D&D 5E Toward a new D&D aesthetics

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

The initial posts from this individual were actually quite reasonable. The responses were not. You are glossing over that in your post to make your position seem stronger. He (?) did not use the word disneyfied in a pejorative way. It seems like you felt it was used so? Just because you reacted to a word in a certain way doesn't mean it was intended as a weapon. Take the time to look at the world from your 'opponent's' viewpoint.

I keep finding myself bringing up the word 'disingenuous'. Here it is again. This post is disingenuous.

How and why do you assume @Yaarel is being disingenuous? Yaarel is one of the more genuine posters on these forums. I think you are seeing shadows now. Read the post with eyes unclouded by hate, maybe you see it differently.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Predators. I'm not referring to "good guys" vs. "bad guys" here: I'm keeping it really simple and just referring to ecosystems of pretty much any functioning sort.

So the fact there are wolves means that empathy and kindness in stories trivializes reality?

IRL, the world doesn't love us; a fantasy world that does is soft.

Idk what point this is even meant to make.

They trivialize the reality of evil; they suggest a world in which sincere good intentions are enough

They do what now!? Since when? Most of the time the hero still has to fight someone.

(I mean, I wish they were, but they aren't); they implicitly trivialize human evil by suggesting people really are basically good.

This I vehemently disagree with. “People are basically good” does not trivialize human evil. It contrasts and highlights it. If anything, pessimistic views of people trivialize human evil by making it seem like people are just behaving naturally.

 

[Faolyn]

Y'know, talking about the art, look at the difference between Marvel Movies and DC ones.

What's the single biggest complaint about the DCU movies - the color palette. They're too dark. What does everyone LIKE about the Marvel Movies? That they're bright and brash.

So, it really should come as a surprise to no one that WotC is going the way it is.

Also the humor. It's been a while since I've seen a movie from either universe, but the Marvel movies embrace the humor while the DC movies tend to be more serious.

So brighter colors and at least a touch of humor are definitely the winner.

 

[Fifth Element]

They trivialize the reality of evil

What trivializes the reality of evil is the idea that there is good vs. evil, that they can be cleanly delineated as such. That there are "evil people" and "good people." That trivializes the reality. It's endemic to fantasy, of course.

 

[Vaalingrade]

They trivialize the reality of evil; they suggest a world in which sincere good intentions are enough (I mean, I wish they were, but they aren't); they implicitly trivialize human evil by suggesting people really are basically good. I don't think we are: I think we're basically mixed.

So... not enough edge?

No thanks. I used to be an edgelord, thinking the world was 'right' when it was all about sadness and all light being crushed. Of trying to uncover the inherent spark of evil inside everyone to counter and kindness or good they do or feel.

I recovered.

The thing was call 'evil' is banal and petty and worthless. I don't need to highlight or glorify it.

 

[Guest 7034872]

So the fact there are wolves means that empathy and kindness in stories trivializes reality?

Whoops!--the Principle of Charity just went on holiday again. Well, that's fine--I'll try and bring it back in with my response.

The fact that the world is not made principally of rainbows, sparkles, and Skittles-farting kittens means that empathy and kindness in stories are such remarkable virtues specifically because the cosmos is not ordered around them, and taking them for granted is.......... waiiit forrrr itttt......................... naïve.

Idk what point this is even meant to make.

See above.

They do what now!? Since when? Most of the time the hero still has to fight someone.

My point and, as best I can tell, the point both @Stefano Rinaldelli and @beancounter were trying to make just before the dogpile drove both of them away (permanently, I fear), was that over-emphasizing these virtues to the point where they are effectively taken as a given trivializes the actual lousiness in the face of which and against which they do function as virtues.

This I vehemently disagree with. “People are basically good” does not trivialize human evil. It contrasts and highlights it. If anything, pessimistic views of people trivialize human evil by making it seem like people are just behaving naturally.

Well, then here you and I definitely disagree. I am more than persuaded it trivializes human evil: it trivializes the extent to which everything we hate about villains actually lurks inside each of us, as if cruelty and indifference to harm to others weren't a problem each of us already has in ourselves. Because it is. The dogpile on this thread proved that to me (or rather, it would have if I hadn't already known it full well). Everyone has it in them to be churlish.

What trivializes the reality of evil is the idea that there is good vs. evil, that they can be cleanly delineated as such. That there are "evil people" and "good people." That trivializes the reality. It's endemic to fantasy, of course.

We are so way off topic from the thread's stated purpose now, but I will publicly say your assertion is not just false: it is provably false (but not inside of five minutes). I spent more than a decade on this exact question in graduate school and eventually became (while still an atheist at the time, mind you) convinced by several of my professors' best counterarguments that good and evil absolutely are objectively real. If you sincerely want to know why I hold this, then let's discuss it over PM so as to avoid further cluttering the thread.

So... not enough edge?

No thanks. I used to be an edgelord, thinking the world was 'right' when it was all about sadness and all light being crushed. Of trying to uncover the inherent spark of evil inside everyone to counter and kindness or good they do or feel.

I recovered.

The thing was call 'evil' is banal and petty and worthless. I don't need to highlight or glorify it.

Sure, that's what I am: a fifty-three-year-old edgelord. Yep.

Re-read what I wrote: I expressly did not say "People suck," or even "People are basically bad." I said "People are basically mixed." Mixed as in "roughly equal portions of both." Go on--show me the post-adolescent edgelord who says that.

So now have we established that the dogpile is real and that people here have been notably uncharitable to a few members who had the temerity and social bad taste to disagree with a prevailing orthodoxy?? Mmm???

Read your own posts, folks.

How and why do you assume @Yaarel is being disingenuous? Yaarel is one of the more genuine posters on these forums.

Here I fully agree. I dislike that so much of this thread has come to orbit around members' claims about each other's moral character, but I will say I agree with you on this quoted portion.

 

[J.Quondam]

I don't doubt that. Does the word "dogpile" implicitly mean it involved a very large number of people?? If so, then I misused it. I've always used it to refer to a kind of mob mentality, but those easily can happen in small groups.

The numerical value of a "dog pile" isn't terribly important. The point just is that it's a needlessly provocative word for something that, in reality, was something like 6 people arguing with 3 people about something pretty silly. That sort of thing has always happened a lot around here, tbh, yet generally remains pretty low-key. The escalating accusations of mobs and disingenuousness and so forth just inflames things needlessly, in a place that, all things considered, is pretty fortunate to be vastly less toxic than the rest of the unfiltered sewer-sea of social media.

But yes, these things happen. It's sad, and not even always fair, but it happens.

Mm. If that's your chosen analogy, then I'd say it wasn't like someone flipped over a gravy boat. All he did was say he disliked cranberry sauce, and then some people started calling him names either explicitly or by innuendo.

Fair point. But the "gravy boat" analogy was intended to refer to the attacks on the mods. That was messy. Whether it was justifiable, of course, depends on one's opinion of giblets.



edit: Oh, and on that note, i'm done on this particular (irrelevant!) subtopic. Cheers!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The fact that the world is not made principally of rainbows, sparkles, and Skittles-farting kittens

The fact that you are pushing the hyperbolic nonsense this far, in the same post wherein you sanctimoniously lecture people about how they talked to someone upthread, shows just how seriously we should all be taking your lecturing, or your arguments.

means that empathy and kindness in stories are such remarkable virtues specifically because the cosmos is not ordered around them, and taking them for granted is.......... waiiit forrrr itttt......................... naïve.

Show me where “taking empathy and kindness for granted” is in any way indicated by anything in a D&D book. Every single D&D book still very much includes people and critters that want to hurt people and need to be stopped. Every single book still has violent means as an acceptable path toward noble ends.

My point and, as best I can tell, the point both @Stefano Rinaldelli and @beancounter were trying to make just before the dogpile drove both of them away (permanently, I fear), was that over-emphasizing these virtues to the point where they are effectively taken as a given trivializes the actual lousiness in the face of which and against which they do function as virtues.

The idea that this is happening in D&D or in western culture generally is absolutely laughable.

Well, then here you and I definitely disagree. I am more than persuaded it trivializes human evil: it trivializes the extent to which everything we hate about villains actually lurks inside each of us, as if cruelty and indifference to harm to others weren't a problem each of us already has in ourselves.

It does precisely the opposite of this.

Because it is. The dogpile on this thread proved that to me (or rather, it would have if I hadn't already known it full well).

This is confirmation bias.

We are so way off topic from the thread's stated purpose now, but I will publicly say your assertion is not just false: it is provably false (but not inside of five minutes). I spent more than a decade on this exact question in graduate school and eventually became (while still an atheist at the time, mind you) convinced by several of my professors' best counterarguments that good and evil absolutely are objectively real. If you sincerely want to know why I hold this, then let's discuss it over PM so as to avoid further cluttering the thread.

Good and evil are constructs of our minds, ultimately. People are people. Good people can become “evil” and vise versa precisely because “evil” is a thing we invented to more easily deal with the world.

So now have we established that the dogpile is real and that people here have been notably uncharitable to a few members who had the temerity and social bad taste to disagree with a prevailing orthodoxy?? Mmm???

Lol not in any way.

 

[Malmuria]

The real reason I finally chose to post about this at all is that a lot folks on here seemed convinced they were not dogpiling on @Stefano Rinaldelli and @beancounter, so I decided to test that hypothesis with a more moderate but still aesthetically critical post and see what happened. From the energy and frequency of reactions I've seen just in recent hours, I think we've pretty well proven the hypothesis false, haven't we?

I’ve read over the initial pages in this thread…the poster you mentioned made a comment, many people sought clarification, a handful of people agreed, a handful disagreed, and most others were posting their own thoughts. It seems like a fairly normal discussion? Similarly, I don’t sense any “energy” in response to your post? We just have different reactions to recent art.

For “energy,” search for any thread that contains topics like “alignment,” or “racial asi” or, god help you, “system matters,” and then jump to page 50.

 

[Guest 7034872]

The fact that you are pushing the hyperbolic nonsense this far, in the same post wherein you sanctimoniously lecture people about how they talked to someone upthread, shows just how seriously we should all be taking your lecturing, or your arguments.

Take it easy. It wasn't hyperbole; it was an attempt at humor. If you don't like that particular joke, I have others. Most of them are bad, but at least they're not that one.

Show me where “taking empathy and kindness for granted” is in any way indicated by anything in a D&D book. Every single D&D book still very much includes people and critters that want to hurt people and need to be stopped. Every single book still has violent means as an acceptable path toward noble ends.

I didn't say it was indicated by the books' texts: the point (with which I still only somewhat agree, mind you) was that it was encouraged by some of the artwork. That's all.

The idea that this is happening in D&D or in western culture generally is absolutely laughable.

Why?

It does precisely the opposite of this.

Okay, that's an interesting claim to me. What's your argument for it? Again, PM me and I'll gladly discuss it further on there.

This is confirmation bias.

Don't think so.

Good and evil are constructs of our minds, ultimately. People are people. Good people can become “evil” and vise versa precisely because “evil” is a thing we invented to more easily deal with the world.

You can PM me here too if you honestly want to hear the arguments and counterarguments around this. Until just this past year, I used to teach them at university, so I don't think I'm too terribly uninformed about them.

At this point I think tempers are getting a little too hot for further conversation to work. Mine is not because I'm accustomed to this, but yours and several others now seem taxed, and that was never my goal, so please accept a public apology for inadvertently pushing your buttons: I never do that casually with anyone. But the offer of further explanation for my positions over PM is real, and you can even call me every nasty name you know: I won't cry.