Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="payn" data-source="post: 9446038" data-attributes="member: 90374">Taken me a bit to wrap my head around the issue some folks have with artists and their creations and society. For some folks, Gygax is D&amp;D, and folks also see Mythos as Lovecraft. If the person ends up being awful, then it poisons the well of the creation and its shared experience. However, if you can off load that behavior onto a general society tolerance, it excuses the person and seemingly restores the good nature of the creation. &quot;It was the times...It was all of us!&quot;Where I think this fails is in a general, not specific application. For example, if someone writes a story using popular misconceptions and lends offense unknowingly, they can be challenged on that. A person who meant no offensive intent can own up to that as a mistake, and be part of the culture that rectifies it. Others, reject the notion they have given any offense, or worse, they own it as proclaiming to be a bigot. It was their goal all along to give offense because they fully intended what they created. To be fair, to some artists were/are never challenged, or recorded on the nature of the intent and topic. Others, however, speak directly to it and you can weigh their place in society in general in comparison.Personally, I think a creation can grow a community that goes beyond its creator. At this point, D&amp;D is part of our culture and the collective owners, designers, editors have responsibility for it going forward. I can enjoy D&amp;D and the mythos regardless of the stature of their creators becasue it is beyond them at this point.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="payn, post: 9446038, member: 90374"] Taken me a bit to wrap my head around the issue some folks have with artists and their creations and society. For some folks, Gygax[I] is[/I] D&D, and folks also see Mythos [I]as[/I] Lovecraft. If the person ends up being awful, then it poisons the well of the creation and its shared experience. However, if you can off load that behavior onto a general society tolerance, it excuses the person and seemingly restores the good nature of the creation. "It was the times...It was all of[I] us[/I]!" Where I think this fails is in a general, not specific application. For example, if someone writes a story using popular misconceptions and lends offense unknowingly, they can be challenged on that. A person who meant no offensive intent can own up to that as a mistake, and be part of the culture that rectifies it. Others, reject the notion they have given any offense, or worse, they own it as proclaiming to be a bigot. It was their goal all along to give offense because they fully intended what they created. To be fair, to some artists were/are never challenged, or recorded on the nature of the intent and topic. Others, however, speak directly to it and you can weigh their place in society in general in comparison. Personally, I think a creation can grow a community that goes beyond its creator. At this point, D&D is part of our culture and the collective owners, designers, editors have responsibility for it going forward. I can enjoy D&D and the mythos regardless of the stature of their creators becasue it is beyond them at this point. [/QUOTE]

Verification