D&D 5E (2014) D&D Races: Evolution, Fantasy Stereotypes & Escapism

[Dire Bare]

That’s not a ban. Those are editorial changes.

And good editorial changes at that.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

The concepts remain, they are just choosing to use different language. Does that mean you can use these products now?

If the concepts remain and that's fine, and its just the word used that was a problem, doesn't that then mean that the word used is arbitrary/unimportant? But if the words being used are arbitrary and unimportant as long as the content is being expressed then why are people so focused on the specific word instead of the content behind it?

Does this boil down to people getting upset over window dressing?

 

[Vaalingrade]

That’s not a ban. Those are editorial changes.

Also, thye said 'perfectly good words', which in context, these are not.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I totally get what you're saying, but the "bad" label does throw me off, because:

• As per the OP, I think stereotypical thinking is human (just like using binary language like "good" and "bad" is human)
• Acting human is not a license to do whatever you want, but I think it does obligate us to have empathy for human struggles
• I'd feel uncomfortable to publicly denounce that category of suboptimal human behavior as "bad" -- I don't think it serves the greater good for society
• For example, our craving for sugar is evolutionary and human. So if someone is eating too much sugar, and suffers from diabetes, I don't want to say they have "bad" behavior. I'd rather say "unhealthy" or not in line with their health goals
• People who are being stereotyped are themselves capable of thinking in (positive or negative) stereotypes, and without some sort of knowledge that they have malicious intent, I would hesitate to judge it as "bad" from my position
• This is a thread that includes people who want to roleplay in a morally ambiguous world. It is my perspective that players are better equipped to navigate a morally ambiguous world if they have the mindfulness and the moral lexicon to navigate that well.

There are plenty of human behaviors that are bad. Slavery and imperialism, for example, are just straight-up bad, no caveats; humans have engaged in both for essentially the entirety of their existence, to one degree or another, and it is only with the past 2-3 centuries that we've even started to fix the problem. (After all, despite living in the "land of the free," are not company towns and locked factory doors just slavery with a fresh coat of paint?) But we don't even need to go that deep. Bullying is a human behavior, but I have zero qualms saying that it is a bad behavior. That doesn't mean I have no empathy for bullies. Most of them are victims themselves, lashing out to try to gain some semblance of power, or following the examples of the authority figures in their lives. But just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a midden by any other name still stinks.

Even apart from the greater good of society, "stereotypes" are just disrespectful. Again, the word--in the context of people, that is--specifically means "a set of inaccurate, simplistic generalizations about a group that allows others to categorize them and treat them accordingly." Inaccurate, simplistic generalizations, specifically used to determine how one should treat people. That is a bad thing; it is inaccurate, oversimplified, and in the vast majority of cases used to make a singular standard of behavior toward all members of a group without other justification. If it were not inaccurate, not oversimplified, and not used in order to treat individuals as absolutely synonymous with whatever group of interest they happen to be part of, it wouldn't be a stereotype. An accurate, non-simplistic generalization, used with the understanding that it is necessarily imperfect and thus we must always be prepared for exceptions and variations, has ceased to be a stereotype.

Bad behavior does not require malign intent. It is entirely possible to do something genuinely awful while having absolutely no ill will at all. Consider, for example, the Stolen Generations of Aboriginal Australians, though we don't even need such extreme examples. "You're a credit to your race" was a genuinely well-meaning phrase often spoken in the early 20th century, but can only grow out of harmful stereotypes, and perpetuates them: a bad behavior that can only arise from having no ill will, because of the already-awful context. Or, one that affected a significant number of people I knew in high school, "You're Asian, shouldn't this math stuff be easy for you?" Yeah, that was a fun issue for them, believe you me. That's a "positive" stereotype ("Asians are good at math") showing that it is still a problem, because "positive" stereotypes set up unfair and unrealistic universal standards, thus punishing anyone who fails to measure up, while "negative" stereotypes presume flaw and fault and predispose handwaves of evidence to the contrary. Neither one is good or productive, unless and until you (1) stop presuming universality, (2) earnestly and continuously check for mistakes, and (3) actively work to make amends when you (inevitably) find such mistakes...and as soon as you actually do those three things, you aren't stereotyping anymore.

The difference between murder and manslaughter is intent. The instant that death becomes the intent of the actor, the act is no longer manslaughter and is murder. It is not possible to murder without intending to; that is a contradiction. Likewise, it is not possible to have a productive stereotype; as soon as it is productive, it is not a stereotype anymore, it is merely a generalization. Generalizations are tools, and we should use them with care. Stereotypes, whether positive or negative, are bludgeons; negative ones beat down anyone who dissents, and positive ones beat down anyone who diverges. They should not be used.

Now, if someone wishes to use an idiosyncratic meaning of "stereotype" where they have diluted its meaning until it is just a synonym for "generalization," I mean, that's their business, English doesn't have an academy to tell people what words mean. But I think that's a rather foolish abuse of terminology when a perfectly-functional, pre-existing word covers the meaning quite nicely while avoiding the well-documented usage of the word "stereotype." Like diluting "stench" until it becomes synonymous with "smell" or "murder" until it becomes synonymous with "kill." Certainly one can choose to do those things, but it seems both wasteful and very likely to invite controversy and quarrel when one could have, very easily, chosen a path that didn't do that.

 

[Lyxen]

The primary connotation of words changes over times. It seems strange to me not to take that into account.

The dictionary definitions have not changed as far as I can see, for one, and this is an international forum not even US based. So why, even if the connotation (and I would certainly debate that it's the "primary" connotation that changes) in the US, would we have to abide by it ?

 

[Irlo]

In fact, actually, this very forum explicitly lists terms/words that people are not allowed to use.

This is not a United States web site. That a private site not based in the US prohibits particular words undermines the claim that in America and only in America are words being banned.

 

[Lyxen]

The concepts remain, they are just choosing to use different language.

No, they REMOVED some words. This is simply censure.

Does that mean you can use these products now?

It did not stop me from using these products before, as I am not from the US, and therefore absolutely do not care.

 

[Lyxen]

This is not a United States web site. That a private site not based in the US prohibits particular words undermines the claim that in America and only in America are words being banned.

Not, it undermines their credibility as being country-agnostic.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

This is not a United States web site. That a private site not based in the US prohibits particular words undermines the claim that in America and only in America are words being banned.

Eh I guess he's wrong that it's only happening in the US but I don't see how that supports your position...?

 

[Vaalingrade]

No, they REMOVED some words. This is simply censure.

They removed them from their own products.