D&D General "Red Orc" American Indians and "Yellow Orc" Mongolians in D&D

[doctorbadwolf]

Yeah, I didn't say it is "the thrust of the whole thread," but its an underlying pervasive element: what is the proper paradigm to espouse? (paradigm being the combination of a view and its resulting action). In general, I think this thread has remarkably civil.

But you refuse to show any evidence of that supposedly pervasive element, even in the face of others basically looking at you with surprise and saying, "what now? where!?". Or even to really explain how anyone has implied such a thing.

I wouldn't say that's "all" it does. And again, I'm not arguing against disclaimers - nor am I arguing for them.

That's all it inherently does. The rest depends on thespecific case. Like just about everything else in the world.

Fair enough. It depends upon how it is framed. For instance, in a hypothetical 5.5E Appendix N, I'd rather see one list with a singular disclaimer that saying something like, "Some of these works maybe be considered..." - but not two separate lists.

Okay. I have differing preferences for such a list, but a group of people with varying preferences would, one assumes, have a whole discussion about it before the final product was made and printed.

Again, I don't want to single people out or get in a tit-for-tat, or "but I didn't mean that." I'm sharing a general impression of something that I see as relatively common, if mostly just implied.

But if you don't allow people to explain that you've misunderstood them, you're just making empty claims at others' expense.

Oh come on. I wasn't using the tragedy itself, but the logic of the quote. And sorry, but I think it applies. If you're OK with one thing, then you might be kind of OK with the next, which leads to the next...

Regardless of intent, it equates one to the other. And again, the quote doesn't describe a slippery slope, so it's also a difference of type.

But yes, I agree that the quote says "not my problem" leads to bad things. And I think that applies not only to persecution etc, but also to censorship, badwrongviews, othering, etc.

Sure. No one here is suggesting censorship, however. And no, it does not apply to criticism of a work and it's creator, or of public figures for their values and the implied values of their actions.

But again, you can dislike my usage of that quote, or you can understand what I am saying (or trying to say). If my use of that quote bothers you, then consider the frog in heating water or death-by-a-thousand-cuts.

Except that the quote doesn't make the same argument as those examples, and in general it is distasteful to use things famously associated with the Holocaust in your arguments by reduction or comparison. There is always an alternative example that isn't from one of history's great genocides.

Obviously.

They intentionally and specifically negatively targeted the group of gamers who were buying old D&D PDFs, which included me. They were not significantly aware of me as an individual but I was still in their intended target.

But they didn't, actually. They stopped supporting old software. At worst, they were inconsiderate of said group of gamers.

We owed each other nothing. I had goodwill towards them before that. They were not owed that either. I had ill will afterwards.

Then how does resentment come into it? That is the biggest thing I don't understand. They didn't betray you, they didn't take away from you anything that was yours or owed to you, they did nothing more than...not sell a specific set of products anymore.

No they specifically were trying to make things worse for the group of people I was in.

They were doing this for economic reasons using the specific method of make things worse for this group of people, it is an economic leverage WotC used to pressure the group of people negatively to attempt to get them to do what WotC wanted.

This is...all I can really say in this forum is that I think this characterization is very inaccurate, to the point of being unfairly disprespectful.

Resenting them for doing so is justified.

I obviously disagree.

That they chose to make things worse for me for economic profit reasons that are legal is not a reason for me to not have been angry at them.

How did they make things worse for you? They didn't remove anything from your hard drive or book shelf, I assume. This is like being angry at the local bookstore because they stopped selling a particular book, or a restaurant because they chose to stop serving a very niche dish.

Its not about whether WotC was within its legal right to do so.

I never said it was, and have indeed never equated legality to morality, in any context. I find the practice quite distasteful and disruptive to a genuine understanding of things like social and economic justice.

Ironically enough I got into 4e late in the cycle when I joined a group that played 4e and so I bought the gift set of PH I & II. I enjoyed it and got into 4e and got the digital tools subscription for a whole year one month before my group decided they were sick of 4e and WotC switched from supporting the offline tools I had bought to online rental access only from then on.

They were within their legal right again to switch things, but it was again a switch from a positive to a negative.

Wait, you're claiming that switching to the browser model was a negative, and stating this claim as if it were obviously true. I heartily disagree.

However, even if I agreed, I still wouldn't agree that it's reasonable to be angry at them for doing so. They had every right (not just legal, but ethical and social, as well) to change the platform of access for their subscription service.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Yes.

Article here.

Should you heed James Madison’s admonition that "it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties,” and oppose a decision that you might have otherwise supported were it not for your concern about the slippery slope? Or should you accept the immediate benefits of A, and trust that even after A is enacted, B will be avoided? ... This need makes many people impatient with slippery slope arguments. The slippery slope argument, opponents suggest, is the claim that “we ought not make a sound decision today, for fear of having to draw a sound distinction tomorrow.” Exactly why, for instance, would accepting (for instance) a restriction on “ideas we hate” “sooner or later” lead to restrictions on “ideas we cherish”?

I have previously explained my opposition to the remedies proposed. But this thread is very very long.

Uh, this is about doing things that hold legal power over others. This is about creating laws, not PR responses. I'm... not sure how they actually relate, though I do think this is instructive:

"The slippery slope is in some ways a helpful metaphor, but as with many metaphors, it starts by enriching our vision and ends by clouding it. We need to go beyond the metaphor and examine the specific mechanisms that cause the phenomenon that the metaphor describes — mechanisms that connect to the nature of our political institutions, our judicial process, and possibly even human reasoning. These mechanisms and their effects deserve further study, even if paying attention to them will make policy analysis more complex. So long as our support of one political or legal decision today can lead to other results tomorrow, wise judges, legislators, opinion leaders, interest group organizers, and citizens have to take these mechanisms into account."

Like, this is exactly not the argument you want.

No, I'm not comparing that to Orcs of Thar. As I said above, I'm talking about the underlying logic of the quote.

I mean, I don't think the underlying logic of the quote works if it's not really applicable to the situation we find ourselves in? Like the Volokh quote above goes, in the end the argument ends up clouding the vision. By staying on the general instead of the specific, you are losing out on the argument.

I can't offer "proof" without moving into territory that is against the board rules (that is, discussing political and cultural issues).

I feel like your examples would involve a lot of the words I used earlier, and I'll be honest: I don't really find those arguments to be convincing.

With D&D, we're only at early stages in the process and could still go in any number of directions. I'm merely expressing concern about going down a certain direction.

You have not expressed a concern because you'd have to actually say what it is then. But if you want, you can finally tell us so we can discuss it.

As as Filthy Lucre said, there is nothing wrong with considering hypotheticals - that's part of making good decisions.

But we have actual situations we can reference. Hypotheticals are useful when you don't have a real situation that accurately reflects what you want to talk about... but we're talking about a real situation and there are multiple other situations we could reflect upon similarly, so I don't understand a need to look to made up situations.

You're asking me to have a stronger opinion about something that I simply don't have. In some circles, being open-minded and flexible is considered a good thing...

No, I'm saying that words have meanings, and when you say something is "mixed", that's implying both good and bad things about it. Thus I thought you had something bad about it and I wanted to know what it was. This is not about being flexible, but simply pointing out a lack of clarity here.

Again, you're presuming that something needs to be done, specific action taken to right the wrongs of the past. I'm not sure that is always the case; sometimes the best action is just understanding, so you can make better choices in the future.

What is the case for doing nothing? You keep talking about how maybe we do nothing, but you haven't actually expressed a case for it. Is there a justification for that or is that just an empty suggestion? Just being honest here, because I'd like to know what it is.

And you keep using slippery slope as an inherent fallacy. Again, I disagree with that, so it doesn't support your point, at least with me.

Uh, quote me where I say that, because I say it's an "unofficial" fallacy, which it is (Wikipedia says "informal", but same difference compared to what you are accusing me of doing). It's used fallaciously often enough that is often used as one. That's what I've done and I feel completely justified in doing so.

Again, we're not talking about watching someone be beaten on the streets, where no action is generally a bad thing. We're talking about what to do about often out of print books, or books that were written a century ago.

Then give me a reason why we shouldn't.

Not acting simply for the purpose of not acting is a very poor justification and the fact that you seemingly can't come up with any sort of reason so far feels very suspect. I'm trying to treat you with good faith, but the fact that you can't give me any sort of reason why something shouldn't be done while also putting words in my mouth is trying my patience.

@Dungeonosophy outlined why we should act. Give me a counterargument as to why we shouldn't.

Not outright, no. But there are innuendos and implications.

You're talking about innuendo on one side, but within the last page we literally have someone on the other side bluntly lying about the OP to try and make a point. I feel like this exemplifies how the sides are different.

Hey, I'm a big picture guy. Obviously I agree that we have to consider specifics, and things in context, but ignoring the big picture is like driving and only looking five feet in front of the car.

My main issue with your second paragraph is that it, again, falls into a two-sideism. I mean, if you really want to stick to specifics, how can you even speak of "the other side?"

Because the "other side" varies from argument to argument and even point to point. People arguing for action here are all different, and they might not be on the same side in other threads. Trying to create overarching generalizations of groups fails because they are individualized to the arguments, as are many of their reactions.

 

[Gradine]

Huh? How is that at all what I'm saying? This is patently absurd. Who are the fascists you're talking about? This is a rather ugly remark, Gradine.

I did hyperbolize and strawman here, and for that I sincerely apologize. The invocation (and, frankly, misapplication) of the poem tweaked a nerve. It still does, but it's still no excuse.

I will say, however, that comparing "first they came for the communists" with "first they delisted this heinously racist jokey orc book" is also patently absurd. And hyperbolic.

Wait, what is "settled?" You're talking about an academic field? That's like saying, "the theory of tax collection is settled, therefore we should accept whatever the tax collectors ask of us."

Many academic fields have a specific ideological orientation. It might be settled within that field, but that doesn't mean that everyone outside the field agrees with it.

I'm not sure that many experts of their fields take the opinions of laypersons into consideration, nor should they. Regardless of however you feel about the "ideological orientation" (scare quotes intentional, in this case), it is a field, it does have experts, and they have many things that they agree upon which forms the foundation of their discipline. The question "who is making these decisions?" is easily answerable, as is the question of what standards they would apply; the foundations are built into the curriculum.

You may disagree with those standards, that curriculum, and the entire field in general, but it does not change the fact that your questions have fairly easy answers. Nor does it give your opinion more (or even anything close to equal) weight to the experts within the field

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Uh, this is about doing things that hold legal power over others. This is about creating laws, not PR responses. I'm... not sure how they actually relate, though I do think this is instructive:

"The slippery slope is in some ways a helpful metaphor, but as with many metaphors, it starts by enriching our vision and ends by clouding it. We need to go beyond the metaphor and examine the specific mechanisms that cause the phenomenon that the metaphor describes — mechanisms that connect to the nature of our political institutions, our judicial process, and possibly even human reasoning. These mechanisms and their effects deserve further study, even if paying attention to them will make policy analysis more complex. So long as our support of one political or legal decision today can lead to other results tomorrow, wise judges, legislators, opinion leaders, interest group organizers, and citizens have to take these mechanisms into account."

Like, this is exactly not the argument you want.

What did you just do?

Literally, what did you? I have a very good idea. You saw something that you were not familiar with. Instead of trying to understand it (and why I put it there), you did the bare minimum reading to try and dismiss it, and then pull a quote- that shows you don't understand either the article, or why I cited it.

The worst thing about the internet is when people are discussing things, they assume arguments, and they assume "two sides" and instead of pausing to take. a breath and trying to understand something, they just go right on in.

So yes, the article examine specific mechanisms - did you look at them? I know, they were all the way on page 5, so you probably didn't get there. Do you think that these specific mechanisms have general applicability? Why or why not? Is it possible that this law review article (technically, a summarized form) is a specialized version of the same argument that can be useful here- because even though it is specifically discussing laws, the overall mechanisms it discusses are generally applicable?

But hey, clearly you know more about this than I do! Thanks for having a productive conversation.

But if you wanted to understand anything (HA!) I would recommend READING the article, which would take you more time than it took you to respond - but would be useful in the future. If you want to know how I feel about the remedies- you can just search this thread for my prior posts. Good luck!

 

[Justice and Rule]

What did you just do?

Literally, what did you? I have a very good idea. You saw something that you were not familiar with. Instead of trying to understand it (and why I put it there), you did the bare minimum reading to try and dismiss it, and then pull a quote- that shows you don't understand either the article, or why I cited it.

The worst thing about the internet is when people are discussing things, they assume arguments, and they assume "two sides" and instead of pausing to take. a breath and trying to understand something, they just go right on in.

So yes, the article examine specific mechanisms - did you look at them? I know, they were all the way on page 5, so you probably didn't get there. Do you think that these specific mechanisms have general applicability? Why or why not? Is it possible that this law review article (technically, a summarized form) is a specialized version of the same argument that can be useful here- because even though it is specifically discussing laws, the overall mechanisms it discusses are generally applicable?

But hey, clearly you know more about this than I do! Thanks for having a productive conversation.

I've read Volokh and his column before. But the quote you talking about is regarding restricting our freedoms through laws, codes, ordinances, etc. They don't apply to an individual's own actions to govern themselves. The whole point is how law can govern behavior, how subtle changes can influence one's actions simply by existing. I get that.

What I don't see any sort of application to what Wizards would be doing. Wizards governs itself in this situation and makes a choice to do these things with its own products. It carries no legal power over others, it has no hold over what others do unlike the government. It can set an example, though, and I would think that's what we would want them to do.

Really, it's not that I didn't read it. I just don't think the principle you are putting out there applies to a non-governmental entity's individual actions.

 

[Faolyn]

As respectfully as I can, in text form, please provide proof of this claim. It strikes me as rather absurd, and I can guarantee you that I exist in no bubbles or echo chambers that would insulate me from such things, as I am very much surrounded by extreme views in daily life, and while my online life is curated to avoid interacting with the worst of the internet such as nazis, I too often delve into comment sections and the like where the most extreme statements on all sides of an argument dwell.

Butting in: if you'll accept my word on it, I was reading a thread on a different gaming forum where I saw two people banned for two weeks because they were having a "dispassionate" discussion about slavery within the confines of the game (GURPS Banestorem) that was being discussed.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I mean, honestly, @Snarf Zagyg , if you wanted something from Volokh that was a bit closer to the topic, you'd probably want this one. I think it honestly has more compelling arguments on the subject, but perhaps because of the subject it's not really directly applicable and more of a parallel argument.

 

[Mercurius]

I mean, I don't think the underlying logic of the quote works if it's not really applicable to the situation we find ourselves in? Like the Volokh quote above goes, in the end the argument ends up clouding the vision. By staying on the general instead of the specific, you are losing out on the argument.

But that's the whole point: it may not apply right now, in a specific moment, but that's why hypotheticals are important to consider. And again, my analogy of driving while looking five feet in front of you. Considering the road ahead is not "clouding the vision," it is broadening it.

You have not expressed a concern because you'd have to actually say what it is then. But if you want, you can finally tell us so we can discuss it.

Um, that's what we're doing? And I have expressed my concerns. This is...odd. That's what I've been doing. If I hypothesize potential bad outcomes, you're going return to your focus on specifics, and ignore my driving analogy. And around and around we go.

But we have actual situations we can reference. Hypotheticals are useful when you don't have a real situation that accurately reflects what you want to talk about... but we're talking about a real situation and there are multiple other situations we could reflect upon similarly, so I don't understand a need to look to made up situations.

We fundamentally disagree on this. Again, refer to my driving analogy.

No, I'm saying that words have meanings, and when you say something is "mixed", that's implying both good and bad things about it. Thus I thought you had something bad about it and I wanted to know what it was. This is not about being flexible, but simply pointing out a lack of clarity here.

Now I'm confused. What, specifically, do you want clarity on?

What is the case for doing nothing? You keep talking about how maybe we do nothing, but you haven't actually expressed a case for it. Is there a justification for that or is that just an empty suggestion? Just being honest here, because I'd like to know what it is.

I'm not saying do nothing about anything. We're specifically talking about older and out of print products. I think the case for doing nothing is sort of like playing pick-up sticks: it is hard to pull one out and not effect the whole pile. Or perhaps bull in a china shop works.

As I said, I also don't have a huge issue with some kind of disclaimer, but I think it may be enough to say, "This wasn't good, but we'll try to do better" - and maybe end of story. Unlike the OP's suggestions that you quoted, I don't think it has to be a long, drawn-out process of apologies, which has an element of public shaming to it, and can often be rather forced.

Uh, quote me where I say that, because I say it's an "unofficial" fallacy, which it is (Wikipedia says "informal", but same difference compared to what you are accusing me of doing). It's used fallaciously often enough that is often used as one. That's what I've done and I feel completely justified in doing so.

Again, we disagree on it. Again and again, please refer to my more recent analogy, that of driving. Do you really think that one should drive and only look five feet ahead? I'm not talking about making up tornados and semi trucks, but being aware, and recognizing how a short move right now can lead to all sorts of problems.

Then give me a reason why we shouldn't.

Not acting simply for the purpose of not acting is a very poor justification and the fact that you seemingly can't come up with any sort of reason so far feels very suspect. I'm trying to treat you with good faith, but the fact that you can't give me any sort of reason why something shouldn't be done while also putting words in my mouth is trying my patience.

See above.

@Dungeonosophy outlined why we should act. Give me a counterargument as to why we shouldn't.

See above.

You're talking about innuendo on one side, but within the last page we literally have someone on the other side bluntly lying about the OP to try and make a point. I feel like this exemplifies how the sides are different.

And within the last page I was accused of using a quote to defend fascists.

Because the "other side" varies from argument to argument and even point to point. People arguing for action here are all different, and they might not be on the same side in other threads. Trying to create overarching generalizations of groups fails because they are individualized to the arguments, as are many of their reaction

Um, that's kind of my point: there are many variations, but talking about the "other side" and how they're all irrational goes against your statement that you only like to look at specifics.

 

[Mercurius]

Butting in: if you'll accept my word on it, I was reading a thread on a different gaming forum where I saw two people banned for two weeks because they were having a "dispassionate" discussion about slavery within the confines of the game (GURPS Banestorem) that was being discussed.

That isn't my quote, btw, but doctorbadwolf.

 

[Faolyn]

That isn't my quote, btw, but doctorbadwolf.

eep! Sorry.