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

[Mercurius]

Right, so abandon morality and ethics, they will not serve you here.

The logic was if you get caught by slavers and don't get to worship properly, you are a bad person. And I don't want that in my fantasy stories, sorry

Good thing you don’t have to. Just don’t ask WotC to change every fantasy idea to fit your real-world ethics.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

You seem to be missing the point (though I still have no idea what @Mercurius 's point was exactly). The argument seemed to be that in a fantasy world you can't apply real-world morality. So, if I'm understanding this correctly, your "solution" would be seen as good and the suffering of the goblins dying to disease in a slow and painful fashion would be deserved.

I probably missed the point since this thread seems to weave and dodge. My solution was never about good or bad. I was playing a pure Neutral druid so he really didn't have any sympathy either way. The goblins were in the way of his goals and nature would sort them out one way or another.

I was just pointing out that no published adventure would point that method out as a solution to a problem, nor would it write an adventure that made that the logical conclusion. It doesn't mean a table won't do it, though.

I addressed this example in the other thread

this isn't really answer because there's too many thread and I'm having troubles keeping up. Care to provide a link?

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Okay, to start: that is not even kind of similar to anything I said - and I'm pretty sure no one else said that either.

But to go ahead and try and have a conversation instead of just point out that you're wildly off-target from what was being said:

There is a difference between a story about victim blaming, and a story that is and excuses victim blaming. If the story of the duergar and the dwarves were telling us readers that it's not correct or acceptable behavior that the dwarves have completely disregarded that what they are declaring the duergar as 'the enemy' for is a thing which was inflicted upon the duergar, not a thing they deliberately did, it wouldn't be a problem - it would just be "a story, which includes victim blaming."

That's not the case, though - the actions of the dwarves are not even kind of brought into question, they are treated as normal reasonable things to do, and that is the problem - it's a story that presents victim blaming as "good guy" behavior, and the anger at being cast out for something outside your control as "evil guy" behavior.

I might have taken your argument out of context because, as I said in a previous post, things are moving quick in these threads. There have been lots of posts but that one post, by itself(IE: probably out of context), seemed to stand out so I commented on it.

I get what you are saying. I think it would be an even better story if the dwarves were portrayed as being in the right but then the adventure slowly reveals that what they believe is only a product of their own upbringing and eons of propaganda. Then the PCs can make the moral choice to defend the Dwarven perspective or to act against it.

I have no problem with a publisher saying,

"Hey, here's this group that righteously thinks they are superior to another group even though they are totally wrong. The common worldview/belief is they are actually morally superior (but they aren't). Add this to your game if you want to let your players explore this."

No need to change the story. Just frame it first.

 

[Imaculata]

Or better yet, not allow monsters as player characters.

True, but the devil is kind of out of the box on that.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Rather than go through your longer post, I'll just thank you here for the work you put into it.

The only change that needs to be made to IMO make it all work just fine is that instead of the Duergar coming back to the Dwarves seeking peaceful re-entry and being rejected, have them come back as aggressive invaders and get rejected. That gives each group ongoing reason to be torqued off with the other, and on we go.

That works too

So maybe the dwarves are victim blaming. So what? It adds texture to them, a kind of prideful blindness.

But is it victim-blaming of WotC to create such a story? Of course not.

If it was presented as prideful blindness, sure, but at that isn't how it is presented in the story. The dwarves are never questioned or confronted by their choices. They are still the good guys.

Good thing you don’t have to. Just don’t ask WotC to change every fantasy idea to fit your real-world ethics.

I never asked WoTC to change anything, I was simply elaborating on my disgust at the story since Lanefan asked.

I will point out though, if you want good and evil to mean something in the world, maybe having the good guys doing evil and hateful things, but that being okay because they are the good guys... that might not be the best way to go about it.

And if you want moral grey, don't paint the bad guys with Vantablack

I probably missed the point since this thread seems to weave and dodge. My solution was never about good or bad. I was playing a pure Neutral druid so he really didn't have any sympathy either way. The goblins were in the way of his goals and nature would sort them out one way or another.

I was just pointing out that no published adventure would point that method out as a solution to a problem, nor would it write an adventure that made that the logical conclusion. It doesn't mean a table won't do it, though.

Well, since no one is talking about table solutions at all, I'd say you missed the point.

this isn't really answer because there's too many thread and I'm having troubles keeping up. Care to provide a link?

D&D 5E - How should be the future Oriental Adventures.

So, here's a tidbit... Telling a company what you want to see from them does not constitute "censorship." If it did, then everyone saying they want to see a new Dark Sun or Spelljammer is engaging in censorship. Companies get feedback and make choices, that's a normal process. That you don't...

www.enworld.org

I might have taken your argument out of context because, as I said in a previous post, things are moving quick in these threads. There have been lots of posts but that one post, by itself(IE: probably out of context), seemed to stand out so I commented on it.

I get what you are saying. I think it would be an even better story if the dwarves were portrayed as being in the right but then the adventure slowly reveals that what they believe is only a product of their own upbringing and eons of propaganda. Then the PCs can make the moral choice to defend the Dwarven perspective or to act against it.

I have no problem with a publisher saying,

"Hey, here's this group that righteously thinks they are superior to another group even though they are totally wrong. The common worldview/belief is they are actually morally superior (but they aren't). Add this to your game if you want to let your players explore this."

No need to change the story. Just frame it first.

Right, that would be fine, but that isn't how it is presented.

Again, the Dwarves blaming the Duergar for their own misfortune is not the problem (though it is icky) the problem is that the Dwarves blame the Duergar for their own misfortune, they are framed as correct in that assumption, and they are the heroes of the story. All of that bound together is the problem

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Well, since no one is talking about table solutions at all, I'd say you missed the point.

Thanks for tactfully pointing that out.

D&D 5E - How should be the future Oriental Adventures.

So, here's a tidbit... Telling a company what you want to see from them does not constitute "censorship." If it did, then everyone saying they want to see a new Dark Sun or Spelljammer is engaging in censorship. Companies get feedback and make choices, that's a normal process. That you don't...

www.enworld.org

Gotcha. I shouldn't have posted the same comment in two threads. Here's how I answered that specific post:

So, YOU don't see any issue with it. The Idea of invading a nation and taking those who don't agree with a specific ideology (that undead is a better state of being than alive - hence the lich) and taking those who fight against it and putting them into work camps until they die is, pretty much, most people's idea of evil. The fact that someone can make a parallel to work camps in WWII and that killing people who don't believe in your ideas for a 'better world' isn't an impossible idea.

It's there even if you have to dig for it. Some people might see that parallel because they've experienced it or have family who have. I could see it as a sincere complaint and you wouldn't be able to just write it off as 'overly sensitive complaining'. People on this board have legitimate complaints about specific content and others have dismissed their complaints. It's a thing, even when it doesn't fit your view of what warrants a complaint.

So, the question is, how do you publish anything when you risk having to pull your books off the shelf? Why pull the books off the shelf at all? This has been raised before about books outside of D&D: Tom Sawyer, To Kill a Mockingbird, Of Mice & Men. People asked that those books be pulled from libraries and schools. Is it right to do that? Is that how people want their society to function? Or maybe there should be a forward added to new prints of those books to put them into context? Chances are, the rules for what is PC today won't be PC tomorrow, so do we just get rid of all the content from the past or do we educate people about it and continue to release new, up to date material?

It would not be hard to edit a copy of the PDF of Oriental Adventures and add a forward and to add addendum in the book. They release erratas all the time to PDFs that do exactly that.

I agree, release better material but you can't crucify every artist for their material or prevent people from reading it if it eventually suddenly becomes outdated.

I think, ethically, we are, roughly, on the same page. I will have to bow out of these conversations, though, because there are too many of them happening at once and they all, really, touch on the same thing. I'm getting all my conversations mixed.

If you'd like to respond to my specific comment, feel free to PM me because it really doesn't belong in this thread. Not really because it's not applicable but because it should probably stay in the Oriental Adventures thread.

To Summarize my stance: Don't remove old material. Release better and new material. Add a forward and comments to new prints/PDFs of published books pointing out the outdated views.

 

[Mercurius]

...excuse me, might I ask where you intend to take the goal post and why you have not left it where you found it?

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.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

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.

The post when you seemed to say "it's not victim blaming" to which I responded asking "then what do you call it?" certainly made it seem as though your response of "So maybe the dwarves are victim blaming. So what?" and then moving from that topic to a different topic - that dwarves in a story blaming victims isn't WotC blaming victims - certainly looks like moving a goal post.

Like, could be the image used to illustrate the concept if someone went to look up "what is 'moving the goal post'?"

As for application of real world ethics and morality to fantasy scenarios: that's not what was being done. Not exactly, at least. The ethics and morality written into the game by way of alignment being part of the game is what was being applied to illustrate that the actions of good-aligned entities in the story did not fit the way that the good alignment is presented as thinking/acting - lawful good is presented as "can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society." and that is directly at odds with writing off an entire segment of your society for erroneous reasons and making no steps towards reconciliation once those errors are brought to light. There is no way to demonstrate "let's just be at war with the Duergar instead of accepting their claims of literal enslavement and working to re-integrate them to our society as allies" as "the right thing as expected by society."

 

[Mercurius]

The post when you seemed to say "it's not victim blaming" to which I responded asking "then what do you call it?" certainly made it seem as though your response of "So maybe the dwarves are victim blaming. So what?" and then moving from that topic to a different topic - that dwarves in a story blaming victims isn't WotC blaming victims - certainly looks like moving a goal post.

Like, could be the image used to illustrate the concept if someone went to look up "what is 'moving the goal post'?"

As for application of real world ethics and morality to fantasy scenarios: that's not what was being done. Not exactly, at least. The ethics and morality written into the game by way of alignment being part of the game is what was being applied to illustrate that the actions of good-aligned entities in the story did not fit the way that the good alignment is presented as thinking/acting - lawful good is presented as "can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society." and that is directly at odds with writing off an entire segment of your society for erroneous reasons and making no steps towards reconciliation once those errors are brought to light. There is no way to demonstrate "let's just be at war with the Duergar instead of accepting their claims of literal enslavement and working to re-integrate them to our society as allies" as "the right thing as expected by society."

It sounds like you're trying to play Gotcha with me? Part of what you perceive is me trying to pin-point what exact Chaosmancer calls "victim-blaming" with regards to the duergar: is it the good dwarves or WotC?

Anyhow, I hear your point about alignment. Your definition of LG sort of supports my view: it makes sense that LG dwarven society might be fallible or rigid. Or maybe dwarven society is LG-LN. Either way, it seems a picked nit.

 

[Hussar]

I had a druid in 3rd ed who cast contagion on a goblin and released him in order to wipe out their entire nest. Of course, we never claimed to be 'good aligned'. I'm fairly certain that this 'solution' to a goblin issue wouldn't be mentioned, or suggested in any module.

Once again, it's all very tricky. A lich necromancer King is pushing his territory into the neighboring countries. He's committing atrocities and taking slaves, forcing all who oppose him into work camps until they die just so he can raise them from the dead and add them to his army.

I'm sure you can see the issue with this, pretty typical, fantasy trope. It's a little too close to images of the Holocaust. No publisher would touch that with a 10-foot pole. So, how do you play the Necromancer King without insulting anyone? Remove the work camps? Make it so the Necromancer isn't interested in expansion? Or is it fair to release an adventure with a foreword that communicates the nature of the adventure, the actual intentions of the adventure and a warning of what it could depict if your table isn't careful? I don't know the answer but it certainly limits what publishers can release for fear of backlash.

This is very much missing the point. No one is saying that NPC's can't do bad things or you can't have evil NPC's. So, a Hitler Lich is perfectly fine, complete with Holocaust.

What would be bad would be presenting Hitler Lich as a GOOD THING. Or, frankly, as anything other than a bad thing. Or in some way implies that the slaves he's taking somehow deserve their treatment. Or that in some way the Hitler Lich is justified in what he's doing.

All these "whataboutits" really, really miss the point of what people are complaining about.