Oriental Adventures, was it really that racist?

[Bedrockgames]

No, that wasn't the argument.

Again, not trying to relitigate. Lots of arguments were made in those threads. My point was just that people saw the argument and simply reached a different conclusion. It wasn't because people were awful human beings or even because they had different political views than you, it was because they didn't think the argument being made was convincing.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And yet, somehow, the first group still keeps coming back to the same red herring argument, endlessly. I don't get it.

And to be clear here, I am not saying I think you have to agree with the arguments. Or that you have to agree with the points I am making. What I was saying is, you seem to be suggesting people are doing this either in bad faith, ro because they are bad people, or at least, you can't comprehend it (just basing this on how you've phrased this point in your recent posts). I think the answer is simply people disagree about this stuff. You can make an argument you think is sound, and you might think "if someone agrees with the points in this argument, and still reaches conclusion X, surely they are bad people". But the problem is a lot of times, people don't agree with the points (or some of the points) leading to the conclusion in the argument. So it is just two sides seeing the same phenomena, examining the same arguments and teaching very different conclusions. Like I said, there may be some jerks in the mix. But I think most people just see these issues a little differently from one another. I think it is important for us to learn to start living with that difference, because it really is getting to a point where it feels like people hate each other based on their views of gaming media.

 

[MGibster]

At the end of the day, I think we're got near universal agreement that there are problems with OA and that a similar book published today should handle things differently. That seems like progress to me.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I don't want to relitigate this, but my point was people heard your argument but just didnt' agree with the conclusions you were drawing. Like you are making a straight line between killing orcs and the killing of indigenous people, and the posters on the other side were essentially saying they felt there really wasn't a connection there (other than people pointing to a linguistic pattern that had little to do with killing orcs in a game of D&D)

First of all, it's isn't exactly a straight line from killing orcs to killing indigenous people. The line goes:

Killing orcs <---- because they're stupid, primitive, promiscuous, savage == history of 'stupid, primitive, promiscuous, savage' being used to explain why some people are less human than we are ----> killing those people

Does that make sense? It's not the parallel of the killing, it's the parallel of the justification language.

Also it doesn't really matter AT ALL if some people don't think there's a connection between those two things, especially if those people are not members of the groups we are discussing. At least some members of those groups, and potentially a high percentage of them, do think there's a hurtful connection (not just in D&D or RPGs in general, but in any fiction).

And, even though I'm not in any of those groups, based on everything I've learned about psychology and trauma, I very much believe there's a relevant connection, and "being offended" or "being uncomfortable" doesn't do justice to the impact.

 

[Bedrockgames]

First of all, it's isn't exactly a straight line from killing orcs to killing indigenous people. The line goes:

Killing orcs <---- because they're stupid, primitive, promiscuous, savage == history of 'stupid, primitive, promiscuous, savage' being used to explain why some people are less human than we are ----> killing those people

Does that make sense? It's not the parallel of the killing, it's the parallel of the justification language.

Also it doesn't really matter AT ALL if some people don't think there's a connection between those two things, especially if those people are not members of the groups we are discussing. At least some members of those groups, and potentially a high percentage of them, do think there's a hurtful connection (not just in D&D or RPGs in general, but in any fiction).

And, even though I'm not in any of those groups, based on everything I've learned about psychology and trauma, I very much believe there's a relevant connection, and "being offended" or "being uncomfortable" doesn't do justice to the impact.

Fair enough, but can you see how some people might see this same argument, and hear these same points made by people, and still coming away seeing it differently (seeing the way orcs are handled as being harmless or trivial, or having a different read than you on what most people from those actual groups are saying)?

 

[Bill Zebub]

At the end of the day, I think we're got near universal agreement that there are problems with OA and that a similar book published today should handle things differently. That seems like progress to me.

Yes. And even though I'm very much in the "OA is a huge embarrassment" camp, I'm not calling for censorship of the book. Go ahead and trade used copies on the Internet. I do think WotC should not be selling digital copies, not because the government is forcing them to, or the mob is threatening them, but because it's an embarrassment. And they should be working on a new, massive tome of similar content, produced in collaboration with people who can guide them through the minefield of social and cultural issues.

And when this new tome still has some flaws...which it will...we should point out those flaws, and discuss them, and say, "Yeah, but least WotC tried, and this is a HUGE improvement over OA. The next one will be even better."

 

[Bedrockgames]

It's not the parallel of the killing, it's the parallel of the justification language.

And I think the view on the other side is one of two responses: 1) that parrellel doesn't matter if you are talking about fictional orcs in a fantasy setting, 2) It isn't truly a parallel

Again I don't think you have to agree with these points, and I don't think its worth going over all this again in this thread. I just think its obvious people could have been in that argument, seen what you were saying and reached differing conclusions, not because of bad faith, or because they are bad people, but because they simply reach a different conclusion than you.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Fair enough, but can you see how some people might see this same argument, and hear these same points made by people, and still coming away seeing it differently (seeing the way orcs are handled as being harmless or trivial, or having a different read than you on what most people from those actual groups are saying)?

Yeah, I do fully expect that to happen. And it boggles my mind that people, when they contrast their inability to imagine there's a problem with the fact of lots of people (of the ethnic groups involved) saying there is a problem, conclude that all those other people must be lying or exaggerating.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm not calling for censorship of the book. Go ahead and trade used copies on the Internet. I do think WotC should not be selling digital copies, not because the government is forcing them to, or the mob is threatening them, but because it's an embarrassment. And they should be working on a new, massive tome of similar content, produced in collaboration with people who can guide them through the minefield of social and cultural issues.

I think it is harder though to buy used copies of first edition D&D books now. Ten or twenty years ago, I remember buying these books for pennies. Now collectors have made the prices quite high and some books you can't find. My view on these books is it is good for WOTC to be stewards of the old TSR books, not because everything in them is great, but because these are primary sources in gaming history and it has value to make cheap print and PDF versions available so people can use them both to shed light on the games they play, but also so they can analyze them for the purposes of engaging in the history of gaming (including people who want to take a more critical lens to the content).

 

[Bill Zebub]

And to be clear here, I am not saying I think you have to agree with the arguments. Or that you have to agree with the points I am making. What I was saying is, you seem to be suggesting people are doing this either in bad faith, ro because they are bad people, or at least, you can't comprehend it (just basing this on how you've phrased this point in your recent posts). I think the answer is simply people disagree about this stuff. You can make an argument you think is sound, and you might think "if someone agrees with the points in this argument, and still reaches conclusion X, surely they are bad people". But the problem is a lot of times, people don't agree with the points (or some of the points) leading to the conclusion in the argument. So it is just two sides seeing the same phenomena, examining the same arguments and teaching very different conclusions. Like I said, there may be some jerks in the mix. But I think most people just see these issues a little differently from one another. I think it is important for us to learn to start living with that difference, because it really is getting to a point where it feels like people hate each other based on their views of gaming media.

I don't understand the relevance between that and the phenomenon I'm describing, which is people who don't think there's a problem who keep reverting to their own framing of the problem, while rejecting the framing offered by the people who do think there's a problem....I don't know what to make of that.