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

[Zardnaar]

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...a convenient way of saying "it's old, so we should excuse these problems," and I feel that is the wrong approach.

Not really. Way it works here when we learnt about it eg in classics or on a paper in Victorian era we got the disclaimer "this is offensive but that's the way it was followed by product if it's time". And you have to be somewhat neutral (unless it's Nazism).

I remember the lecture in slavery in the Greci Ronan world the lecturer deliberately made it more shocking.

He pointed to random people in the class and explained it like this "I own you and can do whatever I want".

Nor did he romanticize things. In his day (1970's) he told his professor Alexander was basically a psychopath and the professor agreed.

That's why for me the disclaimer is the publishing date. I don't need to be told it's problematic because we learnt that at school and university (assuming you did social studies, history, classics etc).

Some things were extreme even in the times they were published.

 

[Mercurius]

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 see extremes of both. It really depends upon where you are, who you're around. In terms of the internet, in some communities, "concern-trolling" is dominant, in others "pearl-clutching." Like everything these days, people polarize into two camps, which push each other further and further to the extremes.

 

[CleverNickName]

Not really. Way it works here when we learnt about it eg in classics or on a paper in Victorian era we got the disclaimer "this is offensive but that's the way it was followed by product if it's time". And you have to be somewhat neutral (unless it's Nazism).

That's why for me the disclaimer is the publishing date. I don't need to be told it's problematic because we learnt that at school and university (assuming you did social studies, history, classics etc).

But this implies that the problem is the age of the work, not the work itself. And that's a pretty big flaw in reasoning, don't you agree?

It's also a cop-out that lets dismissive attitudes prevail. "This author didn't know any better" (false), or "this is just the way everyone felt back then" (also false), or "it happened a long time ago so we don't need to worry about it today" (super false).

Publication dates alone are not sufficient, in my opinion. (To be fair, I feel the Legacy Content disclaimer is insufficient also. But it's the closest thing we have to a compromise, so far anyway.)

 

[Justice and Rule]

I see extremes of both. It really depends upon where you are, who you're around. In terms of the internet, in some communities, "concern-trolling" is dominant, in others "pearl-clutching." Like everything these days, people polarize into two camps, which push each other further and further to the extremes.

I don't really see the same problems. The "pearl-clutching" side is the one decrying changes as killing the game and being made to personally slight/spite older gamers. Those who are pushing for change can get angry, but typically-speaking I think that results from being frustrated with those who they are arguing about and less feeling personally attacked by some mistake Wizards made.

 

[Mercurius]

I don't really see the same problems. The "pearl-clutching" side is the one decrying changes as killing the game and being made to personally slight/spite older gamers. Those who are pushing for change can get angry, but typically-speaking I think that results from being frustrated with those who they are arguing about and less feeling personally attacked by some mistake Wizards made.

Well, there are different ways to see it. As I said, two entrenched sides who think their view is correct and the other is, well, the Other - wrong, bad, etc. And I've seen on both sides, a general view that if you don't 100% embrace what we're saying, you're one of Them.

 

[Umbran]

I'm genuinely asking what actions people want to take about this racist content.

This thread is 85+ pages long now. Answers to this have been given several times over. There should be no need for folks to answer this over an over just to give you more grist for the mill.

Your "eager, enthusiastic argument" has a problem, in that it seems to be looking for argument rather than discussion.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

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.

An eloquent summary of my general feelings since Orcgate the Happening.

 

[Zardnaar]

But this implies that the problem is the age of the work, not the content itself. And that's a pretty big flaw in reasoning, don't you agree?

It's also a cop-out that lets dismissive attitudes prevail. "This author didn't know any better" (false), or "this is just the way everyone felt back then" (also false), or "it happened a long time ago so we don't need to worry about it today" (super false).

Publication dates alone are not sufficient, in my opinion. (To be fair, I feel the Legacy Disclaimer is insufficient also. But it's the closest thing we have to a compromise, so far anyway.)

I would say that's being intellectually dishonest. In some cases the author didn't know any better because if the prevailing attitudes of the time or because humans don't generally see themselves as evil.

If your culture believes in sacrificing humans to make the sun come up you're probably not going to think it's wrong.

Using Hitler for example his views were fairly common in the area he grew up in and then those views became radicalized by the events of WW1. Anti semetism in Vienna and more broadly Europe was very common at the time.

Then you have the events of WW1. That's an extreme example using HP Lovecraft as an example he was a contemporary of Hitler along with Rupert Murdochs father.

Looking at what happened in America/Australia at the time they were definitely products of their time.

Rgat dies t excuse their evil but it explains it. Sounds like Lovecraft's early years involved mental health issues in his family shaped by his environment.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Well, there are different ways to see it. As I said, two entrenched sides who think their view is correct and the other is, well, the Other - wrong, bad, etc. And I've seen on both sides, a general view that if you don't 100% embrace what we're saying, you're one of Them.

I don't really think saying both sides are equally entrenched is a good reason to seemingly declare them to have the same validity. One side saying alignment is bad because it's imprecise and leads to a lot of bad implications and one side saying that taking alignment out is a personal attack on themselves are not really equal arguments in my mind, no matter how entrenched both might be.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

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 think this is the best way forward as well.