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

[Thomas Shey]

So…what was the point of the “90s sarcastic teenager” style reply?

Being unnecessarily snarky about the "tangential to anything I was discussing" line.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I'm genuinely asking what actions people want to take about this racist content. If that action is just "be aware of it", ok well we're all very aware of it so guess we've solved the issue. If they want something to actually be done about it, they should state what it is that they want done.

It seems to me that people want other people to be as outraged as they are over problematic, racist, sexist, etc elements. I just don't get outraged - by anything.

This is a thread on a board which can effectively be summed up as 'people who want to spend more time thinking about elfgames than they can actually spend playing said elfgames finding ways to spin their wheels,' there's not going to be a consistent desire for action. I'm sure some people would like you (personally, or anyone else on the thread) to do something specific, but I don't think that's a general position.

This is just like a political debate on Facebook or the like -- sure it'd be good if I (for any given I) could turn your (for any given you) position to match mine, and if you happen to be in a position of influence anything, take that position into account, but in general we're just making our position known and discussing it further as additional points are raised.

I get the feeling that you think because we've all agreed on some things being problematic and can 'be aware of it,' that the discussion should wrap up, and that just doesn't seem to be how these conversations go. You also seem to be taking this very personally, and for someone who says they don't get outraged by anything, are the most worked-up person in the thread.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

I get the feeling that you think because we've all agreed on some things being problematic and can 'be aware of it,' that the discussion should wrap up, and that just doesn't seem to be how these conversations go. You also seem to be taking this very personally, and for someone who says they don't get outraged by anything, are the most worked-up person in the thread.

Taking things personally, and being an eager and zealous arguer, are not the same thing

but also, you did just affirm my very indirect point/hypothesis: "...on a board which can effectively be summed up as 'people who want to spend more time thinking about elfgames than they can actually spend playing said elfgames finding ways to spin their wheels,"

As long as you all collectively agree you're 'talkers' that's fine.

 

[Mercurius]

I'm genuinely asking what actions people want to take about this racist content. If that action is just "be aware of it", ok well we're all very aware of it so guess we've solved the issue. If they want something to actually be done about it, they should state what it is that they want done.

It seems to me that people want other people to be as outraged as they are over problematic, racist, sexist, etc elements. I just don't get outraged - by anything.

Evidently you're guilty of not expressing the proper amount of outrage! This is kind of the rub. It seems that some feel that there's a proper amount of outrage one must express, and if you don't express that amount, you're not doing things right. So that seems to be one form of action people take: Analyzing the outrage level of others, and if it isn't sufficiently outraged, feeling outraged about their lack of the proper amount of outrage.

What can we do about the work of an author who has been dead for 85 years? Someone upthread even suggested what amounted to balefire-ing it and the author, which to me actually causes more harm then good (if you remove the sins of the past, you're more likely to repeat then).

So we take note, we experience whatever outrage we feel--which depends upon our own mentality and can vary widely--and then we learn and move on, and we do better going forward. Hey, that's what we've been doing for decades, for the most part.

 

[CleverNickName]

I'm genuinely asking what actions people want to take about this racist content. If that action is just "be aware of it", ok well we're all very aware of it so guess we've solved the issue. If they want something to actually be done about it, they should state what it is that they want done.

It seems to me that people want other people to be as outraged as they are over problematic, racist, sexist, etc elements. I just don't get outraged - by anything.

I maintain that the Legacy Disclaimer, added by the publisher/estate, is all the action that needs to be taken. I don't want the works to be banned, censored, discontinued, or burned as some have suggested...and I certainly don't want the whole topic to be ignored or dismissed, as others have suggested.

 

[Faolyn]

Aren't most of the Lovecraft rippoffs slavers though? illithid, negogi, aboleths, beholders?

As much as I'd love to think the only legacy of Lovecraft is just the tentacle-philia, the rot's still there.

Probably as a shorthand way of showing how eeevil they are.

Are the neogi supposed to be Lovecraftian, though? They're from Spelljammer. I always got the impression they were supposed to be more of a creepy mashup alien thing, like a lot of the cheesy aliens from the old EC Comics Weird Science Fiction stories.

 

[Zardnaar]

I maintain that the Legacy Disclaimer, added by the publisher/estate, is all the action that needs to be taken. I don't want the works to be banned, censored, discontinued, or burned as some have suggested...and I certainly don't want the whole topic to be ignored or dismissed, as others have suggested.

For me the publishing date acts as a disclaimer. The further back you go the worst it's gonna get at least since the industrial age.

Before then there's big problems with the sources assuming they're even available. Well there's problem with the sources after that as well but it's more pronounced.

 

[Cadence]

I maintain that the Legacy Disclaimer, added by the publisher/estate, is all the action that needs to be taken. I don't want the works to be banned, censored, discontinued, or burned as some have suggested...and I certainly don't want the whole topic to be ignored or dismissed, as others have suggested.

I'd also like awards to be not named after excremental people.

And I think I'd like it to be influential/recommended books instead of influential/recommended authors in the appendix. This later one is for three reasons: many authors (even those I love) have some books I wouldn't recommend based on quality, because there are some books where I think the content is just inappropriate to recommend (later Fafhrd and Mouser?), and because it avoids holding up authors who were excremental people.

 

[CleverNickName]

For me the publishing date acts as a disclaimer. The further back you go the worst it's gonna get at least in the industrial age.

But for nearly everyone else, it doesn't. The date alone isn't enough to forewarn the consumer of problematic content (not all books written in the 1980s are problematic, after all). It doesn't acknowledge that the content was ever problematic in the first place...and worse, it implies that the age of the work is the problem, not the content itself.

It's just a different way of pretending the issue doesn't exist, another way to ignore it...a sanitized way of saying "it's old, so we should excuse these problems," and I feel that is the wrong approach.

The Legacy Content disclaimer isn't a perfect solution, but I feel like it's the best compromise between book-burning and willful ignorance.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I maintain that the Legacy Disclaimer, added by the publisher/estate, is all the action that needs to be taken. I don't want the works to be banned, censored, discontinued, or burned as some have suggested...and I certainly don't want the whole topic to be ignored or dismissed, as others have suggested.

Exactly. Disclaimers are fine for older works, but they definitely should be there, and it'd be even better to have stuff like articles explaining the problems with more nuanced problems that WOTC has continued to do to the present. In fact, you'd think they'd do that if only to explain their recent changes instead of leaving everyone on the outside trying to figure out their full intent.

The bigger problem is far more from the concern-trolling that comes with the community. I see mention of "not having the proper outrage", but in all honesty so much outage comes from people being angry at changes rather than mistakes that are being made by these companies. I've seen more pearl-clutching and ridiculous hyperbole at people talking about how Wizards are killing D&D by slowly removing Alignment than anything in this thread.

I'd also like awards to be not named after excremental people.

And I think I'd like it to be influential/recommended books instead of influential/recommended authors in the appendix. For the later, it's three reasons: many authors (even those I love) have some books I wouldn't recommend based on quality, because I think there are some books where I think the content is just inappropriate to recommend (later Fafhrd and Mouser?), and because it avoids holding up authors who were excremental people.

Even then, I'd probably recommend more modern stories that take a spin on these things. Why recommend "The Horror at Redhook" when The Ballad of Black Tom exists?

But for nearly everyone else, it doesn't. The date alone isn't enough to forewarn the consumer of problematic content (not all books written in the 1980s are problematic, after all). Worse, it doesn't acknowledge that the content is problematic at all.

It's just a different way of pretending the issue doesn't exist, another way to ignore it. It's just a convenient way of saying "it's old, so we should excuse these problems," and I feel that is the wrong approach.

But if you don't confront it, then it doesn't exist, thus we don't need to talk about it, thus nothing is wrong. Problem solved.