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

[Mind of tempest]

deleted.

 

[Zardnaar]

Do you want to go start a nuclear war?

1930's "do you want to start a world war"? Well great war 2.0 I suppose.

 

[Mercurius]

Folks, you know where this will end. Let's keep the politics and such out, so we don't lose the thread.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I didn't say they have the same validity, but I do think understanding both sides is important. And furthermore, not pushing people that don't agree with you into an extreme. There are a lot of gradations between extreme views, what CleverNickName called "book-burning" on one side and "willful ignorance" on the other.

I mean, why do people feel personally attacked? People often say that no one gets to decide whether a person is offended or not other than the person who is offended, but shouldn't the same be applied to feeling personally attacked? If we write it off as simply unreasonable, aren't we doing the same kind of gaslighting that we accuse them of when they say "If you're offended, that's your problem"?

I mean, I agree with you that the "pearl-clutching" can be over the top, and some of it has to do with resistance to change. Maybe even a small percentage has to do with ignorance or even bigotry. But a lot of it has to do with people feeling like they're being attacked for BadWrongView, or for the implication that if they like certain things in their game (e.g. evil orcs or Lovecraft), they're enabling bad things - and thus bad themselves.

Yeah, but you see with that last paragraph you're basically hitting why it's not really a "both sides" issue. One side is giving substantive reasons as to why these things should be changed, while the other side is reacting more emotionally, taking the criticism personally. I mean, I could care less about "entrenchment" because I think it's fine to be entrenched on certain values and such; I know I am and it doesn't stop me from understanding why the other side thinks the way they do. What matters is the values themselves.

Its fascinating that while China is running concentration camps to exterminate the Uyghurs, clearly genocide of a race. The focus on the youth today is whether dead authors had racist thoughts in the creation of fantasy monsters.

It's not the focus of the youth today, it's just a topic we are discussing because it's actually the topic of discussion. I mean, you could literally go into every thread on this board and say "The Uyghurs are being exterminated, and the focus of our youth is <thread topic>." It's almost like we can concentrated on more than one thing and not be completely distracted!

Seriously, this argument has been used forever to stifle debate for no good reason. We can't talk about gay rights because we're in a War on Terror! We can't talk about civil rights because we're in nuclear showdown with the USSR! It's always been inane and it continues to be so in the present.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Well, one has to note that a lot of Lovecraftian monsters are pretty much creepy mashup alien things, just viewed through a slightly earlier temporal lens. That's certainly what the Fungi from Yuggoth are, for example.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Well, one has to note that a lot of Lovecraftian monsters are pretty much creepy mashup alien things, just viewed through a slightly earlier temporal lens. That's certainly what the Fungi from Yuggoth are, for example.

are any monsters not creepy mashup things? maybe oozes?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

…Wizards are killing D&D by slowly removing Alignment…

Well that’s objectively true!

Seriously, though, I think that’s one Divine Bovine that helps distinguish D&D from competitor FRPGs. And that’s a good thing, IMHO. For me, at least, alignments are a feature.

 

[Cadence]

Folks, you know where this will end. Let's keep the politics and such out, so we don't lose the thread.

And now I'm thinking of Gamma World, which lead me to the Knights of Genetic Purity :-/
I wonder what things there are in older versions of non-D&D games that I've forgotten about that could lead to discussion.

 

[Mercurius]

And now I'm thinking of Gamma World, which lead me to the Knights of Genetic Purity :-/
I wonder what things there are in older versions of non-D&D games that I've forgotten about that could lead to discussion.

See, that's where we could have actually interesting conversations that touch upon politics: through the games themselves. Dystopia is a great way to explore contemporary and historical issues.

 

[Mercurius]

Yeah, but you see with that last paragraph you're basically hitting why it's not really a "both sides" issue. One side is giving substantive reasons as to why these things should be changed, while the other side is reacting more emotionally, taking the criticism personally. I mean, I could care less about "entrenchment" because I think it's fine to be entrenched on certain values and such; I know I am and it doesn't stop me from understanding why the other side thinks the way they do. What matters is the values themselves.

All you're really saying is that you agree with one side and not the other - that you find one view substantive, but the other not. I see problems on both sides of the issue, but I don't want to belabor that. And perhaps the largest problem is the view that there are "two sides" rather than a vast diversity of possible perspectives existing on a spectrum.

Holding true to one's values is one thing, but expecting everyone to share them is quite another. And what I find most concerning, is assuming that those who don't share one's own values are in the same group as the "other side." Like there are only two choices, two camps. It is very tribal, but that's par for the course these days (in the world).