D&D General On Early D&D and Problematic Faves: How to Grapple with the Sins of the Past

[Snarf Zagyg]

Yeah, I too want to commend you on the delicate way you replied.
Too often I see posters not being charitable.

It's kinda sorta the purpose behind the thread.

These conversations aren't easy. And nuance? It really doesn't do well on the internet. Heck, I think that's the mission statement of twitter/X - Where nuance goes to die!

Part of the issue is that people can feel very strongly about their own beliefs. And part of it is that I think we have all run into bad-faith actors on the internet.

But I honestly think that we need to assume that, until evidence emerges otherwise, people are grappling with the issues in good faith! And not everyone is at the same point- I don't think that there is a single one of us that was born having only correct beliefs, and we are all capable of growth and change.

I try to think about the ways I have evolved over time* and then remember that everyone else can do that too. They may not! But if they are asking the questions, if they are engaged, then they are open-minded enough to at least consider the possibility of change. And even if they don't change, maybe they will at least soften.

Of course, this is the internet, and I am not always successful at that. Some times my blood gets angered too. But as I always say, the perfect is the enemy of the good. Forgive yourself, and forgive others.


*I mean, there used to be a time when I thought vodka martinis were acceptable! HA!

 

[edhel]

For me, the "problems" I see here:
"Things are problematic" <- You have a problem, i.e. an emotion you feel when you read about it. You don't like the emotion. But the method you go about is to censor or blame the text. You get offended for other people, or at least say you do because it's virtuous for you, and/or interpret mythological references through some postmodern lense. (e.g. Tiamat) Mythical monsters and archetypal enemies are forced to become postmodern representations for some real life group or invented identity, instead of just having a clear-cut moral distinction between demon-bred monstrosities you can go kill because it's fun.

Need for representation <- The hobby was made by men and men play by creating ideals, and exploring mythic/psychic phenomena through shared storytelling. When men play, they usually try to imitate the hero (the focus of the story), and do not try to be represented in their current form in the fiction. As a very rough distinction: Boys emulate Batman, girls try to make Barbie act like they would act. We play differently. You can see this distinction in movies too: archetypal masculine heroes go through hardship and strife to metaphorically die and be reborn a hero. That's the heroes journey. In many postmodern movies with archetypal feminine heroines the protagonist is just great to begin with.

History is history even in medieval fantasy, and terrible things can be fun to explore too. Most of human history has been filled with all kinds of wars, strife, power disparities, and making the fantasy story represent non-existent version of the modern world is not fun for me. Through shared storytelling you can also explore the shadow side of you, and others, and find new moral perspectives. Greg Stafford said an rpg session is a shamanic journey to the subconscious. People bring out parts of their personality to the stage through their characters, and in my experience people often show 2-3 parts that are not typically present in every day life or every day consciousness.

The freedom we have in a free society is that we don't have to revise our history or books (like totalitarians do), but we can enjoy the old perspectives and use those to reflect on our current ones. The fun of rpgs is that you can play them any way you want. My worry with D&D being owned by an American company is that they will soften and pad all the sharp edges of the product until it's an unrecognizable grey nothing-blob (or worse yet, an everything pizza where everything can be anything) that will not cause any emotions in anyone, and subsequently lose all of its identity and D&D-ness. Former fantasy races will become an ecstatic corporate scifi creature devoid of any mythological or psychological connotation and appeal, just to appease some cultural consultants to get funding from Blackrock.

The latter seems to have happened to Star Wars already after it moved away from the mythic story.

 

[Umbran]

Need for representation <- The hobby was made by men and men play by creating ideals, and exploring mythic/psychic phenomena through shared storytelling. When men play, they usually try to imitate the hero (the focus of the story), and do not try to be represented in their current form in the fiction. As a very rough distinction: Boys emulate Batman, girls try to make Barbie act like they would act. We play differently. You can see this distinction in movies too: archetypal masculine heroes go through hardship and strife to metaphorically die and be reborn a hero. That's the heroes journey. In many postmodern movies with archetypal feminine heroines the protagonist is just great to begin with.

Mod Note:
You don't seem to have reviewed our inclusivity policy before presenting this sexist nonsense.

You are done in this discussion. Please don't post such drek on this site again.

 

[MGibster]

These conversations aren't easy. And nuance? It really doesn't do well on the internet. Heck, I think that's the mission statement of twitter/X - Where nuance goes to die!

I find this site to be fairly good in those regards. We don't always agree of course, but the format makes it easier to have a little nuance compared to the limited characters you can play with on Twitter.

But I honestly think that we need to assume that, until evidence emerges otherwise, people are grappling with the issues in good faith! And not everyone is at the same point- I don't think that there is a single one of us that was born having only correct beliefs, and we are all capable of growth and change.

I tend to define the world in terms of MGibsters. Are you taller than me? You're tall. Are you shorter than me? Then you're short. So it stands to reason that whatever I happen to believe must be the correct belief.

Part of the issue is that people can feel very strongly about their own beliefs. And part of it is that I think we have all run into bad-faith actors on the internet.

And it can be tough, engaging in good faith debate can lead to accusations of Sealioning. And then people have different styles of communication. When I disagree with someone's conclusion I go after their premises. i.e. Their arguments in favor of that conclusion. To me, this is just the basics of what I was taught to do in middle and high school when we had to write persuasive essays, but some people find that particular method of arguing very annoying.

I try to think about the ways I have evolved over time* and then remember that everyone else can do that too. They may not! But if they are asking the questions, if they are engaged, then they are open-minded enough to at least consider the possibility of change. And even if they don't change, maybe they will at least soften.

As Muhammad Ali said, "The man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life." As far as gaming goes, there a lot of things I did back when I was 15 I wouldn't do these days. I'm just not the same degenerate I was back then. I'm a whole different kind of degenerate.

 

[Clint_L]

I don't know that I have the energy for these sorts of discussions anymore (just getting older and less concerned about what other people think about things I believe). However, while I don't agree with everything here (after all there is A LOT there lol) I think you make a very reasoned and nuanced point. My view probably comes from growing up from reading a lot of old books as a kid, having an interest in history and having to read primary sources but also coming from a family where art, music and movies were highly valued. I tend to not worry about the moral character of the artist and focus more on the quality of art they produced. I even think the better artists usually are the more flawed people. I also can get over whatever warts and boils are in a work of art pretty quick, as I am so accustomed to seeing warts and boils. Doesn't mean I agree with the warts and boils but I can just mentally note the context, the flaws of the person who made it, etc. Like everyone else, I do have lines, but I am not a big believer in moralizing about those lines (as I think everyone has to decide for themselves how they are going to interpret a given work and how a work impacts their sense of morality). That is probably a byproduct of growing up in New England and wanting nothing to do with Puritans or Victorians. I think we do run the risk of becoming a bit like Salieri in Amadeus when expect too much alignment from our artistic idols with our own values (it would be nice if every author I liked agreed with all my beliefs and checks off every box on my moral checklist, but usually the person with the talent to make the thing in question is deeply flawed: @Snarf Zagyg gave a good list of some people in history who had issues but made great art). Wagner would be a good case in point. I have serious problems with his ideas, with how his music was used, and I take those kinds of concerns very personally, but I also can't deny the incredible beauty and power of his music. I wouldn't want to be denied the magic of something like Siegfried's Funeral music because of that unfortunate history. And I wouldn't want the world to be denied it. People should make their own choices of course. I understand why some people can't abide his music.

I will say, I think we all could benefit from taking a step back and thinking about how our reactions to these topics are impacting our interactions with other forum members and other gamers.

The issue in this particular case is that the art is an interactive game. You can’t ignore Gygax’s sexism while playing OD&D or 1e. You have to make decisions about it.

Also, ignoring the historical context of art seems to set aside any responsibility on the part of the audience. Would you buy art from an artist you find morally reprehensible? Especially if those attitudes were clearly an element of the art? Are you then endorsing it, as well as popularizing it?

I think it’s complicated. I don’t think it’s possible to entirely separate the art from the artist. All of our own choices have consequences, and there is no simple answer. I think each of us has to decide where our lines are, but there is no consequence free zone.

 

[Clint_L]

I find this site to be fairly good in those regards. We don't always agree of course, but the format makes it easier to have a little nuance compared to the limited characters you can play with on Twitter.


I tend to define the world in terms of MGibsters. Are you taller than me? You're tall. Are you shorter than me? Then you're short. So it stands to reason that whatever I happen to believe must be the correct belief.


And it can be tough, engaging in good faith debate can lead to accusations of Sealioning. And then people have different styles of communication. When I disagree with someone's conclusion I go after their premises. i.e. Their arguments in favor of that conclusion. To me, this is just the basics of what I was taught to do in middle and high school when we had to write persuasive essays, but some people find that particular method of arguing very annoying.


As Muhammad Ali said, "The man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life." As far as gaming goes, there a lot of things I did back when I was 15 I wouldn't do these days. I'm just not the same degenerate I was back then. I'm a whole different kind of degenerate.

Your last point doesn’t square with your first. If you know that many of your prior beliefs were wrong, why would you continue to believe that your current beliefs must be correct? I’ve come to constantly reassess my beliefs as I’ve aged, given my many mistakes in the past.

It’s not that I don’t have beliefs. It’s just that I’m a lot more inclined to other possibilities.

 

[Hussar]

The best way to discuss these sorts of things is to stay on topic. I know, it's easy to start straying into this or that sidebar. I'm certainly guilty of that. But, the best practice is to stay on this specific topic (whatever that specific topic is) and avoid trying to tie in other topics as much as humanly possible.

Because, frankly, as soon as you bring in an example? Well that's just fodder. People will endlessly debate the example without actually addressing the topic. We see that in the Benn Riggs thread where people went on, at length about the Tiamat example that Riggs used, rather than dealing with the actual issue at hand.

And, IME, that's where a lot of the frustration starts coming in. When you endlessly have to backtrack to explain, defend, discuss, some example because the example/hypothetical/whatever, isn't exactly perfect. Then you finally get through all that, get back to the main topic, and then in comes someone else who wants to go right back and dissect the example/hypothetical/whatever.

Particularly in these very fraught topics, staying on topic is paramount. If you want to start discussing other elements, it's far, far better to branch off into a new thread.

 

[Eubani]

Three points: If one looks at media through a Lense that did not exist at the time do not be surprised if you find discomfort, when one goes searching for something problematic it is not a great surprise that something problematic is found and finally those who seek to censor are often those in hindsight are not the best of people. I have never seen a book burner that I would be happy to be tied to.

 

[Hussar]

Three points: If one looks at media through a Lense that did not exist at the time do not be surprised if you find discomfort, when one goes searching for something problematic it is not a great surprise that something problematic is found and finally those who seek to censor are often those in hindsight are not the best of people. I have never seen a book burner that I would be happy to be tied to.

But there's more nuance than that.

It's not a case often of wanting to censor the past. It's that stuff that was created in the past is continuing to be sold today. And, well, it's often not a great look. There's a reason stuff like those old Looney Tunes cartoons aren't in regular rotation anymore. You can still access them, of course. Just not on a DVD (or whatever) being sold and marketed to children. While adults can and should continue to discuss and dissect this kind of thing, I'm not sure a 6 year old watching blackface Bugs Bunny is really something I want to explain.

In other words, it's complicated.

Other times, it's actually quite simple. Take the question of pin up art in D&D books. That's a perennial favorite. People bringing up the bugaboo of censorship whenever that comes up. Thing is, the reason we don't have pin-up art in D&D books anymore is really, really simple.

They make more money by not including that art. Books without pin-up art sell better than ones that have it. There's a reason WotC, Paizo and virtually every other RPG company has gone the same way. It sells better. Has nothing to do with censorship or politics or anything else. It's simple business.

But, of course, people will jump up and down about censorship and how the game is leaving them behind and how it's not for them anymore and on and on. But, the simple fact is, not including pin up art results in more sales. That's just how the market rolls.

Which is to say that every issue is unique and comes with its own issues. Nuance is REALLY important here.

 

[Staffan]

Three points: If one looks at media through a Lense that did not exist at the time do not be surprised if you find discomfort, when one goes searching for something problematic it is not a great surprise that something problematic is found and finally those who seek to censor are often those in hindsight are not the best of people. I have never seen a book burner that I would be happy to be tied to.

See, in the thing that set off this latest discussion, the instigating incident was not wanting to censor old documents. This whole thing got started with a history book that includes a lot of stuff from the early to mid 70s, and the historians in question wanted to make sure people got as unvarnished a look at those as possible. As I understand it, they redacted things like addresses but not actual content. And those documents had some skeezy stuff in them. So in the preface and foreword, the authors put in disclaimers saying "Some of the stuff in here is skeezy but we thought it was important to present them as is. That doesn't mean we or Wizards support those bits." Much like the disclaimer included on many of the PDFs on sale at dndclassics.com.

Then that got the Usual Suspects up in arms, and here we are.