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

[Yaarel]

Arguably we haven’t truly learned it yet as a species, because we still have people who line up to follow dictators.

There are only two paths to a good future: the difficult way or the painful way.

Or as my friend says it: If youre gonna be stupid, you better be tough.

 

[Lyxen]

Wait, are you seriously suggesting these things didn’t have any impact back then?

Back then, as mentioned, the audience was not only very limited, but also very selective. That being said, I should not have put "absence of", rather "very limited".

What I’m saying is, it was positive for you and negative for others. I don’t see any value in arguing over how welcoming it was. The relevant point is that it could have been more welcoming, and it still can be.

My problem with this is that it promotes a biased view about the past, only looking at it for mistakes and faults, never for good things, especially when the actual proportion of one to the other is simply incredible. Yes, there are bad things in a few publications out of hundreds, and even in these publications, there are some bad sentences or pictures out of the whole supplement. Again, it does not make it right, but does it justify such global hate ?

And the defensiveness of others in particular about the past is equally grating. No doubt we’re all quite thoroughly grated, which makes us prone to behave gratingly in turn. Perhaps we could try to focus a little more on the content of each others’ arguments rather than the grating ways in which they make them.

For that, see just above. When it's only "the past was bad, but we are really good guys now", how can the arrogance of this not generate defensiveness ?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Did I say it was inappropriate? No I did not.

You very strongly implied it was inappropriate, actually. I can't read your post any other way. You're directly criticizing anyone having this discussion by claiming they're attacking people by doing so.

People also get defensive and resistant when they feel preached to or lectured at. These things are a two-way street. Sometimes people aren't listening, sometimes people are proselytizing and don't realize people have heard them but simply aren't interested in converting.

This feels a bit off to me.

Using the language of religion (preached/proselytizing/converting) rather strongly implies that you don't think that equality and anti-racism and so on are inherently valid goals, even if you personally share them, you think they're something people should have personal conscience over, and not be judged for. Whereas I think it's pretty definitely okay to judge someone for being a anti-racial-equality, say, or not giving a sod about it.

I think you are being a little too kind by approaching it this way. The more honest approach, I feel, is to note that many people just inherently push back on advice given to them about being better people, no matter how polite, well-meaning, honest, or helpful the person giving it is, and that if those people are also not impacted by racism, they have the luxury of doing so here.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's not a question of quibbling, what happened happened, and for me it was certainly positive in many ways, so as long as we examine the past critically, we might as well note the good points as well as the bad.

This seems like a pretty spurious point, because that's exactly what people typically do, in reality, unless the specific goal of an investigation differs from that.

I mean, seem to be attempting to covertly criticise, for example, the breakdown of two specific kinds of racism in GAZ10 that we saw a few weeks back. But that was a specific investigation with a specific goal. As noted at length in the thread, the author didn't even hit all the racism in GAZ10, because that wasn't the specific goal.

And if you're criticizing people for investigating products with specific goals, I'd say that's pretty silly, because equally plenty of other investigations have specific goals, like working out how to convert an adventure to 5E or whatever. If someone wants to pull out all the issues a product has, rather than consider it in the round, that's absolutely valid. That's a specific investigation. Equally, If someone wants to, say, just consider a specific class from a specific book, that's absolutely valid. The rational implication of your complaint is that it is not, that we must always consider things "in the round", no matter how wasteful that is.

To put it bluntly, taking this away from racism or the like, you're saying "You're not allowed to just say things I think are bad things, you should be forced to say things I think are nice things too!", and your justification for this demand appears to be "WELL I ENJOYED IT!!", which, okay... maybe you did... but that's not rational. That's like telling me I can't just burn Eternals for being a truly terrible movie because you liked it (apologies for implying you liked Eternals, it's just an example!).

And you're wrong to say we always have to do that. It's perfectly valid for me to just go through a product and point out things that are wrong. It's also valid to go through a product and consider all elements of it. For example, with Taladas, which I often talk about, I think that if you consider it in the round, it's broadly progressive, but it's also totally valid for someone to pick out a part of it and say "This anything but progressive" or "this is attempting to be progressive but is very misguided" or whatever.

 

[Lyxen]

This seems like a pretty spurious point, because that's exactly what people typically do, in reality, unless the specific goal of an investigation differs from that.

And this is exactly my problem, looking at the past with the specific goal of making it look bad. Never with a more balanced and less judgemental view, noting that there are bad things, but also some good things along with the bad. And for certain, never look at good things in particular, because it would invalidate the whole "crusade".

To put it bluntly, taking this away from racism or the like, you're saying "You're not allowed to just say things I think are bad things, you should be forced to say things I think are nice things too!"

Not what I wrote, learn to read and quote properly, and not to put words in other people's mouth.

and your justification for this demand appears to be "WELL I ENJOYED IT!!", which, okay... maybe you did... but that's not rational.

Once more, not what I said, at all.

And you're wrong to say we always have to do that. It's perfectly valid for me to just go through a product and point out things that are wrong.

It's not "valid", it just shows your biases and therefore totally invalidates whatever point you are trying to make, just as the way you try to steer a discussion by putting words in my mouth.

 

[Guest 85555]

Using the language of religion (preached/proselytizing/converting) rather strongly implies that you don't think that equality and anti-racism and so on are inherently valid goals, even if you personally share them, you think they're something people should have personal conscience over, and not be judged for. Whereas I think it's pretty definitely okay to judge someone for being a anti-racial-equality, say, or not giving a sod about it.

I think you are being a little too kind by approaching it this way. The more honest approach, I feel, is to note that many people just inherently push back on advice given to them about being better people, no matter how polite, well-meaning, honest, or helpful the person giving it is, and that if those people are also not impacted by racism, they have the luxury of doing so here.

Again, this is the kind of straw man I am talking about. Where people disagree with you over the solutions, the causes of the problems, the nature of the problems, and the response is something like "Oh, you mean you are not a good person". What I am saying is some people are approaching their certainty about their views on things these things, in a way that feels like the certainty of a person engaged in preaching gospel. People can agree for example, that equality is laudable moral aim, but have different concussions about what is an obstacle to equality, what is the solution to achieving equality, etc. Or to go back to the religion example, people can agree that a particular book is their holy text. That a particular God is their deity, but have serious disagreements over the details. You promoting a particular view of that faith, and me responding by saying I don't want to be converted to your denomination, doesn't make me a non-believer. In your mind it might make me a heretic....and I think that gets at the heart of what I am saying. And your responses also makes heavy assumptions about peoples personal experiences with the issues at hand.

 

[Guest 85555]

I think you are being a little too kind by approaching it this way. The more honest approach, I feel, is to note that many people just inherently push back on advice given to them about being better people, no matter how polite, well-meaning, honest, or helpful the person giving it is, and that if those people are also not impacted by racism, they have the luxury of doing so here.

No, I think people are pushing back on being labeled a sinner, when they do not believe they have sinned. And this portion of your response, is exactly what I am talking about. It is essentially saying, you need to believe what I believe about moral issue X or you are a bad person (or at least, not a better person). By your own language the issue is the person needs to be a better person in your mind, you are trying to make them better people, yet they refuse. I think these issues are just a lot more complicated than that.

But to be clear, I am not saying people taking the position you are outlining are not well meaning, honest in the expression of what they believe, nor that they are not trying to be helpful (I believe they are)....but so is the religious person trying to save your immortal soul: it is why I always say I think people are well-intentioned but misguided on this issue.

Also I think you really can't tell much about how impacted a person is by racism, or what their life experience is with things like equality and access to power, what their level of wealth or poverty, by something like an Avatar and a handle on a gaming forum.

 

[Krachek]

The Jk Rowling case is amazing. Some of her fans consider her now as « She Who Cannot Be Named ». There is something there with some kind of prophetic magic.

Overall the Potterverse is a tribute to friendship, to overcome challenge, to cultivate his own identity and specificity. It makes the world a more tolerant and inclusive place. In fact a better place for Trans people to live in. But that work has been toss completely away, and for some Rowling is now a transphobic.

Overall DnD help make the world a more tolerant space. Pretend to be different characters, with different races, personality, faith, alignment, help open mind and consider other way of living and other cultures. But that can be easily toss away, and base on a small glitch of the overall game, DnD can be view as a promoter of racist behavior.

That puts a lot of pressure on author, designer. Your overall work can be demonized by a single declaration, a small section of your work. The only solution to solve that I see, is to go back read Harry Potter and play dnd.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The curse of the left wing firebrand is to live long enough to turn into a reactionary conservative.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
I come back to the thread this morning to find some of you have left behind your good sense - using tricksy spelling to avoid the language filter/rules, making religious/political commentary, and raising some really offensive examples.

I'm giving a general warning: This is a controversial subject. Act like you care about the sensibilities of your fellow posters.

If you don't actually care about the sensibilities of your fellows, at least act like you recognize that it is actually easier for the moderators to remove you from the thread or the site than it is for us to type warnings. Enlightened self interest is your friend in this discussion, folks. So, use it!