people can advocate that this advocacy is a bad idea. Trying to phrase this as a matter of rights is profoundly unhelpful.

Where I draw the line and where I keep reiterating the need for self-interrogation is when people keep calling for the removal of speech they don't agree with, especially when that speech is a product of its time. You have the right to do that. But I will argue against it, simply because I very much do not want our world lessened by the continued removal of products from the past. You are welcome to disagree with that- but if you're replying to me, at least try and get my arguments right.

EDIT- as for the specific example, that was used to illustrate the difference between advocating for the removal of something that is already there, as opposed to demanding the inclusion of something not there. Which is similar to the reference concept that people can reasonably understand that there is a difference between demanding that a library buy a book, as opposed to demanding a library get rid of a book that they are already carrying.

 

[MGibster]

Assigning halfling can come across as belittling and patronizing.

Alternative Armies, based out of Scotland, publishes Flintloque and Slaughterloo which are table top miniature war games based on Napoleonic warfare with a fantasy twist.

English: Orcs
French: High Elves
Germans (Generally): Dwarves
Austrians: Dog Men
Russians: Vampires/Zombies
Finland: Trolls
Spain: Dark Elves
Bavarians: Rabbit Men
Ottoman Empire: Gnolls
Scotland: Rat Men

I think sometimes a creator has to accept is there will always be someone who is offended. And they just have to decide whether they think the person who is offended has a good point or if they're just going to shrug their shoulders and live with the fact that someone is offended.

 

[Yaarel]

Re historicity. The history of D&D is probably still in the process of being written. Not that historiography ever ends, but historians still trying to document its origins.

D&D whence roleplaying games generally are a new phenomenon with deep implications. It is important academically.

Moreover, we are approaching the 50-year anniversary when there is interest in D&Ds past.

Generally, I prefer WotC makes an effort to make all legacy products available, for the sake of history.

The disclaimers and more detailed Dragon+ articles for the more troublesome products are a reasonable approach.

 

[Yaarel]

Alternative Armies, based out of Scotland, publishes Flintloque and Slaughterloo which are table top miniature war games based on Napoleonic warfare with a fantasy twist.

English: Orcs
French: High Elves
Germans (Generally): Dwarves
Austrians: Dog Men
Russians: Vampires/Zombies
Finland: Trolls
Spain: Dark Elves
Bavarians: Rabbit Men
Ottoman Empire: Gnolls
Scotland: Rat Men

I think sometimes a creator has to accept is there will always be someone who is offended. And they just have to decide whether they think the person who is offended has a good point or if they're just going to shrug their shoulders and live with the fact that someone is offended.

LOL! This is pretty much an an example of what WotC must not do!

Scots are "rat men". Really? How could that be a good idea? Heh, this is where utilizing a designer from a given culture isnt necessarily fool-proof.

French have nothing to do with "elves", why would they get elves?

There are many different kinds of "trolls" − some beautiful and some monstrous. Trolls would need to be informed by the Nordic concepts of what these are. Trolls are moreso Norse, albeit Sámi and Finnish have analogous concepts.

 

[Faolyn]

Scots are "rat men". Really? How could that be a good idea? Heh, this is where utilizing a designer from a given culture isnt necessarily fool-proof.

Maybe they really like rats? It's actually a Scottish company, not just a company that used a Scottish designer, so I imagine that they knew what they were doing.

Although I found one review that says that rat miniatures look more like Goofy than any actual rat--and looking at the pictures, I have to agree.

French have nothing to do with "elves", why would they get elves?

Look at some of the stereotypes about high elves. Then look at some of the stereotypes about the French. I can see it.

 

[MGibster]

LOL! This is pretty much an an example of what WotC must not do!

I mean, I probably wouldn't do it either but mainly because it wouldn't occur to me to make anyone a rat man. Though one of my favorite campaigns I've ever run was an all dwarf one where I based them on Germans and combined with a 19th century first wave feminist revolution. Good times.

Scots are "rat men". Really? How could that be a good idea? Heh, this is where utilizing a designer from a given culture isnt necessarily fool-proof.

Who are any of us to tell a Scotsman how he should represent his own people in a game?

French have nothing to do with "elves", why would they get elves?

Why would the Scots be ratmen, the Austrians dog men, and the Bavarians rabbit men? It's just fun I guess. Who cares if the French have nothing to do with elves in most fiction or mythology?

 

[MGibster]

Although I found one review that says that rat miniatures look more like Goofy than any actual rat--and looking at the pictures, I have to agree.

Now that you mention it, they do look like little Disney mascots dressed for early 19th century warfare.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Assigning halfling can come across as belittling and patronizing.

I think you might want to think a bit more about what you say, because you're reaaaaaaaally not getting it here.

Who, exactly, do you think Halflings/Hobbits represent?

English people is the answer. Right out of Tolkein's own mouth. So, if you're saying "They're not good enough for mighty culture!", what do you think you're saying? Hmmm.

A violation of an other peoples sacred heritage is something that most cultures can relate to why it feels wrong.

For Nordic peoples, Egyptians, etcetera, the heritage isnt sacred in a "religious" sense but it is sacred in an identity sense.

I'm unclear on what you're trying to say here.

Do you think that you, personally, being offended by viking halflings is "the same thing" as someone from an oppressed culture dealing with an actual racist or highly negative stereotype?

Because if so no. You're just wrong. It's not even a valid opinion.

It's also pretty funny after you insulted Halflings/Hobbits lol.

 

[Yaarel]

Maybe a monster book that could work is, take various kinds of demons sotospeak from the folkbeliefs of reallife cultures, and have people from that culture describe it.

Even then, maybe pick both one beautiful seductive figure and one grotesque terrifying figure from each culture.

If the D&D version is a playable species, it would still have any alignment, abilities, and similar, and avoid essentialism.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That's of course the problem with this sort of thing. Some particularly associations are blatant enough almost anyone can see the problem with it; if you've used African culture as the basis for your civilization of ape-men you either are really oblivious or really don't care.

But in other cases you just have to kind of make a decision, and even the fact some members of the culture don't like it might not be enough (because some members of a culture are going to see almost anything as a veiled slam, especially if they're members of a historically oppressed culture.

Let's give an example.

Let's say you have a group of Dogmen. You assign them to a culture based on Croatia. Now, I'm half Croatian and often consider "dog" a good shorthand for what I consider virtues (loyalty, determination, working with others well when needed) but others would focus on their more negative associations and find it an insult. Is my view more legitimate than theirs? Theirs than mine?

That's why I think this is a bottomless pit, and while sometimes you really need to look at something and go "This was really a terrible idea and I'm startled you didn't realize that" you can't use a completely open-ended definition of offense, or you never do, well, anything, because the chances are any culture you assign to a group is going to look like some real world culture to one degree or another; even if you try not to that's overwhelmingly likely to be the case. And any set of cultural traits that is not abnormally bland is going to likely have some obvious things that look, well, bad to a modern eye, and you end up pulling a lot of conflict out of a setting if you avoid that (which doesn't mean you shouldn't do so if you think people will find it harms their enjoyment more than it benefits things, but it also doesn't mean you should automatically avoid it either).

So at some point I can't help but think you should make an honest effort not to be offensive just for color, and if not everyone accepts what you've done, just shrug and acknowledge that there's always going to be someone who finds what you do offensive. Try to listen to the complaints and see if you've missed something, but go with your own judgment in the end.

Edit to make this clear, I am not talking about the specific work at hand; that appears from description to be a pretty clearly not-thought-all-through example from a time period when ethnic stereotyping, often in pretty malign ways, was the day. But over and above my opinion about actively suppressing creative work no matter how malign, its just a particularly clearcut case, and doesn't really tell you how to handle more common ones.