D&D General (Anecdotal) conversations with Asian gamers on some problems they currently face in the D&D world of RPG gaming

[Paul Farquhar]

It seems we are moving too far away from valuing free expression,

Before the internet the free expression to insult anyone we like was constrained by something called good manners.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Before the internet the free expression to insult anyone we like was constrained by something called good manners.

Then the problem isn't free expression, it's either the insult or the internet.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Then the problem isn't free expression, it's either the insult or the internet.

If you have the right free expression, then clearly the right to insult anyone we like is a consequence of that.

The internet removes the ability of the insulted person to respond by giving the insulter a black eye. The consequence is people no longer exercise the self-censorship we call good manners.

 

[BookTenTiger]

My point isn't that we should make actively offensive content, it is that what is offensive isn't a settled matter and it isn't as simple or black and white as a lot of people are making it out to be. There is a whole thread on whether orcs are a racist and colonialist trope that attests to this disagreement. I am also saying, some of the solutions being offered, seem like like they make things worse rather than better. It seems we are moving too far away from valuing free expression, and too far in the direction of being perched and ready to take offense. That is the problem I have with much of this. There are things I would find offensive in a game and not buy them over. But there are also a lot of instances where it feels like folks are overreacting. The satanic panic was an overreaction. I feel like we are in another period of over reaction.

Man, I am all about free expression. It is literally the bedrock of democracy.

However, if the result of someone expressing themselves is culturally offensive, and that was not the intention, then it is a responsible action for the author to edit the material.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think this is where intentionality comes in, right?

You look at Lucifer, and I don't think the intent is to offend Christians.

However, if you look at South Park their intent is to offend! (As is the intent of a lot of satire.)

So when we look at works like OA, what is the intention? I don't think the original authors were purposefully offensive. However, reducing many varied, historied cultures to a homogenized package to sell to a Western audience that has historically homogenized and stereotyped those cultures is definitely offensive.

So if the intention was not to be offensive, and the result is offensive, then that's a call to action for the publisher.

Regarding OA specifically, I think there is a few things going on here.

One I think most people on this thread would agree the book has issues that are worth discussing. We don't all agree about all of the recent criticisms though. I watched the entire youtube series about OA, and I found some of the critiques were valid, some really, really seemed to be a stretch. But that said, there is no question, if OA were to come out today it would probably be done differently.

Two, the question of what to do with existing OA material. If we were just talking about new OA books, that would be one thing. But this conversation became about whether the original OA book should remain up for sale as is, and if the content of that book should be changed. I have a big problem with taking the book down or changing it. That is the reason I stepped into this conversation. And my reasons are not simple. I am both troubled by the idea that we should ignore or purge content that doesn't fit modern sensibilities (this seems like a very victorian reaction to me), but also this book was made, it is a part of history and part of the legacy of the line that WOTC inherited. I think it is important, especially if folks find it offensive, for others to be able to see the text themselves and decide if they agree.

Three, criticisms of OA. I have no issues with people critiquing OA. I think there is plenty to critique. And I think the conversation is a perfectly reasonable one to have in the gaming community. Where I start to have problems is 1) saying that the 1985 OA should come down because of modern sensibilities (to me this is like trying to take Huck Finn down from a sales page because it contains content that might upset modern readers), 2) saying we all have to agree with the critiques made about OA. We are going to have different opinions on this one. And some people will have more charitable readings of it, while others will have less charitable readings. But an orthodox opinion is forming and that is what concerns me.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I found some of the critiques were valid, some really, really seemed to be a stretch.

But if you are not Asian you simply are not qualified to say that. People should not be required to justify their feelings to a more powerful social group.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The internet removes the ability of the insulted person to respond by giving the insulter a black eye. The consequence is people no longer exercise the self-censorship we call good manners.

You didn't used to get a black eye for saying something a person disagreed with or found insulting. It could have happened, it still can happen. But it wasn't the norm. I think if anything the internet has made consequences for what people say bigger, because now it is't merely someone giving you a black eye that is a threat, you could lose your job, or have your reputation ruined. In general, even when I really strongly disagree with folks, I am in favor of being as kind as possible and not trying to take away their livelihood (I doubt having your livelihood taken away would be helpful in getting people to change their view or be less extreme). I am also not in favor of giving back eyes to people who insult me in person. I'd much rather have a conversation. Manners are fine but they are not everything. I sometimes appreciate people being blunt, even rude, if they feel they need to be. Good manners can also be a form of deception.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

You didn't used to get a black eye for saying something a person disagreed with or found insulting.

You clearly did not grow up in Liverpool.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But if you are not Asian you simply are not qualified to say that. People should not be required to justify their feelings to a more powerful social group.

I don't think someone being Asian means they are automatically right, or that they speak for all other Asians. And I don't think someone not being Asian, means they suddenly must stop thinking for themselves or listening to what people say with a critical ear. In some cases the person will take offense and it is warranted, but there are plenty of people who take offense when they clearly shouldn't be offended. Sometimess our offense is a choice, and it isn't always the right choice.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You clearly did not grow up in Liverpool.

I grew up in Boston. Plenty of black eyes around here. I don't think it is a good system though for moral enforcement. People who give black eyes, like giving black eyes. The insult is usually just the excuse for the violence.