D&D General Two underlying truths: D&D heritage and inclusivity

[TaranTheWanderer]

But, that's not the "meat" of the issue, nor is it delving deeper. The meat of the issue isn't "what about evil bad guys" because "evil bad guys" is not an issue. No one has a problem with evil bad guys, because, well, bad guys are supposed to be evil. So, your Hitler Lich would be perfectly fine. He's a BAD GUY. It would only be problematic if the victims were presented as deserving to die and be turned into mindless undead, or if Hitler Lich were somehow justified in his actions.

So, why not talk about them? Because these issues are non-sequiturs that only serve to confuse the issue. Why are you talking about "evil bad guys" when no one has an issue with evil bad guys?

It's why this topic is so frustrating.

A: We want to change the language used in some monsters so that it no longer parallels real world descriptions that were used to denigrate and dehumanize people.
B: I don't see the problem with this language, so, you must have some other problem. What about being evil?
A: No, no, we want to change the language used in some monsters so that it no longer parallels real world descriptions that were used to denigrate and dehumanize people.
B; I don't see the problem with this language, so, you must have some other problem. What about this other monster that's completely unrelated to what you brought up?
A: No, no, we want to change the language used in some monsters so that it no longer parallels real world descriptions that were used to denigrate and dehumanize people.
B: I don't see the problem with this language, so, you must have some other problem. What about these monsters over here that are completely unrelated to what you are saying?
A: No, no, we want to change the language used in some monsters so that it no longer parallels real world descriptions that were used to denigrate and dehumanize people.
B: I don't see the problem with this language, so, you must have some other problem. Why won't you talk about these other issues. They are important aren't they? Why aren't they problems for you?
A: No, no, we want to change the language used in some monsters so that it no longer parallels real world descriptions that were used to denigrate and dehumanize people.

Wash, rinse, repeat for page after page after page.

Even if you don't agree with the interpretation, that doesn't meant that there is some other problem. Your (and I'm using you here in the general sense of anyone reading this) inability to empathize with other people's issues is the key issue here. Even if you don't have a problem with the language, how is it in anyone's interest to keep insisting on other justifications? Why not actually take a look at what is needed to resolve the issue - minor editing of a couple of monsters in such a way that the core of the monster is largely unchanged, as has been REPEATEDLY shown in this thread - instead of continuously searching for some sort of other reason?

I haven't been disagreeing with you. You've been interpreting my words as disagreement though. See, I think you've missed most of the point. But this is why i'm extracting myself from this discussion. I don't want to have to reiterate a point I've mentioned 5 times only to have it misrepresented as an argument against the points you're making.

 

[Umbran]

I'm not moving the goal post anywhere, just pointing out that we don't need apply real world ethics and morality to fantasy scenarios.

Those fantasy scenarios will be played by real world people. And while you may want to, they do not, in general, so completely dissociate from the real world while playing that the ethics and morality in the scenario may be arbitrary. Which real-world ethics and morals need to be reflected in your game does depend on your players.

You presumably know the needs and wants of your players, and can presumably tailor the morals and ethics of the scenarios you present to their tolerances. WotC does not have that option. They are selling to a general audience, and so their materials have to stick pretty close by the real world.

 

[Mercurius]

Those fantasy scenarios will be played by real world people. And while you may want to, they do not, in general, so completely dissociate from the real world while playing that the ethics and morality in the scenario may be arbitrary. Which real-world ethics and morals need to be reflected in your game does depend on your players.

You presumably know the needs and wants of your players, and can presumably tailor the morals and ethics of the scenarios you present to their tolerances. WotC does not have that option. They are selling to a general audience, and so their materials have to stick pretty close by the real world.

I don't disagree, but that's not really what I was trying to get at. A lot of these discussions are based around applying real world perspectives to fantasy contexts, which I see as, at the very least, an unnecessary transposition from one context to another; in this case, reality to fantasy. I think it also has to do with a limited conception of what fantasy is, both historically and in terms of the creative act itself.

The sentence of mine that you quoted was derived from a discussion on the duergar in which I was saying that the duergar story only has to make sense unto itself; we don't need to apply real-world ethics and ideology and coherency to the fantasy world. Fantasy, by its very nature, is the act of playing make-believe, of playing with What Ifs. What if a world existed in which evil was a real thing, and there were entire races of people who were evil? There is absolutely nothing wrong with that assumptive scenario within the context of fantasy; but what has happened is that many people (mis-)apply real world ideas into this fantasy context: "But that doesn't make sense--no race of people is inherently evil!"

People play first-person shooter games. I'm personally not a fan of video games, but I take it that (most) players aren't actually interested in killing people. They are entering a "fantasy world" in which they are soldiers, doing things that they might find morally reprehensible in real life. The morality of the fantasy context is different from the morality of the person playing their game.

As I said in one of these threads, I don't actually like playing evil characters. There are limits to what sort of fantasies I will willingly engage in, so I'm not saying that real world morality is entirely dissociated from whatever forms of fantasy I engage with. Fantasy can even be employed as a context to play out moral issues and quandaries. But the key is that the morality is relative to the context of the game, or setting, itself.

 

[Campbell]

All art, even art meant to provide a diverting escape, is grounded intimately in the human experience. When we create or portray a character we being guided by our instincts and insights into the ways that human behavior works. We cannot really help this process. We are social animals and understand the world by our relationships with one another.

This is just as true when it comes to characters who are not literally human. Even when we are writing or portraying characters who act in very inhuman ways we do so based on our judgments about humans. The power of fantasy and science fiction from my perspective is not to get away from telling stories about the human experience, but to experience it in new ways by exploring what other ways we could organize ourselves - what cultures we could form. In many ways I consider science fiction and fantasy uniquely political because we can explore cultural norms in ways we cannot in other genres.

Obviously we can write and portray characters who have different sorts of morality than our own. Exploring things from a different perspective is one of the virtues of all fiction. However, as audience members we are also human beings who have real human feelings and experiences. We relate to fiction as humans. We cannot help it.

This is a good thing by the way. It helps to develop empathy and compassion for people who are not like us. It helps us to see the world from different perspectives. It helps us to imagine the world as it could be or as we fear it might someday be. Art makes us more human - not less.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't disagree, but that's not really what I was trying to get at. A lot of these discussions are based around applying real world perspectives to fantasy contexts, which I see as, at the very least, an unnecessary transposition from one context to another; in this case, reality to fantasy. I think it also has to do with a limited conception of what fantasy is, both historically and in terms of the creative act itself.

The sentence of mine that you quoted was derived from a discussion on the duergar in which I was saying that the duergar story only has to make sense unto itself; we don't need to apply real-world ethics and ideology and coherency to the fantasy world. Fantasy, by its very nature, is the act of playing make-believe, of playing with What Ifs. What if a world existed in which evil was a real thing, and there were entire races of people who were evil? There is absolutely nothing wrong with that assumptive scenario within the context of fantasy; but what has happened is that many people (mis-)apply real world ideas into this fantasy context: "But that doesn't make sense--no race of people is inherently evil!"

You seem to want to erect this massive wall between "fantasy" and "reality" and no judgement can pass through that wall. But this misses the point so utterly, that I can't even find the words to explain it to you.

If I accept your premise as true, that you (As in any reader of any fantasy) cannot apply real world perspectives, ethics, or ideology to a fantasy story, then fantasy stories are worthless, meaningless, and boring.

Analogies are always a terrible idea, but let me go ahead and just start throwing them around.

I have on my shelf a "superhero" story. It falls under fantasy in that it is not real. Superheroes do not exist, superpowers do not exist. Within this story the main organization for superheroes abducts children with powers and trains them to be child soldiers, sent on kill missions against any hero that leaves the organization, because that person is a villain (by the way, this is the Velveteen Vs. series if people are interested)

Is this organization right to do so? Wrong to do so? By your premise, I cannot say. I literally cannot say that training children to kill traitors is wrong, or evil, or good, or anything. It is a fantasy story. Real World Ethics do not apply.

I have another story, (Starlight by Brandon Sanderson) in this story, an alien who is under judgement for whether or not it should be born, risks its future existence by defying orders to fight against a space monster and save trillions of lives on a space station.

Is this person brave? Cowardly? Good? Evil? Again, by your premise, I cannot say. I cannot say that choosing to risk your own life to protect the lives of others is good or brave or despicable. It is a fantasy story. Real World Ethics do not apply.


Now, perhaps you will say that I am meant to judge these actions within the context of the story, is the story presented in such a way, to tell me how to view that action. That tells me whether or not these actions were good or evil.


That means that I am meant to judge actions, based on the narrators judgement. Which leads me to a third book.

In this book, which I do not remember the name of, nor will I give the author any business if I could, a man recieves a message in his brain that he will gain power if he kills three people in the next minute. He hates people, so he does so. And he is reborn with the ability to control insects. He is a tiny gemstone, buried underground. He gains more power by killing more living things. At the climax of the story, he is controlling a swarm of wasps to torture and kill a family of five. He takes great pleasure in doing so, and finds the act very rewarding. Funny too since he has the insects stalk them for about a day, and the people are completely unaware that he exists, or that these are anything other than normal wasps.

Judging this story based solely on the morality it presents, in this world of the book, murder and torture are fulfilling and amusing actions that have great rewards attached to them. This is truth, because it is presented to us in this story, and this is a fantasy story, so only the morality within the story applies.



This is why your continued assertions fall apart Mercurius. We have to be able to apply real world ethics and reasoning to our stories. Otherwise every author would have to explain why kindness is good and torture is bad.

And yes, we also have to judge the story by the story, by the assumptions it makes. The Addams family is a comedy, their actions which would be horrific and deadly in the real world are nothing more than silly antics within their own world. But, that is the power of comedic stories. They can break the rules, and set new ones. But, if you want me to take your fantasy story seriously, instead of as a poorly written comedy, then you need to apply enough reality to make it grounded.

 

[Lanefan]

You presumably know the needs and wants of your players, and can presumably tailor the morals and ethics of the scenarios you present to their tolerances. WotC does not have that option. They are selling to a general audience, and so their materials have to stick pretty close by the real world.

They don't need to stick close by the real world at all.

They just need to make it reasonably clear if and when they're not - a simple catch-all disclaimer like "This is a work of fiction and is not intended as any sort of guide to anything in the real world we live in" can cover a lot of ground there.

 

[Hussar]

They don't need to stick close by the real world at all.

They just need to make it reasonably clear if and when they're not - a simple catch-all disclaimer like "This is a work of fiction and is not intended as any sort of guide to anything in the real world we live in" can cover a lot of ground there.

Yes but that’s a bit of a cop out isn’t it? Yes, we know this is bad but because we put up a disclaimer, you lose the right to complain about it.

Why not just excise the objectionable stuff?

 

[Bagpuss]

We want to change the language used in some monsters so that it no longer parallels real world descriptions that were used to denigrate and dehumanize people.

The problem with that is at some point or another all negative language has been used to denigrate and dehumanize a section of society, so are you saying we can't speak negatively about any monsters?

 

[Hussar]

The problem with that is at some point or another all negative language has been used to denigrate and dehumanize a section of society, so are you saying we can't speak negatively about any monsters?

And here we have exhibit A. Right back around we go.

We've already talked about goblins and there's no real problem there. Ogres? Trolls? Giants? Not a problem. Demons, devils, dragons? Yup, no problems.

But, sure, let's jump right back on that slippery slope argument yet again, because, hey, we haven't beaten that to death have we?

 

[Bagpuss]

We've already talked about goblins and there's no real problem there.

I've seen others disagree, but certainly they don't seem to be the main target at the moment.

Ogres? Trolls? Giants? Not a problem. Demons, devils, dragons? Yup, no problems.

Ogres are more or less giant orcs, so I'm not sure what difference is enough to give them a pass?

I suspect Trolls, Giants, etc. are getting a pass as they are established in folklore? The fact that much of this folklore is based on the "fear of the other" which is a criticism thrown at orcs seems to be ignored at least at the moment.