D&D General The Human Side of D&D History - From Gary Gygax to Temple of Elemental Evil

[mamba]

I've never said anything that could be construed as a defense of "product of his time." I have in fact USED it as a method of understanding, though, and explicitly not as a defense of sexism.

it automatically is a defense, whether you acknowledge that or not

 

[mamba]

I was once told; "Love the sinner, not the sins". Meaning we can treat a person with respect and dignity, while still acknowledging that they have flaws, maybe deep and troubling flaws

yes, and we can also push back against those denying the flaws exist, that does not mean we are ‘disrespecting’ Gary

 

[Maxperson]

it automatically is a defense, whether you acknowledge that or not

No, it isn't. There is nothing inherent to that argument that is always defense. You can use it as a defense or not.

Edit: I'll prove it to you. "Men who were products of the late 1800s wore bow ties to fine events." Now, according to you that sentence defends sexism, because "product of your time" is automatically a defense of sexism. Not only is that sentence there not a defense of sexism, it's also not a defense of the 1800s, fine events or bow ties. It's simply informative, because that's how I chose to use the term.

There is no inherent defense in "product of your time." There is only how I choose to use it with regard to myself, and how others choose to use it for their purposes.

 

[haakon1]

To be honest, I'm not even sure how hard he would 'fight' about the Correct Way to Play D&D. By the time of his passing, I had the general feel he was long past D&D other than in a historical/past sense.

I spoke a lot with Col_Playdoh here, but never met him in person. At one point, he was posting more to me than anyone else - I looked it up.

He was, in my impression, a very nice, opinionated, and irascible person.

Significant events my recollection, all here if people want to check the receipts:
(1) I told him my company was offering AD&D: Accidental Death and Dismemberment insurance, and that I knew he’d sold insurance, and asked in AD&D was an inside joke name.

He replied no, but that would fit a lot of campaigns he’d played in.

(2) I told him about the semi-verbal MR NPC child in the Temple of Elemental Evil PC game (2003), mentioned it was 3e rules, and asked if a cleric could cure MR in AD&D.

He said, sadly, Cure Disease wouldn’t work because it’s a low Int stat. My impression was he was sympathetic to the issue, and understood the wish fulfillment aspect of the game - that my question wasn’t about gaining XP, but more about “can you make it a better world than ours” and his reaction was basically “life contains tragedy, so should the game”.

I’m not sure if it was in this exchange but at one point he said, if I remember correctly, he didn’t like editions after 1e, but he tolerated them.

 

[M_Natas]

To the argument that Gygax wasn’t as bad as others of his time:

The key issue isn’t whether Gygax was worse than his contemporaries; it’s the pedestal he’s placed on and the lasting legacy he has in gaming culture.

Let’s use Lovecraft as an example. Was Lovecraft the worst racist of his era? No. He died in 1937, and plenty of people at the time held more overt and violent racist beliefs. However, Lovecraft is celebrated today as the father of modern horror, particularly cosmic horror, and his cultural influence endures. That’s why it’s essential to critically examine his flaws—especially the racism that heavily influenced his work. If we overlook those aspects, we risk perpetuating the same problems.

For instance, someone today might want to write cosmic horror but isn’t well-versed in the historical context of Lovecraft’s racism. They could inadvertently replicate those same problematic elements in their own work. And unlike Lovecraft, this new writer would be judged by today’s standards, as they should be. However, if Lovecraft’s racism isn’t openly discussed, the next generation of creators may repeat these mistakes out of ignorance. Sweeping these issues under the rug doesn’t protect his legacy; it perpetuates the harm.

The same principle applies to Gygax and Dungeons & Dragons. Early D&D modules and rules contain problematic elements, particularly regarding race and sexism. This is not just a historical issue—these elements have persisted. A glaring recent example is the Spelljammer set for 5e, which included the Hadozee, a concept with deeply offensive implications. These issues arose, in part, because the problematic aspects of early D&D weren’t sufficiently acknowledged and critiqued.

When a cultural work or figure has significant influence, it’s crucial to examine both the good and the bad. This critical reflection ensures that we learn from the past, avoid repeating its mistakes, and preserve the best parts of the legacy while leaving the harmful parts behind. Ignoring or whitewashing these flaws doesn’t protect a legacy—it diminishes its growth and understanding.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You are attributing to me an argument that I did not make. That's exactly how a Strawman works.

I'm sorry, accused who of saying they were defending sexism when sexism never appeared in their post?

And that's still not a strawman. A strawman is creating a position that doesn't exist or isn't involved in the discussion to attack. It's not 'I disagree with your interpretation of what I said' or even just implying the other person is lying.

'Product of his time' is a garbage argument or... explanation... or asking questions whatever reason one wants to give for putting it forth, full stop.

We need to get away from making excuses or explanations or mitigations or asking questions or any other thing that distracts from the actual flaws of the people involved to actually confront history and the legacy of that history.

The whatever-no-one-cares of 'man of his time' is just noise getting in the way of what really matters and regardless of the context in which it is being brought up, it is a meaningless distraction at best whether that is the intention or not.

 

[Maxperson]

And that's still not a strawman. A strawman is creating a position that doesn't exist or isn't involved in the discussion to attack. It's not 'I disagree with your interpretation of what I said' or even just implying the other person is lying.

Correct. You just falsely attributed(created a position that doesn't exist) to me some sort of defense of "product of his time" which I never did. You did so when you told me that I could stop defending in order to stop being called a liar and/or stop being accused of things I didn't do. So it's also ironic that you falsely attributed an argument to me in order for me to stop being accused of things I didn't do.

'Product of his time' is a garbage argument or... explanation... or asking questions whatever reason one wants to give for putting it forth, full stop.

You can declare it so, but your declaration isn't fact. Why are you against understanding someone better so that you might better judge that person?

 

[Maxperson]

Your position in this thread, explicitly, has been "Sure he's sexist, but he's not that bad of a sexist. Here's a list of other things people did that were worse." (as if they don't -still- do it to this day)

I don't know if you were referring to me there, but I didn't do that. At least not in that context.

I get that you want to "Increase Understanding" but unless the understanding you're trying to get across is "He wasn't that bad" I fear you're doing a poor job of it.

That's why I keep telling folk to read to understand, not to respond. Folks reading to respond keep jumping to that conclusion, but they wouldn't if they bothered to try and understand what I wrote.

 

[mamba]

Edit: I'll prove it to you. "Men who were products of the late 1800s wore bow ties to fine events." Now, according to you that sentence defends sexism, because "product of your time" is automatically a defense of sexism.

not what I said, at all… All you proved is that you have no understanding of why it is a defense

All it would have been a defense of is wearing a bowtie, but since that does not come with negative connotations…

Here is an example to show you how this works… ‘Your honor, we should not claim that Mr Gygax is sexist, he was no more sexist than many other men, and there were plenty who were more sexist than him. He was just a product of his time.’ which is how everyone but you is using it in these threads…

 

[Bohandas]

There are a number of issues with criticism, we live in an age where there are many vested interest that was us to be mad, angry and not willing to take things like criticism as an honest opinion or to that it in good faith because if we regard a message, a posting, blog or video as that persons honest assessment we may, if we disagree with it, just dismiss it as some dude on the internet and not engage. They want us engaging, to linger on their platform so they can collect data and drive ads our way.

Remember to always use an ad-blocker