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

[ccs]

Bad...people?

like...death/murder/blood cultists, ethno-supremacists, authoritarians, etc?

like...they do tend to wear uniforms. It’s not hard to tell them from the average villager.

I believe I said non-human humanoids.

 

[Charlaquin]

Oh yes!

I remember when WOTC removed/changed lore in the game and it changed our culture, precipitating a racial reckoning.

Or when that one video game came out and suddenly our cultural mores and values were shaped anew.

No. To think this is the case is absurd. These changes happened because our culture changed not the other way around. Games reflect our culture.

Art 100% influences culture. This is not even a disputed thing.

 

[Zardnaar]

Art 100% influences culture. This is not even a disputed thing.

Pretty much.

It's been argued wargaming evolved from army officer training who used that knowledge to wage real war.

Change is good imho radical change can go either way.

I don't want the game dumbed down to the point that only humans can be bad guys and let's face it orcs or whatever are still going to be the bad guys more often than not.

At a fundamental blevel you're just going to have to draw the line somewhere and say play or don't since I think the violent aspects of D&D are also a problem if you really want to go that far down the rabbit hole.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Let's assume I do.
If for no other reason than just to break up the monotony of killing yet more human bandits, low lv undead, & lesser devils/fiends.

I'm not running GoT, I'm running D&D.
Home of all manner of monstrous humanoids (many with a penchant for eating humans/elves/etc) & many whom the evil empires find quite suitable as troops.

In 20 years, I’ve never killed anyone in D&D because of their race.

Not even the safe kills, really, since they’ve always been doing something evil.

 

[Zardnaar]

In 20 years, I’ve never killed anyone in D&D because of their race.

Not even the safe kills, really, since they’ve always been doing something evil.

I had PCs kill Drow because they were Drow.

The good aligned Drow thing didn't really exist.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

As I said, let's assume that answer is yes.

The question though is if you strip those out, what takes their place? And what's after that when you lot decide this new default evil thing should be promoted to playable character/"people" status.

Nothing. You’ll just have to homebrew.

Not in D&D. I was talking about general myths and lore.

I specified D&D demons for a reason. Other demons aren’t even elementals, or distinct from devils. D&D demons are decidedly their own thing.

Oh yes!

I remember when WOTC removed/changed lore in the game and it changed our culture, precipitating a racial reckoning.

Or when that one video game came out and suddenly our cultural mores and values were shaped anew.

No. To think this is the case is absurd. These changes happened because our culture changed not the other way around. Games reflect our culture.

Suggesting that life doesn’t imitate art is genuinely the most blatantly, absurdly, objectively, false claim I’ve ever seen made on this site.
you are making a claim that flies in the face of literally all expertise on the subject of the interaction of art and culture. Provide support for your incredible claim or admit you’re full of it.

I believe I said non-human humanoids.

I don’t especially care. The premise is flawed. You can play D&D entirely without non-human humanoids. You can play D&D with Humans set as the bad guys and orcs as the good guys.

 

[HJFudge]

Art 100% influences culture. This is not even a disputed thing.

Well, entirely sidestepping the question of whether D&D games could be considered art...

Art has been borne as a result of the culture. There are many examples of this.

The Great War revolutionized art, leading to the rise of the Modernist Movement. Modernism did not cause The Great War. Same with abstract modernism and WW2. WW2 had a lot of causes, but abstract modernism was not one of them.

During the Byzantine Era especially, the Culturally dominant religions of that time caused much Art to be generated in religious iconography. Religious iconography did not cause the rise of the dominance of religion in that Culture.

The Civil Rights era, a cultural reckoning with race, gave rise to a slew of art that dealt with the feelings and influences of that generation. The civil rights era was not caused by this art.

I could continue, but I think 3 pretty clear and undeniable examples are enough, no?

Let us also compare and contrast here.

I make a statement. I back up that statement with examples and evidence. You say 'Suggesting that life doesn’t imitate art is genuinely the most blatantly, absurdly, objectively, false claim I’ve ever seen made on this site. you are making a claim that flies in the face of literally all expertise on the subject of the interaction of art and culture.'

Have you not read Plato's Republic? In it, he claims that art is twice removed from reality. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to go read it as trying to explain Plato's Republic in a D&D forum is a bit absurd.

You state this as gospel, but you provide no evidence. Not even one example. Yet the 'literally all expertise' claim is verifiably false. Note that I just don't say its verifiably false. I then provide an example that verifies it as false.

Can people be influenced by art? Surely. But Culture is a far more overriding influence. An order of magnitude so.

 

[ccs]

In 20 years, I’ve never killed anyone in D&D because of their race.

Not even the safe kills, really, since they’ve always been doing something evil.

Oh, to be fair the players didn't kill them because they were orcs/goblins/gnolls or whatever. They killed them because they were the opponents of the moment. They were the opponents of the moment because that's what fit that point in the story.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well, entirely sidestepping the question of whether D&D games could be considered art...

It is.

Art has been borne as a result of the culture. There are many examples of this.

The Great War revolutionized art, leading to the rise of the Modernist Movement. Modernism did not cause The Great War. Same with abstract modernism and WW2. WW2 had a lot of causes, but abstract modernism was not one of them.

During the Byzantine Era especially, the Culturally dominant religions of that time caused much Art to be generated in religious iconography. Religious iconography did not cause the rise of the dominance of religion in that Culture.

The Civil Rights era, a cultural reckoning with race, gave rise to a slew of art that dealt with the feelings and influences of that generation. The civil rights era was not caused by this art.

I could continue, but I think 3 pretty clear and undeniable examples are enough, no?

No one here has claimed culture doesn’t influence art. Each influences the other. This is a very well understood relationship.

Let us also compare and contrast here.

I make a statement. I back up that statement with examples and evidence. You say 'Suggesting that life doesn’t imitate art is genuinely the most blatantly, absurdly, objectively, false claim I’ve ever seen made on this site. you are making a claim that flies in the face of literally all expertise on the subject of the interaction of art and culture.'

Umm... I wasn’t the one who said that. Do try and keep who you’re arguing with straight. At any rate, you are making an extraordinary claim, which would therefore require extraordinary evidence to support. So far, you have presented no evidence that art doesn’t influence culture, only examples of culture influencing art, which are not mutually exclusive things.

Have you not read Plato's Republic? In it, he claims that art is twice removed from reality. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to go read it as trying to explain Plato's Republic in a D&D forum is a bit absurd.

Yes, I have read Republic, and nowhere in it did Plato say art doesn’t influence culture. “Art is twice removed from reality” is a very different claim than “art doesn’t affect culture.” Also, while Republic is a highly influential work on the field of philosophy, it’s not exactly up-to-date.

You state this as gospel, but you provide no evidence. Not even one example. Yet the 'literally all expertise' claim is verifiably false. Note that I just don't say its verifiably false. I then provide an example that verifies it as false.

Your “source” doesn’t claim that art doesn’t influence culture. It’s also not my job to educate you on theory. You’re the one making a claim contrary to academic consensus, it’s on you to find support for it.

Can people be influenced by art? Surely. But Culture is a far more overriding influence. An order of magnitude so.

Again, no one here has claimed culture doesn’t influence art.

 

[HJFudge]

It is.

Thus sayeth the Lord. Anyone who disagrees is obviously wrong? Hmmm.

No one here has claimed culture doesn’t influence art. Each influences the other. This is a very well understood relationship.

Considering you've demonstrated a severe lack of understanding on the topic...well, agree to disagree?

Umm... I wasn’t the one who said that. Do try and keep who you’re arguing with straight. At any rate, you are making an extraordinary claim, which would therefore require extraordinary evidence to support. So far, you have presented no evidence that art doesn’t influence culture, only examples of culture influencing art, which are not mutually exclusive things.

Nope. My quote fu was weak. Apologies.

How am I to prove a negative, exactly?

Your standards go no higher than mere declaration of 'It is' thus I am pretty comfortable that my evidence is a bit more compelling.

Yes, I have read Republic, and nowhere in it did Plato say art doesn’t influence culture. “Art is twice removed from reality” is a very different claim than “art doesn’t affect culture.” Also, while Republic is a highly influential work on the field of philosophy, it’s not exactly up-to-date.

May I also introduce you to Mimesis, here is a wiki page. (Yes, I know, WIKI, but we aren't in a scholastic journal here. This'll have to do.)

Mimesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Please ALSO note that the argument that is being made by you and the other person is defined as ANTI-mimesis and was probably most famously defined by Oscar Wilde? But to act like your view is the ONLY view on the subject is uh...

Well it doesn't put your arguments into the BEST light, let us say.

Your “source” doesn’t claim that art doesn’t influence culture. It’s also not my job to educate you on theory. You’re the one making a claim contrary to academic consensus, it’s on you to find support for it.

Nor is it my job to educate you on art history, cultural studies, etc.

Yet in the interest of dispelling ignorance, I have provided a link above you might find enlightening.

Again, no one here has claimed culture doesn’t influence art.

So, to be clear, what claim ARE you making?

That the portrayal of a fictional non-existent race in a tabletop roleplaying game, the Orcs specifically (but it is implied there are others) have a direct and verifiable influence on our Culture? That this has led to not only such an influence, but an actual harm in how real world human beings have been treated?

Am I being fair in this?

Also: Remember, you cannot even view or interact with art without your CULTURE influencing how you do so. You, in fact, cannot even parse things as art unless you have a cultural knowledge in order to do so. Art RELIES on Culture, whereas Culture does not rely on art but is merely reflected by it.