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

[Paul Farquhar]

I don't think someone being Asian means they are automatically right, or that they speak for all other Asians.

Then it is up to other Asians to say that.

If other Asians are not disagreeing, then we, non-Asians have no choice but to accept that they speak for the majority.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I grew up in Boston. Plenty of black eyes around here. I don't think it is a good system though for moral enforcement.

It worked a lot better than the current system, which clearly does not work at all.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It worked a lot better than the current system, which clearly does not work at all.

I grew up with that stuff, and I boxed too. Black eyes in the gym, I don't have a problem with. Black eyes from bullies who use their umbrage as an excuse to inflict pain on the weak? No, I am not in favor of that at all. It really doesn't solve anything. Someone gets hurt. It doesn't prove anything.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

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.

Which is, once again, a problem with the internet and our understanding of insults.

Not only does the internet remove the consequences of anti-social behavior (your example of the black eye), or also removes many of the benefits of pro-social behavior (positive reciprocation).

Insults are tricky, because the term insult can only be applied after the fact. A man raised in a cave, away from civilization, could not know that extending one's middle finger to the proprietor of a gun shot is fairly poor idea. Likewise, if the proprietor of a gun shot was the one raised in the cave and a teen gave him the finger his first day on the job, the cave man might mistake it for a greeting or proposition of friendship. First the victim feels insulted, only then can an action be labeled insulting.

Once again, I see only issue related offense and anonymity, not free expression*.

*Not that these don't exist - slander, libel, and threats of violence, for example.

 

[BookTenTiger]

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.

I think this is a really interesting conundrum.

On the one hand, I agree that problematic works should still be accessible.

However, I do think it would be responsible for the publisher to add some kind of introduction that specifically addresses the controversial materials. When I bought d20 Conan back in the day, there was an introduction that addressed the fact that the original Conan stories used a lot of racial stereotypes, and though this rule system recreated the books, the players should be aware. This really helped my group and I consider what we were playing in a larger context.

What else could a publisher do if they still want to make problematic materials accessible but not necessarily support those old views? Could they donate the profits? Create a suggested reading list? Add an appendix on ways to play the game with am eye towards battling negative stereotypes?

I think there are a lot of solutions that are not just black and white.

 

[Remathilis]

I don't think anyone can draw cultural boundaries, because I don't think any two people actual share identical beliefs. Trying delving deep into the question, "why do people here go to funerals?", for example. Even in, supposedly unified "cultures", the answers don't line up.

You go to people's funerals or they won't come to yours. [emoji39]

 

[Bedrockgames]

Then it is up to other Asians to say that.

If other Asians are not disagreeing, then we, non-Asians have no choice but to accept that they speak for the majority.

We are not a different species. We get to have opinions on this matter too, and frankly I think it is a little dehumanizing to treat people like they and their experience is so different from our own, that we can't even have an opinion about whether something they find offensive is in fact offensive. We are all human beings. We can hear their reasons and weight them to the best of our ability. I have used this metaphor before, but I do so because I think it is very true: you are taking something laudable that ought to help build bridges and creating walls with it.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Question: Why are racial groups a good way of categorizing human beings?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think this is a really interesting conundrum.

On the one hand, I agree that problematic works should still be accessible.

However, I do think it would be responsible for the publisher to add some kind of introduction that specifically addresses the controversial materials. When I bought d20 Conan back in the day, there was an introduction that addressed the fact that the original Conan stories used a lot of racial stereotypes, and though this rule system recreated the books, the players should be aware. This really helped my group and I consider what we were playing in a larger context.

What else could a publisher do if they still want to make problematic materials accessible but not necessarily support those old views? Could they donate the profits? Create a suggested reading list? Add an appendix on ways to play the game with am eye towards battling negative stereotypes?

I think there are a lot of solutions that are not just black and white.

Ideally people don't need these kinds of introductions. They should be able to encounter this stuff, see the 1985 copyright date, and understand it was a different time with different sensibilities. I used to read a lot of gothic literature when I was younger, and turn of the century books, and I quickly learned, these were books from different periods with different sensibilities. I was able to navigate that without an introduction. I am not opposed to them putting one up if they want to. I think it would be better if people were simply taught that books from other time periods sometimes have content that might offend us.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Which is, once again, a problem with the internet and our understanding of insults.

Not only does the internet remove the consequences of anti-social behavior (your example of the black eye), or also removes many of the benefits of pro-social behavior (positive reciprocation).

I agree.

Insults are tricky, because the term insult can only be applied after the fact. A man raised in a cave, away from civilization, could not know that extending one's middle finger to the proprietor of a gun shot is fairly poor idea. Likewise, if the proprietor of a gun shot was the one raised in the cave and a teen gave him the finger his first day on the job, the cave man might mistake it for a greeting or proposition of friendship. First the victim feels insulted, only then can an action be labeled insulting.

Yes, it is quite possible, and common, to insult someone out of ignorance. This is inevitably going to happen. But once we discover we have insulted someone the right thing to do is apologise and try to avoid making the same mistake again. Which is why it makes sense for a business to employ people for the specific task of trying to avoid ignorant insults. they won't always succeed of course, but at least the business is trying.

Once again, I see only issue related offense and anonymity, not free expression*.

I don't see the distinction you are making. "Free expression" means we can insult who we like, as deliberately as we like, we can tell whatever lies we like, and we don't have to apologise to anyone we don't want to.