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

[Irlo]

People are really taking people out of context around here lately.

It's very easy to lose context in this or any forum when we snip quotes to respond to, and then we respond to the snipped quote without the context of the original statement. We lose meaning after only a short exchange of posts.

It is fine to like problematic things, it is fine to like art made by terrible people and it is fine to take influence from such art. But what I personally am not comfortable doing is financially supporting people who use their fame and fortune to spread hatred. And that makes Rowling a completely different matter to me than Lovecraft. Lovecraft is long dead and pretty much everyone agrees that his views on race were terrible, Rowling is very much alive and using her considerable influence to promote bigotry. So I will not spend one cent that has even a remotest chance of supporting that. Perhaps in hundred years Potter books are cherished fantasy classics and Rowling's odious views are just an unpleasant footnote with no real power. But today they cannot be overlooked.

In context, CL is saying, "I can't overlook Rowling's bigotry when deciding to support her financially."

I'm sure you mean, "should not, in your opinion". People overlook them all the time. We all get to make our own decisions.

In context, MS is saying, "People overlook Rowling's bigotry all the time when deciding to support her financially."

I can. Like all of us can. And then we are free to ignore each other. Now personally I feel that suggesting that maybe people shouldn't support an outspoken bigot is rather reasonable, but I of course cannot force you to do anything, nor would I want to.

In context, CL is saying, "I feel that suggesting that people shouldn't overlook outspoken bigotry when deciding to financially support an author is rather reasonable."

People are really taking people out of context around here lately. He specifically referenced 'overlook'. He did not say support.

I hope I was able to put it all back into context.

 

[Lyxen]

It's not a huge leap to get from the solutions to the problems, but what the heck, I'll oblige the homework assignment this once.

You know what ? Your whole "list", once more mixing problems and solutions, has just convinced that there are no real, deep, precise, issues. Out of all the WotC productions, one is targeted for changes that are so minor that it's just laughable (and which, moreover, have been already done). And for that, you are throwing really strong insults and assertions and want to throw a tsunami of changes ? Good luck convincing others, as I'm now, more than ever, set in my personal convictions that, overall, D&D has always been extremely inclusive in particular for their day and age.

 

[Scribe]

It's very easy to lose context in this or any forum when we snip quotes to respond to, and then we respond to the snipped quote without the context of the original statement. We lose meaning after only a short exchange of posts.

Well done on the clarification, but when its literally in response to a post, and I see it over and over and often with intentional strawman additions, and often around the same tired judgmental topics?

 

[Irlo]

Well done on the clarification, but when its literally in response to a post, and I see it over and over and often with intentional strawman additions, and often around the same tired judgmental topics?

Yep, right there with you. It's just that this isn't one of those times.

 

[Gradine]

You know what ? Your whole "list", once more mixing problems and solutions, has just convinced that there are no real, deep, precise, issues. Out of all the WotC productions, one is targeted for changes that are so minor that it's just laughable (and which, moreover, have been already done). And for that, you are throwing really strong insults and assertions and want to throw a tsunami of changes ? Good luck convincing others, as I'm now, more than ever, set in my personal convictions that, overall, D&D has always been extremely inclusive in particular for their day and age.

Okay, I'll admit I'm a bit taken aback here, by both your tone and your content; nothing I listed was a solution, everything I listed was a problem, and I didn't throw out a single insult, let alone a strong one. I also don't want to throw a tsunami of changes; these are all relatively minor and easy fixes, and I would agree that D&D, especially since 5e, has been, if not at the forefront of positive inclusivity in the TTRPG, certainly near the front. That doesn't mean that mistakes aren't made and progress isn't necessary.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

One thing I didn't really see in the OP (and it's long, so perhaps I missed it) is the capacity for artist's to show remorse.

Like, the big section on people being imperfect. This is true, no one has led a literally perfectly behaved life. People make mistakes, they get emotional and do things that in retrospect they regret. However, the real capacity for whether someone is a "good" or "bad" moral person is whether they have the capacity to see what they've done wrong, apologize, make amends and change their own behavior for the better.

For someone like Gary Gygax who is dead, that's obviously not going to happen. I don't really care much about making a moral stance on that fellow or his flaws, because he's buried and nothing I do now will affect him. If he was alive I'd feel different, as I do about another alive D&D designer, Mike Mearls (who I won't go into here).

Tolkien is also not a perfect person, but he did apparently "agonize" over the depiction and origin of orcs, that Morgoth could corrupt but not create (but also point to maybe orcs being redeemed). He also has several notes, letters and writings are also explicitly anti-Nazism and anti-racist. This in no way shields him from criticism, but it's important to note that the man had doubts and was aware of his writing flaws, and his letters post-Lord of the Rings show attempts to make amends for some errors. This is a judgement of character, that an imperfect person at least tried to improve.

For someone like JK Rowling though? She's very much alive, and is very much flaunting her flaws and shows little capacity for change. So I absolutely will do my best to support alternative books, films, etc. without her stamp on them.

TLDR: Don't judge people by their mistakes, judge them by how they act after their mistakes. Do they keep making them, or try to do better?

 

[payn]

One thing I didn't really see in the OP (and it's long, so perhaps I missed it) is the capacity for artist's to show remorse.

Like, the big section on people being imperfect. This is true, no one has led a literally perfectly behaved life. People make mistakes, they get emotional and do things that in retrospect they regret. However, the real capacity for whether someone is a "good" or "bad" moral person is whether they have the capacity to see what they've done wrong, apologize, make amends and change their own behavior for the better.

For someone like Gary Gygax who is dead, that's obviously not going to happen. I don't really care much about making a moral stance on that fellow or his flaws, because he's buried and nothing I do now will affect him. If he was alive I'd feel different, as I do about another alive D&D designer, Mike Mearls (who I won't go into here).

Tolkien is also not a perfect person, but he did apparently "agonize" over the depiction and origin of orcs, that Morgoth could corrupt but not create (but also point to maybe orcs being redeemed). He also has several notes, letters and writings are also explicitly anti-Nazism and anti-racist. This in no way shields him from criticism, but it's important to note that the man had doubts and was aware of his writing flaws, and his letters post-Lord of the Rings show attempts to make amends for some errors. This is a judgement of character, that an imperfect person at least tried to improve.

For someone like JK Rowling though? She's very much alive, and is very much flaunting her flaws and shows little capacity for change. So I absolutely will do my best to support alternative books, films, etc. without her stamp on them.

TLDR: Don't judge people by their mistakes, judge them by how they act after their mistakes. Do they keep making them, or try to do better?

I think this is where the conversation needs to go. A lot of folks feel there is no coming back from some of these mistakes. I get it, for a long time there was no accountability and thats starting to happen now. Eventually, we need to know what happens after. I think making amends and showing some remorse for poor behavior is a good start.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'll take a stab at The Problem:

Some people are so un-moved by systemic racism that if you ask them to very slightly modify their make-believe game about elves and dragons in the off chance that it might make the world a slightly better place they kick and scream as if the sky is falling.

I mean, how $%##-ed up is that?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Some people are so un-moved by systemic racism that if you ask them to very slightly modify their make-believe game about elves....

This is why this conversation gets bogged down in fighting. This isn't what is going on. There are some fundamental disagreements about what the situation even is. You are framing it in a way, that makes people who disagree with you into cartoonish villains. And you know nothing about any of these people or their personal experiences with life, how empathetic they are, how concerned they are about racism in the world. People are disagreeing over media tropes and what impact media is having, what the intent of certain media is.....there is a lot more complexity to this discussion than people are evil. At a certain point though, people also have to accept they are going to continue to disagree about things and move on as well.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think all these conversations are tantamount to telling people they are having "bad wrong fun" myself because it is the intent of the person perceiving it as much as the artist creating it. In cases like D&D Gygax didn't have racist intent nor did he encode racist tendencies into the work.

I'm afraid I have some bad news for you. If you look at Gyagaxian D&D modules like Keep On The Borderlands they are very much a fantasy Western. In most of the classic variations the white settlers move in pushing the native inhabitants out and wiping them out. And then when the Native Americans strike back the hero "protects" the settlers from the people they are driving out. There are plenty of non-racist Westerns out there, but there's deep seated racism in the genre.

E Gary Gygax posting on Dragonsfoot in 2005:​

Paladins are not stupid, and in general there is no rule of Lawful Good against killing enemies. The old addage about nits making lice applies. Also, as I have often noted, a paladin can freely dispatch prisoners of Evil alignment that have surrrendered and renounced that alignment in favor of Lawful Good. They are then sent on to their reward before thay can backslide

The adage about "nits make lice" was probably most famously uttered by Col. John Chivington of the Sand Creek Massacre when he said "Damn any man who sympathizes with Indians! ... I have come to kill Indians, and believe it is right and honorable to use any means under God's heaven to kill Indians. ... Kill and scalp all, big and little; nits make lice." Although it dates at least to the late 17th Century to justify ethnic war crimes in Ireland which is hardly an improvement.