D&D General “‘Scantily Clad and Well Proportioned’: Sexism and Gender Stereotyping in the Gaming Worlds of TSR and Dungeons & Dragons.”

[Maxperson]

Ah, but...



Yes, very much so.

And that gives us the problem with @Belgos suggesting we worry about the "beliefs and circumstances of the time". The things we call the "values" we'd refer to of a given time are generally the values of those who have greater social power. The people who have the power set the rules, after all. And their rules will generally justify their actions.

But, to use an example far more extreme than happens in our game books to show the point: if a person is beaten for having the wrong skin color, ethnicity, religion, gender, gender expression, or the like, the "beliefs and circumstances of the time" do not lessen the broken bones, bleeding, and pain.

Thus, the measure we should use is not the "value lens" of the time, but the harm done.

There is not one single measure that we should use when looking at sexism. Yes we need to look at the harm done, but the circumstances surrounding sexism matter as well. Those circumstance are an additional measure that needs to be done.

Look at killing. We have killing in self-defense, killing with negligence(manslaughter), killing with criminal negligence(criminally negligent homicide), killing on purpose(2nd degree murder), killing with premeditation(1st degree murder). All of those have different levels of punishment, depending on the circumstances surrounding the killing. Were we to remove the circumstances from how we measure the acts, all of those would be punished the same as 1st degree murder, including the act of killing in self-defense.

Looking at the harm in those killings and all of them are roughly the same, including the act of self-defense. The dead person suffered and is now dead, and the family of the victim has to suffer the loss.

Going back to sexism and we have to also look at the circumstances around the act. Not generally to excuse the act, but to know how harshly to judge it. I included the self-defense in killing, because there is acted sexism in movies and T.V. shows that would be equivalent and defensible. The actor is being sexist because it's in the script and the victim of the sexism is aware and okay with it, because it's not sincere.

When I bring up product of his time, it's only to establish understanding of some of the circumstances surrounding the sexism, not to excuse it. And if we refuse to look at the circumstances surrounding a sexist act, there's not much chance that our response to it will be appropriate.

 

[Remathilis]

I do tend to agree that the "xenofiction doesn't make for an interesting RPG" seems like backfill for WotC's singular failure to provide any real, uh, xeno, where other games have done much better jobs - in fact one of the common marks of a D&D competitor in the 1980s and 1990s* was that they put way more effort in on races. Honestly somehow even Shadowrun's elves seem more non-human than D&D's ones, for example. I will say some individual D&D settings have done better jobs though.

* = This is now a more mixed bag - Pathfinder 2E does a better job than D&D 5E but not by much, it's surprising how un-different their jumping-spider people are from humans, for example. Draw Steel! looks like it's doing a slightly more interesting job, and Daggerheart isn't really doing that "angle" of species differences unless the individual player wants to play it up, but does have a much more diverse set of species. Wildsea goes for bigger differences than D&D but still surprisingly small for cactus people etc.

I think part of that is that D&D has been made to be all things to all people, first as a "toolkit" and later by supporting multiple settings. You can do far deeper dives into lore like races when you only need to develop one setting rather than a generic bland core and dozen unique variations of the same race that don't contradict the bland base.

 

[Steampunkette]

There is not one single measure that we should use when looking at sexism. Yes we need to look at the harm done, but the circumstances surrounding sexism matter as well. Those circumstance are an additional measure that needs to be done.

Look at killing. We have killing in self-defense, killing with negligence(manslaughter), killing with criminal negligence(criminally negligent homicide), killing on purpose(2nd degree murder), killing with premeditation(1st degree murder). All of those have different levels of punishment, depending on the circumstances surrounding the killing. Were we to remove the circumstances from how we measure the acts, all of those would be punished the same as 1st degree murder, including the act of killing in self-defense.

Looking at the harm in those killings and all of them are roughly the same, including the act of self-defense. The dead person suffered and is now dead, and the family of the victim has to suffer the loss.

Going back to sexism and we have to also look at the circumstances around the act. Not generally to excuse the act, but to know how harshly to judge it. I included the self-defense in killing, because there is acted sexism in movies and T.V. shows that would be equivalent and defensible. The actor is being sexist because it's in the script and the victim of the sexism is aware and okay with it, because it's not sincere.

When I bring up product of his time, it's only to establish understanding of some of the circumstances surrounding the sexism, not to excuse it. And if we refuse to look at the circumstances surrounding a sexist act, there's not much chance that our response to it will be appropriate.

The point isn't to Judge them Harshly. This has never been about blame. This has always been about acknowledging the sexism that exists and working to deal with the fallout while making things better.

No one in this thread has a scale with Gary Gygax's heart on one side of it and the "Beans of Sexism" that TSR and WotC have put into the game to try and decide how much it weighs so there can be a proper accounting and punishment of Gary Gygax's legacy.

No one gives a flying frog fart if it was 1st degree, 2nd degree, or 3rd degree sexism that lead to most of the artwork portraying women in the D&D space was sexualized fantasy material. No one cares if half orcs being predominantly a product of rape was a carefully considered use of rape narratives specifically to make things hostile to women or if it wasn't even a real consideration and just something someone added in 'cause it "Made Sense" when they wrote it.

This thread isn't about "A Sexist Act" it is about a sexist atmosphere created, intentionally or not, by various decisions made by various people across a long span of time, and the impact of those decisions on the community.

This is -why- people say you're trying to excuse sexism. Because in a situation where no blame is being assigned you're trying to argue that the blame should be less in the context of whatever society the offense occurred rather than in the society that currently exists. Not only is that not the topic at hand: It's explicitly an attempt to "Reduce the Sentence" that you imagine is being handed down, figuratively defending sexist acts and ideas in the hopes of the judge passing a softer judgement.

 

[AnotherGuy]

The largest problem I see with discussing topics like these on a forum of nerds who are so passionate about the game they spend their free-time discussing RPGs is that I'd say by enlarge the Enworld Community is likely a community of players who do NOT encourage the problematic elements spoken about regarding events of the earlier years.
So the push back one experiences is coming from a place of tables full of diverse play-groups with queers, females and males all enjoying in the comedic tropes of the buxom barmaid, the young male henchman, the lonely widow or the accomplished party advisor.

Experimenting with uncontrolled libido of rampaging orcs and evil guards is not the setting tourism I'd say this community explores.

 

[Maxperson]

Mechanically, that’s all a half elf ever was- a paint job on an elf.

At no time in any edition 1e-5e, have they been elves with a paint job. In not one single edition.

In 1e they were mechanically different from elves. Weaker with elf-like abilities, but stronger in what classes they could have(more multi-classes) and the levels they could rise to.

In 2e it was the same or similar to 1e.

In 3e half-elves were mechanically unique.

In 3.5e half-elves were mechanically unique.

In 4e half-elves were mechanically unique.

In 5e half-elves were mechanically unique.

The only time they've ever been a paint job(lipstick on a pig) is with the 5.5e sidebar that thankfully did not get included with the printed PHB.

 

[Steampunkette]

The largest problem I see with discussing topics like these on a forum of nerds who are so passionate about the game they spend their free-time discussing RPGs is that I'd say by enlarge the Enworld Community is likely a community of players who do NOT encourage the problematic elements spoken about regarding events of the earlier years.
So the push back one experiences is coming from a place of tables full of diverse play-groups with queers, females and males all enjoying in the comedic tropes of the buxom barmaid, the young male henchman, the lonely widow or the accomplished party advisor.

Experimenting with uncontrolled libido of rampaging orcs and evil guards is not the setting tourism I'd say this community explores.

It is a thing...

But part of it is also that I have several people blocked who have often weighed in on such topics ad nauseum with endless deflections of sexism or outright sexist insults or continuous sea-lioning "But what if?" just asking questions, etc...

Those people exist. But because I have them blocked they're arguing less, if at all, since they can't see most of what's happening in the thread.

Also several of them got banned in other threads on the topic so, y'know. The community is also cleaning itself up.

 

[Maxperson]

Okay. What if they were used for a similar but different purpose, that allowed for us to, y'know, not have mandatory sexual assault as part of our play?

Name one instance where fluff has ever been a mandatory part of your play? I can't think of one. You've never had to put it into your game.

 

[TiQuinn]

"Time Policing" is a mispelling of Tone Policing, which I -think- they're just using wrong. They seem to think it means being upset about phrasing rather than it being a form of oppressive speech meant to silence minorities who are "Too Aggressive" or "Too Emotional" to get support.

As far as the limbo bar thing: They're suggesting that we're setting the bar too tightly for anything to pass muster. It's the same thing as setting the bar too high to jump over, but using Limbo instead of High Jump for the metaphor.

Except that they've used "tone policing" as well, so the posts get very confusing, very quickly.

Regardless, if one is going to use euphemisms such as "White Knighting", one should understand the greater context around that phrase and be responsible for its use, otherwise refrain from using it in favor of something clearer.

 

[CleverNickName]

‘…Looks at the men on the covers of wife’s large collection of often fantasy themed romance novels’

Is the conclusion I’m supposed to make that she’s sexist?

It's not hard to parse these things. You don't need to be an art critic or a sociologist here. Just look* at the characters in a piece of art, and notice how they are being portrayed.

Is one figure shown in a position of power, dominance, or authority over another? Is one figure shown in a demeaning, humiliated, or reduced position?

If the answer to either question is "yes," ask why. What was the creator's intent? What message is being communicated?

That's how you suss out the "conclusion" you're "supposed to make."

-----

*I wrote "look" here, since you asked about visual art. But it also applies to song lyrics, television roles, written works of fiction and nonfiction, and other art forms.

 

[Maxperson]

But orcs are an actual species. They are not humans who decided to be orcs. That way they utterly fail as a representation of human evil and become (hopefully unintentional) racist representation, embodying the idea that some groups of people are just "born bad."

It doesn't seem to me that you can argue that orcs are a representation of human racism, but not a representation of human evil. Either they are a separate species that does not represent humans, or they are capable of being a representation of humans, including human evil.