Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9807818" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Er...You do realize that that was the way things were done...back in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, right? That's not "political correctness". That's literally conservative censorship rules. The Hayes Code and the Comics Code Authority were enforcing stuff like this. Rod Serling had to dodge the censorship board by making Twilight Zone a sci-fi show."Political correctness" has nothing to do with that.I don't agree with it. I outright dislike its polar opposite much, much more though: "Good and evil shall be portrayed in 100% identical lights, that is, rank awfulness, and shall be used only as an object lesson in how horrible people are. All shall focus on the struggle of petty jerks versus malicious jerks, casting the protagonist as merely one sinner out of hundreds."The term I use for the kind of fiction I like a lot is "chiaroscuro". It comes from art, referring to a particular style of painting (the French equivalent is "clair-obscur"; both mean the same thing, "light-dark"), where the artist uses both very, very dark shadowed/unlit areas, and bright areas with bold colors, to throw the brightly colored things into dramatic relief. The idea, in painting, is that a chiaroscuro work creates a dramatic, impactful impression in the viewer because the eye is instantly drawn to the bold figures in blazing color, who might otherwise get washed out if they did not have the contrasting deep shadow/darkness.So, for me, much of the best fantasy is chiaroscuro fantasy: a world full of bright and beautiful things....but also full of genuine, deep darkness. Darkness that absolutely can win--can snuff out the light--but which is not guaranteed to win. The world is full of good things worth saving and bad things worth resisting...and human-like creatures aren't inherently on either "team".I don't really see the relevance of the example? My point was that historical accuracy is a commonly-discussed goal, but all too often it is sacrificed, on the regular, for things that look or feel "historical" when they demonstrably are not. Hence, if we are already--guaranteed--getting something that is adulterated, often pretty heavily, with totally ahistorical frippery solely for the purpose of making it "look right", why is it a problem to include other ahistorical things that aren't frippery, but are being done consciously and overtly in order to That's...why should I do that when you're the one who asserted there was a list? A list that, very specifically, WotC is currently using to shut down voices you think shouldn't be?If you're going to tell me there's a list, you cannot follow that up with "I'm sure you can find a list yourself." That's not how discussion works. If you tell me there's a list, and you won't tell me what's on it, I'm not going to take that list very seriously!</blockquote>

Verification