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

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Well, there may be some differences in how we are using the word, granted. The Logic of Power view is that it is something which forces an answer of qualitatively the same kind. Mutualistic action OTOH does not, it is founded on a joint, MUTUAL, decision to act together. So, while change can be achieved by either method, they are not both 'power' in the same sense. I can understand your definition though, and you might want to read mine as 'force', though that is a bit simplistic because it may also include things like influence and moral suasion.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

Well, there may be some differences in how we are using the word, granted. The Logic of Power view is that it is something which forces an answer of qualitatively the same kind. Mutualistic action OTOH does not, it is founded on a joint, MUTUAL, decision to act together. So, while change can be achieved by either method, they are not both 'power' in the same sense. I can understand your definition though, and you might want to read mine as 'force', though that is a bit simplistic because it may also include things like influence and moral suasion.

Metaphysical definition (me) vs. psychological/sociological explaination (you). We're just not talking about the same thing, is all.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

My initial reaction to the images is pretty negative, but I do really need to read something in full, think about it, and decide for myself. I just can't outsource my opinions to other people online and let them make that call for me.

On labels, I just don't know that putting a label on something really does much, and I don't know that this particular product exerts that much power on anything. Personally this is the first I've heard of it. And it doesn't interest me. But I don't need WOTC telling me what to think of their old products. I understand why they are putting these labels up in the current climate. I just don't think they are really helpful to anyone, and I think we are losing the ability to judge things for ourselves. And I think we do need to decide for ourselves what the content of a particular product means. A blanket "these old products are racist" statement is very reductive, misses a lot of nuance and I just don't see what it tells people. I mean when you go back and read old things, those things often have content a modern person would object. That has always been the case. I've never felt the need to for a label to warn me that there might be bad things in a book written in 20s for example. And I also think people need to be able to have different responses. Not everyone is going to agree about what this content means, or what should be done about it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

I just need to see something in full for myself before stating it is bad. Maybe that is a product of living through the satanic panic. But even if something looks bad on first glance, I wouldn't condemn it until I really understand what it is about, and like I said before, until I have had time to think about it. I can say my initial response to those images is negative. But that is all I have is an initial response. And yes people are going into detail, but people are also advocating for a position. It is like agreeing with a movie review because the review gives an in depth description of the film. That description is in service to the conclusion of the review. I think at the end of the day though, it should be okay for people say "I don't know enough about this to say what I would conclude" or "I need more time to examine this to form a conclusion". I don't really understand why it is vital we all fall in line so quickly with one another. There are some works of art for example, I spent years thinking about in terms of whether I thought they were okay or not. Sometimes it takes me a long time to decide what I think about the message that was trying to be conveyed. When I see something like this, if I go back and read it (which again in this case, probably not going to do), I would be looking for things like what does the text say, what is tone, what do the rest of the images look like (i.e. are these outliers), what do I think the author was trying to convey (i.e. were they being malicious or was it an attempt at humor), where does this fit with other media from that time, etc.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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 think what we are being asked to do is very fluid in these conversations I think. In this case I can’t say I have seen a clear message of what ought to be done (not saying one hasn’t been stated I just probably missed those posts). But in the history of discussions like this I see everything from put a label on it to take it down to give monetary reparations. Even if one agrees the content is bad, people are going to have disagreements over those kinds of conclusions. I do feel in other discussions I have seen calls to censor products or alter them in various ways. That I would definitely not be okay with

 

[Umbran]

I saw venom a plenty on both sides of that debate. I do think it makes sense though that the 4E fans were not going to pre-emptively attack criticisms.

Mod Note:
I made it very clear, in a pair of notes to the thread, that folks were supposed to stop the Edition War stuff.

You chose not to, so your time in this discussion is at an end.

 

[Umbran]

Yeah, but IMHO one should be careful about these kinds of claims of 'equivalency'. IME you get one side which is using these sorts of tactics widely and really is basically THE problem.

Mod Note:
I did say drop it. You.... didn't drop it. So... find another thread.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
At this point, I hope folks have gotten the point that there's been enough screwing around in here. Please continue your discussion with this in mind. Please engage your better judgement before submitting your posts.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

To me, offense without action is meaningless.

Then you’ve probably never been in a situation in which expressing offense could result in serious bodily harm or death.

Certainly, some have made the decision to do exactly that, and the world is often better for it. But that’s not a standard everyone could or should be held to.

 

[pemerton]

Actually, unlike Lovecraft, Howard was relatively enlightened for his time and background.

I don't think this is true. The only work of his I know well are his Conan stories - they are blatantly racist whenever black characters are introduced. A quick Google turned up this short essay - Robert E. Howard was a racist. Deal with it. — Jason Sanford - which is consistent with both the stories and what else I have read about REH (including the "Southern Discomfort" essay).