D&D General The Art and the Artist: Discussing Problematic Issues in D&D

log in or register to remove this ad

There was a phrase we used in the military.. Suck it up and drive on. It doesn't mean give-up, neither does it mean don't fight the fight where someone is obviously making a 'trolling', 'inflammatory' or 'charged' statement. (ie making a group of religious crusaders that wear white robes and hoods and set religious iconography on fire as a positive hero group named the Kul Klock Klangs in your new campaign setting is probably NOT very smart, or subtle). What it does mean is that you must take responsibility for your own misery and either get past it or suffer. And if 99% of the people in the world say the sky is blue and you being colorblind say you are offfended because its obviously grey... Suck it up Buttercup, because while I feel sorry for your condition, I'm not going to start calling the sky non-discriminatory shade.

This is excellent advice for all the whiners and criers kicking up a fuss about orcs gaining some nuance.

Citation needed.
Orc is a racial term... that's offensive. Pie is a gluten backed good that is dangerous to diabetics, gluten allergic and vegans (eggs and milk). According to the idea that ALL dangerous things are bad, pie is bad.

It's a hyperbolic extrapolation. (Yes I can go over the top too. :) )


Would you still have that level of concern about a product that reinforces harmful racial stereotypes or misogyny? Would you be just as comfortable with having those elements in your game?
Who would say yes? Of course I wouldn't want something in my game I believed reinforces harmful racial stereotypes of misogyny. But then just because I think something reinforces harmful racial stereotypes doesn't mean you'll agree and vice versa. I think that's where the crux of the problem is in these discussions.

Orc is a racial term... that's offensive. Pie is a gluten backed good that is dangerous to diabetics, gluten allergic and vegans (eggs and milk). According to the idea that ALL dangerous things are bad, pie is bad.

It's a hyperbolic extrapolation.

And why is that a productive contribution to this discussion?
It was an example.. by itself its not. In context it most assuredly is. Sometimes looking in the mirror of righteous hate gives us the opportunity to see when we have left the track of helpful and have started tilting at windmills. Proving racism and sexism is bad is a noble task. Further proving that pink is an offensive color to a group of people is jumping the rails. Believe it or not, I agree that the changes that have taken place are positive, but make no mistake, when you start a campaign of scorched earth, the damage WILL cause unintended non-affiliated damage.

A peaceful protest is great, when someone throws a brick and a riot ensues, it's an illegal assembly, and regardless of the initial positive gathering, it's now a civilly disruptive mob and a group of law breaking criminals. When socially aware and positive change seeking individuals lose sight of the objective (changing obviously offensive material) and start nit-picking details that mean little to the original objective, your movement loses the credibility it needs (and deserves).

There is an old phrase 'Pick your battles' it still applies but in the modern arena of social awareness maybe a better phrase would be 'Pick your meaningful battles.' As I've said here and elsewhere I don't have all the answers, but I do have some cutting questions to keep others honest. I hope we all remember the end goal... to make our hobby a better hobby.


It sounds like you're trying to equate a consumer's dietary preferences with racism and misogyny. Was that on purpose?
Thunderfoot was replying to comment #531 where you brought up fear of spiders and traumatic experiences with sexual assault. And the thrust of his statement was that consumers need to take responsibility for their own problems. If someone knows they have arachnophobia maybe it's on them to avoid material that has spiderlike creatures in it, like Cyborg Commando (or if they have a phobia of bad games). If someone is a survivor of sexual abuse than maybe games like Vampire: The Masquerade (2018) or Bluebeard aren't for them.

No, I see the point quite clearly. I keep seeing it in these threads. When semantic games don't work it's time for mockery and aggression and 'Well it's your fault for being bother/offended/traumatized'.

Same old dance day after day. It's tired and it's no longer working.
Nope, missed completely. I hope you get past this.


How to say 'I want nothing done about this issue' without saying 'I want nothing done about this issue'.
That's very cute, but I don't feel the need to be indirect. If you don't want to take any responsibility for what you choose to read or watch that's fine. But don't expect everyone to cater to your wants or needs.


Final Form (they/them)
I strongly disagree. Psychological, emotional, and cultural violence are real violence, and quite the contrary from “watering down the term” by describing them as such, you downplay the severity of those forms of violence by refusing to call them what they are.
Quoting this for truth. In some ways this can be a vicious cycle; downplaying violence of a non-physical nature can often continue to perpetuate that violence.


Goblin Queen (She/They)
I strongly disagree too. This argument just doesn't hold water I think. These things can all be bad, they can also use and include violence. But taking horrible things, that aren't violent, but still horrible, and labeling them violent, seriously clouds these issues.
It doesn’t cloud them at all. They are literally violent, they just aren’t physical. The word violence just simply is not limited to physical force.

Level Up!

An Advertisement