D&D General The Art and the Artist: Discussing Problematic Issues in D&D

[CleverNickName]

But knives and art are different. You can directly harm someone with a knife. You can be directly harmed by a knife. Art doesn't harm, it influences. And the line between influence and bad things in the world is hard to measure. It is even harder when you have to weigh, not just how many people go and do bad things because they got an idea from a book, but how many people didn't go and do bad things because of it, how many people went and did good things, because of it. This is a classic argument you see around religion for example. When I was young and developing a skeptical mind about religion, I remember having a conversation with my father where I pinned many of the ills of the world on it (and there were many, many I could point to), but he was also able to point to the amount of good people did, that they might not have done, the amount of people who didn't engage in war or violence, they might otherwise have engaged in, because of religion. My declaration was overly simplistic. And obviously that is a deep and complicated topic, not one we can resolve here. But I think it is a similar type of moral reasoning. And I think there is a bit of a problem with the way we use the term harm in these discussion. It is very vague. It tends to stop conversation (this caused harm, it is bad, end of story). And I think a lot of us, feel like these claims are exaggerated and not critically examined.

You are implying that "direct harm" (I assume you mean physical harm) is the only type of harm that we should address. Was that your intent?

 

[Bedrockgames]

We are surrounded by harmful and dangerous things. We don't take that as a invitation to ignore them; we take it as a challenge to improve. D&D is in the middle of this process right now, with developing new tools (safety tools, no less) and better practices for dealing with sensitive topics, inclusivity, and representation.

Some of this I honestly think is a generational thing. Those of us who grew up in the 70s and 80s, were quite saturated with the idea of entertainment needing a healthy message, with things like the moral majority, Tipper Gore's campaign against rock and rap music and lyrics, very special episodes: a lot of very public efforts to establish 'safety' in art. And I think in the end, many of us just find this a very uninteresting and very unartistic approach to art that really moves and is powerful. That doesn't mean we like bad messages. But it does mean we don't want to feel like the people who make the game books we read are our moral educators into our adult life.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You are implying that "direct harm" (I assume you mean physical harm) is the only type of harm that we should address. Was that your intent?

My point was harm is ambiguous, it can mean physical or non physical harm. So people take the power of that word, because it invokes physical harm in peoples minds, and use it in these conversations....I think it isn't a very helpful way to go about things. I am saying physical and mental harm are different. One of them is more easily measured. On of them is more obvious and the line of causation often more clear. We probably should be using different language if people mean text is distressing to some people for example, or if they mean it influences people to behave badly. Saying it causes harm, I find that not useful language personally (and I think it does lend itself to exaggerated claims)

Also what I mean by direct harm is direct causation. You stab someone, the knife is directly harming them. But you read a book to a crowd of thousands. One person in that crowd gets a weird idea because of what you read and goes and does something, it isn't always clear how much of that is the book, versus what was going on in that person's head. Similarly, if you read something that upsets me, it isn't just the text, there is the interoperation side on my end. I am actively processing and reacting to what you say. You can read the same sentence to ten different people and they react differently. You stab ten people with knives, they all bleed.

 

[Lyxen]

but if one person in 10 is harmed by something it is VERY different then if 1 person in 25,000 is harmed by something...

But it also mostly depends on the definition of harm.

And I think there is a bit of a problem with the way we use the term harm in these discussion. It is very vague. It tends to stop conversation (this caused harm, it is bad, end of story). And I think a lot of us, feel like these claims are exaggerated and not critically examined.

Exactly. It's a really strong word, especially when you say "significant harm". I have been designing systems with safety implications for decade, and in these context, it's extremely strong.

Now, I absolutely accept that some people could be made emotionally uncomfortable by some descriptions or pictures in old publications. But for me, there is a considerable gap between "emotionally uncomfortable" and "significant harm".

And the other thing is that are there people who will seriously claim that the "harm" received by reading such an old supplement or by ToA is even a fraction of what a person sensitive to these receives in his daily environment ?

Not, of course, that it's a reason to tolerate it, but shouldn't there be priorities somewhere ? Again, in safety, we know that "risk 0" does not exist. We do our best to limit it but in all cases it's also limited by reason and economics. And we accept that, when the impact is not extreme, the efforts would be less important than for an extreme impact.

I'm not against all these discussions, I actually like them since I have much to learn about this, but being outrageous about words and concepts brings nothing to the table.

 

[CleverNickName]

My point was harm is ambiguous, it can mean physical or non physical harm. So people take the power of that word, because it invokes physical harm in peoples minds, and use it in these conversations....I think it isn't a very helpful way to go about things. I am saying physical and mental harm are different. One of them is more easily measured. On of them is more obvious and the line of causation often more clear. We probably should be using different language if people mean text is distressing to some people for example, or if they mean it influences people to behave badly. Saying it causes harm, I find that not useful language personally (and I think it does lend itself to exaggerated claims)

Thanks for clarifying. I agree that the two types of harm are different, and that one is more easy to address than the other. But I don't agree that we should be using a different word to distinguish between the two. Doing so would read too much as "this one is more severe than the other," and that would make it easier to dismiss one in favor of the other. That is not the direction that WotC should be taking, IMO.

 

[Lyxen]

Thanks for clarifying. I agree that the two types of harm are different, and that one is more easy to address than the other. But I don't agree that we should be using a different word to distinguish between the two. Doing so would read too much as "this one is more severe than the other," and that would make it easier to dismiss one in favor of the other. That is not the direction that WotC should be taking, IMO.

I've looked again at their diversity post and what I found was this: "...using descriptions that are painfully reminiscent of how real-world ethnic groups have been and continue to be denigrated."

For me, painful is indeed the right word. Harmful is too strong, and I would certainly not add "significant" in there. But I'm happy to discuss this as well, if possible in a reasonable way.

 

[HammerMan]

But it also mostly depends on the definition of harm.

is there ANY definition of harm where we take 1 in 10 and compare it to 1 in 25,000 or 1 in 1,000,000?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Thanks for clarifying. I agree that the two types of harm are different, and that one is more easy to address than the other. But I don't agree that we should be using a different word to distinguish between the two. Doing so would read too much as "this one is more severe than the other," and that would make it easier to dismiss one in favor of the other. That is not the direction that WotC should be taking, IMO.

But they are different. There is a huge difference between stabbing someone and reading text at them that distresses them. I am not saying being distressed by text can't be bad. But morally, those are two very different things. And legally those are two very different things. I would say part of the problem with this conversation is because Harm caries both the meaning A) physical harm and B) Mental harm, it is a problem the way it is used because in these conversations people rely on the power of A to advocate on behalf on minimizing B (and it isn't always immediately clear to the people being persuaded this it what is going on). If the issue is mental harm or mental distress, use that language. If the problem is influence on behavior, use that language. If the problem is something promotes stereotypes, use that language. When you fold it all into Harm, I think you kind of armor up the concept rhetorical, but you have a less thorough examination and less nuanced conversation.

 

[CleverNickName]

But they are different. There is a huge difference between stabbing someone and reading text at them that distresses them.

What I'm trying to say is that they aren't so different that one should be prioritized over the other.

 

[Lyxen]

is there ANY definition of harm where we take 1 in 10 and compare it to 1 in 25,000 or 1 in 1,000,000?

Yes, there is, in safety hazard analysis. The example is in aviation, where I have done some of my work, but also in medical devices. The severity is looked at as well as the likelihood.