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

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I want to be clear what I was saying here. I haven't read these books. I don't, as a general rule, weigh in on things definitively, until I have seen them in their full context, but I stated pretty clearly, on first glance it looks like a stereotypical caricature. I've just been in too many discussion where a snippet of something is shown or a bit of text, or a small scene from a movie linked, but you are missing the full context and some crucial meaning was lost. And I always find it is best to fully examine things fully. There is nothing wrong with saying you don't have the full context of something, and that that limits how much you can intelligently weigh in on it.

The full context was provided in this thread. You can read the OP and the posts later on detailing the racist content in the book to get the whole context. There's no problem with asking for context, but it's a problem when you ask for more context when it's already been given.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

EDIT: Or it morphs into a thread about pizza.

Oh, I have a great annecdote about pizza! Back in the early 80's my friend and I would go up to the local college and play with some of the students. Him and all his buddies worked for a local pizza joint, so we would bring a stack of pies that were maybe not quite all on the books... Well, the students would just scarf up all our pizza, fair enough, but they never offered to chip in. So, one day we got Mike's buddy Randy or Ernie, whoever it was, to make us up a special DOUBLE ANCHOVY pizza. bwaaahahahahaha, they dived into that thing and pretty soon there were some pretty grim looks and a bunch of kids running to the vending machine for a soda. Then we got out OUR pie, and they never scarfed any again as long as we played there, lol.

Oh, yeah, the thread topic, Orcs love pie! Especially the 'Yellow Orcs'!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

EDIT: Or it morphs into a thread about pizza.

When (if?) I return home ima totally start the “If D&D was a candy, what candy would it be?”

And eventually someone would say that they put M&Ms on their pizza in New Zealand. BECAUSE OF COURSE THEY DO!!!11!!!

 

[Bedrockgames]

It is our place to judge it. It's a part of our hobby. This product was racist. To say otherwise is either incredibly (and unbelievably) ignorant, but potentially excusing/being an apologist for this kind of racist content. If you can say "it's not my place to judge that kind of content" while talking crap about/criticizing a playstyle, edition of the game, or other D&D product that you don't like, that's extremely telling and hypocritical.

My feeling on this stuff is I am going to need the time and interest in a thing to examine it fully enough to really give any conclusion on it. So I haven't specifically weighted in on the products in question beyond my initial impressions (which I think is fair). I have only really been responding to other points that came up in thread that I felt I had enough awareness of to comment.

I do think though, people need to understand that different people might come away from a product with different conclusions about how much of an issue it is (and people will have differing attitudes towards media that is older, especially if it reflects things that were in the broader culture at the time). And no one is obligated to examine a product they have no interest in reading. And even if people agree the book has outdated ideas, is racist, or at least crosses some kind of line, they are going to have differing views on how that should be handled because it is going to be balanced against other considerations (like freedom of expression and making sure people who want to buy a book from D&D's past can do so: whether that reason is to play the game or to analyze it for problematic content).

Personally my view on old books is it isn't much of a surprise to find things in them that go against current sensibilities. You watch old movies, you read old books, you encounter statements that are bad, and as a reader I think your responsibility is to determine for yourself where you think that fits in terms of whether it was normal for the time, or not. But you also need to be able to engage older content and not allow that to be the only thing you see. Otherwise you are going to have a very hard time analyzing primary sources evenhandedly, and you are going to miss out on some rich culture. There are plenty of books I've read where the author inserts some idea that I find objectionable and it makes me do a double take, but I don't allow that to disrupt my enjoyment of it if there is other worthy content there (not saying this book rises to that level, as I haven't read it----just as a general rule I think we are much better off giving people room to determine for themselves how they are going to feel about old media with things in them people might object to now, rather than insisting people agree with conclusion X about them, or agree that something must be condemned and something must be done about it.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

When (if?) I return home ima totally start the “If D&D was a candy, what candy would it be?”

Isn't the answer obvious? Nerds. It's absolutely Nerds.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The full context was provided in this thread. You can read the OP and the posts later on detailing the racist content in the book to get the whole context. There's no problem with asking for context, but it's a problem when you ask for more context when it's already been given.

My point was I need to read a book or see a movie for myself to really give you a full and informed opinion. I understand synopsis were provided. But I have had so many experiences where someone told me a movie was bad for X reason (while offering the full context of that movie) and then when I saw it myself, I had a different response). I am not saying you are wrong about the book. You may well be right. I am saying I never read these books, I have no interest in reading them, so I can't offer anything beyond my initial impression based on the images and snippets.

 

[Mind of tempest]

When (if?) I return home ima totally start the “If D&D was a candy, what candy would it be?”

And eventually someone would say that they put M&Ms on their pizza in New Zealand. BECAUSE OF COURSE THEY DO!!!11!!!

a normal or dessert based pizza?

 

[Filthy Lucre]

This is getting a bit far afield, but I think ULTIMATELY what you have identified here is what I have termed "The Logic of Power" in discussions in more serious venues. It is a corollary, an effect of, the system of thought which I have also termed 'Violentism', which sees the world through the lens of conflict and oppositional thinking, rather than through the lens of mutualistic Cooperationist thinking. It is absolutely possible for society to shift from the former, which is quite prevalent in many parts of modern global society, to the later. If each side becomes aware of the advantages of cooperation on a mutualistic level, then they can change the social/cultural milieu to suite. If all you do is shut up and accept defeat, then you've JOINED the Violentist logic of power side, just as the victim. If you HAVE some power, then wouldn't it be foolish NOT to exercise it in the creation of mutual benefit? If one fails to do so, are not others justified in seeing that as an indication that your value system has no concern for them at all, and that you are short-sighted/foolish? I don't see how that is an escapable conclusion... Frankly most people are somewhat lazy, and fear disruptive change, and thus they feel motivated to dismiss any claim that would logically propel them to act.

If power is understood to be anything that has or is the ability to cause or prevent change, it will include everything you just said under a single definition.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And eventually someone would say that they put M&Ms on their pizza in New Zealand. BECAUSE OF COURSE THEY DO!!!11!!!

I like pinneapple pizza so I am in no position to judge M&Ms as a toping

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

My feeling on this stuff is I am going to need the time and interest in a thing to examine it fully enough to really give any conclusion on it. So I haven't specifically weighted in on the products in question beyond my initial impressions (which I think is fair). I have only really been responding to other points that came up in thread that I felt I had enough awareness of to comment.

I do think though, people need to understand that different people might come away from a product with different conclusions about how much of an issue it is (and people will have differing attitudes towards media that is older, especially if it reflects things that were in the broader culture at the time). And no one is obligated to examine a product they have no interest in reading. And even if people agree the book has outdated ideas, is racist, or at least crosses some kind of line, they are going to have differing views on how that should be handled because it is going to be balanced against other considerations (like freedom of expression and making sure people who want to buy a book from D&D's past can do so: whether that reason is to play the game or to analyze it for problematic content).

Personally my view on old books is it isn't much of a surprise to find things in them that go against current sensibilities. You watch old movies, you read old books, you encounter statements that are bad, and as a reader I think your responsibility is to determine for yourself where you think that fits in terms of whether it was normal for the time, or not. But you also need to be able to engage older content and not allow that to be the only thing you see. Otherwise you are going to have a very hard time analyzing primary sources evenhandedly, and you are going to miss out on some rich culture. There are plenty of books I've read where the author inserts some idea that I find objectionable and it makes me do a double take, but I don't allow that to disrupt my enjoyment of it if there is other worthy content there (not saying this book rises to that level, as I haven't read it----just as a general rule I think we are much better off giving people room to determine for themselves how they are going to feel about old media with things in them people might object to now, rather than insisting people agree with conclusion X about them, or agree that something must be condemned and something must be done about it.

Eh, I think its less simple than that. These old things continue to exert their power. Its true that they fade with time, but if we put a label on it and say "see, this is racist (or whatever)" then we've put a marker in the sand and that is not nothing. I don't think we're being asked to go out and find copies and burn them, or actively vilify the authors, who may well have learned, changed, and grown and could be quite praise-worthy people.

I mean, sure, we should be careful about handling 'facts' that are merely posted onto a thread, they could be less than perfectly accurate, and probably ARE at least slightly biased. OTOH I think this one is a pretty clear case where we can at least safely say "As depicted, this is not good stuff." I am with you though in having refrained from any kind of more detailed commentary on the specific subject matter, since I never read it. I am willing to accept however that it is bad, and what I saw was not good. Some posters got into a pretty decent amount of detail too, which makes me less suspicious of misrepresentation.