Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 8037659" data-attributes="member: 59082">Nice post, [USER=7023840]@Snarf Zagyg[/USER]. I'll reply to a few parts and address your questions at the end.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.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.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...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.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.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."</blockquote>

Verification