D&D 5E D&D Races: Evolution, Fantasy Stereotypes & Escapism

[Jfdlsjfd]

Yeah this is part of what I was trying to get at earlier. A lot of fantasy societies, including various ones in D&D settings, are actually far kinder and more open-minded than the historical "real world" typically is seen. Dragging in real-world prejudices from specific cultures because one thinks they're "more realistic" is simply silly and does those settings no favours.

Good point on sexuality, its another bia that seems absent. I'd also say marrying strategy are very seldom mentionned, as if the idea that people freely choosing their spouse, a very recent idea in human history, was totally ingrained. It's even strange that they evolved nuclear families in the settings with such a disinterest for controlling sexuality.

While I agree that importing those prejudice from real humans to fantasy humans isn't more realistic, it's because we accept that these are fantasy humans, as different from real humans than elves and dwarves (especially since their "elfness" and "dwarvishness" isn't generally explored in roleplay. It would warrant a large mention in the Human race description, as it as a huge effect on worldbuilding (ie, if having sex doesn't matter socially, birth control magic is 100% fiable, and marriage isn't used as a wealth-controlling generational strategy... why have families inside a house each? I'd very much see communal houses with orgiastic hippy places instead of the Ye Olde Hamlet as the default organisation.

 

[Lyxen]

Here's the follow-up:

The BBC style guide notes that for things it doesn't cover that "The Oxford English Dictionary is otherwise the preferred reference".

I only have access to the online one, and I have given you the definitions. None of these are degrading, insulting or offensive, in particular exotic (which is actually quite flattering), and as for "savage" even the offensive one only refers to people, not places, and is considered old-fashioned.

It doesn't have savage, primitive, or exotic in it, and so would default to the OED as I indicated above

The AP style guide also lacks them. It uses the 5th Edition of Webster's New World College Dictionary (Chicago Manual of Style uses the 11th of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary). It shows primitive as a noun being derogatory, but not as an adjective. It does not note either exotic or savage as derogatory - and so would not come down on the usage in the same way as I would view the BBC/OED combination.

I would not call someone a primitive, but saying that a culture is primitive is I believe absolutely acceptable, and is the best (and maybe the only way) to describe it quickly and properly, everyone will understand what you mean. And if you are speaking of lizardfolk, what exactly would be the problem ?

I wonder if that will be different if we look back in a decade.

We shall see...

It is similarly mentioned in the context of Native Americans at: 7 things you should never say to a Native American

While I absolutely empathize with the first people (probably more than you know, actually, and I honestly find the hypocrisy in that article almost as bad as the apologies to the aboriginal people that I had to endure as part of all the official functions that I attended while living in Australia - If you really feel about something, DO something, rather than just tailor your speech to avoid the issues), I'm sorry, but there are things happening in the world TODAY that are infinitely worse to the situation of the first people today. But this is not the subject of these forums, native americans are not the subject, I'm talking about fantasy cultures.

So, none of the four seem like they'll get you universally condemned for using them (which seems good, because who can keep up with everything)

Perfect. These are good words, useful in describing what I need for fantasy cultures that have no reference to actual earth societies, and I see no reason to stop using them.

but that once it's pointed out, I'm not sure why a publisher wouldn't just switch to another word and avoid the issue.

And that's really the problem to me. Everyone prefers dodging the issue by appearing politically correct rather than addressing the issues. To be honest, I find it really sad that publishers in the US have to get crucified for this and change perfectly good and descriptive text. I'd much rather have them spend time creating new supplements than changing existing ones because some people think (without proof) that it might be offensive to others (not even themselves).

 

[Hussar]

It when it is forced by social pressure, which is what happened there.



And if I use a perfectly good word now and then, and I get harassed on social media until I remove it, what is it?

Swimming up thread and trying to catch up, but this one caught my eye.

Umm, how do you think language works? Words change through social pressure. That's always true. If there is no social pressure, then words don't change, in any direction. But, words gain connotations through social pressure and it is through social pressure that words gain or fall into disuse. There is nothing nefarious about this. This is just how it is. Complaining that it's somehow "forced by social pressure" is not a particularly good argument.

 

[Cadence]

And that's really the problem to me. Everyone prefers dodging the issue by appearing politically correct rather than addressing the issues. To be honest, I find it really sad that publishers in the US have to get crucified for this and change perfectly good and descriptive text. I'd much rather have them spend time creating new supplements than changing existing ones because some people think (without proof) that it might be offensive to others (not even themselves).

It feels like people, governments, and organizations can work on many different levels of a problem at one time. They can both, for example, work to help those in need of things for basic survival and work to change how the issue is discussed at the same time.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'd also say marrying strategy are very seldom mentionned, as if the idea that people freely choosing their spouse, a very recent idea in human history, was totally ingrained.

Yes, that's a very good point.

in particular exotic (which is actually quite flattering)

This is truly amazing. Why don't you go around, in say any English-speaking country, and start calling non-white people "exotic" to their face, and see how long it is before you have people frowning at you and turning away in disgust, or worse, get throw out of a bar/restaurant, or even actually punched? Because it's not going to be very long. Bloody hell mate. Talk about naive.

is the best (and maybe the only way) to describe it quickly and properly, everyone will understand what you mean

An abjectly false claim, I'm afraid. People will have completely different understanding from each other. Primitive has been misused to the point that one person will be picturing actual cavemen, and another will be picturing the middle ages or mesoamerica in the 1500s, and so on.

because some people think (without proof) that it might be offensive to others

This is also amazing when you've just declared "exotic" is compliment, because it really makes one wonder what you would consider proof, short of the aforementioned being ejected from a restaurant or the like. Even then it seems like you'd just blame "a minority pushing their views".

Umm, how do you think language works? Words change through social pressure. That's always true. If there is no social pressure, then words don't change, in any direction. But, words gain connotations through social pressure and it is through social pressure that words gain or fall into disuse. There is nothing nefarious about this. This is just how it is. Complaining that it's somehow "forced by social pressure" is not a particularly good argument.

Lyxen seems to be French or a primary French speaker, and in France, for centuries, they've had a patriarchal and protective attitude to their language, and literally have an organisation devoted to preventing French from changing. Even the government has got in on trying to force people to not use certain novel words (especially loan-words) and so on. So I suspect this influences his rather eccentric perspective on English.

 

[Hussar]

I do believe that in a lot of countries, the motto "innocent until proven guilty", so you will have to prove that the words used in Tomb of Annihilation were used maliciously

No. You really, really don't have to prove malicious intent. The only reason to do that would be to find some sort of guilt. If you are hunting for guilt, you have completely missed the point.

 

[Cadence]

RE: Stereotypes vs. Schema

No. The proper definition is "something conforming to a fixed or general pattern".

Your definition leaves part of it out.

Going for a standard dictionary (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate, used by the Chicago Manual of Style), stereotype is noted as especially for the negative case.

"2 : something conforming to a fixed or general pattern; esp : a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment"

In the OED's definition 'preconceived' and 'oversimplified' don't seem positive:

"A preconceived and oversimplified idea of the characteristics which typify a person, situation, etc.; an attitude based on such a preconception. Also, a person who appears to conform closely to the idea of a type."

Two of the quotes seem to back this:

1935 G. W. Allport in C. Murchison Handbk. Social Psychol. xvii. 809 Attitudes which result in gross oversimplifications of experience and in prejudgements…are commonly called biases, prejudices, or stereotypes.

1948 D. Krech & R. S. Crutchfield Theory & Probl. Social Psychol. ii. v. 171 The concept of stereotype..refers to two different things. (1)..a tendency for a given belief to be widespread in a society... (2)..a tendency for a belief to be oversimplified in content and unresponsive to the objective facts.

----

The American Psychological Association makes one of the widely used academic style guides. They seem to contrast it with schema and note in their Inclusive Language Guidelines that:

"A [stereotype is a] set of cognitive generalizations (e.g., beliefs, expectations) about the qualities and characteristics of the members of a
group or social category. Stereotypes, like schemas, simplify and expedite perceptions and judgments, but they are often
exaggerated, negative rather than positive, and resistant to revision even when perceivers encounter individuals with
qualities that are not congruent with the stereotype (APA, n.d.)."

A brief post on the benefits and dangers of schema is at What Is a Schema in Psychology? Definition and Examples . Like the APA, it seems to take schema as neutral and stereotype as negative.

The same dictionary as above gives schema (with no negative connotation) as:

"a mental codification of experience that includes a particular organized way of perceiving cognitively and responding to a complex situation or set of stimuli"

---

In practice, we have from CBC Radio-Canada's guidelines:

We avoid generalizations, stereotypes and any degrading or offensive words or images that could feed prejudice or expose people to hatred or contempt.


Similarly, from the BBC Editorial Guidelines:

5.3.39 We aim to reflect the diverse communities of the United Kingdom in our services. Content may reflect the prejudices and disadvantages which exist in societies worldwide but we should not perpetuate them. In some instances, references to disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identification, faith, race, etc may be relevant to portrayal. However, we should avoid careless or offensive stereotypical assumptions and people should only be described in such terms when editorially justified.

In reporting or portraying events or situations concerning indigenous or tribal people we should avoid stereotyping them. We should reflect their current cultural norms and experiences with due accuracy.

See Guidance: Reporting and Portrayal of Indigenous Peoples

5.3.40 When it is within audience expectations, we may feature a portrayal or stereotype that has been exaggerated for comic effect, but we must be aware that audiences may find casual or purposeless stereotypes to be offensive.

 

[Hussar]

I would not call someone a primitive, but saying that a culture is primitive is I believe absolutely acceptable,

And, again, you would be wrong.

It is not acceptable.

 

[Lyxen]

So do you have any actual argument for your position?

Do you have any for yours ?

1) Demanding proof despite your failure to offer any. That's worthless, especially given you were the one making the original assertion.

No, YOU are the one making the assertion that a majority of english speakers think like you. Proof ?

As for myself, I speak about words, and dictionaries actually support me.

2) Making weird assertions about my views on "inclusiveness" and "nationalism" that make no sense.

Actually they do, they show that D&D has to remain an american product and that the actual majority of people playing the game over the world - which, too bad, are NOT american despite what you might think - are playing it wrong if they do not acknowledge the original influence. Which is even more absurd, since the root of the game is medieval Europe, its myth and magic. Most of the rest of inspiration, actually is everything BUT american. So who is unrealistic now ?

You talk about "good words used all over the world", but you're deeply ignorant about the real-world usage of these words

No, actually, I happened to have lived overseas for the largest part of my career, speaking english most of the time. So I actually do think that I have a way better view of the way it is used over the world (and in particular in the context of roleplaying games) than you.

By the way, as usual, you language to other posters is EXTREMELY INSULTING, using words like "ignorant" and "silly". Please stop.

like painfully so, among primary English-speakers, and you apparently don't understand that those words have been debased to the point of uselessness, despite me pointing out at length.

You are not pointing out anything, you are making unsustained claims, without the slightest factual support, and being extremely insulting in your words. Stop it.

3) Ad-hominem attacks on my character. I've avoided commenting on your character or intentions. I don't know what they are. But you are clearly ignorant about these issues.

Your words are not inclusive, and are extremely insulting, on top of the fact that you absolutely want to push a specific world view on others. This is not inclusive, it's contrary to the spirit and rules of these forums, and is simply unacceptable.

As an aside, this is not the first time I've seen a European who spoke excellent English and was highly educated repeatedly assert that he "knew better" than actual primary English speakers, and then rely on dictionary definitions to try and make his point, failing to comprehend that dictionary definitions often lag decades behind real-world usage and/or fail to include idiom or "novel" usage (even if that usage is decades or in some cases centuries old). It's always a little sad, but I'm sure primary English-speakers have done it to others far more often! Indeed I did once see a British guy trying to insist he was using a Japanese word correctly over multiple actual Japanese people say "Nope...".

You are confusing "native english speaker" with "biased american" here. Again, despite what you think, most english speakers over the planet, are not americans. Even the native ones. Document yourself. I have lived in the UK, in Australia, in South Africa and in Singapore, where people there are all native english speakers. But maybe they don't count in your view ?

 

[Lyxen]

No. You really, really don't have to prove malicious intent.

Ah yes, the old street justice (now social media) rather than actual justice...