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

[Scribe]

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.

I think this is why it feels we hardly leave the Sword Coast.

 

[Haffrung]

I mean, yeah, probably.

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.

But if you're communicating with a general audience of Latinos, for every one who you make comfortable by using Latinx or Latine, you've left 20 others baffled about what you're even talking about.

Tiny and unrepresentative online subcultures should not be the arbiters of wider discourse. That includes discourse about D&D. If I want to know what community A thinks about a subject, I want to know what a broad and representative group of A think, not a dozen online pundits. There's no reason to treat social media personalities as spokespeople for their populations.

 

[Deset Gled]

Oh well. If your appeal to authority is able to meet the high and illustrious standards of FOX News then I guess there is no problem.

I'm honestly not sure what appeal to authority you're referring to. I am merely pointing out that Fox News has a noted history of simply saying "trust us"* with no backup, and the viewing public at large has not yet lost faith in them.

*Their catch phrase is generally "some say" or "some people say". You can find plenty of examples of it curated on the internet.

 

[Don Durito]

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.

And when one Asian person says something is problematic and another says it is not? How do we decide between them? Numbers? That takes some methodical rigour - asking your friends who have similiar socioeconomic and educational backgrounds to yourself is not rigour.

Immediacy? We've had people on these very forums who have identified as the groups defined in these discussions who have said they do not find material problematic who have been systematically ignored by posters in favour of vague appeals to "people I know", so it's not that either.

Ultimately there is nowhere to go but argument.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Each campaign can, and in many cases should, have their own lore. That doesn't mean that every DM should have to make that lore from scratch.

Alignment is just one small piece of the story for most monsters, but if you take it out and then still describe them as evil have you really changed anything? If you take away the default lore what do you have left?

Have we changed anything? Yes. You've made specific orcs evil. Just like the game makes specific humans evil. Not because of who they are, but because of what they do.

And if you are a DM come 6E who thinks having to say to yourself as you're getting ready to start a campaign "You know... I think in this setting all my orcs are going to be naturally evil, despite what the book says" is some kind of hardship... you obviously have so little time on your hands you probably shouldn't be making your own setting in the first place. I mean, you've already said you've made your choice on the matter. If 6E takes the "all orcs are evil" standard away, are you going to have to really put in long hours and great hardship to make your "own lore from scratch"?

Methinks you exaggerate for effect when you insinuate a DM having to make their own lore in regards to monster alignment is going to be a big problem, so better not change it.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

But if you're communicating with a general audience of Latinos, for every one who you make comfortable by using Latinx or Latine, you've left 20 others baffled about what you're even talking about.

Tiny and unrepresentative online subcultures should not be the arbiters of wider discourse. That includes discourse about D&D. If I want to know what community A thinks about a subject, I want to know what a broad and representative group of A think, not a dozen online pundits. There's no reason to treat social media personalities as spokespeople for their populations.

This is arguing in favor of nonbinary erasure. That NB and agender people are a minority of the population does not mean it is ethical to ignore or deny their existence in language.

 

[Oofta]

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.

English isn't exactly perfect either.

I'm just saying that when interviewers talk to people of Hispanic descent, none of them cared so it's hardly a surprise that it's not being used widely.

It's similar to racism in D&D. Nobody here has the resources to really answer any questions on whether it's really a problem or just a mountain made out of a molehill created by bloggers looking for eyeballs. Are there things that could be better? Of course. There always are. Do we have to get rid of all hint of anything that could possibly be considered racist? I think it would make for either a really thin MM or a boring one. YMMV.

 

[Charlaquin]

But if you're communicating with a general audience of Latinos, for every one who you make comfortable by using Latinx or Latine, you've left 20 others baffled about what you're even talking about.

That’s just silly. “Latinx” sounds kind of cringe, sure, but it’s immediately obvious what it means. Latine sounds much better, and despite not having heard of it until this conversation, it was again, immediately obvious to me what it meant.

Tiny and unrepresentative online subcultures should not be the arbiters of wider discourse. That includes discourse about D&D. If I want to know what community A thinks about a subject, I want to know what a broad and representative group of A think, not a dozen online pundits. There's no reason to treat social media personalities as spokespeople for their populations.

Minority groups are by definition smaller subsets of the broader culture. If only the majority can influence what discourse is or isn’t appropriate, no social progress can ever be made. It is important to listen to marginalized people, and to take special effort to make sure that their voices are heard.

 

[Sacrosanct]

And when one Asian person says something is problematic and another says it is not? How do we decide between them? Numbers? That takes some methodical rigour - asking your friends who have similiar socioeconomic and educational backgrounds to yourself is not rigour.

Of course Asians (or any group) aren't a hivemind. That's a disingenuous phrasing/standard. Surely you are well aware that what we're talking about is that if a large group of Asians are telling us of issues in Oriental Adventures, then it probably has merit, even if that one Asian person over there isn't offended. You're basically arguing that there is no issue with the Washington Redskins team name because there have been a few Native Americans weren't offended by it, despite a huge group of them being offended.

Immediacy? We've had people on these very forums who have identified as the groups defined in these discussions who have said they do not find material problematic who have been systematically ignored by posters in favour of vague appeals to "people I know", so it's not that either.

Ultimately there is nowhere to go but argument.

No offense, but that's a lazy cop out to avoid accountability and refuse to be better as a group. Every progressive movement has been made from having this conversation, which proves that "ultimately there is nowhere to go but argument" is false. Why? Because most people can acknowledge when things are issues and agree to try to address them. Not just to continue to wave them under the rug and ignore them. Oh, there are people that do do that. The same kind of people who argued that women shouldn't be able to vote. Or that schools should still be segregated. Keep things the way they are, because people offended are just looking to be offended.

 

[Charlaquin]

And when one Asian person says something is problematic and another says it is not? How do we decide between them?

You listen to those who say it is, consider their perspective as empathetically as possible, and consider the impact that changing the behavior in question will have on you, on them, and on those who don’t consider it a problem. I find that more often than not, a thing that has little to no impact on my life and the lives of those who don’t care about the subject can have a huge impact on the lives of those who do. Not always, but often.