log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D General Old School DND talks if DND is racist.

Status
Not open for further replies.

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
More the point, it's not about literally capturing bronze skin in a b/w line art per se. "Tanned white person" isn't much more diverse than just "white person in general" if the physical features are the same (Caucasian). So it's less about capturing actual skin tone, and more about capturing defining and diverse physical features, which absolutely can be done in b/w line art (see my post above).
Anyone who's taken an illustration class knows that skin tone is one of the last things the artist considers when drawing people. Eyes, nose, and mouth features are far more important for conveying race, sex and gender, age, and attitude. Next is hair, followed by clothing and personal effects. Whether or not to add shading or tone to the skin (and how much of it to add) are usually the last things the artist will consider. And depending on the media being used (especially pen and ink), it is often omitted altogether. See the line art drawings that @Sacrosanct posted.

Shading in the skin is usually only necessary when the artist wishes to emphasize the skin tone, or to contrast it with other people in the frame. This was most notably done in a lot of the older woodcarving and ink illustrations that European explorers made of the indigenous people they met in Cuba, Hawaii, and the Americas. There were very specific (and sinister) reasons for wanting to emphasize the complexion of the peoples they met and the images they brought back to Europe.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Sacrosanct

Legend
This does seem to be one of the core issues of the culture war though. A depressing number of people truly do believe that Joe’s and Jane’s opinions should be given equal weight to those of the experts.
My favorite Asimov quote:

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

Throw in a healthy dose of Dunning-Kruger, and you have what we have here.
 

This is not only ridiculous, it's an impossible arbitrary standard you just came up with out of thin air. It's also a horrible standard.

"Well, the majority of doctors have written papers about how the transmission rate of this virus is a problem, but I don't consider that a mountain of evidence unless you also include the opinions of Joe at the car wash and Jane at the Walmart."
One assumes that doctors have some evidence for their opinions. You know scientific studies and the like.

If a bunch of journalists wrote articles about a virus quoted no science, and said "trust u" all the other journalists agree with us" we'd rightly lose all faith in them.

Yes, it's an impossible standard to meet. The consequence of this, as I said, is not that you can't argue that things aren;t problematic, but that you have to argue. There is no appeal to authority which can reasonably be made.
 
Last edited:

It just feels like a solution looking for an issue, at least based on the articles where the interviewers actually talked to Hispanic people.

Much like how this particular topic has never come up at any table I've been actually involved with. Which ... in and of itself is meaningless because it's such a narrow slice. Much like the incredibly narrow slice you get from most social media.

I don't think anyone posting (myself included) has any real clue as to whether this is an issue outside of the blog-sphere.
There absolutely is a problem: Spanish, and other Indo-European languages that use grammatical gender, struggles to represent gender expression outside a strict male-female binary.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
You have just defended every conspiracy theory from Blood Libel to flat Earth to Q. Want to try that again?
In the context they used it in perception is reality.

If everyone in the USA fell over and hit their head and woke up tomorrow wanting to follow the aztec religion human sacrifice is back on the menu. To make the sun rise of course.

It doesn't matter who's technically correct what happens does.
 

I remember I had the Fighting Fantasy Titan world book long before I got into D&D.

That was my first experience with Dark Elves. Looking at the illustrations now it's obviously that they're shaded in such as to indicate dark skin. But I don't recall it being mentioned in the text, and I never realised. It never occured to me. I always imagined they had really pale skin because they lived deep underground (after all that would make sense wouldn't it)

drow.PNG
 

I’m pretty sure the majority of the people who use the term Latinx are well aware that it has not yet been broadly adopted.
I'd wager the term is more widely adopted among extremely online, educated whites than among Latinos themselves, to the extent that there are social media sites popular with said demographic where I would be admonished for not using it. Which gives us an insight into the narrow origin of these sorts of movements, and why some of us question their legitimacy.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
One assumes that doctors have some evidence for their opinions. You know scientific studies and the like.

If a bunch of journalists wrote articles about a virus quoted no science, and said "trust us" all the other journalists agree with us we'd rightly lose all faith in them.

Yes, it's an impossible standard to meet. The consequence of this, as I said, is not that you can't argue that things aren;t problematic, but that you have to argue. There is no appeal to authority which can reasonably be made.
Do you know how journalism works? There is no science. There is reaching out, interviews, research into trends, looking at reaction, ect. It's not a scientific process. Trying to compare this to a scientific process is not just apples vs oranges, it's so ridiculous that it doesn't even merit attention.

What we do know is that A LOT of BIPOC have been coming forward, including industry leaders, and they are all saying the same thing about problematic issues. There is NO evidence that there aren't any problematic issues and it's just white people projecting or looking for racism where there is none.

Take a step back and look at what you're arguing.
 


Mannahnin

Adventurer
I'd wager the term is more widely adopted among extremely online, educated whites than among Latinos themselves, to the extent that there are social media sites popular with said demographic where I would be admonished for not using it.
Right. Which is why inclusive hispanic folks have come up with Latine as a better alternative, and the white progressive folks I know who communicate with said hispanic folks have adopted that as well.
 

If a bunch of journalists wrote articles about a virus quoted no science, and said "trust us" all the other journalists agree with us we'd rightly lose all faith in them.

Fox News exists, and is doing reasonably well.

The Daily Mail would be my go to European example, but I'll admit I haven't been keeping up with their lunacy in COVID times.
 

One assumes that doctors have some evidence for their opinions. You know scientific studies and the like.

If a bunch of journalists wrote articles about a virus quoted no science, and said "trust u" all the other journalists agree with us" we'd rightly lose all faith in them.
Not how journalism works, as @Sacrosanct pointed out. The level of evidence and the specific methodology you are demanding also does not 100% apply to sociology, anthropology, literature studies, and philosophy, which are the fields where the more in-depth discussions of race and representation are found. This is the domain of the soft sciences and the humanities; the methodology involved will differ from the STEM fields.
 


Look man, I've been doing art for 40 years. It it literally no extra effort to make a line drawing of someone who looks African, or Asian, or any non-white person. See my post above of very simple lineart that captures these traits.
If you followed the thread, you'd see we're not talking about making people look African or Asian. We were talking about why dwarves, gnomes, etc. described as dark-complexioned in the text were drawn as white.

Why do you think orcs, goblins, and ogres are 'white' in the MM rather than orange-yellow or greenish-brown as described in the text?
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
I'd wager the term is more widely adopted among extremely online, educated whites than among Latinos themselves, to the extent that there are social media sites popular with said demographic where I would be admonished for not using it.
I mean, yeah, probably.
Which gives us an insight into the narrow origin of these sorts of movements, and why some of us question their legitimacy.
Whereas I question the motivations of those who are more concerned with a movement’s “legitimacy” than with its impact. Again, as both a nonbinary and Hispanic person, I’ve never really been bothered by the gendered language. But, other people have, and the degree to
which it inconveniences me to say “Latinx” or “Latine” instead of “Latino” or “Latina” is positively dwarfed by the positive impact it has on people who it does bother.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
Fox News exists, and is doing reasonably well.

The Daily Mail would be my go to European example, but I'll admit I haven't been keeping up with their lunacy in COVID times.
Not only that, but what's happening is not what Don paraphrased. These aren't journalists who are saying "Hey, D&D has has some problematic presentation issues in its history, just trust me." They are saying things like "Here's all these Asian people we talked to who all have identified which parts of Oriental Adventures is problematic."

And yeah, we absolutely should be listening to them because they are the ones impacted and they are the ones who would know best.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
If you followed the thread, you'd see we're not talking about making people look African or Asian. We were talking about why dwarves, gnomes, etc. described as dark-complexioned in the text were drawn as white.

Why do you think orcs, goblins, and ogres are 'white' in the MM rather than orange-yellow or greenish-brown as described in the text?
yeah, and your reasons as to why they were drawn white have been soundly debunked and refuted. I myself have even given you examples how you can do non-white in a line drawing, and yet here you are, refusing to acknowledge the facts, and doubling down on debunked theories. Again, for what? You seem to be bending over backwards, arguing debunked reasons, for white dominance in the game.
 

Not how journalism works, as @Sacrosanct pointed out. The level of evidence and the specific methodology you are demanding also does not 100% apply to sociology, anthropology, literature studies, and philosophy, which are the fields where the more in-depth discussions of race and representation are found. This is the domain of the soft sciences and the humanities; the methodology involved will differ from the STEM fields.
As I said, I'm not demanding anything.

This is pure distraction.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
Right. However I wonder if people who want that basic 'these are good, these are bad, they fight' even play Eberron?
Does it matter? WotC has seen that one of their most popular campaign settings do not have "set alignments" for all prime plane creatures and that every individual is just that-- an individual. Some good, some bad, regardless of wealth, appearance, how or where they live, and so forth. Heck... the setting still splits the creatures up descriptively between "people" and "monsters"... and yet even the monsters are not described as inherently evil because they are "monsters".

And since there was little to no uproar with this idea when it came out when the setting was published... WotC would take that same proportional reaction and presume the entirety of the D&D populace will follow that proportion. The same way the Nielsen ratings don't measure every single person watching tv... they take a smaller percentage of viewers, see what they are watching, and then extrapolate that to the entire tv viewing audience.

And while sure... I suppose there could be this very large but invisible contingent of players that saw what Eberron did in not making all orcs evil-- and every single one of those people turned away from the setting but never actually SAID that was the reason they never played Eberron (and will suddenly come out of the woodwork to declare it come 6E time if/when WotC removes set lineage alignments)... my guess is that most people just actually don't care. If the book says "some orcs are good and some orcs are evil, just like some dwarves and good and some dwarves are evil"... most of the people who played past editions will shrug their shoulder and go "Okay, whatever."
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
Whereas I question the motivations of those who are more concerned with a movement’s “legitimacy” than with its impact.
This right here.

if someone advises that they prefer a gender neutral term even if that runs counter to how historically pronouns have been used, it takes me ZERO effort to accommodate them. It makes them feel better and is no skin off my back.

However, if I question their legitimacy as my first reaction, that speaks volumes about me. None of it good.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top