TSR Problematic Faves and Early D&D

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
In reading the discussions that have been popping up about Oriental Adventures, Orcs, Drow, alignment, and so on, and then (thankfully!) mostly avoiding them for a few days, I began to think of the prior conversations about so-called "problematic faves" that have been previously had and explored, and how these play into our understanding of TTRPGs in general, D&D specifically, and 70s and 80s D&D more specifically-er.

Introduction: Problematic Faves and the Dungeon Master's Guide

I'd like to give a h/t to an excellent podcast called FANTI (at maximum fun) which I've been blowing through recently- it's a series about how to reconcile being a fan of things that don't always love you back. It provided some of the impetus and underlying thoughts for this post.

To start with, I'd like to build on this brief article from 2017:

I'm going to use the following pullquotes to move this along for those that don't like to go to other websites:
While I do agree with Taylor’s baseline definition that a problematic fave is something you have to recommend with a caveat—such as noting that Lovecraft is a big ol’ racist when recommending At the Mountains of Madness—Donnelly provided the best explanation by way of metaphor. Specifically, the metaphor of ice cream. Ice cream is delicious and easy to love, but eating ice cream all the time will leave you malnourished. This doesn’t mean you can’t have ice cream, of course, you just have to be upfront about what it is and incorporate it into a diverse diet.

More importantly, there is a detour into the idea of "affect theory." Basically, it provides a good description of why these debates over "offense" and "problematic issues" cause such a ruckus, and so many knee-jerk reactions:
So when someone comes along and points out its flaws—an “affect alien,” per Ahmed—we can feel threatened. Ahmed uses the stereotype of the “feminist killjoy” as an example of this. It’s not just someone yucking on your yum. Someone else being unable to find happiness in your happy object, especially for unassailable reasons like, say, “this story says terrible things about women,” can feel like a commentary on your own enjoyment of it. That your happy object is completely unworthy or that you’re wrong or a bad person to enjoy it all. To go back to Donnelly’s metaphor, you feel like you’re not allowed to eat ice cream and that you’re a bad person for even wanting it at all.

That is, IMO, a useful framing mechanism for conversations; it's the natural defensiveness a person feels when something they like is said to be harmful.

All of this circles back around to the interminable debates; what, precisely, is a problematic fave? When is it okay to still derive some pleasure from it, while acknowledging the problems? When is it permissible to keep liking a problematic fave? Or, to put it more precisely, when can you say, "I like Kanye, but ...." or "I read HP Lovecraft, but ..." or "I mean, other than the whole child thing, Michael Jackson had some good music ..."

In that context, I'm going use the following pullquotes from the Dungeon Master's Guide (AD&D, 1979) written by Gary Gygax:

Goodwife encounters are with a single woman, often indistinguishable from any other type of female (such as a magic-user, harlot, etc.). Any offensive treatment or seeming threat will be likely to cause the woman to scream for help, accusing the offending party of any number of crimes, i.e. assault, rape, theft, or murder. 20% of goodwives know interesting gossip.
DMG p. 192.

(Note: I could use a number of things, from the "Asian form" titles after the Northern European ones, to the terribly bad description of mental illnesses, but this will suffice).

I am going to use the "Goodwife Passage" ("GP" for short) along with some other pertinent examples (including the Oriental Adventures examples) to look at some of the common issues and points of contention I have observed when discussing "problematic faves" and, more importantly, what it means to be "problematic" or "offensive."

My goal is primarily to outline the areas of contention; while I will provide some of my thoughts, I'm mostly looking at where the primary fault lines of disagreement occur.

Finally, I would ask that anyone reading this please read the entirety before seizing on any small point to argue. I tend to state one position strongly only to then contradict it- and I'd rather not have to argue with people disagreeing with a point I've already contradicted or modified. :)


1. Who is offended? Does it matter?

During the discussions regarding Oriental Adventures (OA), one topic that came up extensively was the question of who, or what group, should be taking offense to the book in question. This was partly because most evidence indicated that Asians (as in those currently living in Asia) were not usually offended by the content (with exceptions), and that the primary offense was caused to Asian-Americans (or Asian-Canadians). But one example of the objectionable content in OA (that Asian cultures were blended together, with ) is unfortunately mirrored in this criticism; that a (for instance) Asian-Canadian of Chinese heritage would speak for an Asian-American of Laotian heritage, and make demands concerning the cultural appropriation from a culture that does not feel appropriated.

...and yet. To dwell too long on this raised the specter of Snyder-ism. Dan Snyder is the owner of the Washington DC American Football team. For years, he commissioned studies and gave money to try and keep his offensive team name by insisting that there were some Native Americans that were not offended; he was probably right! No group is a monolithic whole. We often refer to the LGBTQ (plus or minus some letters) community, yet it is a given that the experiences and views of a 50 year-old "G" man in Georgia will likely be different than those of a 33 year-old "L" woman in Vermont, and those will be different than a 21 year old "T" woman in Los Angeles, and so on. Nevertheless, you can speak generally about a community and their interests, even when they aren't monolithic. If someone used a homophobic slur, I doubt people would get caught up in demanding to know exactly what part of the LGBTQ community was "really" offended.

As such, sometimes the inquiry of who is offended can be of some usefulness in order to determine what is the cause of the offense or "problematic issue," but too often it is simply an excuse to deny the subjective experience of the person that cannot be experience by the person who is demanding the explanation.

Turning to the GP example above, this would be an example of misogyny in the following ways (and I apologize if I miss any): a) that a typical married woman is indistinguishable from a prostitute; b) that women (not men) are the ones to get gossip from; and worst of all c) women will make up accusations such as rape in response to offensive treatment.

The existence of one, or more, women that might defend this does not lessen the impact of this language; and if someone should point it out, it would be weird, indeed, to have to go through a poll and justify which women are offended and how offended they might be.


2. What about facts? Can someone be offended by something if they are wrong?

This is a little bit tricky, in my opinion. One common issue that you see in "offense" and "problematic faves" is the so-called "mistake of fact" debate. The reason that this is tricky is that individual offense is, by definition, subjective. Think of it in terms of horror films, or "the sexy," or the amount of violence you like in your action movies. The amount that one person loves and enjoys can be too much, or even offensive, to another person. In a weird way, therefore, it doesn't matter to the person offended if they are right or they are wrong about what is causing the offense, because their subjective offense is the same!

...but. To paraphrase the great friend of D&D, Sir Mix-A-Lot, there's always a but. If we accept that, pace (1) above, that groups aren't monolithic, yet we can try and evaluate language without having to demand the bona fides of those people who are hurt or offended by the language, that means that we have view offense in at least a somewhat objective manner; in other words, there has to be an actual basis for it that is not based solely in a mistake of fact.

This semi-objective standard is, however, cabined by having to separate out what are true issues of facts.

Since all of that is somewhat vague, I will use the "comeliness" example from the recent OA, and contrast that with the "Oriental" title. There are those who argue that "Oriental" isn't offensive (not many, but some, still). That is ... well, it's an opinion I guess, but it isn't a mistake of fact. Whether "Oriental" as applied is an offensive slur can be discussed (not productively, perhaps, but discussed) but it's not something amenable to a factual, dispositive, objective resolution.

On the other hand, the idea that comeliness was put into OA specifically as a feature of "Asian" D&D is a mistake of fact; while comeliness was a bad idea, it predates OA and has nothing to do with the Asian nature of the campaign material. It is no more specific to OA than "wisdom" is.

To take offense at comeliness in OA is to make a mistake of fact, in the same way that someone could be truly offended by a "Lee High School" and later learn that it was not named after ... a slaveholding Confederate general.

The issue, of course, is twofold:
1. Offense is subjective; a person can be offended even if they are mistaken in their belief.
2. People will often say that they are arguing about the underlying facts ("Is Oriental offensive? I just had Oriental Ramen Flavor!") when they are really reflexively disagreeing with the subjective offense.


3. Can we place the work contextually? Where does it rank in the context of its time? What about for its place?

This is where we can get into the GP more extensively, since this issue has been beaten to death in the OA threads (16 Candles, etc.). As a general rule, historical materials (defined not as "oh my, that's so important" but only as materials from the past) are, by definitions, products of their time. Some of them will seem incredibly advanced or "modern," and other might seem retrograde. But one of the ways that we sometimes view how problematic material can be is by determining how much better, or worse, it was than standard material for its time.

HP Lovecraft lived in a pretty racist time! There were people that were a lot (a lot!) more racist than he was .... but even so, he was pretty virulently racist. On the other hand, a book like Uncle Tom's Cabin, which today seems really racist, was an admirable book of abolition ... for its time. Things change. Not to mention places! The views and opinions espoused by someone in Korea in 1900 are going to be different in many ways than those of someone in South Africa in 1900. The past is a foreign country, and foreign countries are also foreign countries. :)

When I brought up the GP in another thread, remarking that it wasn't controversial at the time, another poster mentioned that it came up in the 80s Demon/Satan/Corrupt the Youth scandals (aka the Pat Pulling special). But back then, it was used because it was one of the two (2) places in the DMG that mentioned sexual assault; in other words, the misogyny of the section was completely passed over, instead it was used to show that D&D was all about sexual assault and prostitution. Now, of course, that context has shifted mightily.

So how was GP in the context of its time? Well, as terrible as this is to say, it was not great, but it wasn't particularly bad in the context of the time. I say this hesitantly, because I am using something that should be glaringly obvious to most people. And yet- in the late 70s, the idea that a woman might lie about sexual assault was not that bizarre; that they might gossip was fairly well-entrenched in popular culture; and the casual mixing between a woman and a prostitute ... well, that might have been a little bit odd, but not outrageously so in a sexist time.

On the other hand, it's not too hard to find things from that era that were better, demonstrably so. So while it wasn't much worse than the time, it was certainly no better.

It's a delicate balancing act; acknowledging the context of the time and the place does not make an excuse for it or otherwise mean that those mistakes would be acceptable in something published today.


4. Is the problem the text, or the creator? The act or the intention?

One of the issues that often gets played out and is rarely reconciled is the distinction between the text and the creator of the text; to put it another way, when does the quality of the artist overshadow the work? When can a work be excused by the good intentions of an artist?

To put that more concretely- think of any number of important artists from the past (Picasso, Micheal Jackson, Polanski, etc.). Many of them have issues that make them unpalatable personally, but those issue are not reflected in all (or most) of their work.
On the other hand, you might say that a text is problematic despite the best intentions of the creator (due to changing times, lack of knowledge, etc.); examples might include Oriental Adventures, or To Kill a Mockingbird. The creator was working with good intentions within the constraint of their time, but times change ... or maybe the creator was simply unaware of their own constraints despite their good intentions.

The reason that this matters is that it's important when evaluating the offensiveness of content to determine if the offense is caused by a dislike of the creator, or a dislike of the content- the two things can be, but are not always, intertwined.

Moving to the GP, the offensiveness is obvious within the text; arguably, however, it reflects the attitude of the writer at the time. Gygax was not known as being overly progressive when it came to those issues for the time; most people are familiar with the hiring practices of TSR, with the gender-based caps on attributes introduced by Gygax, the "fantasy" art used in early D&D products, and his sometimes-questionable statements regarding gender.


5. Is it a sin of commission, or omission?

This is a brief problem, but also worth detailing. Very briefly, errors of commission come from the inclusion of material, but it is done in a way that is offensive. Errors of omission occur because material is never included.

So, early TTRPGs might have an error or commission by including racially or culturally insensitive materal (such as a Dragon Article about the incorporation of themes from African folklore that refers to the "Darkest Continent" or the "Dark Continent"). On the other hand, early TTRPGs rarely, if ever, included material about LGBTQ characters- an error of omission.

Both issues can cause offense; both a lack of representation, or incorrect representation, but they also present very different issues.

6. Is there an issue with the whole or the part?

This is where most disagreements over offensive content and problematic faves, even those in good faith, tend to get bogged down. How much racism can you tolerate in an HP Lovecraft story before you say, "That's too much." Or do you measure it by his entire oeuvre? Does the racism in "The Horror of Red Hook," mean "The Colour Out of Space" is a no go? Or how about all of the Cthulhu mythos? Can I play Call of Cthulhu in an ethically responsible manner?

And how does this impact AD&D and the DMG? I pull the GP as one passage, but there are other problematic parts of the DMG. How many problematic parts does it take to make the DMG, as a whole, offensive? AD&D? When do the parts subsume, or become, the whole?


Conclusion

In raising the questions, i am not looking to provide a definitive answer, but only to outline some of the issues and thought, especially in regard to older material. I am, and always will be, a fan of OD&D and AD&D; but I also recognize that, as a product of its time, it contains problematic parts and is thus a problematic fave. I can still enjoy it, but I also understand that I cannot enjoy it uncritically.


So, for purposes of discussion:

A. Do you have an RPG "problematic fave?"

B. How do you handle it?
 

log in or register to remove this ad




JEB

Legend
So I'm not sure about D&D, but I can speak a bit on the Cthulhu Mythos.

Lovecraft was definitely worse than the average racist of his era. I used to buy that he wasn't any more racist than average, but some research led me to things he said in his letters, and I was dissuaded of that. Keep in mind that Robert E. Howard, hardly a paragon of racial tolerance himself, apparently felt the need to push back on Lovecraft's rhetoric at times. There are some possible (if weak) indicators that Lovecraft was getting better towards the end of his life, but we'll never know. As such, I gave up reading Lovecraft's works themselves, whether or not there was anything particularly racist in them. It just felt too much like giving him a pass; separating the art from the artist doesn't really work for me (and increasingly I find that argument too convenient).

But the Cthulhu Mythos are a more complicated question. These other creators using Lovecraft's ideas aren't Lovecraft. Why should their works be condemned for what someone else believed? Isn't it OK for others to use his creations if they're not operating from the same racist POV that Lovecraft did? Heck, as broadly as they're used today, concepts like Cthulhu and the Necronomicon are arguably just part of geek culture now, with a life arguably independent from even the Cthulhu Mythos.

Personally? I haven't decided where I stand. I still have non-Lovecraft Mythos material on my shelves, and a small library of Call of Cthulhu sourcebooks. But every once in a while I wonder if I'm making excuses, and everything Lovecraft invented is fruit of the poisonous tree.

In any case, comparing the Cthulhu Mythos to D&D works in many ways, in that numerous other creators have used, modified, reimagined, and otherwise moved beyond the source material. But there is one very important difference - D&D was never dependent on the ideas of one person. Even the original game wouldn't exist without the collaboration between Gygax and Arneson, and many early ideas that became staples of the game originated from other sources as well. So maybe the "fruit of the poisonous tree" problem doesn't exist with D&D. Or maybe it doesn't matter - one bad apple spoils the whole bunch. I'm obviously inclined towards the former - it helps that Gygax, for all his faults, wasn't as problematic a dude as Lovecraft - but I can understand where people see the latter.
 
Last edited:

What is paradoxal in this matter, is how a offensive book like oriental adventure, can give a lot of information on asian culture, myth, society and thus reduce those shun stereotypes. and removing a book like that will help keep people in ignorance.
 

Well, Carcosian magic almost universally involves sacrificing humans of specific skin colors in order to summon terrible cosmic monstrosities. "Sacrifice 16 blue men after torturing them for 4 hours in order to summon the Walker of the Deep." Stuff like that.
 

Gradine

Final Form (she/they)
What is paradoxal in this matter, is how a offensive book like oriental adventure, can give a lot of information on asian culture, myth, society and thus reduce those shun stereotypes. and removing a book like that will help keep people in ignorance.

Yeah... if you think OA is actually representative of actual Asian culture in any way... I gotta bridge to sell ya.

Something like OA is more likely to reinforce stereotypes rather than combat them.

As for problematic faves in D&D, I can't think of any specific sourcebook, I've always been very fond of lizardfolk in spite of their sometimes problematic portrayal across the history of the game.
 

As for problematic faves in D&D, I can't think of any specific sourcebook, I've always been very fond of lizardfolk in spite of their sometimes problematic portrayal across the history of the game.

You and me both buddy. I love lizardpeople, and I don't even really know why, but I love them nonetheless.

Problematic fave? In D&D, I think Taladas borders on the problematic at times, and under close examinations there's a lot of stuff you could argue was problematic - though I think in most of the cases, including the worst case (apartheid elves and their darker-skinned human buddies) you could argue it was deconstruction/examination/criticism of such systems rather than an endorsement. Given the author (Zeb Cook, who turned up to support BLM recently) I strongly suspect it was a criticism.

How do I handle it? It doesn't require much handling, thankfully, but I think if I was very strongly recommending Taladas to someone I would highlight the problematic elements so they were aware of them and didn't think I was trying to trick them into ignoring them.

Outside D&D I'm sorry but I love Red Sonja. I do. That doesn't mean I think everything or even really anything in RPGs needs to be like that, but I love Red Sonja and I love barbarians of both (and perhaps other) genders hanging around in skimpy clothes. You guys rock. Keep doing your barbarian thing. Never let them make you wear pants unless you want to!

How do I handle that? With a lot of pointing out that I don't think it should be a thing generally and I prefer it to be applied equally. I mean, interestingly to me, as much as I love RS and the like, the typical part of bikini-clad girls at the sides of a throne of some warlord still makes me uncomfortable, because that feels like something different.
 
Last edited:

Yeah... if you think OA is actually representative of actual Asian culture in any way... I gotta bridge to sell ya.

Something like OA is more likely to reinforce stereotypes rather than combat them.

As for problematic faves in D&D, I can't think of any specific sourcebook, I've always been very fond of lizardfolk in spite of their sometimes problematic portrayal across the history of the game.
I don’t see Fave as a negative behavior. Having a crush on lizard folk, or Asian myth usually evolve and get smarter as you play them. Prohibition sometime just make things worst.
 

Mercurius

Legend
Nice post, @Snarf Zagyg. I'll reply to a few parts and address your questions at the end.

More importantly, there is a detour into the idea of "affect theory."

I think this applies in some cases, but don't think it adequately explains most defenses of, say, keeping OA in print. It is a factor in some cases, but not the only one. Secondly, there is an element at play that goes beyond "Yeah, I'm not into what you're into." We've all had the experience of sharing a favorite piece of music or film with someone, who doesn't react the way we hoped; but it is quite another thing to be told that something you enjoy isn't only to someone else's taste, but is racist, and by continuing to use such a product you're perpetuating racism.

There are also issues of censorship, artistic freedom, and inclusivity, which are the elements that I've been primarily concerned with and defending. Speaking for myself, I played new editions when they came out so haven't played 1E since the 80s, so OA has no use to me other than as a keepsake on my 1E shelf, and something to browse through every once in awhile. So my concerns have nothing to do with affect theory and everything to do with censorship etc.

1. Who is offended? Does it matter?

I think your discussion here highlights how perhaps the most important factors aren't really discussed, and perhaps cannot be discussed in the context of forum guidelines. The process of "taking offense" has many factors, but at its root it is psychological. I would also add ideology into the mix, because the commonality of those taking offense seems to be more ideological than it is ethnic or cultural. Meaning, those who share a similar hermeneutical framework (roughly based on critical theory).

Suggesting that the prime factors in who takes offense are the intersectional demographics mentioned--say, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc--is like saying the iceberg is what we can see above water. As we know, the larger part of the iceberg is below water. This is an analogy used in analytic psychology: much/most of who we are is below the surface of conscious awareness.

In the end, it really comes down to the individual, what they take offense to and why--and going below the "surface waters" separating conscious factors and sub-conscious factors. Intersectional demographics play some part, but they are secondary to the individuality--the ideology they adhere to, their past experiences, and their personal psychology.

2. What about facts? Can someone be offended by something if they are wrong?

Some important distinctions you made here, and it also draws upon intention and context. Something said in one context has different meanings than when spoken in another context. Words themselves aren't inherently offensive, it is the meaning they carry and how they are used contextually; in other words, who is using them, how, why, and where.

Relevant to these discussions, there's also the sliding and different contexts of a fantasy RPG and the real world, and to what degree the two relate and whether real world ideology should be applied to fantasy. And, of course, the added element of historicity, which you touch upon here...

3. Can we place the work contextually? Where does it rank in the context of its time? What about for its place?

4. Is the problem the text, or the creator? The act or the intention?

Two important factors that you touch upon are historical context and the nature of art and artists, and whether or not we can or should separate the artist from the art. As you point out, countless artists have had one unsavory characteristic or another, which is exacerbated by applying contemporary ethics to historical figures.

Here's an analogy. We've all know the adage, "vote with your dollar." When we buy food at McDonald's we are indirectly supporting factory farming and de-forestation, as well as as perpetuating the existence of mega-corporations over small businesses. To some extent the same is true of artists; if we pay for a viewing of Annie Hall we are "voting for" Woody Allen.

The analogy breaks down a bit, though, due to the nature of art. But that is a much larger discussion. I would merely point out that if we filter artists of all kinds through an ethical lens, the number of artists that we may feel OK supporting through our "artistic consumption" could narrow down substantially. That is a personal choice. When we give money to McDonald's, we support everything they do in the world; when we give money to Woody Allen, we support him doing art. I would argue that, in this regard, the art itself is the most important factor. We can judge and not like Woody as a human being, yet still enjoy his movies.

In raising the questions, i am not looking to provide a definitive answer, but only to outline some of the issues and thought, especially in regard to older material. I am, and always will be, a fan of OD&D and AD&D; but I also recognize that, as a product of its time, it contains problematic parts and is thus a problematic fave. I can still enjoy it, but I also understand that I cannot enjoy it uncritically.

I would question that last part. "Cannot?" Why not? I mean, like you, I like to know about all of the factors involved, and to make informed choices in what I vote for or "consume," but I question the idea of adding "shoulds" to artistic consumption. What you enjoy in terms of your artistic and hobby life is entirely up to you, as is how you enjoy it (as long as it is within the bounds of law, of course!). I don't have to like it or agree with your take on it, but the experience is yours.

A. Do you have an RPG "problematic fave?"

B. How do you handle it?

I'll answer this in a different way. I don't really see any RPGs as inherently "problematic." I can see why some might be problematic from this or that hermeneutic perspective, but none are really problematic to me--at least none of my favorites! RPGs are games that involve role-acting and imaginative experience; so for me my choice of what I'll play comes down to, "Do I want to inhabit this experience?" I personally have no interest in playing evil characters, for instance, but don't necessarily think it is "problematic" to do so, no more than it is problematic for an actor to play a psychopath.

Art isn't problematic. Art is meant to be provocative, to invoke feelings that we may or may not like. It doesn't have to be, but he very nature of art--as creative expression--is that it has no limits to what can be expressed.

Now one argument that has been made against this that I think holds some water is that D&D is not "pure art." It is a game, that has an audience in mind. Art may have an audience, although I would think that art on its own is about the creative expression itself. In other words, WotC isn't a "true artist" in the sense that they're creating a product that they want people to enjoy, and to be as inclusive as possible. That said, their products are still artistic in nature, so it isn't either/or.

I'm also a big proponent of "rule zero" applied in the broadest possible way. I see D&D as a toolbox of a vast plethora of ideas, tropes and rules, and I get to weave them together however I want, in collaboration with the group I'm playing with. How WotC presents the game will always offer different hurdles as to how I want to play the game. The hurdles are usually very small.

The point being, in a practical sense, it doesn't matter all that much how WotC presents the game--as long as the basic structure is one that I can work with to create the game I want to run. This is relative to other editions and games; so if something else--a different edition or game--better suited my needs, I'd use that.

But here's the most important point, as far as "problematic" stuff and how I handle it. The world is filled with all kinds of problematic stuff, all kinds of moral choices that I have to make on a daily basis. What I do--and what every person does--is make the best decisions I can, learn as I go, and continue forward.

So how I "handle problematic stuff" is use it in such a way that I feel good about, that works for my players, and that we all enjoy. If I pick up an old book and read something like the Goodwife passage, I might think, "Oh, this is interesting and tells us something about Gygax. Boy, have times changed and it is good thing that we continue to evolve." Or something like that. I don't think, "Cancel Gygax!" or throw the book away from me in disgust, or feel deeply wounded. For one, it is an artifact of the past. Secondly, it has nothing to do with me; it is an idea that Gygax has in his head, that he expressed in one of his books.

I think a lot of this comes down to whether we think "change" should be made within or without. It doesn't have to be either/or, but if we focus solely on external change, we end up running into the same problems, again and again. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't change the world for the better or right wrongs when we come to them, but that it should be coupled with inner work--if we really want to see real and lasting change. If we leave the psychological and ideological roots of "taking offense" untouched, we're just going to transfer the same dynamic onto something else. Or to quote Ram Dass, "Wherever you go, there we are."
 


MGibster

Legend
Lovecraft was definitely worse than the average racist of his era. I used to buy that he wasn't any more racist than average, but some research led me to things he said in his letters, and I was dissuaded of that.

I've often heard the same regarding Lovecraft's racism, but I'm not sure this really stands up to scrutiny. The treatment of African Americans throughout the United States wasn't so good. Even in the north, blacks were generally paid less for the same work as whites when they could even find places willing to hire them. It's hard to believe today, but the KKK was a mainstream organization in the 20s and 30s. They claimed 4-5 million members at one point, and even if that wasn't true, they were well thought of throughout the country and many of their anti-Catholic anti-immigration rhetoric was very much mainstream at the time. And let's not forget, lynching African Americans was a common occurrence during this period.

I know we like to look back and think it was just a few bad eggs like Lovecraft, but his thoughts on race weren't particularly radical for the time. We had laws to keep Chinese people from entering the country, Ford paid black workers the same as whites but he put them to work doing the worst jobs knowing they wouldn't quit, and the Chicago race riot of 1919 started when a black kid crossed the unofficial line between the segregated beach onto the white section. Compared to the reality, I'm hard pressed to think Lovecraft was worse.

As such, I gave up reading Lovecraft's works themselves, whether or not there was anything particularly racist in them. It just felt too much like giving him a pass; separating the art from the artist doesn't really work for me (and increasingly I find that argument too convenient).

He's dead, so unlike JK Rowling or Orson Scott Card, purchasing his work doesn't support a platform he can do anything harmful from. I don't feel the need to separate the art from the artist. I enjoy his work warts and all though I understand why others are unable to.

But the Cthulhu Mythos are a more complicated question. These other creators using Lovecraft's ideas aren't Lovecraft. Why should their works be condemned for what someone else believed? Isn't it OK for others to use his creations if they're not operating from the same racist POV that Lovecraft did? Heck, as broadly as they're used today, concepts like Cthulhu and the Necronomicon are arguably just part of geek culture now, with a life arguably independent from even the Cthulhu Mythos.

Not just geek culture. Lovecraft had a profound impact on writers like Stephen King and Neil Gaiman and movie director Guillermo del Toro. Heck, King's 2014 novel Revival was very much a Lovecraftian tale. And Lovecraft's influence is seen in everything from movies (Evil Dead) to children's cartoons (The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy). HP Lovecraft isn't exactly a household name, but a lot of people have been exposed to his work without even knowing it.

Personally? I haven't decided where I stand. I still have non-Lovecraft Mythos material on my shelves, and a small library of Call of Cthulhu sourcebooks. But every once in a while I wonder if I'm making excuses, and everything Lovecraft invented is fruit of the poisonous tree.

While you're under no obligation to like his works, I'm not sure burying the past is a great idea either. I just accept that he had terrible beliefs and move on from there. I still enjoy many of his stories even though some of the passages make me cringe. The description of the black boxer in Herbert West-Reanimator, oh, boy!

So maybe the "fruit of the poisonous tree" problem doesn't exist with D&D. Or maybe it doesn't matter - one bad apple spoils the whole bunch. I'm obviously inclined towards the former - it helps that Gygax, for all his faults, wasn't as problematic a dude as Lovecraft - but I can understand where people see the latter.

For years people have told me that it's okay to like problematic things so long as we recognize that it's problematic. I've had a lot of good Call of Cthulhu games over the years and I'm hoping for more in the future.
 

MGibster

Legend
Outside D&D I'm sorry but I love Red Sonja. I do. That doesn't mean I think everything or even really anything in RPGs needs to be like that, but I love Red Sonja and I love barbarians of both (and perhaps other) genders hanging around in skimpy clothes. You guys rock. Keep doing your barbarian thing. Never let them make you wear pants unless you want to!

As I've said before: I like cheesecake, but I don't want it with every meal. Something like Red Sonja isn't a problem just so long as that's not the primary way women are depicted in fantasy games/literature/art.
 


Kurotowa

Legend
Alright, this isn't my usual field of discussion, so I'm not very practiced at it. But I feel this needs to be said so here goes.

Framing the issue as one of taking or giving offense is fundamentally mistaken. It's treating these things as if they were school yard insults of no importance beyond violating the bounds of social decorum. That's not why they're wrong to use and by treating it as if that were the real problem it trivializes both the issue and those who try to raise concern over it.

I'm autistic. When people joke about mild lapses in social skills being "autistic" is spreads the idea that that's what autism is. That makes it harder for me to communicate what my actual difficulties are or when I might justifiably need accommodation. And I'm getting off lightly! Every time someone repeats the ideas of certain races being innately prone to violence and brutality, those ideas stick in people's heads. That's how ideas work. And then those people are a little quicker to call the cops instead of trying to talk it out. Or maybe those people are the cops, so they're a little more on edge and quick on the trigger when someone of a "violent race" reaches for their pockets.

The point is that ideas aren't some ephemeral vapor that can't do more than offend someone's delicate feelings. Ideas shape people's actions. Every time an idea is repeated it sticks a little more. And some ideas motivate some really harmful and damaging actions. That's why there's such a push now to fight back against certain old memes like this. They do real, proximate harm to people.
 

Hussar

Legend
Got a sec now.

I admit, I love Conan stories.

I noticed that my Primeval Thule setting, which I adore, is set on a fantasy Greenland before the last Ice Age. Yet, other than the one black community (the Lomari which are invaders from a far away place) all the inhabitants are described as Caucasian. Actually, ALL the humans and playable humanoids are invaders from other lands and the "native" race of humanoids is the beastmen. It's really hard to unsee after you've seen it. I don't think for a moment it was intentional, but, it really, really is problematic.
 

JEB

Legend
I've often heard the same regarding Lovecraft's racism, but I'm not sure this really stands up to scrutiny.

I'm well aware how common racist views were in the 1920s and 1930s. For over a decade, that was how I regarded Lovecraft's racism as well - unfortunate, but sadly not that unusual for his time. But as I learned more, I concluded that even in the context of that era, Lovecraft was still pretty bad.

Here are some examples:

There were a few worse examples that really pushed me over, but I can't find references for them online at this point. Separate his exceptional racism from his works if you wish - certainly many others do - but for me, it was too much.

Now, as I said, the larger Cthulhu Mythos is a different situation... probably. Fortunately the problematic elements of Gygax's work and D&D are much less terrible, and not particularly exceptional for the era, unlike the problematic elements of Lovecraft and the Cthulhu Mythos.
 
Last edited:

MGibster

Legend
I'm well aware how common racist views were in the 1920s and 1930s. For over a decade, that was how I regarded Lovecraft's racism as well - unfortunate, but sadly not that unusual for his time. But as I learned more, I concluded that even in the context of that era, Lovecraft was still pretty bad.

I'm not a Lovecraft apologist and I don't believe "it's just the way people were" is ever an excuse but I do think a lot of his American contemporaries would have agreed with a lot of his attitudes and beliefs. i.e. He wasn't that radical for the time. I base this opinion on my graduate work on lynching and American culture in the early 20th century.

There were a few worse examples that really pushed me over, but I can't find references for them online at this point. Separate his exceptional racism from his works if you wish - certainly many others do - but for me, it was too much.

As I said, you're under no obligation to enjoy his work and I can certainly understand why you want to steer clear of it. I warn people who are unfamiliar with his works before they dive in.
 

Hussar

Legend
Fortunately the problematic elements of Gygax's work and D&D are much less terrible, and not particularly exceptional for the era

I think that's a point to always keep in mind too. And, I'll freely admit to losing sight of this. The problematic elements in D&D by and large aren't anywhere near the truly repugnant end of the scale. Most of it is simply, what did @Snarf Zagyg call it? Sins of Commission or Omission.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top