# Oriental Adventures, was it really that racist?



## ryu289 (Jan 31, 2022)

From here:


> Wizards of the Coast _continue_ to bend the knee to the people shitting on them! In this case, Daniel Kwan, the guy who threw such a naughty word fit over the AD&D 1E _Oriental Adventures_ book being sold online that it resulted in WotC adding disclaimers to all of their old PDF products and Kwan earning an award, was apparently approached by WotC to talk about Asian representation in D&D. When he said he'd only do it if he was allowed to rehash the "harm" these old, out-of-print books and campaign settings caused, WotC _actually said yes!_
> 
> What the actual naughty word?! Why are they intent on feeding the hand that bites them?! I know they got their ass kicked quite a bit recently for this, Orion Black, several "racist" Magic cards, and who knows what else, but to think that the only lesson they've taken away from this is to say "thank you, sir, may I have another?" is mind-boggling to witness.




Well here is the thing, did Kwan have a point? Sure people might say "let us have fun" but I suspect that to Asian and Muslim characters, seeing their culture reduced to a theme-park version would be turned off for understandable reasons.

Off course:


> SO LEAVE THEM ALONE AND DO SOMETHING FOR YOU.





> They are no more "stereotypical" than the depictions of the western middle ages in other books.





> This was the first thing fans pointed out and the response was basically "lol wypipo's feelings don't matter."





> What's even the excuse? They can't claim colonialism or slavery. Historically, their empires, the ones this sourcebook is based on, were more powerful than ours a lot of the time. The Mongols conquered more of Europe than the English did of China, and now China's a world power. Japan only got naughty word with AFTER they declared war on half the world and lost.





> There isn't one? Most people here are sane, rational, reasonably intelligent folks, so legitimate questions like this surely come up pointing out the fallacies in their arguments. What I've taken to reminding myself is these are not rational agents we're dealing with. These are people who are operating constantly in insanely high levels of cognitive dissonance and see nothing wrong with it. To paraphrase Kyle Reese: "they can't be reasoned with. They can't be bargained with.."



Well here's the thing, they are playing with the idea that all Asian cultures are interchangeable. Korean, Chinese, and Japanese cultures are all mixed together and considering their history with each other, is something they wouldn't like. Now saying "western middle ages" is disingenuous since much of Fantasy is based on J.R.R Tolkien and his fictional version of BRITAIN in general. It's not based on a stereotype of Europe as a whole, Middle Ages or otherwise, and either way, this is simply going into tu quoque territory. And really, you are losing quite a bit of nuance and storytelling ideas by doing this.

But what are your thoughs...was it that bad back in ye olden times?


----------



## Umbran (Jan 31, 2022)

*Mod Note:

This topic has been discussed several times recently, in various threads.  Most of those threads wind up getting closed, and people threadbanned, given official warnings, and all that nonsense.

Thus, there's a major question of whether dragging up a bunch of stuff from reddit, to relitigate the issue here, is particularly valuable.  If you are going to post in this thread, please make it valuable, or just walk away.  The thread is warned from its very inception to be on best behavior, so there is no excuse for breaking the rules, or otherwise acting like a jerk.  Got it, folks?*


----------



## ryu289 (Jan 31, 2022)

Umbran said:


> *Mod Note:
> 
> This topic has been discussed several times recently, in various threads.  Most of those threads wind up getting closed, and people threadbanned, given official warnings, and all that nonsense.
> 
> Thus, there's a major question of whether dragging up a bunch of stuff from reddit, to relitigate the issue here, is particularly valuable.  If you are going to post in this thread, please make it valuable, or just walk away.  The thread is warned from its very inception to be on best behavior, so there is no excuse for breaking the rules, or otherwise acting like a jerk.  Got it, folks?*



I understand. I wasn't aware of any previous discussions on the topic. I am asking in good faith.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 1, 2022)

ryu289 said:


> I understand. I wasn't aware of any previous discussions on the topic. I am asking in good faith.



*Mod Note:*
For crying out loud.  I just mentioned there's no reason to break the rules.  I even gave a link to those rules.

And the first thing you do?  Respond to a moderation post, which is a thing the rules tell you you're not supposed to do!

How about you go read the rules before continuing.  If you have questions, please ask them in a private message, not in the thread.

Also, in the future, you can try searching on a topic to see what kind of discussion there's been on it lately.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 1, 2022)

ryu289 said:


> Now saying "western middle ages" is disingenuous since much of Fantasy is based on J.R.R Tolkien and his fictional version of BRITAIN in general.



This isn't really accurate.  Tolkien pulled from pretty much all European cultures.  For example, Gandalf is clearly pulled from the Finnish hero Väinämöinen, and the whole premise of his story comes right out of Nordic folklore.  And outside of Tolkien, medieval fantasy, at least how it's been depicted in media and games like D&D, is a conglomeration of many European cultures, from French, to German, to Welsh, etc.  Just look at Appendix N.

But all that said, doesn't mean it makes it right when doing it to east Asian cultures.  As an interesting anecdote, western cultures tend to mix and match many east Asian cultures like we did with OA, but after I lived in Korea for a few years, not only was the individual cultures clearly unique, but I could easily tell difference between Japanese, Korean, Chinese, or other nationalities when I saw them in the street.  I'm not trying to be racist by mentioning that, only pointing out how when one is immersed in a region with neighboring cultures, you actually start to see those differences and notice them, when you don't normally do that when you're on the other side of the globe.  And thus was the cause of one of the problems with OA, as Daniel Kwan had brought up.


----------



## aco175 (Feb 1, 2022)

@ryu289 welcome to the boards.  Everyone is generally helpful and insightful around here, you will learn to stay away from the red ink.


----------



## TerraDave (Feb 1, 2022)

I am just curious if there will be any actual references to the Oriental Adventures book. Like the actual text. Before this thread is closed.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 1, 2022)

Was Oriental Adventures really that racist?

Yes.

Kwan, and many others, are right. The person you quoted . . . . I can't say much about, their toxicity is hitting all of my anger buttons.

When predominately white gamers say things like, "_It's just fantasy_" or try to pass things off as "_not that bad_" . . . . I'm more inclined to listen to folks of Asian descent. I don't listen to folks who are just salty that times have changed and they can't just blindly appropriate other cultures without repercussions anymore.

OA was not deliberately racist, Gary Gygax (the author) had a love and respect for Asian cultures and wanted to celebrate them in D&D. But he was ignorant of the larger issues of systemic racism and "orientalism" and ended up coding all of that pretty heavily in the book. The discussions society has today about race and systemic racism just weren't that prominent back in the 70s, 80s, and even 90s. I'm not mad at Gygax, but I won't be playing in any games that use OA as is, and I expect better of modern designers.

If you listen to Kwan's podcast, Asians Represent, the discussions sometimes get a bit random, but they do a good job discussing the systemic racism against those of Asian descent in a lot of geek culture. It's usually Kwan, and three to four others of Asian descent, all geeks, some gamers, most are academics. They don't represent all Asians, nor do they try to, but they simply have discussions about things that many of us who are not Asian would never think about. It's eye-opening. To dismiss their concerns is . . . . to be blind to your privilege, IMO.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 1, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> Was Oriental Adventures really that racist?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> ...



Actually, OA was written by Zeb Cook, though Gygax was credited as the author and Cook as the editor. Apparently Cook found Gyhaxes draft embarrassingly stereotypical, so set out to rewrite from the ground up in a more culturally sensitive manner: he really hit the books, and used every book on Asia available st the Lake Geneva public library.

Which is kind of gobsmacking: what must the original draft have been like?


----------



## Irlo (Feb 1, 2022)

I loved AD&D 1e OA when it was released. Within a few years I became more worldly and started to smell the ick-factor. Even so, I bought the 3E update hoping for something better, and, I don't know, maybe it was better? Probably not.  Kwan's analysis was too long for me to sit through in its entirety, but he and his group were right about a lot of things. Yes, it's a racist work.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 1, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Actually, OA was written by Zeb Cook, though Gygax was credited as the author and Cook as the editor. Apparently Cook found Gyhaxes draft embarrassingly stereotypical, so set out to rewrite from the ground up in a more culturally sensitive manner: he really hit the books, and used every book on Asia available st the Lake Geneva public library.
> 
> Which is kind of gobsmacking: what must the original draft have been like?



Thanks, I seemed to remember someone else being the primary on OA, but when I looked it up just now, Gygax is given top billing of course.

Okay, so, I'm not mad at Zeb Cook!  He's good people, and I have faith he did his best with the resources available at the time. I'm curious if anyone's ever asked him, decades later, his thoughts on the book . . . .


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 1, 2022)

From the DMsGuils history (which predates any current controversy getting. Ig):

"David "Zeb" Cook was consulting on the project because of his interest in Japanese history and culture. As a result, when Marcela-Froideval turned in a manuscript for the book that was just 30-60 double-spaced pages, it landed in Cook's lap. Gygax then wrote Cook a contract to prepare the book on his own, with just 4-5 months to go on the deadline."

"Everyone agrees that the resulting manuscript is 100% Cook's own, perhaps inspired by some of the ideas suggested by Gygax and in Marcela-Froideval's notes. However in much later years Gygax would claim that Cook "ramrodded" his book through TSR, with the intent to "sink Francois' material", and that he did so by taking advantage of the fact that Gygax was "engrossed in the business affairs of TSR"."

"Both Cook and the book's main editor, Mike Breault, disagree with this interpretation of events. Cook points toward his contract and says that Gygax was fully informed on how the book was being prepared."

"Whatever the specifics, the book’s accepted origins are: Gygax came up with the idea; Marcela-Froideval wrote a manuscript that wasn’t published; and then Cook wrote a manuscript that was."


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 1, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> Thanks, I seemed to remember someone else being the primary on OA, but when I looked it up just now, Gygax is given top billing of course.
> 
> Okay, so, I'm not mad at Zeb Cook!  He's good people, and I have faith he did his best with the resources available at the time. I'm curious if anyone's ever asked him, decades later, his thoughts on the book . . . .



Oh, man, I tell you, I would love to see Zeb Cook, James Wyatt, and the Asians Represent crew do a panel. James Wyatt, as the author of the 3E OA, has been very supportive on social media of the Asians Represent crew, and owned the criticism he got as valid.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 1, 2022)

Irlo said:


> I loved AD&D 1e OA when it was released. Within a few years I became more worldly and started to smell the ick-factor. Even so, I bought the 3E update hoping for something better, and, I don't know, maybe it was better? Probably not.  Kwan's analysis was too long for me to sit through in its entirety, but he and his group were right about a lot of things. Yes, it's a racist work.



Yeah, the Asians Represent episodes go on for hours, and the conversations tend to ramble a bit. 

If I remember correctly, the consensus of the panel was that OA 3E was better than OA 1E . . . . but still suffered from many of the same issues. As does some of the Asian representation even in 5E.


----------



## TerraDave (Feb 1, 2022)

So we have at least go the authorship of the book.

And of course, happy new year!


----------



## Alzrius (Feb 1, 2022)

ryu289 said:


> seeing their culture reduced to a theme-park version



I can't help but notice that none other than Jon Peterson takes to the comments of that Analog Game Studies article to point out that it has serious flaws, saying "There are serious questions about the reductionism and appropriation inherent in simulating both the real and the imaginary, but we can’t engage them through a distorted historical lens. This is becoming tiresomely familiar as the method by which Analog Game Studies approaches D&D."


----------



## Mallus (Feb 1, 2022)

Do I think OA was racist? No.

The name is an embarrassment. But that was true back in the 1980s when it was first released. Aside from that the book displays the depth and historical accuracy I expect from an AD&D supplement .

Note: this isn’t a dismissal of other people’s criticisms. Nor is it an exercise of my privilege (complicated as that may be), since I had the privilege of being called an ‘oriental boy’ more than once growing up.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 1, 2022)

TerraDave said:


> I am just curious if there will be any actual references to the Oriental Adventures book. Like the actual text. Before this thread is closed.





TerraDave said:


> So we have at least go the authorship of the book.
> 
> And of course, happy new year!



Huh?

I think you are trying to imply some of us are criticizing Oriental Adventures without having read it . . . virtue signaling, if you will. If that is your assertion, I'll not engage with you any further.

I'm a white guy who purchased Oriental Adventures (both versions) off the shelf when they were first published. I loved them, and didn't see any issues with them at the time. In fact, I assumed they were loving, respectful, accurate (if fantastical) interpretations of Asian cultures. It took listening to Asian voices discussing the orientalism of the books to open my eyes, relatively recently, but prior to my discovery of the Asians Represent podcast. I've gone back and read through my copies again (I've got it all on digital, my physical copies are long gone), and yeah, it's all there.

Zeb Cook was not a terrible racist for writing the original Oriental Adventures as it was, he just unwittingly passed on the systemic racism that is, well, systemic in Western culture. I was not a terrible racist for purchasing the book and using it in my games, nor were any of my fellow grognards who are all now pushing 50 (or more).

As Umbran has pointed out, we've had this discussion here multiple times before, no need to get into the weeds again. If you haven't yet, listen to some of the Asian voices who are critical of Oriental Adventures, the Asians Represent podcast is a good start if you are genuinely interested in an Asian perspective.

If anyone does have any sections of the book ready to quote, by all means, bring it into the conversation. But those of us not willing to take the time . . . again . . . does not make our issues with the title not legit.


----------



## Malmuria (Feb 1, 2022)

OP thanks for scouring the internet for the most toxic and bigoted things you can find.   I assume for your next act you'll link to an 8chan post and innocently ask us what we think.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Feb 1, 2022)

I had OA back in the day, but I don't recall much about it, except that I thought the older Bushido game was better.  Has L5R taken any flak?


----------



## This Effin’ GM (Feb 1, 2022)

Jd Smith1 said:


> I had OA back in the day, but I don't recall much about it, except that I thought the older Bushido game was better.  Has L5R taken any flak?



Doesnt L5R specifically relegate itself to Japanese Lore? I think part of the issue with OA was that it tried to mix too much together and reinforce the idea that the cultures were interchangeable.


----------



## Willie the Duck (Feb 1, 2022)

I got this book for my twelve birthday. At the time, I loved it. I actually considered it 'grounded' compared to some other Asian themed properties of the time because a OA character ported back over to core standard 1e was not far-and-away strictly better. It had interesting mechanics, martial arts was a fun subsystem, wu jen and sohei and the other options were interesting new takes on the spellcasting classes. However, even then, it did not take me long to realize that it treated Asian people as somehow more fantastic and mystical than D&D usually treats actual fantastical creatures.


----------



## TerraDave (Feb 1, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> Huh?



These tend to be discussions about discussions (about discussions and sometimes yes about discussions). 

There is very little reference to the actual text...whatever it might be.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Feb 1, 2022)

This Effin’ GM said:


> Doesnt L5R specifically relegate itself to Japanese Lore? I think part of the issue with OA was that it tried to mix too much together and reinforce the idea that the cultures were interchangeable.



The thing along those lines I remember from L5R was having a religion called Shintao.


----------



## Davies (Feb 1, 2022)

TerraDave said:


> These tend to be discussions about discussions (about discussions and sometimes yes about discussions).
> 
> There is very little reference to the actual text...whatever it might be.



Become the change you wish to see in the discussion.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 1, 2022)

This Effin’ GM said:


> /snip I think part of the issue with OA was that it tried to mix too much together and reinforce the idea that the cultures were interchangeable.



This is pretty much spot on.

If OA had simply billed itself as Fantasy Japan, they would have gone a long way.  I mean, IIRC, in the foreward to the book, one of the inspirations is James Clavell's Shogun.  Which would be fine and would have worked.

But, they then took Japanese culture, language and various other bits and bobs, erased China and templated Japan over China.  Given the 20th century history of these two countries, that's a REALLY bad idea.  Never minding that Oriental basically skipped anything that wasn't Japan or China - poor Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia and whatnot get a really short shrift.  HIstorically, the Khmer empire (what is now Cambodia) would fit much better in the sort of quasi-historical period of D&D.  The site of Angkhor Wat was one of the largest cities in the world at the time.

But, yeah, it would be like taking a map of Great Britain, overlaying it with German names, German culture, religion and history and then calling the book European Adventures.  

Not something that would fly.


----------



## Professor Murder (Feb 1, 2022)

I think the OP here can come from a legit, well meaning place. In that spirit, here are simple steps to determining if a gaming book that depicts a real world culture or one which creates a pastiche of that culture is racially insensitive. 
1) Do not go to a generic gaming forum, even a well meaning one, such as this one, or a hellscape such as the one depicted in the quoted post.
2) Search online for existing discourse of the work by actual members of the affected cultural group.
3) Do not ask them "Hey! Is this Racist?"
4) Read what they have to say on the subject.
5) Believe them. Even if they didn't prove it to your satisfaction. That's not how this works. 
6) Do not offer your own input. Make your own, informed choices. 

It is noble to learn you are wrong and to change accordingly.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 1, 2022)

Hussar said:


> This is pretty much spot on.
> 
> If OA had simply billed itself as Fantasy Japan, they would have gone a long way.  I mean, IIRC, in the foreward to the book, one of the inspirations is James Clavell's Shogun.  Which would be fine and would have worked.
> 
> ...



Yeah. One of the things I learned real quick living in Korea was that you don’t really say anything good about Japan without getting a ton of dirty looks. With good reason considering the history. I can only imagine how offended I’d be as a Korean if someone just overlayed Japanese culture over my own, especially knowing that history. Yikes.  And it happens all.  The.  Time.


----------



## Argyle King (Feb 1, 2022)

For my own education, can I ask for a few points of clarity on the D&D community's desires?

•In some threads, I've seen it suggested that it is cultural appropriation to whole-cloth use a realworld culture as inspiration for writing -and that mixing and matching things (i.e. dwarves being Scottish Vikings or tribal orcs being a mix of African and North American Native). But, here, I'm reading that mixing is viewed negatively because it does not respect real-world animosity between cultures. So, which approach -mixing or not mixing- is seen as better for the purposes of writing fantasy material? 

•I often see it said that voices of people from the cultures in question have authority on determining whether something is offensive or not. In many ways, I agree with that. However, I'm also alive during a time when Matt Damon was criticized (by what mostly appears to be European-Americans) for doing a Chinese film, despite the fact that he was specifically wanted for the film to suit Chinese audiences. 

So, as a general rule, how much weight do you feel a member of a specific culture/group has when discussing an issue related to said group -and does that weight change determined by whether something is or is not seen as offensive? 
How does (or doesn't) that apply differently when someone has mixed heritage? (I ask because a reason I stopped going to rpg.net is because I understood a moderator's response to something I said to mean that my opinion was seen as less valid due to not counting as enough of the community being discussed.)

•What do you feel are some of the most egregious abuses found in OA? 

I think I own the D&D 3.5 version, but I mostly bought it just to have more monsters to use at the time. Present day, I've converted a little bit of the material to a GURPS hand I run. 

If I am unknowingly doing something offensive, I would like to be aware of it and possibly get suggestions about how I might still use the content but do so in a more respectful manner.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 1, 2022)

Imagine an RPG from a Chinese publisher about the American West, in which they outsource the writing about Native American and Mexican cultures to Ammon Bundy.

Whether or not OA is racist, it's just embarrassing.


----------



## TerraDave (Feb 1, 2022)

Davies said:


> Become the change you wish to see in the discussion.



I can text. And the pattern is holding.


----------



## Smackpixi (Feb 1, 2022)

I find the critique that Chinese and Japanese cultures are all mixed up into one not as big of a problem as it’s made out to be.  Same with spinning up Aztec and Mayan and Incas…or whatever others you wish to mash.  Greek and Roman often get rolled, all of Europe gets rolled together and it’s not an issue, or at least its not one anyone is sensitive to.

The western mish mash draws on appendix N type stuff and mashes even more and voila, D&D.  The unfortunate problem with past OA type stuff is that it draws on Western takes on other cultures from appendix N type stuff.  It should draw on the pulp literature from those cultures, that stuff exists, and could better inspire someone versed in said culture to do a mish mash of it.

The problems arise from people outside a real history doing their take on it and mish mashing it with sorta stuff they think is more or less the same.  Publish that today, and it’s not gonna fly.  There is, at least from me, a hunger for regional D&D mish  mashes from all over the planet by people with a cultural knowledge to do it.

As always, do whatever you want in your game, no one wants to stop you.


----------



## TerraDave (Feb 1, 2022)

Sacrosanct said:


> Korean if someone just overlayed Japanese culture over my own, especially knowing that history. Yikes.  And it happens all.  The.  Time.




I am not so sure that cultural mashups--that are clearly fantasy--are such a problem. Its an industry in Japan, consumed in much of the rest of Asia. Even some Koreans might be ok with it.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 1, 2022)

Argyle King said:


> For my own education, can I ask for a few points of clarity on the D&D community's desires?
> 
> •In some threads, I've seen it suggested that it is cultural appropriation to whole-cloth use a realworld culture as inspiration for writing -and that mixing and matching things (i.e. dwarves being Scottish Vikings or tribal orcs being a mix of African and North American Native). But, here, I'm reading that mixing is viewed negatively because it does not respect real-world animosity between cultures. So, which approach -mixing or not mixing- is seen as better for the purposes of writing fantasy material?



[/QUOTE]

The issue is complicated and there is not a one size fits all answer.



Argyle King said:


> •I often see it said that voices of people from the cultures in question have authority on determining whether something is offensive or not. In many ways, I agree with that. However, I'm also alive during a time when Matt Damon was criticized (by what mostly appears to be European-Americans) for doing a Chinese film, despite the fact that he was specifically wanted for the film to suit Chinese audiences.



The issue is complicated and there is not a one size fits all answer.



Argyle King said:


> So, as a general rule, how much weight do you feel a member of a specific culture/group has when discussing an issue related to said group -and does that weight change determined by whether something is or is not seen as offensive?
> How does (or doesn't) that apply differently when someone has mixed heritage? (I ask because a reason I stopped going to rpg.net is because I understood a moderator's response to something I said to mean that my opinion was seen as less valid due to not counting as enough of the community being discussed.)




The issue is complicated and there is not a one size fits all answer.


Argyle King said:


> •What do you feel are some of the most egregious abuses found in OA?
> 
> I think I own the D&D 3.5 version, but I mostly bought it just to have more monsters to use at the time. Present day, I've converted a little bit of the material to a GURPS hand I run.
> 
> If I am unknowingly doing something offensive, I would like to be aware of it and possibly get suggestions about how I might still use the content but do so in a more respectful manner.



From memory - using Japanese bushido code for the entire culture.  Never minding it being anachronistic, it's also incredibly out of place.  Using Japanese language for many things.  Why are fighters called bushi in OA, for example.  There is a host of things like this.  Again, if we turned out a Player's Handbook where the UK was rewritten giving it all German names, the classes were named in German, the mythology mostly derived from Germany, Scotland ceases to exist and is treated as simply the same as the rest of the country, and this was presented as a European Adventures book, that's essentially what OA is.  

And, again, what you do in your home game is no one's concern but your own.  No one should ever care what you do or how you play and anyone who says that they do can go soak their head.  But, we should hold the publishers to a considerably higher standard.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 1, 2022)

TerraDave said:


> I am not so sure that cultural mashups--that are clearly fantasy--are such a problem. Its an industry in Japan, consumed in much of the rest of Asia. Even some Koreans might be ok with it.



Not really.  While sure, Japanese manga is consumed all over, by and large it doesn't overlay Japanese culture on other countries.  

Evangalion (to pick a recent example) wasn't set in China after all.


----------



## TerraDave (Feb 1, 2022)

Hussar said:


> Not really.  While sure, Japanese manga is consumed all over, by and large it doesn't overlay Japanese culture on other countries.
> 
> Evangalion (to pick a recent example) wasn't set in China after all.



But there are plenty that are, or use some well known Chinese legend or element. 

And so much cultural mash-up. Very, very good mashup.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 1, 2022)

Smackpixi said:


> I find the critique that Chinese and Japanese cultures are all mixed up into one not as big of a problem as it’s made out to be.  Same with spinning up Aztec and Mayan and Incas…or whatever others you wish to mash.  Greek and Roman often get rolled, all of Europe gets rolled together and it’s not an issue, or at least its not one anyone is sensitive to.



I can't say that I agree. There has been pushback against lumping Aztecs, Mayans, Incans, etc. all together into a mash: such an approach is essentially a Euro-American colonialist enterprise. I recall pushback against that here by a poster from (I believe) Mexico. 

Moreover, the quiet trend over the past ten to twenty years in European TTRPGs has been pushing back against the American homogenized-approach to European fantasy. There have been a lot more native European TTRPG publishers who are publishing their own vision for European fantasy, often focused on their own country/region's fantasy folklore or fantastical sensibilities.


----------



## Random Task (Feb 1, 2022)

Hussar said:


> This is pretty much spot on.
> 
> If OA had simply billed itself as Fantasy Japan, they would have gone a long way.  I mean, IIRC, in the foreward to the book, one of the inspirations is James Clavell's Shogun.  Which would be fine and would have worked.
> 
> ...



I'm looking at page 136 and 137 in the 1E book and Kara-Tur is basically composed of two different versions of China and two different versions of Japan at this time.  There is also an enthusiastic foreward from David "Zeb" Cook wherein he talks about how much he enjoyed doing the research for the book and that it was mostly focused on China and Japan.  He says he focused slightly more on Japan because there was more written about the periods of Japanese history he thought were interesting for roleplaying compared to the interesting roleplaying periods of Chinese history.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 1, 2022)

I think we have to accept that there is a lower bar for historical accuracy in a product for entertainment than in an academic work. Historical fiction (and inspired fiction) has always allowed an amount of artistic license… don’t get me started on The Tudors or it’s sister show The Borgias. Both of which I love but are both riddled with historical liberties.

I don’t believe that mixing and cherry picking historical inspirations is a Eurocentric trait. It happens in lots of countries. The Japanese use of European medieval inspirations in animation and computer games being a good example.

I don’t think there is anything unhealthy about fascination with the great civilizations of old, romanticizing these and wanting to create stories in those times and places. Be it Egypt, Rome, China, Japan, Mezzo-America, or medieval England. These historical times are part of the world’s legacy, and do not belong to any individual group.

While I understand the desire for reasons of identity and nationalism to want your country’s unique features celebrated and the nuances made clear and distinct. At the same time, I do think this has to come from within. You shouldn’t expect other countries to promote your own nationalism.

As countries grow their own industries and produce quality works that have further reach beyond their own borders we see products like the excellent show, The Kingdom with its quasi-historical take on Korea. There will always be appetite for tales of foreign lands no matter which country you live in. If people don’t think a body of work is accurate or representative enough then they should find, encourage or support someone to make something better. Not to criticize what other people have done without a replacement.

Back to the OP in fairness to Danial Kwan, that is exactly what he does, both in his own publishing and his work as a consultant.


----------



## GreyLord (Feb 1, 2022)

ryu289 said:


> From here:
> 
> 
> Well here is the thing, did Kwan have a point? Sure people might say "let us have fun" but I suspect that to Asian and Muslim characters, seeing their culture reduced to a theme-park version would be turned off for understandable reasons.
> ...




From those that I know who Read or Played the game from Japan (or both)...

NO.

In fact, the most offensive thing were the Americans (I suppose that would be the U.S. and Canada).

Oriental Adventures (1e and 3e) was the ONLY D&D RPG product that had a decent amount of input from actual people from Asia (Specifically Japan) since it's creation up to...well...up to...today.

There were actually some who were VERY PROUD of the representation of Japan in the game itself and the product. 

The 3e product that tried to do a similar thing had also had some representation, but was not as well accepted.

BOTH were more of a Japanese adventure type game than Oriental.  This perhaps was the biggest problems those outside of Japan had with the product...if they even KNEW of the products existence.

The REAL problem arose because there is a RIFT between the culture of Asian-Americans from North America and the rest of the East Asians in the World.  It hovors mostly around the usage of the word Oriental.  This word has become offensive in it's use to some of the younger generation in the United States and Canada (though, I should note, it is NOT universal and some of the younger generation that takes offense at the word's usage is genuinely confused or bothered that others in their generation and much of the older generations of Asian-Americans DO NOT share their problems with the word Oriental). 

It is actually a hot topic of debate in some areas of Asian-American culture these days between those who take offense at the word and those who do not.

What makes it worse is that there are those from East Asia that feel that North Americans are being offensive TO EAST ASIANS by the rejection of the word Oriental.  Many of them would rather be known as Oriental rather than Asian due to the word Asian lumping them in with other groups from Asia (Indians, Pakistanis, Arabians, etc) who they do not want to be confused with.

It makes for a very confusing and culturally complex mess.  Because of this, it is probably best to simply stay away from the entire thing.

At the time OA was created it was actually rather respectful (in relation to most products of the time) in it's treatment of Japanese culture.  If anything was offensive it is the same offense that Americans do by labeling everything from East Asia as Asian rather than being more specific.  The offense would be that it tried to apply Japanese culture to the entirety of East Asia rather than simply calling itself Nippon or Japanese Adventures.  3e also basically did the same mistake, but in some ways made it worse by trying to incorporate a FEW items from the rest of East Asia but conglomerating it into one whole under the main umbrella which represented more of a Japanese stereotype culture.

Offensive though?  AT the time, as I said, it was perhaps one of the more respectful items regarding Japanese culture that was put out.  It actually took representatives of the actual culture that they were trying to represent and took their input and playtesting of the material.  The only other one that really had Asian representatives in any sort of influence that I know of in regards to D&D was the 3e OA as well.

The biggest problem today, as I pointed up above, is the RIFT between American culture and the rest of East Asian culture.  The Japanese have generally been gracious and excited about things that promote their culture in any sense of the word to the rest of the world, and happy to see the rest of the world embrace things that are Japanese.  Some of this unfortunately brought a bunch of racism by others Americans against some Asian-Americans in the 80s, 90s, and 00s.  This type of racism put some bad tastes in many Asian-American's mouths for items which are like OA, or other things which they see as stereotypes or imitations of East-Asian Culture. 

I do not know how to bridge this type of Rift, but I think the distaste that some have exhibited (not just to OA, but many items, including Old Hong Kong films MADE by Hong Kong film companies, Chinese cultural books and travel guides WRITTEN by people FROM China who speak English, and of course, many of the Hollywood movies and shows made by white guys in Hollywood...OA is just a SMALL item that falls under the entire cultural displeasure denounced by the American Culture today) towards these types of materials vs. the culture of that from East Asia is creating a valley of controversy that is not easily crossed today. 

It is hard to please both sides of the equation, but as D&D is FAR more popular in the US than East Asia, normally the American audiences are the ones being catered to.

I have several Japanese-American players and one Chinese-American player that I deal with in the various groups I play with.  None of them have problems with OA (and in fact one Japanese individual AUTHORED an OA for 5e if that says anything about their take on OA).  Their biggest problem with OA is actually NOT with the book itself, but with those who are supposedly from their own racial background making a big deal about it and saying that they represent all the rest of a very varied and mixed cultural background.   They seem to agree there are many different reactions out there, but they get tired of everyone painting everyone from their background with the same brush, which includes trying to dictate what they must or must not like in their personal lives and hobbies.

They are OLDER players though, and I see that there is some disconnect between their views and younger Americans regarding what is considered racist or offensive these days and what is not...BUT...of all the things I state, this last view is the one you should take most with a grain of salt as it is MY OWN view and not theirs.


----------



## Lyandelill (Feb 1, 2022)

Ah yes, KiA - home of the last dregs of gamergate. Such a burning trash fire.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 1, 2022)

So, @GreyLord - if I'm parsing what you said correctly, your Japanese (Japanese American?  I'm not sure) friends have no problems with Oriental Adventures and that makes it not racist?  

Well, that's a take I suppose.  But, considering that the entire problem with OA is that it pretty much wipes away all cultures from Asia, except Japanese culture and makes Japanese culture the primary culture of the setting, I'm not really sure that "doesn't offend Japanese people" is really the bar that we need to clear.

The question was asked, why is OA a problem.  The question was answered.  Whether or not is a problem for a specific person isn't really the question. 

Frankly, "I have some Japanese friends who aren't offended" isn't really much of an argument.


----------



## Professor Murder (Feb 1, 2022)

Two things:
We can certainly acknowledge that a work is progressive and racially sensitive for its time but also realize that today it does not meet current standards. Uncle Tom's Cabin was a massive work of advancing the issues of racial strife, especially in regards slavery, for it's time, and is in part directly credited as helping to bring about the Civil War. But as a teacher, I wouldn't assign it today. 

Please remember that racism is persist and systemic. Intent to do harm isn't required. OA is racist in that it is just another brick in the wall. Is it the worst brick Asian people face in say the US? No. But it's in that wall. Fixating on someone or something being "racist" as a binary is a mistake. All of American society is soaking in racism and other bigotries. It touches everything. It also means it is contextual to a given society and experience. This can explain what a Korean's reaction and a Japanese American reaction to the work can be so different.


----------



## Ixal (Feb 1, 2022)

Hussar said:


> So, @GreyLord - if I'm parsing what you said correctly, your Japanese (Japanese American?  I'm not sure) friends have no problems with Oriental Adventures and that makes it not racist?
> 
> Well, that's a take I suppose.  But, considering that the entire problem with OA is that it pretty much wipes away all cultures from Asia, except Japanese culture and makes Japanese culture the primary culture of the setting, I'm not really sure that "doesn't offend Japanese people" is really the bar that we need to clear.
> 
> ...



And yet strangely people have no problem with using the term "Asia-American" for everyone coming from India to the Fiji (and beyond?).
Not to mention that this is done basically everywhere. Africa gets generalized, Europe, America, the Middle East,...


----------



## Umbran (Feb 1, 2022)

TerraDave said:


> These tend to be discussions about discussions (about discussions and sometimes yes about discussions).
> 
> There is very little reference to the actual text...whatever it might be.




Hey, TerraDave, I understand you find references to the original work lacking.  But maybe you'd like t contribute something constructive to the discussion beyond that observation?


----------



## Jer (Feb 1, 2022)

Anyone who'd like to have actual answers to this question should go check out the Asians Represent YouTube channel and watch their series where they go page by page through OA and comment on the stereotypes they find in there and what they think about them.

You may or may not agree with their takes after you hear them, but informing yourself about what actual people who have actual issues with the text think are problems is the first step towards, you know, thinking about the issue from a perspective that isn't your own.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 1, 2022)

TerraDave said:


> I am not so sure that cultural mashups--that are clearly fantasy--are such a problem. Its an industry in Japan, consumed in much of the rest of Asia. Even some Koreans might be ok with it.



Well, you can always find people that are OK with things like this.  Candace Owens and Clarence Thomas exist after all.  But rather than look at an individual's opinion, look at the general impacted population's feedback.

It would be like if Indigenous American culture was depicted wearing western clothing and speaking English as part of their culture.  Considering the US government tried to eliminate indigenous culture and forced the native peoples to do just that (while also brutalizing them), I'm sure how you can see how that would be offensive to Indigenous Americans to depict them as such.  Which is exactly what the Japanese tried to do to the Koreans.  At least twice in history, and as recently as less than 100 years ago. 

* For the record, I have nothing against the Japanese just like I have nothing against most Americans these days for what their respective governments did in that past.  Only illustrating how mix-mashing cultures can be a a really, really bad idea depending on what happened to one culture in recent history.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 1, 2022)

Jer said:


> Anyone who'd like to have actual answers to this question should go check out the Asians Represent YouTube channel and watch their series where they go page by page through OA and comment on the stereotypes they find in there and what they think about them.
> 
> You may or may not agree with their takes after you hear them, but informing yourself about what actual people who have actual issues with the text think are problems is the first step towards, you know, thinking about the issue from a perspective that isn't your own.




Obviously, it is rather difficult to tell people to watch a 26 hour series of youtube videos in order to comment; they'd save a lot of time looking at previous threads here to see the main flashpoints of contention. 

I am loathe to re-enter this conversation given that this was thoroughly hashed out before. However, I think that it is important to note several of the overarching criticisms of OA used in the series were .... shall we say exceptionally similar to the 2016 article in Analog Game Studios. And as @Alzrius and others pointed out_, _many of the specific criticisms in that article that were later used in the Asians Represent series _were pointed out to be incorrect at that time _(in 2016). Flagrantly so. 

The most famous example is, of course, comeliness. This was not some attempt to "exoticize" the other or make Asian men seem effeminate (??), instead it was a new statistic that was driven by Gygax and previously included in Unearthed Arcana to be applicable to all D&D games. Another is the inclusion on "NWPs," which, far from being some type of "othering" mechanic, was an introduction to a use that Zeb Cook would expand upon in 2e. 

More importantly, many of the criticisms seem bizarre, and under the "heads I win, tails you lose," category. Almost everything is seen as being negative because it either portrays Asian culture as barbaric, or too mannered & civilized; these are, of course, incompatible criticisms. Now, that doesn't mean that you can't have conflicting analyses (offensive stereotypes don't have to be logically consistent), but the "close reading" of the text is overly inclusive in terms of finding things that are a normal part of "D&D" and labeling them offensive. 

All that said, if someone wants to take offense at something, they can. The term "oriental" is widely considered offensive now. While a specific time period is hard to pin down, usually the 90s is seen as when that word became a serious issue - of course, you can always go back to Said in 1978, and prior examples, but there wasn't any widespread concept.

I also think that both the front cover and, definitely, the back cover (with it's exoticizing language) is certainly problematic. 

The most important issues, IMO, when it comes to how offensive you believe the book to be really come down to a few things-
a. The swirling of distinct Asian cultures into a pan-Asian, but mostly Japan with a little bit of China and a very little bit of Korea, thrown in. 
b. The "gamifying" of aspects of Asian culture in the same manner that had been used elsewhere- such as _Deities & Demigods _(giving real-world religions and gods stats and hit points) or the base AD&D books.
c. The mix of real-world history, from different periods, with a heavy influence of media portrayals - a book that takes inspiration from both actual history as well as genre works that feature ninjas, samurai, and kung fu warriors. 
d. Those issues that are specific to being Asian-American* in the West. I know that at the time and going forward, the book was very popular with many Asian-Americans as it provided representation that was previously missing from the game; on the other hand, I also knew people who were disappointed that the book was more about specific countries and genre conventions, and did not feature examples from the very rich tapestry of other countries, such as Thailand, or the Philippines, or any number of other cultures (which I am using the shorthand of the country to refer to) that are not present in the book. 

It's an interesting question; I know that given the paucity of material at that time, and the introduction of OA, caused a generation of people (including me) to get more involved in the actual history of Asia, and to start consuming more media that was made there. But for OA, I might not have started seeking out the productions from Hong Kong and Japan that became a staple of my viewing. I probably would not have traveled to Asia in the 90s. My life would have been a lot poorer, due to lack of exposure. 

None of this is said to excuse anyone's pain; obviously, my personal experiences and travel doesn't outweigh the pain it might have caused. But I think that tolerance and understanding often come first from exposure and knowledge, and while OA is not up to the standards of today, I would assert that given the standards of that time it certainly did more good than harm.

IMO, YMMV, etc.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 1, 2022)

TheSword said:


> I think we have to accept that there is a lower bar for historical accuracy in a product for entertainment than in an academic work.




It’s not, in my mind, about historical accuracy in general, but about which bits get messed up. Again to use a context we all know, a game about America that presented Benjamin Franklin as the first President would be funny. A game that portrayed the “happy slave” myth would not be acceptable.

I don’t know Asian history well enough (nor have I read OA since the 80’s) so I have to defer to those who do.


----------



## Gradine (Feb 1, 2022)

Asked and answered. The answer, btw, is unequivocally YES. This does not mean there are not well meaning folx who disagree with assessment, all experiences are subjective, but to belabor the point is to disrespect those who've put them out there, knowingly exposing themselves to ridicule and abuse (at a minimum) to share how they've been harmed. 

Advice for the future: stay as far away from r/KotakuInAction as you can. Further than that. It is a toxic cesspool that spends a lot of effort going out of their way to find things to be offended about, particularly for a group of people who purport to be against that exact sort of thing.


----------



## Voadam (Feb 1, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I am loathe to re-enter this conversation given that this was thoroughly hashed out before. However, I think that it is important to note several of the overarching criticisms of OA used in the series were .... shall we say exceptionally similar to the 2016 article in Analog Game Studios. And as @Alzrius and others pointed out_, _many of the specific criticisms in that article that were later used in the Asians Represent series _were pointed out to be incorrect at that time _(in 2016). Flagrantly so.
> 
> The most famous example is, of course, comeliness. This was not some attempt to "exoticize" the other or make Asian men seem effeminate (??), instead it was a new statistic that was driven by Gygax and previously included in Unearthed Arcana to be applicable to all D&D games.



I watched the whole 2 hour first episode of the Asians Represent series of reading 1e OA. The factually inaccurate 1 hour discussion of comeliness mechanics as being created for OA to play up sexualized stereotypes of sexy dragon lady Asian women and unattractive or desexualized Asian men was very offputting. The comeliness mechanics can feed into those stereotypes, but it was factually not created for OA to sexualize and otherize Asians by being only applicable to Asian characters.

Comeliness was a terrible sexualized mechanic but prior to OA it was developed and published for generic 1e AD&D in Dragon Magazine issue 67 (November '82), The World of Greyhawk Campaign Setting Boxed Set (October '83) and Unearthed Arcana (June '85) all before Oriental Adventures (October '85). OA was a full player's handbook type book with all the player rules for a complete 1e game using the new OA classes and such and so included comeliness as part of that.

I had heard Asians represent was a good explanation of criticisms of OA. It was mostly not an explanation, I found it was mostly looking at things and then shaking their heads about how things were self-evidently problematic.

I did not find their criticisms or discussion persuasive or informative. I did not watch any more episodes.


----------



## Lyandelill (Feb 1, 2022)

Gradine said:


> Advice for the future: stay as far away from r/KotakuInAction as you can. Further than that. It is a toxic cesspool that spends a lot of effort going out of their way to find things to be offended about, particularly for a group of people who purport to be against that exact sort of thing.



Quite. They certainly are pretty thin-skinned, considering.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 1, 2022)

Voadam said:


> The factually inaccurate 1 hour discussion of comeliness mechanics as being created for OA to play up sexualized stereotypes of sexy dragon lady Asian women and unattractive or desexualized Asian men was very offputting. The comeliness mechanics can feed into those stereotypes, but it was factually not created for OA to sexualize and otherize Asians by being only applicable to Asian characters.
> 
> Comeliness was a terrible sexualized mechanic but prior to OA it was developed and published for generic 1e AD&D in Dragon Magazine issue 67 (November '82), The World of Greyhawk Campaign Setting Boxed Set (October '83) and Unearthed Arcana (June '85) all before Oriental Adventures (October '85). OA was a full player's handbook type book with all the player rules for a complete 1e game using the new OA classes and such and so included comeliness as part of that.




So, they got a fact wrong there.  However, that the mechanic was not made for that purpose does not mean that the mechanic is not problematic in the OA context.  There's still a solid argument that, given the stereotype issues, Comeliness should have been _left out_ of OA.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 1, 2022)

Umbran said:


> So, they got a fact wrong there.  However, that the mechanic was not made for that purpose does not mean that the mechanic is not problematic in the OA context.  There's still a solid argument that, given the stereotype issues, Comeliness should have been _left out_ of OA.




No. That's a terrible argument.

The actual argument is that comeliness was a terrible idea, and should have been left out of _all_ products. 

But while I don't want to harp too much on this single point, it's endemic of the problem people have when discussing these types of issues. The assertions made about this were not just wrong, they were laughably and provably wrong. It literally required a bare minimum of knowledge about either the history of D&D, or just a quick google, to see that it was wrong. 

When an actual error is pointed out, the correct response should always be, "That was a mistake." It should not be, "Well, even though the entire premise of this point is completely wrong, I'm still right because _reasons_." 

To be clear, this would be the same as someone saying OA is racist because it introduced wisdom, and the "wise Asian" is a stereotype. If someone else correctly notes that this has _nothing to do with OA_, you can't then go, "Well, um ... I'm still right because people might misconstrue wisdom, so the failure to not include a basic ability is racist."

There are actual and valid concerns raised, and there are serious issues regarding how to correctly incorporate Asian influences (and whether and how those can be brought in, given both history and genre tropes) that are worth exploring. Doubling down on things that just aren't true tends to detract from the other points.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 1, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> It’s not, in my mind, about historical accuracy in general, but about which bits get messed up. Again to use a context we all know, a game about America that presented Benjamin Franklin as the first President would be funny. A game that portrayed the “happy slave” myth would not be acceptable.
> 
> I don’t know Asian history well enough (nor have I read OA since the 80’s) so I have to defer to those who do.



I think wholly aside from the question of accuracy in historically inspired works, there should be a strong disincentive to be grossly offensive, which I think the happy slave example would fall under. So too would several other areas of history could be classed as such. Minimizing or justifying the holocaust for instance. Causing gross offense isn’t the same as doing something we disapprove of though and the bar should be set accordingly.

On a separate note, two of the areas of criticism of OA seem substantiated to me.

- The portrayal of all Asians as honourable to the point of self destruction, unable to exercise free will, perpetrating wicked (though honourable) acts even to the extent of psychosis.

- The depiction of women in the artwork as beguiling and erotic. (Admittedly a problem with plenty of other products it feels like 3e OA was still bad even when these things were rare in standard products of the same time)


----------



## Umbran (Feb 1, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> When an actual error is pointed out, the correct response should always be, "That was a mistake." It should not be, "Well, even though the entire premise of this point is completely wrong, I'm still right because _reasons_."




One can (and indeed, at one time or another, almost all of us surely have) stated true things, and then given poor justifications for those things.  The lousy justification does not actually invalidate the point. It just means we ought to _re-validate_ the point.  
Given the stereotypes, re-validation seems trivial to me - the support it provides for the stereotypes is sufficient to make it problematic for the product.

You may also feel it shouldn't have existed at all.  That's fine.  It is still reasonable to feel it is _even worse_ in the context of those stereotypes.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 1, 2022)

Umbran said:


> One can (and indeed, at one time or another, almost all of us surely have) stated true things, and then given poor justifications for those things.  The lousy justification does not actually invalidate the point. It just means we ought to _re-validate_ the point.
> Given the stereotypes, re-validation seems trivial to me - the support it provides for the stereotypes is sufficient to make it problematic for the product.
> 
> You may also feel it shouldn't have existed at all.  That's fine.  It is still reasonable to feel it is _even worse_ in the context of those stereotypes.




No. That's a rationale in search of an excuse. 

Let's be clear- comeliness has _nothing to do with OA_. The assertions made are 100% incorrect. Period.

To try and recast it as you are doing could be done for _any ability score_. "How dare they include strength? It reinforces stereotypes of weak Asians. How dare they include wisdom and intelligence? It reinforces stereotypes of wise/intelligent Asians. How dare they include dexterity? It reinforces stereotypes of nimble Asians."

This is such a monumentally stupid point I hate to keep harping on this, but it's true. The only reason for the inclusion of this assertion (which, again, is almost _identical _to the incorrect points raised 4 years prior, which is a separate issue) is because they were falsely and incorrectly alleging that they put this in OA. 

OA has serious problems- this isn't one of them.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 1, 2022)

TerraDave said:


> These tend to be discussions about discussions (about discussions and sometimes yes about discussions).
> 
> There is very little reference to the actual text...whatever it might be.



Yeah, I thought so. All I'll say is to recommend (again) that you listen to the Asians Represent podcast, where they do go over the texts page by page to discuss problematic stereotypes and other issues.

They cover Oriental Adventures 1E & 3E, the Kara-Tur boxed set, Al-Qadim, and more texts from other games/publishers.

But I think you're aware of the textual criticism, despite your protests to the contrary here. That's all.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 1, 2022)

Hussar said:


> So, @GreyLord - if I'm parsing what you said correctly, your Japanese (Japanese American?  I'm not sure) friends have no problems with Oriental Adventures and that makes it not racist?
> 
> Well, that's a take I suppose.  But, considering that the entire problem with OA is that it pretty much wipes away all cultures from Asia, except Japanese culture and makes Japanese culture the primary culture of the setting, I'm not really sure that "doesn't offend Japanese people" is really the bar that we need to clear.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I'd be more interested in the take from some Chinese descent or Korean descent gamers, like, I don't know, the nerds behind the Asians Represent podcasts.

It reminds me of an argument I've had with students (middle school teacher) when I've asked them not to use the n-word. "But my friend is black, and he's okay with me saying it". Well, racism solved I guess.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 1, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> Yeah, I'd be more interested in the take from some Chinese descent or Korean descent gamers, like, I don't know, the nerds behind the Asians Represent podcasts.



Would a Polynesian/Japanese/German/Ukrainian/%100 Pure Son of New Jersey do? It's all I got, man.

If it helps, people born in China mistake me for Chinese all the time!


----------



## Gradine (Feb 1, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Let's be clear- comeliness has _nothing to do with OA_.



Here's the problem; this isn't correct at all. OA didn't _invent _or _introduce _comeliness; but it was _deliberately included_ as part of the setting and system, and that _is _an issue for the reasons they describe.

It can seem like racialized beauty stereotypes aren't _that important_, but it's actually a pretty big deal for quite a lot of people.

Here's some additional example, mainly from the perspective of black women:
Beauty and Body Image Concerns Among African American College Women


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 1, 2022)

Gradine said:


> Here's the problem; this isn't correct at all. OA didn't _invent _or _introduce _comeliness; but it was _deliberately included_ as part of the setting and system, and that _is _an issue for the reasons they describe.




No. That's just wrong. At that specific time, they were in process of moving to using comeliness officially, and the two released books at that time, UA and OA both had it.

In fact, if you looked at the text for comeliness in the two books, you will find that they are identical (absent a few changes, such as removing specific spells and using the term "illusion" instead). 

It wasn't included as part of the setting; instead, the setting used it since it was now part of the game. 




Gradine said:


> It can seem like racialized beauty stereotypes aren't _that important_, but it's actually a pretty big deal for quite a lot of people.
> 
> Here's some additional example, mainly from the perspective of black women:
> 
> Beauty and Body Image Concerns Among African American College Women




Yes, beauty and body standards are incredibly fraught. 

That's why the stat is rightfully done away with. But, again, this has absolutely nothing to do with OA. This continued insistence that it does (and, again, it's on page 10 so you can look yourself if you have a copy) is bizarre, ahistorical, and it's the kind of thing that gives some people pause.


----------



## Voadam (Feb 1, 2022)

TheSword said:


> I think wholly aside from the question of accuracy in historically inspired works, there should be a strong disincentive to be grossly offensive, which I think the happy slave example would fall under. So too would several other areas of history could be classed as such. Minimizing or justifying the holocaust for instance. Causing gross offense isn’t the same as doing something we disapprove of though and the bar should be set accordingly.
> 
> On a separate note, two of the areas of criticism of OA seem substantiated to me.
> 
> ...



3e OA, right. Not 1e OA.  

I don't own 3e OA so I won't comment on its depictions of honor or its overall art.

1e OA is very scant with its art. There are very few pictures of people at all. Here is the one picture of a woman from 1e OA spells section.





I did not care for the 1e OA honor system at all. The feudal samurai honor system was very culturally specific and would seem a bad fit for a lot of D&D, including the non-fantasy feudal Japanese parts of Kara Tur. I find most honor/renown/alignment systems and codes of conduct in RPGs are not to my taste.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 1, 2022)

Voadam said:


> I did not care for the 1e OA honor system at all. The feudal samurai honor system was very culturally specific and would seem a bad fit for a lot of D&D, including the non-fantasy feudal Japanese parts of Kara Tur. I find most honor/renown/alignment systems and codes of conduct in RPGs are not to my taste.




I think it was modeled after the similar system (on?) in Busido, which was published a few years before that.

But yeah, having an "honor system" for OA, but not for feudal knights and Paladins? Definitely sus.


----------



## Alzrius (Feb 1, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I think it was modeled after the similar system (on?) in Busido, which was published a few years before that.
> 
> But yeah, having an "honor system" for OA, but not for feudal knights and Paladins? Definitely sus.



There should have been a similar system for paladins, at the very least, although I suppose you could look at their code of conduct as a sort of proto-honor system under the game rules (even if it was little more than "mess up once and you're done").

Fun fact: I mentioned this back in my overview of the book, but _HR3 Celts_ (affiliate link) also had an honor system ("enech"), which seemed like a transplant of the rules from OA in many regards, such as the rating going from 0 to 100, and if you lost all of your enech then your character was retired.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 1, 2022)

I'm sure Asians Read has a lot of really good information in it, but not 3 minutes in on the first video and Daniel and Steve are assuming whether or not someone who worked on the book was Asian based on their name.  "Kim Mohan is Asian".  Um, no he's not.  And your names are "Daniel" and "Steve" but unless someone has an Asian name they must not be Asian?

If you're gonna analyze a book, especially around racial/ethnic/cultural contexts, I would expect not falling into the same stereotypes and assumptions you're there to address.  Assuming people are white based on their name is....problematic.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 1, 2022)

Gradine said:


> It can seem like racialized beauty stereotypes aren't _that important_, but it's actually a pretty big deal for quite a lot of people.



Is this the work of colonizers?


----------



## Willie the Duck (Feb 1, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> But I think you're aware of the textual criticism, despite your protests to the contrary here. That's all.



There certainly seem to be criticisms with quotes out there. Although we here are having a hard time coming up with concrete examples. Did anyone keep their copy? I might have to check the attic just to see if I can find mine and look for examples. 



Snarf Zagyg said:


> I think it was modeled after the similar system (on?) in Busido, which was published a few years before that.
> 
> But yeah, having an "honor system" for OA, but not for feudal knights and Paladins? Definitely sus.



That certainly seems to be a huge part of it. Stuff that, if they included in the Quasi-feudal faux-European default version, probably wouldn't be notable (both games having honor mechanics would have, imo, still been a mistake). 
Another example I'm thinking of is that, IIRC, a completely non-magical martial artist could train themselves to be able to balance on the edge of a bowl, gradually removing the water in it, until they could make themselves effectively weightless for purposes of triggering traps or such. Now, if that were to come up in 5e (where preternatural abilities aren't necessarily gated by spells and the like), it wouldn't be notable. However, in 1e (where the DMG admonishes against letting a thief climb a rock wall if it is remotely slick or the like), it is a notable difference in how mystic the game treats people.


----------



## Irlo (Feb 1, 2022)

Willie the Duck said:


> There certainly seem to be criticisms with quotes out there. Although we here are having a hard time coming up with concrete examples. Did anyone keep their copy? I might have to check the attic just to see if I can find mine and look for examples.
> 
> 
> I have a copy. What do you want to know? I’m happy to share when I have time.


----------



## Willie the Duck (Feb 1, 2022)

I was just hoping to get some of those direct textual references TerraDave was suggesting were absent in the comment _"There is very little reference to the actual text...whatever it might be."_


----------



## Irlo (Feb 1, 2022)

Willie the Duck said:


> I was just hoping to get some of those direct textual references TerraDave was suggesting were absent in the comment _"There is very little reference to the actual text...whatever it might be."_



Oh, I see. Sorry, can’t help you there.


----------



## Voadam (Feb 1, 2022)

Umbran said:


> So, they got a fact wrong there.  However, that the mechanic was not made for that purpose does not mean that the mechanic is not problematic in the OA context.  There's still a solid argument that, given the stereotype issues, Comeliness should have been _left out_ of OA.



I would say that comeliness was a problematic mechanic that sexualized and artificially directed roleplay to caricatures of beauty and how people react to them.

I agree that the comeliness mechanic can feed into problematic sexualization issues and tropes about Asians.

However their point was that it was wrong because it was created to sexualize and remove autonomy from specifically Asians, to otherize Asians, and it was a problematic issue that did not apply to Western characters.

These would be separate issues in a racial context from a generic problematic sexualization mechanic that feeds into problematic tropes about Asians.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 1, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> OA has serious problems- this isn't one of them.



Some people really struggle with the idea that an antiracist argument or analysis can be wrong. Not because racism is good and right, but because the argument is poorly made or contains factual errors that undercut or undo the conclusion (or even framing).

And _I_ struggle with how to communicate this without my natural inclination to turn every point into a 2-gin-drinks-into-the-evening zinger. Talking about racism is hard. Important hard. Maybe I'll get better at it someday...

edit: and then there's the whole 'the argument may be terrible, but the feelings expressed are real and need to be respected'. Like I said hard stuff. Pretty far from settled.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 1, 2022)

Mallus said:


> Some people really struggle with the idea that an antiracist argument or analysis can be wrong. Not because racism is good and right, but because the argument is poorly made or contains factual errors that undercut or undo the conclusion (or even framing).
> 
> And _I_ struggle with how to communicate this without my natural inclination to turn every point into a 2-gin-drinks-into-the-evening zinger. Talking about racism is hard. Important hard. Maybe I'll get better at it someday...




Well, I think that there are different things going on here.

On the one hand, you have communities and the people within them, often with a history of being marginalized by the dominant power structures. One way to marginalize valid concerns is to employ various techniques, such as sealioning, or ignoring the "bigger picture" to concentrate on small issues or the form of the protest, or just tone policing (Why so angry?). All of this has a long history, and it is so frustrating to have valid concerns dismissed by people that have no actual interest in addressing the substance of what you're saying; in effect, it's dismissive. 

The flip side of that, of course, is that while people have personal experiences that are valid for them ... if you are making a generally applicable critique of something, if you are trying to persuade people, then you have to actually get your facts correct. And when these issues arise, far too often people resort to variations of, "Well, that's just tone policing / gatekeeping whatever." Or, "You can't comment unless you are the specific marginalized community- and even if you are, you have to have a appropriate opinion or you are the equivalent of Clarence Thomas / Milo Yiannopoulos ...." Or, "You need to listen, and not talk." All of this can be incredibly frustrating to people when they have valid concerns about an analysis and how it affects the substance; in effect, it's dismissive.


And I think that this is frustrating for everyone. It can be very hard to tell the difference between someone who generally agrees with you and has good-faith issues with some specifics, as opposed to someone who is simply using argument in order to frustrate you and turn the issue into something else. Just like it can be frustrating when you see something that is clearly in error (here, comeliness, or the false etymology of picnic that was circulating for a while) and people just keep doubling down.


----------



## Voadam (Feb 1, 2022)

Willie the Duck said:


> I was just hoping to get some of those direct textual references TerraDave was suggesting were absent in the comment _"There is very little reference to the actual text...whatever it might be."_



Here's one from the back cover

"...The mysterious and exotic Orient,
land of spices and warlords, has at last
opened her gates to the West."

You generally see little of that type of characterization in the book itself but it is there on the back cover copy.

Here's from Zeb Cook's introduction on page 4:

"The bulk of this material deals with Japan, with China a close second. This is not due to any oversight. Most of the material available deals with Japan, through the choice of various writers. From the standpoint of gaming, Japan's history and culture provides greater opportunities for adventure and advancement. Although often seen as a rigid society, Japan has had several periods of tumultuous upheavel where a person of any rank could make his name—the Sengoku period or the collapse of the Heian government being only two. Of course, anyone who looks carefully at China will find the same occurred there. However, fewer people cared to write about it."


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 1, 2022)

Since the answer to the question of "Was OA really that racist?" is an obvious 'yes,' it seems that people have sought to deflect from that fact by criticizing the Asians Reresent podcast's criticism of OA. 

And this is why we can't have nice things.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 1, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> Since the answer to the question of "Was OA really that racist?" is an obvious 'yes,' it seems that people have sought to deflect from that fact by criticizing the Asians Reresent podcast's criticism of OA.



Hey, some of us don't agree and are part of the Asian-American community. With lived experience of anti-Asian racism and several decades of experiencing life in the US with an Asian face. I'm not trying to dismiss anyone's opinion. I just ask that I receive the same courtesy.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 1, 2022)

To be fair about Asians Represent, it took them a little while to take the analysis more seriously: it starts out as fairly aimless Ketchikan, but once they bring more people on board and start talking more in depth, it becomes more fruitful.


----------



## cfmcdonald (Feb 1, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> Since the answer to the question of "Was OA really that racist?" is an obvious 'yes,' it seems that people have sought to deflect from that fact by criticizing the Asians Reresent podcast's criticism of OA.
> 
> And this is why we can't have nice things.



That's not at all what happened. One poster said, "if you want to understand why OA is racist, go listen to this source", and others said, "but there are all sorts of inaccuracies in what that source says."


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 1, 2022)

cfmcdonald said:


> That's not at all what happened. One poster said, "if you want to understand why OA is racist, go listen to this source", and others said, "but there are all sorts of inaccuracies in what that source says."




In addition, the OP didn't ask the same question as is in the title. The actual question the OP posed is as follows:

_But what are your thoughs...was it that bad back in ye olden times?_

Answering that question would require ... you know, discussing the standards for the time, and whether it was "good" or "bad," not just people discussing how they feel about it now having come across it for the first time. 

I would add that OA's bibliography is truly amazing for the time- and includes numerous Asian authors and primary sources. In addition, unlike almost all the stuff that TSR was pumping out at that time, it was playtested, critiqued, and modified ... by Masataka Ohta, Akira Saito, Hiroyasu Kurose, Takafumi Sakurai, and Yuka Tate-ishi.

This was also, AFAIK, incredibly uncommon at that time. These are some of the only acknowledged Asian contributors to D&D for ... well, decades. 

In short, like many things, it's complicated. Parts of it are very much "of its time," and parts of it are arguably far ahead of the typical standards for its time. Those are different issues than how it would appear to people today, nearly 40 years after it was published.


----------



## Voadam (Feb 1, 2022)

ryu289 said:


> But what are your thoughs...was it that bad back in ye olden times?



I think it would have been served better by being titled "Katanas & Kung Fu" which would have helped communicate the Japanese Samurai focus with the secondary dash of Chinese/Hong Kong martial arts.

Here is a quick review of its contents.

OA is an alternate AD&D mostly Player's Handbook with a mostly fantasy Japanese samurai focus and a bit of fantasy China. It is filled with mechanics like alternate base classes and races, weapons, and armor, new spells, and monsters.

It adds to AD&D with these alternates but also the Non Weapon Proficiencies mechanic, an honor system, and a fantastic martial arts system.

It has a bunch of pages on mostly fantasy feudal Japan type culture and economy and agriculture and such. It provides about two pages on a four nation continent of Kara Tur which has a big Fantasy China empire, a smaller breakaway China empire (fantasy Taiwan) and two Fantasy Japan Island nations, one unified, one split into warring factions.

I did not care for the honor system, similar to most alignment and honor systems it does not look like it adds fun elements except in very specific setups and it does not fit in well with most D&D. I was glad it was fairly easy to ignore when using most of the rest.

I feel the martial arts system is the best D&D has had, it is flavorful with fun effective mechanics and fits into the normal AD&D system well. It abstracts things to a nice level dividing styles into hard/soft/and mixed with options for martial art powers/techniques along different themes to make up different styles or for you to create your own.

If you want samurai and ninjas and sword saints and temple guards and yakuza and different spellcasters this gave options with a definite fantasy Japanese take. If you want a Chinese Shao lin monk mostly outside the honor system it can do that, though AD&D monks were still pretty poor (thanks to hp and attack roll issues) even with the addition of the martial arts system.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 1, 2022)

I don't know if asking if _Oriental Adventures _was really that racist is a particularly important question.  That racist compared to what? There are certainly valid criticisms of its contents and its probably best to just address those rather than trying to figure out how racist it was/is.  I think OA is a pretty good book, but many of the criticisms levied against it are certainly valid and were I to make a similar game product today I would heed those criticisms.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Feb 1, 2022)

Speaking as a non-white gamer, I think that any time you go seeking racism in RPG material, you will find it, because RPGs are, at their core, about stereotypes. And stereotypes are, by today's standards, racist.

Personally, I think we need to be careful about such things, lest we throw the baby out with the bathwater. This is a hobby, intended to entertain. There are, IMO, far more important venues to consider.


----------



## Alzrius (Feb 1, 2022)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Speaking as a non-white gamer, I think that any time you go seeking racism in RPG material, you will find it, because RPGs are, at their core, about stereotypes. And stereotypes are, by today's standards, racist.



I'd say RPGs are more about pastiches than stereotypes, but your larger point still stands.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Feb 1, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> I'd say RPGs are more about pastiches than stereotypes, but your larger point still stands.



At my table it's less about pastiches and more about pistachios, since we're all nuts about playing D&D.

Sorry I'm working on my dad jokes.


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 1, 2022)

I enjoyed Oriental Adventures when it first came out, but being half Japanese and enlightened onto the culture more than many, I found many "mistakes" and concepts taken out of context, which kind of rubbed me the wrong way - not any racist notions, but outright mistakes. Which encouraged me to create my own version, which I eventually did as the Kaidan setting of Japanese Horror (PFRPG). Unlike OA, it only references Japanese culture, religion and mythology, not any other Asian culture, which I have much less understanding of...


----------



## GreyLord (Feb 2, 2022)

Hussar said:


> So, @GreyLord - if I'm parsing what you said correctly, your Japanese (Japanese American?  I'm not sure) friends have no problems with Oriental Adventures and that makes it not racist?
> 
> Well, that's a take I suppose.  But, considering that the entire problem with OA is that it pretty much wipes away all cultures from Asia, except Japanese culture and makes Japanese culture the primary culture of the setting, I'm not really sure that "doesn't offend Japanese people" is really the bar that we need to clear.
> 
> ...




Perhaps not, but as they are the key element, and most of those saying they are offended are White guys or of white descent...I'd say it is somewhat pertinent.

What is INTERESTING is the divide, even in the US regarding this.

There is an OA written for 5e currently, it was WRITTEN by a JAPANESE individual.

The question is, who is racist then.  There are Americans who probably would be offended by it, but are they then going to claim a Japanese person is racist against the Japanese?  Half the Asian-Americans who would be offended are actually only PARTIAL Asian in the first place, and MOST of them have never EVEN BEEN to Asia.

The problem in general is an AMERICAN one, and it's divided at that.  Those offended are trying to PROJECT what they think eveyone should feel on EVERYONE else, including those who are NOT American.

NOW THAT's FAR more offensive to those I know of Japanese and Chinese descent than anything found in OA...honestly speaking.

The funny thing is that this isn't even a factor for most of those living in Asia.  99% of them haven't even heard of this book, BUT THEY HAVE heard about the protests regarding Hong Kong films and Japanese culture as well as Chinese culture and calling it racist.  Why people are calling products MADE in Asia BY Asians as racist against Asians in America is perhaps one of the MOST INFURIATING items that they see sometimes.

I mean, one of my best friends is Japanese American, and if I put him and his comments in this thread (currently he's sitting right next to me), you guys would probably try to cancel him out immediately.   He SEES why Chinese, Koreans, and other Asians would have problems with OA (because, it IS basically just a Japanese hollywood culture blanket on everything, rather than using other cultures or representing them).  However, he does NOT agree that it's racist and really DISLIKES the representation that ONE GUY on youtube is trying to paint on ALL Asian-Americans.

The BIGGEST issue I think is white people are willing to listen to that ONE Asian voice which they sympathize with, but ignore a WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHERS who say...that doesn't represent us, that's not who we are or how we think.

The problem HE sees is that this action is trying to cancel out the contributions of actual Asians.  IN fact, a LOT of this movement seems to be directed at cancelling out contributions Asians have made in various parts of the industry (as I mentioned, this book is one of the ONLY contributions from Asians in all of D&D for over 20 years, and with the number of Asian contributors was one of the products with the BIGGEST number of minorities contributing, though in a very small manner, in RPGs for many years) in the past.  THAT bothers him a LOT more than what is in the book, because to him, it seems many are trying to cancel out Asian contributions and voices over the years.

This is a HOT issue though.  OA relatively has no impact on the larger issue which is currently ongoing in East Asian-American culture today.  There are much bigger items which have contributions by Asian-Americans in the past which are trying to be cancelled out today, and that actually bothers quite a number of them.  What bothers them more is that there are Asian-Americans calling out to cancel much of this stuff, but to him and others like him, those individuals are actuallly just being USED by whites without even realizing it.

They don't want to be ERASED from history.  They don't want their contributions ERASED from history.  I think that's what bothers the older generation the most in relation to the younger generations.  The younger generations that are jumping on board with this stuff don't realize that a LOT of it is simply an effort to erase any Asian-American influences from the past, and the contributions of Asian-Americans right along with them.

Japanese traditionally have been excited about parts of their culture being sent around the world and raising the notability of Japan (ninja's for example.  They weren't what we see in American culture, but that aspect of hollywood has been taken and promoted by Japanese since then in many ways).

Japan may be only one part of Asia, but it IS part of Asia rather than being part of Canada or North America.

Edit:  This is NOT to put down the issues, but to point out that this is a controversial item.  There are DIFFERENT opinions on the matter that are voiced by different groups of people.  It seems only ONE group is actually being listened to.  I think it (OA) could be viewed as racist today in many ways, but that doesn't mean it is NECESSARILY viewed that way and only that way.  I think that what we see in regards to OA is merely a reflection of a MUCH LARGER item going on today within North America, and the struggles many are going through in relation to how Asian-American culture is accepted, how it has been presented in the past, and the ongoing struggle against CURRENT racism against Asian-Americans in the Americas today.  Over the past two years it has been at an all time high due to certain world events, and it's not been easy for many of them with the racism that's been directed towards them.

In that light, I think there will be views on both sides of the matter making the question of whether it is racist today or not one with a multi-dimensional aspect to it.  It's hard to consider all those aspects because at times, they are on opposite ends of each other, even while those same people may agree on fighting against racism as a whole.


----------



## TerraDave (Feb 2, 2022)

Sacrosanct said:


> Well, you can always find people that are OK with things like this.  Candace Owens and Clarence Thomas exist after all.



Did you just compare Rain to Clarence Thomas? Wow.


----------



## TerraDave (Feb 2, 2022)

Umbran said:


> Hey, TerraDave, I understand you find references to the original work lacking.  But maybe you'd like t contribute something constructive to the discussion beyond that observation?



Hey, Umbran.

Posters are now comparing K-pop stars to divisive American political figures.

Maybe you can shut down the thread?


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 2, 2022)

Umbran said:


> So, they got a fact wrong there.  However, that the mechanic was not made for that purpose does not mean that the mechanic is not problematic in the OA context.  There's still a solid argument that, given the stereotype issues, Comeliness should have been _left out_ of OA.




And it's a great example of intent vs. effect.  The argument against Comeliness being a problem seems to boil down to, "Anybody who regularly read Dragon Magazine would know that this wasn't just an OA thing."  Ok, sure, but for all those people who played D&D but did not read Dragon Magazine, it sure_ looked like_ it was a new thing in OA.  

Did TSR include it _because_ of the exotic/effeminate thing?  Doesn't really matter.

As they say, appearances matter.  

(See what I did there?)


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 2, 2022)

Voadam said:


> has at last
> opened her gates




And if THAT isn't a sexualized reference, I don't know what is.


----------



## TerraDave (Feb 2, 2022)

Sacrosanct said:


> Well, you can always find people that are OK with things like this.  Candace Owens and Clarence Thomas exist after all.  But rather than look at an individual's opinion, look at the general impacted population's feedback.



This is one of the most offensive and misleading posts I have ever seen on ENWorld. 

From Ninja Assassin to Clarence Thomas. You did that.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 2, 2022)

MGibster said:


> I don't know if asking if _Oriental Adventures _was really that racist is a particularly important question.  That racist compared to what? There are certainly valid criticisms of its contents and its probably best to just address those rather than trying to figure out how racist it was/is.  I think OA is a pretty good book, but many of the criticisms levied against it are certainly valid and were I to make a similar game product today I would heed those criticisms.




Yeah, I thought it was a loaded thread title, myself.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 2, 2022)

GreyLord said:


> Half the Asian-Americans who would be offended are actually only PARTIAL Asian in the first place, and MOST of them have never EVEN BEEN to Asia.



A few years back, I remember seeing an Asian woman on television criticize an actor from the movie _Crazy Rich Asians_ for only being half Asian.  She said, "I thought the movie was _Crazy Rich Asians _not _Crazy Rich Half Asians_."  I kind of felt bad for the actor who I'm sure is sometimes thought of as "too Asian" for some roles but it turns out others find him not Asian enough for other roles.  I guess what I'm getting at is that I'm not going to judge someone as being less or more entitled to offense based on how Asian I think they are or whether or not they've even been to Asia.


----------



## Argyle King (Feb 2, 2022)

Hussar said:


> So, @GreyLord - if I'm parsing what you said correctly, your Japanese (Japanese American?  I'm not sure) friends have no problems with Oriental Adventures and that makes it not racist?
> 
> Well, that's a take I suppose.  But, considering that the entire problem with OA is that it pretty much wipes away all cultures from Asia, except Japanese culture and makes Japanese culture the primary culture of the setting, I'm not really sure that "doesn't offend Japanese people" is really the bar that we need to clear.
> 
> ...




This is part of why I asked some of my earlier questions.

...not sure why this double quoted, but...



Hussar said:


> So, @GreyLord - if I'm parsing what you said correctly, your Japanese (Japanese American?  I'm not sure) friends have no problems with Oriental Adventures and that makes it not racist?
> 
> Well, that's a take I suppose.  But, considering that the entire problem with OA is that it pretty much wipes away all cultures from Asia, except Japanese culture and makes Japanese culture the primary culture of the setting, I'm not really sure that "doesn't offend Japanese people" is really the bar that we need to clear.
> 
> ...




I agree with some of this. Though, I think there's a point at which I end up circling back to the questions I had.

What's the comparative social/moral weight of a "friend" who isn't offended versus a friend who is?

If I'm not from an Asian culture, is it deemed racist or not racist to assume someone on YouTube channel represents some monolithic truth concerning what an entire culture feels?

I'm living in a time when an alignment entry in a MM for orcs is deemed racist because it assumes something about an entire group, but (at the same time) commentary from a YouTube channel is meant to represent an entire group. From the perspective of a writer working on a project or a business creating a product, it's difficult to discern what the correct way to approach something is deemed to be.

My gut feeling is that offense should be avoided as a default position. At the same time, it feels somewhat racist and condescending to assume offense on behalf of a group.

I can empathize with feeling some offense at having a cultural or ethnic background lumped into some conglomeration of cultures. So, in terms of OA, I get that.

But the question of how to get it right so as to make most people happy while doing the least harm remains.

Are there times when creating a product which sells outweighs some of those concerns?

I've seen it said that "Oriental Adventures" is offensive as a name. How does that weigh against considering whether or not an American audience would even know what "Nippon Adventures" (or some other name) is?

Honestly, I probably wouldn't know had I not been exposed to the word via the game Punch Out. A Japanese boxer ("Piston Honda") from that game used the word. When I was young, I didn't know what it meant, so I looked it up.

Not all of this is necessarily toward @Hussar
As I was responding, other comments popped up and prompted other thoughts.

I do appreciate actual commentary on the product and why it was seen as problematic for some Asian cultures. It has a lot of similarities to how Native Americans are often viewed as one culture, despite there being rather significant differences between many of the tribes.

Learning to see things from other points of view is something I find beneficial, both at the gaming table and beyond.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 2, 2022)

TerraDave said:


> Did you just compare Rain to Clarence Thomas? Wow.




No.  They suggested both share a common trait.  That's not a comparison.

"Both pie and ice cream contain sugar" is not comparing the two.


----------



## Warpiglet-7 (Feb 2, 2022)

GreyLord said:


> Perhaps not, but as they are the key element, and most of those saying they are offended are White guys or of white descent...I'd say it is somewhat pertinent.
> 
> What is INTERESTING is the divide, even in the US regarding this.
> 
> ...



I find it interesting that a lot of this copies and borrows from entertainment made by Asians.  Let’s excoriate Bruce Lee for making kung fu movies while we are at it.

it blends cultures no more or less than regular D&D.  There are heroes and villains.  It’s as accurate as D&D ever was. 

I thought it was fun back in the day.  I don’t think it made me think any less of Asian people.

I get as worked up about this as I do manga which features Americans or Europeans—-which is none.


----------



## GreyLord (Feb 2, 2022)

Argyle King said:


> This is part of why I asked some of my earlier questions.
> 
> ...not sure why this double quoted, but...
> 
> ...



One probably should not accept a youtube video as talking for everyone, especially everyone from a culture as broad and wide reaching as Asia, much less East-Asia, much less even just Asian-Americans from Canada.  It's one voice out of millions...and many times that one voice doesn't represent the view most of them have.  Sometimes there are several different opinions on a matter and one youtube voice does poorly at even stating all the different opinions on the matter.



Argyle King said:


> I'm living in a time when an alignment entry in a MM for orcs is deemed racist because it assumes something about an entire group, but (at the same time) commentary from a YouTube channel is meant to represent an entire group. From the perspective of a writer working on a project or a business creating a product, it's difficult to discern what the correct way to approach something is deemed to be.




Not touching this one


Argyle King said:


> My gut feeling is that offense should be avoided as a default position. At the same time, it feels somewhat racist and condescending to assume offense on behalf of a group.
> 
> I can empathize with feeling some offense at having a cultural or ethnic background lumped into some conglomeration of cultures. So, in terms of OA, I get that.
> 
> But the question of how to get it right so as to make most people happy while doing the least harm remains.




That could be a good thing to consider.  OA is difficult in that though.  Asian-Americans are actually a VERY SMALL percent of Asians worldwide. They don't even agree on these things today. There seems to be a rift between older Asian-Americans and younger Asian-Americans.

Their opinions may not even be applicable to anyplace other than their region of North America.

For example...

My Chinese friends in Europe actually do NOT LIKE being called Asian in general at all.  It's too much of a blanket term for people from a massive continent.  They'd rather even be called Oriental (though Chinese would be preferable in whichever language you are using) than Asian!


Argyle King said:


> Are there times when creating a product which sells outweighs some of those concerns?
> 
> I've seen it said that "Oriental Adventures" is offensive as a name. How does that weigh against considering whether or not an American audience would even know what "Nippon Adventures" (or some other name) is?




Most would recognize Japanese Adventures, or Mythological Japan.


Argyle King said:


> Honestly, I probably wouldn't know had I not been exposed to the word via the game Punch Out. A Japanese boxer ("Piston Honda") from that game used the word. When I was young, I didn't know what it meant, so I looked it up.
> 
> Not all of this is necessarily toward @Hussar
> As I was responding, other comments popped up and prompted other thoughts.
> ...




I think it is a difficult topic right now.  The different views on the matter make it so that trying to appease everyone is not going to happen.  The wisest thing for WotC to do is what they have already done.  Make it available to those who want it with a disclaimer that recognizes the old product can be hurtful and painful for some people out there, and then don't touch anything else related to it (as in creating more material) with a 10 foot pole.  Simply stay out of the matter and remain away from it.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 2, 2022)

Warpiglet-7 said:


> I find it interesting that a lot of this copies and borrows from entertainment made by Asians.  Let’s excoriate Bruce Lee for making kung fu movies while we are at it.
> 
> it blends cultures no more or less than regular D&D.  There are heroes and villains.  It’s as accurate as D&D ever was.
> 
> ...



Wait, what?

Bruce Lee - a Chinese person, makes kung fu movies, set in China, depicting Chinese culture.

Oriental Adventures - written by people who were not Chinese, who basically fully admit that they are ignoring and ignorant of any culture in Asia other than Japan, then present the book as representing Asian culture in a fantasy setting. 

Again, had Oriental Adventures been presented like @Gamer Printer's fantastic Kaidan setting - a fantasy Japan - there would be far, far less of an issue.  But it wasn't.  It was presented as if Japanese culture is the only culture of note in East Asia, and then doubles down by using a fantasy China as a setting but overlaying Japanese culture.  

And this isn't a problem?


----------



## Jiggawatts (Feb 2, 2022)

One byproduct of the way things have gone the last few years and I think one of the most prevalent takeaways we are going to see perpetuated in the near future is that creative folks are going to have a sharp tendency to stay in their lane. They will feel a need to write and create art that is solely within their personal frame of reference and not veer outside of that in the slightest, because it is safer that way.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Feb 2, 2022)

Jiggawatts said:


> One byproduct of the way things have gone the last few years and I think one of the most prevalent takeaways we are going to see perpetuated in the near future is that creative folks are going to have a sharp tendency to stay in their lane. They will feel a need to write and create art that is solely within their personal frame of reference and not veer outside of that in the slightest, because it is safer that way.



Or collaborate!


----------



## Haiku Elvis (Feb 2, 2022)

OK for what it's worth I have decided to add my 2 cents to the mix. It's a long thread so forgive me for not going back to quote or react to particular posts. I am probably saying some things quite similar to some posters but I think/hope not just repeating what has been said before.
I'll start of with some generalisations but I'll say up front, not being Asian, my points of reference are having lived in Japan for 10 years teching English (so area of expertise "Japanese people's oppinions on Japanese representation in western movies 2001-11" only. I am unable to speak about other Asian people's views or asian-americans views of any kind with any authority. ) and my wife being Native American living in the UK and dealing with native american representation. (proper Native American not Elizabeth Warren native american. One of her cousins is the Chief and her family have a swamp on the reservation named after them. She says it's not a swamp but I've driven through it - its a swamp.)
First the generalisations- you abuse it you lose it.
Your friend saying "what are you doing you idiot?" and the bully who has been making yor life a misery for years shouting "what are you doing you idiot?" at you are two very different things. You can't seperate things from the context or history even if you were not responsible. I mean I'm British and I can confirm I have invaded and colonised exactly zero countries/territories or lands in my life (I know I've been letting the side down) but I can't ignore that people from history who had a shared identification with me did do those things and the culture I live in inherited a lot of it's structure/wealth/language/food from those same people. If I am fictionally dealing with a culture that had been abused in the past by Britain I'd need to be very careful how I would deal with that and how it would come accross, whereas I could get away with more if it was about say Sweden as they probably wouldn't care so much and the bad history isnt there.

Very generally dominant cultures/peoples views on other cultures peoples views ran/run along the lines of
(NB please read the following quotes in the voice of Matt Berry for full effect)
"I say you're names for things are difficult to say so I'm just going to call them what I think they should be called as I don't care enough about you and your culture to bother learning them, hurrah!"
"You say this area has many different peoples with long and unique cultures and history that are as different as my country is from it's neighbours. Well maybe but I don't care enough about you and your cultures to learn and you all look the same so I'll pick a few random things that have stuck in my mind add in a few crude sterotypes and assume it applies to the whole lot of you in what ever way makes me feel good. Hurrah!"
" As you needed me to actually name your own things properly as well as your tendancy to be <insert crude sterotype I just asigned to you> it's clear you need people like me to make decisions for you. Please be aware I dont care enough to check if they are correct or not I'll make them entirely based on what I like. Hurrah! "
Imagine years later someone from that same culture came to you saying.
" I've made a fictionalised version of your part of the world as I really like your culture. "
OK so far so good.
" Yeah I've just changed the names of everything to make it sound more fantasy and I've mixed your history up with that other country you don't like as the people who'll read it don't know the difference.
Plus I just made some bits up so its more like people would expect from xxxx part of the world. "
and you can maybe see why it would just seem like more of the same thing to someone whose culture had been on the recieving end of that sort of stereotyping but not bother someone whose culture hadn't.

This is why those using a mixed  European setting as a counterweight argument to asian depictions aren't making a like for like comparison. Europe as a whole never had that done to it by people whose descendents are now making up fantasy versions with out the malice of yesteryear and with good intentions but still similar levels of lack of care or empathy.

Moving to specifics. My wife is regularly confronted with images of Native American culture often in advertising that is to be honest the equivalent of sticking someone in a grass skirt with a bone through their nose or doing kung fu with big sleeves and a long mustache. I have come to the conclusion that British people generally, due to a lack of interaction with genuine Native americans and only ever seeing them in fictional form despite knowing they are real on a factual level, instinctively lump them in with pirates and ninjas and wizards and treat them accordingly.
My wife actually met an organiser of a number of festivals and after talking to her he banned people selling fake native american headdresses at the festivals he ran. Quite a few people complained using some of the arguments I've seen on here." It's not supposed to be serious" or "people can buy roman or spartan costumes so what's the difference" etc.
But frankly if 99% of the worlds population only know your culture at all through crude, innacurate, careless portrayals in movies made by the descendants of the people that repeatedly kicked your ancestors off their land (the ones they didn't kill). Movies which portray you as the baddies and the people that massacred you as the heroes to boot. Then having to see a stoned out welly clad hipster wearing a bastardisation of one your cultures highest symbols of dignity and reverance whilst swigging flat lager and cod philosophising on the oneness of nature in between performances of washed out landfill indie bands is more that anyone should be asked to bare.


Going back to Asia more specifically using Japan as a bellwether for anything pan-asian even if designed to be mainly Japanese inspired, isnt a good idea as it again asumes it's all kinda the same thing. Ask a Japanese person if the term "Asiajin" (Asian person) in Japanese includes Japanese people and they'll be offended.
 Japanese people like the British judge a lot of their standing in the world based on how much attention the US gives them and tend to be quite forgiving with how it is portrayed.
The Last Samurai was very popular in Japan despite the inaccuracies and the whole white saviour thing as the japanese characters were portrayed well and the actors in it got a lot of respect and attention in the US. Whereas in the same year Lost in Translation was greeted kind of negatively as it is based on the premise of ooh look Japan is so strange,  which was kind of insulting to a lot of Japanese people and Memoires of a Geisha shortly afterwards went down like a lead balloon after they cast a Chinese actoress in the main role but the book had been fairly popular.
Getting actual Japanese people to test your game is good but assuming that means it's then Asian approved is just another way of saying "but you're all the same aren't you" when you get down to it.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 2, 2022)

TerraDave said:


> This is one of the most offensive and misleading posts I have ever seen on ENWorld.
> 
> From Ninja Assassin to Clarence Thomas. You did that.



I don't think I'm making the comparison you think I am. I think you've completely missed the point if this is your take away


----------



## Irlo (Feb 2, 2022)

Jiggawatts said:


> One byproduct of the way things have gone the last few years and I think one of the most prevalent takeaways we are going to see perpetuated in the near future is that creative folks are going to have a sharp tendency to stay in their lane. They will feel a need to write and create art that is solely within their personal frame of reference and not veer outside of that in the slightest, because it is safer that way.



Or collaborate and research?


----------



## Jiggawatts (Feb 2, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> Or collaborate!



Collaboration is of course an option, one that will be pursued by several, but not universally. Do note, I am not remarking what should happen, but observing what likely will happen.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Feb 2, 2022)

Jiggawatts said:


> Collaboration is of course an option, one that will be pursued by several, but not universally. Do note, I am not remarking what should happen, but observing what likely will happen.



The way you wrote your original post seemed to imply a strong negative here. I think in the context of all this it's a positive that creators will feel a need to collaborate if they want to produce work outside of their own cultural experience. Maybe one day we will move beyond that, but we've had the opposite for a long, long time.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 2, 2022)

Mallus said:


> Would a Polynesian/Japanese/German/Ukrainian/%100 Pure Son of New Jersey do? It's all I got, man.
> 
> If it helps, people born in China mistake me for Chinese all the time!



_EDIT: Last night I was posting tired, not that's a good excuse, and frustrated with some of the arguments already pulled up in this thread. But on reflection, my responses to @Mallus were not fair. Sorry for that. I didn't mean to try and qualify your "level" of Asian-ness, which is what my response here sounds like to me today. Your voice certainly counts, whatever your opinions might be._

Yes, you'll do. 

The experience of those of Asian descent is obviously varied and not a monolith. "Asian" is so broad a term to be almost meaningless, and there are large differences in experience between generations, especially between those born and raised in an Asian culture, and those a part of the Asian diaspora (Asian-American, Asian-Canadian, etc).

How immersed were you in your Asian ancestry, how knowledgeable are you of Asian cultures, and how the West has historically orientalized them? Not that where you fall on the spectrums gives your experience and opinions any more or less weight, but it will affect them. Japanese ancestry vs Korean ancestry, for example, can make a difference.

Whatever your experience, whatever your opinion . . . . it counts and we should listen. And add your voice to the other Asian-descent gamer/nerd voices out there on the subject.

Some Asian-descent gamers have no issues with the Oriental Adventures line of products. Others just get pissed and bothered on the subject. It'd be nice if we had survey data to give us an idea of how the community at large felt about the issue (who knows, maybe WotC does?) . . . . but the fact remains that many Asian-descent nerds have expressed upset over how D&D has historically presented their cultures, with Oriental Adventures (1E) being the first and worst offender. The specific complaints line up very well with how other Western media and academia has treated Asian cultures for centuries, D&D isn't alone with how it mistreats Asian cultures.

How many folks have to point out the problems and how it negatively affects them before it becomes wrong? If most of the voices that speak out share their upset over OA, but a few shrug and share they don't think it's a big deal . . . . so then it's not a real problem?

And it isn't just how D&D (and Western media at large) treat Asian cultures . . . . we have pretty much the same problem with how D&D treats any non-European cultures. Al-Qadim, Maztica, the various real-world analog nations of Mystara's Known World . . . . all problematic for similar reasons. It's why you won't see WotC rebooting any of those properties.

I'm sure there are some Hispanic gamers who aren't bothered by Maztica, Arabic gamers who don't mind Al-Qadim . . . . . doesn't invalidate the problematic elements, the harm, the hurt. Or the fact none of these properties are ever coming back. Well, outside of some fan releases on the DM's Guild.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Feb 2, 2022)

As both non-white and old, I miss the old days. Racism is not less common now than it was back then, but honesty has gone by the wayside. 

I preferred the days when a person would make it very clear that they disliked 'my kind'. That's OK, at least I know where you stand. Nowadays, all that has changed is they have built a better bigot. Now everyone plays nice to your face; the same number are biased against you, but they are careful to hide it.

One thing I have always been annoyed by is white people who think they need to fight my fight. That is far more insulting and patronizing than bigots.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 2, 2022)

Willie the Duck said:


> There certainly seem to be criticisms with quotes out there. Although we here are having a hard time coming up with concrete examples. Did anyone keep their copy? I might have to check the attic just to see if I can find mine and look for examples.



_EDIT: As with @Mallus above, my responses to @Willie the Duck were over the top also. Sorry for that as well. I misunderstood what @Willie the Duck was trying to say and conflated his posts with others. Not that excuses my tone and words._

No we're not. We've pointed y'all to a podcast that breaks down the text multiple times. We're just tired with engaging with the deniers over and over again.

So, I suppose I'll step into the hornet's nest with one example.

One of the main criticisms of the Oriental Adventures line and the Kara-Tur setting is that it is presented as a pan-Asian setting but takes most of its inspiration from Japanese culture as seen through Western eyes. In the Oriental Adventures hardcover, we're introduced to the samurai class, a misappropriation of a Japanese cultural element. In the Kara-Tur boxed set, NPCs of all the various nations are often described as having levels in the samurai class . . . . if they're from Japanese influenced Wa or Kozakura, Korean-inspired Koryo, or Chinese-inspired Shou Lung and T'u Lung.

The class itself is based on a stereotype of how the West views Japanese samurai, and then it is used to describe characters from all over Kara-Tur. When I was young, I didn't even notice or realize this was problematic. I've since listened to gamers much more familiar with Asian culture, geography, and history than I am and my eyes have been opened.

You want more examples? There are plenty. Are you REALLY interested or just throwing up blocks to the argument? If you truly are interested, listen to the Asians Represent podcast for some views from Asian-descent gamers. There are a lot of episodes, they are two-hours long each, the panel tends to wander a bit, they only cover mere pages per episode . . . . but it's right there, waiting for you . . . . if you are really, truly interested in learning.


----------



## Jiggawatts (Feb 2, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> The way you wrote your original post seemed to imply a strong negative here. I think in the context of all this it's a positive that creators will feel a need to collaborate if they want to produce work outside of their own cultural experience. Maybe one day we will move beyond that, but we've had the opposite for a long, long time.



Perhaps I did not properly convey my meaning in my original post, apologies. It was not negativity that is intended, but rather just an observation. This _will_ result in less exploring of the unknown from the perspective of (a percentage of) creators and artists. You've heard the term "I'm not touching that with a 10 foot pole" (particularly apropos in a D&D forum), that philosophy will become more and more normalized. You spoke of collaboration, and that is a fine idea, but human nature often leads folks to pursue the path of most efficiency and/or lesser resistance, and pursuing collaboration requires extra steps and more effort.

Whether this is good, bad, or something in between I will leave for others to decide.


----------



## Willie the Duck (Feb 2, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> No we're not. We've pointed y'all to a podcast that breaks down the text multiple times. We're just tired with engaging with the deniers over and over again.
> 
> So, I suppose I'll step into the hornet's nest with one example.
> 
> ...



ME? You think that's me? No, I'm hoping that I can get home and find my copy so I can actually provide some useful contribution to the thread. Because I'm tired of the Chud Maximuses walking away thinking the 'pwned the wokes' or whatever. And that's what I'm afraid is happening, because yes, although there's a podcast that can repeatedly be mentioned (letting someone else do the heavy lifting), no one here seems to have examples of our own, because apparently no one has the book anymore.

But please, explain how I'm putting up blocks. This ought to be rich.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 2, 2022)

Sacrosanct said:


> I'm sure Asians Read has a lot of really good information in it, but not 3 minutes in on the first video and Daniel and Steve are assuming whether or not someone who worked on the book was Asian based on their name.  "Kim Mohan is Asian".  Um, no he's not.  And your names are "Daniel" and "Steve" but unless someone has an Asian name they must not be Asian?
> 
> If you're gonna analyze a book, especially around racial/ethnic/cultural contexts, I would expect not falling into the same stereotypes and assumptions you're there to address.  Assuming people are white based on their name is....problematic.



Sorry man, but you seem to be trying to de-legitimize their viewpoints because . . . . they are human and make mistakes.

You're not wrong. The bit about Kim Mohan was a bit cringey. There are other, similar examples. There are times where some panelists go looking for problems and find them . . . . only to be reined back in by others more familiar with the tropes.

I've listened to about half of the podcasts covering Oriental Adventures 1E, and a bit of the episodes covering OA 3E, the Kara-Tur boxed set, and the Al-Qadim boxed set. This group makes mistakes and misunderstandings all the time . . . . . but if you listen to even one of their podcasts in its entirety and your takeaway is . . . . about their screw-up on Kim Mohan's ethnicity . . . .

The Asians Represent panelists aren't elected representatives of the Asian-diaspora community. They're just a bunch of Asian nerds who want to talk about their experiences and views on how D&D and other RPG games deal poorly with Asian cultures. They are all hardcore nerds, but not all of them play D&D, and some of them who do have only started relatively recently. Several of the panelists are academics who specialize in Asian cultures. The panelists also change over time, with some regulars showing up almost every episode.

None of the panelists, to my knowledge, "grew up" with Oriental Adventures . . . . they're not that old. They are looking at OA with 21st century, millennial generation eyes. This is not a ye-old grognards OSR podcast. If you watch a couple of episodes, you start to get a feel for the regular panelists and their level of familiarity with D&D's development in the 70s, 80s, and 90s . . . . but none of them lived it. And that's okay.

They also, very purposefully, don't do any homework. Many of them have no experience with these books until the digital file is opened and reviewed, page-by-page, during the podcast. It's a choice that I'm not sure would be my preference, but it's a legit choice.

If you watch multiple episodes, you'll also see them gain more focus, start to coalesce their views, and even walk back some statements from prior episodes. These podcasts are messy, but the best out there on the topic and very good over all.

_EDIT: I'm probably coming in too hot with you, @Sacrosanct, and also @Willie the Duck. If I've misunderstood your point, or piled too much into my response I apologize . . . . I'm just so tired of the crowd who refuse to see the issues with these books. I probably need to step back from the conversation for a while._


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 2, 2022)

Willie the Duck said:


> ME? You think that's me? No, I'm hoping that I can get home and find my copy so I can actually provide some useful contribution to the thread. Because I'm tired of the Chud Maximuses walking away thinking the 'pwned the wokes' or whatever. And that's what I'm afraid is happening, because yes, although there's a podcast that can repeatedly be mentioned (letting someone else do the heavy lifting), no one here seems to have examples of our own, because apparently no one has the book anymore.
> 
> But please, explain how I'm putting up blocks. This ought to be rich.



_EDIT: Sorry again @Willie the Duck. I was being unnecessarily hostile last night._

Relax. I certainly misunderstood your point, and my last paragraph there doesn't seem to apply to you. Okay.

I just did, however, give an example from the text. I didn't cite page numbers or provide scans . . . that's way too much work to try and convince folks who likely can't be convinced.


----------



## Cadence (Feb 2, 2022)

Willie the Duck said:


> ME? You think that's me? No, I'm hoping that I can get home and find my copy so I can actually provide some useful contribution to the thread. Because I'm tired of the Chud Maximuses walking away thinking the 'pwned the wokes' or whatever. And that's what I'm afraid is happening, because yes, although there's a podcast that can repeatedly be mentioned (letting someone else do the heavy lifting), no one here seems to have examples of our own, because apparently no one has the book anymore.




There are some more threads on this here from over the past four years that probably have some relevant things in them.










						WotC - Dungeons & Dragons Fans Seek Removal of Oriental Adventures From Online Marketplace
					

With WotC's recent statement on making the game more inclusive in regards to racial issues, I should have predicted this would happen next.  Dungeons & Dragons Fans Seek Removal of Oriental Adventures From Online Marketplace  The 1st Edition "Oriental Adventures" is probably one of the worst...




					www.enworld.org
				












						Do We Still Need "Oriental Adventures"?
					

Orientalism -- a wide-ranging term originally used to encompass depictions of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and East Asian cultures -- has gradually come to represent a more negative term.  Should Dungeons & Dragons, known for two well-received books titled "Oriental Adventures," have another...




					www.enworld.org
				












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

After reading a new in comicbook I am thinking this is the time we should talk about Oriental Adventures, Kara-Tur and wuxia genre in D&D.   If I was Asian I would support a new Oriental Adventures like a bridge to help Asian culture to be known by the Western public. This is not about to say...




					www.enworld.org


----------



## MGibster (Feb 2, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> One of the main criticisms of the Oriental Adventures line and the Kara-Tur setting is that it is presented as a pan-Asian setting but takes most of its inspiration from Japanese culture as seen through Western eyes.



While this is a valid criticism, I see it as culturally insensitive rather than racist.  Offensive?  Sure, I wouldn't want someone thinking I ate poutine or enjoyed all dressed flavored Ruffles just because I'm on the same continent as Canada.  It's not like we treat western fantasy settings any differently.  



Dire Bare said:


> The class itself is based on a stereotype of how the West views Japanese samurai, and then it is used to describe characters from all over Kara-Tur. When I was young, I didn't even notice or realize this was problematic. I've since listened to gamers much more familiar with Asian culture, geography, and history than I am and my eyes have been opened.



This critique ignores that Japan has been sharing their stereotypes of samurai with the world for decades now.  These stereotypes of samurai are also found in Japanese movies such as Akira Kurosawa's _Seven Samurai,_ the Samurai Trilogy starring Toshiro Mifune as Miyamoto Musashi, and in more recent movies like _13 Assassins_.  It isn't just how the west views samurai it's how much of the fiction originating in Japan has presented the samurai to us.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 2, 2022)

Haiku Elvis said:


> OK for what it's worth I have decided to add my 2 cents to the mix. It's a long thread so forgive me for not going back to quote or react to particular posts. I am probably saying some things quite similar to some posters but I think/hope not just repeating what has been said before.
> /snip despite fantastically well thought out stuff
> Getting actual Japanese people to test your game is good but assuming that means it's then Asian approved is just another way of saying "but you're all the same aren't you" when you get down to it.



This post needs to be circled, highlighted and framed.  THIS is the argument in a nutshell.  Well said you.  I wish I could posrep it more than once.


----------



## Willie the Duck (Feb 2, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> Relax. I certainly misunderstood your point, and my last paragraph there doesn't seem to apply to you. Okay.
> 
> I just did, however, give an example from the text. I didn't cite page numbers or provide scans . . . that's way too much work to try and convince folks who likely can't be convinced.



Y'know what, in retrospect unless you went back through the thread and checked who said what, how would you know? I shouldn't have exploded. _"if you are really, truly interested in learning"_ was not a good way to sway anyone, but I that wasn't it, I was upset at being mistaken for the unconvincibles, which again, how would you know? 
I'm just on edge because I can imagine them going back to their echo chambers and crow that we couldn't come up with discrete, clear references (excepting by subcontracting the aske to 2 hour podcasts to which they won't listen). 
I think you are right about the effort one should dedicate to those who likely can't be convinced. Honestly, we don't owe someone else the effort to make the case for inclusion again and again. That's almost self-sealioning. OP asked relatively nicely, and I'd like to take it at face value as an honest question, but in the end the response can be, simply, 'there are plenty of resources out there, if you want to do this examination yourself <and here are a few>'.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 2, 2022)

Jiggawatts said:


> One byproduct of the way things have gone the last few years and I think one of the most prevalent takeaways we are going to see perpetuated in the near future is that creative folks are going to have a sharp tendency to stay in their lane. They will feel a need to write and create art that is solely within their personal frame of reference and not veer outside of that in the slightest, because it is safer that way.



I think your concerns are completely unfounded.  This hasn't happened yet, and there are no signs that it's going to.

Considering that there has been more original, novel length genre fiction (I am talking about original works, not including Magic the Gathering novels or Star Wars novels or things like that) written in the past twenty years than in the previous hundred, I really, really don't think that there's any likelihood of people being forced to "stay in their lane".  I just finished off watching The Expanse.  There's a really, really popular series of books written by two very white dudes dealing with all sorts of elements of race and whatnot.  And, funnily enough, no problems with having to "stay in their lane".  

It's almost as if writers get respect and admiration when they take the time to create believable cultures that aren't grounded in racist stereotypes.


----------



## ryu289 (Feb 2, 2022)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Speaking as a non-white gamer, I think that any time you go seeking racism in RPG material, you will find it, because RPGs are, at their core, about stereotypes. And stereotypes are, by today's standards, racist.



"By today's standards"? It's the fact we can do better research now on different cultures and see how they are DIFFERENT, shows that the standards probably weren't that good then.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 2, 2022)

MGibster said:


> While this is a valid criticism, I see it as culturally insensitive rather than racist.
> 
> /snip



Is it really necessary to split hairs like that? Does making it culturally insensitive somehow make it more acceptable than being racist?  Is there some sort of spectrum we should be working from here where we can rather arbitrarily draw some imaginary line between stuff that's just a little bit racist, but that's okay and stuff that is just too racist?

Ok, it's culturally insensitive.  Great.  Now, how does your reaction to "culturally insensitive" differ from "racist"?


----------



## Jiggawatts (Feb 2, 2022)

Hussar said:


> I think your concerns are completely unfounded.  This hasn't happened yet, and there are no signs that it's going to.



They aren't really "my concerns", more just an interesting subject I thought to bring up in the context of the topic at hand. You might be correct good sir, time will tell.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 2, 2022)

Hussar said:


> Is it really necessary to split hairs like that? Does making it culturally insensitive somehow make it more acceptable than being racist? Is there some sort of spectrum we should be working from here where we can rather arbitrarily draw some imaginary line between stuff that's just a little bit racist, but that's okay and stuff that is just too racist?



I think it's important to differentiate between racism and other forms of transgression.  If it isn't important than why even bothering classifying something as racist versus something else?  



Hussar said:


> Ok, it's culturally insensitive. Great. Now, how does your reaction to "culturally insensitive" differ from "racist"?



Usually when I see racist material it's typically designed to denigrate a group of people.  I don't really see that with OA's focus on Japan to the exclusion of most of the rest of Asia.  i.e.  I don't find that particular aspect of OA to be racist.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 2, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> Sorry man, but you seem to be trying to de-legitimize their viewpoints because . . . . they are human and make mistakes.
> 
> You're not wrong. The bit about Kim Mohan was a bit cringey. There are other, similar examples. There are times where some panelists go looking for problems and find them . . . . only to be reined back in by others more familiar with the tropes.
> 
> ...



Im not trying to delegitimize them at all. They have a solid point on a lot of stuff. 

I'm just saying that if you're gonna have a conversation about the problems of stereotyping and assumptions of a particular group, it doesn't help when you lead off stereotyping and making ethnic assumptions. 

You know what they say about first impressions. 

Which is a shame, because they absolutely do have a lot of valid points. I would caution assuming that any criticism of them automatically means one wants to delegitimize their argument. These are complex issues, and disagreeing with one aspect doesn't mean I disagree with all of the aspects of their argument.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 2, 2022)

Jiggawatts said:


> They aren't really "my concerns", more just an interesting subject I thought to bring up in the context of the topic at hand. You might be correct good sir, time will tell.



I just really have an issue with the idea that racism makes us more creative.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 2, 2022)

MGibster said:


> /snip
> If it isn't important than why even bothering classifying something as racist versus something else?



That would be my question, yes.  Whether it's "racist" or "culturally insensitive" doesn't really seem like much of a distinction.  But, then, from your definition of racism, it appears that the difference to you is intent.  I simply don't care about intent because that's a rabbit hole that has no answer.  It's extremely rare for any work to be deliberately racist.  It does happen, sure, but, it's pretty rare.  What you are defining as culturally insensitive, as in racist without intent, is far, far more common.  

But, I'm not really seeing how it's any better.  Whether you want to label it racist or culturally insensitive, it's still bad and shouldn't be done.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 2, 2022)

Hussar said:


> But, I'm not really seeing how it's any better. Whether you want to label it racist or culturally insensitive, it's still bad and shouldn't be done.



I tell you what, since we both agree that a product called OA focusing almost entirely on Japan is bad let's just focus on that.


----------



## Jiggawatts (Feb 2, 2022)

Hussar said:


> I just really have an issue with the idea that racism makes us more creative.



That is not at all what I meant. All I was saying is that people might be more and more likely to exercise an abundance of caution in their works.

I will now state my personal feelings on the matter. Ensuring something is not a negative caricature and that peoples and cultures are represented properly is a noble endeavor, I heartily encourage collaboration for such projects.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Feb 2, 2022)

ryu289 said:


> "By today's standards"? It's the fact we can do better research now on different cultures and see how they are DIFFERENT, shows that the standards probably weren't that good then.




Nah. My people got similar treatment in several game products, and it never bothered me, any more than it did to see settings where feudal or medieval peasants could pass for higher social classes. The fact is that gaming material is not written with a serious purpose in mind.

The standards of today, where white people feel they need to be outraged on my behalf, is highly annoying, and to my way of thinking, racist. My people are not child-like; if we are offended, we can speak up without help.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 2, 2022)

TerraDave said:


> Hey, Umbran.
> 
> Posters are now comparing K-pop stars to divisive American political figures.
> 
> Maybe you can shut down the thread?




*Mod Note:*
Each and every post has a link on it with which you can report it.   This is pretty clearly commentary on moderation in-thread, which Morrus' rules pretty clearly ask you not to do.

So, you're done in this discussion.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 2, 2022)

Sacrosanct said:


> Candace Owens and Clarence Thomas



*Mod Note:*
You can talk about how people are badly treated without going to direct political commentary.

Next time, please use better judgement.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 2, 2022)

Jd Smith1 said:


> The standards of today, where white people feel they need to be outraged on my behalf, is highly annoying, and to my way of thinking, racist. My people are not child-like; if we are offended, we can speak up without help.




And yet, when they do speak up, there are those who try to discount that voice.

Also, your caricature of white people who feel the need to be outraged on your behalf is a gross exaggeration/generalization.  There are always exceptions, of course, but for myself, as a white person who sides with those asking for change, I'm not outraged on anybody's behalf.  I'm not even "outraged" by the content in question.  I've heard the arguments and I think, "Yeah, that makes sense.  I'll support these changes."  If anything, I guess I feel a little sheepish for attitudes I held in my youth, when I usually mocked or belittled both the questions being raised, or the people raising them.

I guess it's ironic that when I _do_ get fired up, it's for people acting like I used to.  But it's not on anybody's "behalf".


----------



## Umbran (Feb 2, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Usually when I see racist material it's typically designed to denigrate a group of people.




Here is where we can constructively differentiate between "racist" and "bigoted".

A book that is racially offensive because the author _intended_ to do that is bigoted.  A book that is racially offensive because the author didn't mean any harm, but didn't know enough to hire a sensitivity reader, could be considered racist.  

And we do need that differentiation, because there are lots of real problems from people who intend no harm, but cause it due to ignorance, lack of forethought, or insufficient understanding of consequences.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 2, 2022)

Jd Smith1 said:


> My people are not child-like; if we are offended, we can speak up without help.




I'm sorry to say, but... you don't speak for all your people.

You tell us that we should remain silent.  But history and many in various minority communities tell us that our silence communicates complicity, agreement, and acceptance.     

So, until we are presented with a consensus, the best we can do is educate ourselves as best we can, and choose accordingly.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Feb 2, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> And yet, when they do speak up, there are those who try to discount that voice.
> 
> Also, your caricature of white people who feel the need to be outraged on your behalf is a gross exaggeration/generalization.  There are always exceptions, of course, but for myself, as a white person who sides with those asking for change, I'm not outraged on anybody's behalf.  I'm not even "outraged" by the content in question.  I've heard the arguments and I think, "Yeah, that makes sense.  I'll support these changes."  If anything, I guess I feel a little sheepish for attitudes I held in my youth, when I usually mocked or belittled both the questions being raised, or the people raising them.
> 
> I guess it's ironic that when I _do_ get fired up, it's for people acting like I used to.  But it's not on anybody's "behalf".




It might be a 'gross exaggeration/generalization' to you, but it is what I believe and how I feel, and I am far from alone in this. 

As to your motivations, the simple truth is that I don't believe you. I always find it telling that many white people expect that non-whites will believe them when they claim to be on our side. History certainly should teach you otherwise; it certainly has taught us.

But this isn't the thread nor the time.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 2, 2022)

Jd Smith1 said:


> The standards of today, where white people feel they need to be outraged on my behalf, is highly annoying, and to my way of thinking, racist. My people are not child-like; if we are offended, we can speak up without help.



I'm not sure were to draw the line here.  When I see something that's racist it's not that I'm offended on behalf of someone else it's that it runs counter to my own personal values.  The offensive image/behavior/statement doesn't have to be directed at me to run counter to my values.  



Umbran said:


> A book that is racially offensive because the author _intended_ to do that is bigoted. A book that is racially offensive because the author didn't mean any harm, but didn't know enough to hire a sensitivity reader, could be considered racist.



That's fair.  In employment we have disparate treatment and disparate impact with the former being deliberate and the latter being unintentional.  Although it does appear that TSR hired the closest thing to sensitivity readers they had in the 80s to go over OA.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 2, 2022)

MGibster said:


> That's fair.  In employment we have disparate treatment and disparate impact with the former being deliberate and the latter being unintentional.




Same basic idea, yes.  



MGibster said:


> Although it does appear that TSR hired the closest thing to sensitivity readers they had in the 80s to go over OA.




Sure.  But the closest thing to it may not have been good enough to keep them from a large number of pitfalls.  We hope to reach the levels of wisdom where we can say that the resulting work is racist, but the authors weren't _bad people_ for it.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 2, 2022)

Jd Smith1 said:


> As to your motivations, the simple truth is that I don't believe you. I always find it telling that many white people expect that non-whites will believe them when they claim to be on our side. History certainly should teach you otherwise; it certainly has taught us.




Ok, you caught me.  I really just want to annex your land and build shopping malls on it.

WTF?

I mean, you've set up a scenario that can be argued with, right?  

"Don't speak up for me, we don't need it."
"I'm not, but I do support you."
"Liar."


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 2, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Although it does appear that TSR hired the closest thing to sensitivity readers they had in the 80s to go over OA.




I don't think the goal was sensitivity, though, as much as expertise.  There's a big difference.


----------



## Myrdin Potter (Feb 2, 2022)

I have a basic issue of the critics assuming the mantle of all Asians (or Chinese or whatever) when we are talking about a Canadian guy from Toronto looking at it from their lens.

I lived in China for 5 years and if you think the stereotypes are bad in OA, you should see the historical dramas on mainstream TV in China.

I think as a RPG supplement for the time is obviously not meant to be racist but is, like most books in TRPG shallow and reliant on tropes. 

I wish there was less energy spent on complaining about decades old books for a system barely played and more effort spent on modern books that are better.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 2, 2022)

Myrdin Potter said:


> I wish there was less energy spent on complaining about decades old books for a system barely played and more effort spent on modern books that are better.




Seems to me not much energy is spent on the complaining, but a LOT of energy (for example, the origin of this thread) is spent on complaining about the complaining.


----------



## Argyle King (Feb 2, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> The way you wrote your original post seemed to imply a strong negative here. I think in the context of all this it's a positive that creators will feel a need to collaborate if they want to produce work outside of their own cultural experience. Maybe one day we will move beyond that, but we've had the opposite for a long, long time.




Not to be cynical, but how would the audience know if someone were to lie?

I see a lot of products advertised as "first ever adventure written by [month-appropriate-minority]..." Maybe that's true, and I would like to believe that is usually is, but I probably wouldn't know if it isn't.

It's certainly not a new concept to put a fake name on a book to boost sales. Pseudonyms and pen names are an old literary concept. Giving the audience the belief that they (the authors) were a different gender, ethnicity, or nationality are reasons which have been used in the past.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Feb 2, 2022)

Argyle King said:


> Not to be cynical, but how would the audience know if someone were to lie?
> 
> I see a lot of products advertised as "first ever adventure written by [month-appropriate-minority]..." Maybe that's true, and I would like to believe that is usually is, but I probably wouldn't know if it isn't.
> 
> It's certainly not a new concept to put a fake name on a book to boost sales. Pseudonyms and pen names are an old literary concept. Giving the audience the belief that they (the authors) were a different gender, ethnicity, or nationality are reasons which have been used in the past.



How many people in the past have had to use the pseudonym of a white man in order to be published? (Lots.)


----------



## Argyle King (Feb 2, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> How many people in the past have had to use the pseudonym of a white man in order to be published? (Lots.)




That's my point.

So, in contemporary times, if there's a particular identity associated with selling more books, a similar approach could be used.


----------



## The-Magic-Sword (Feb 2, 2022)

One of the things that I notice keeps coming up in this thread, is the discourse on what disagreement on whether something is racist within the group in question _means- _and it is really sort of bracing to see how quickly dissenting views on the subject from people who are members of that group are dismissed or even vilified (presumably because they're more threatening to the status quo of the movement) and this isn't the only space I've seen that happen in, and I feel like it sort of needs a call out. So let me be clear: some people of the culture in question suggesting that something is racist does not make it racist, some people of the culture in question suggesting that something is not racist does not make it non-racist. No ethnic group is an ideological monolith.

The question of authority as relating to cultural heritage is problematic because it depends upon a perceived relationship between one's experiences and the truth of one's statement, but people with equal amounts of both disagree as their perspective still differs because there isn't any such thing as a definitive asian experience. This leads to different values and weights, what one person might consider harmful another wouldn't, some of that is even conditioned by in a self-fulfilling prophecy where individuals are effectively conditioned to reject or invoke racism as a factor. My family certainly experienced racism (to this day my father is your blue collar italian landscaper), but also swear against it as a convention of ideology, as an easy and generally agreeable example.

There are some nasty, pervasive, deeply held beliefs embedded within even this movement inherited from the culture most of its participants come from, I find that they tend to manifest themselves in discussions like this one, where the tone can quickly become paternalistic, and deconstruction of the present injustice is rejected on the grounds that it's a distraction or has already been well trod by others, as a sort of deflection protecting the entrenched beliefs that have been rebranded to reconcile them with the goals of the movement itself which are opposed to the essential values of nativism, segregation, and nationalism (the foundations of white supremacy) from which they are derived.

Generally these beliefs relate to the nationalistic views of culture and people, that attempt to construct an ownership of culture married to the colonialist boxes-- maintenancing cultural borders accordingly to blood quanta, or degree of cultural immersion as a social proxy for it. The idea that Italians write Italian stories or some such, that they have a particular perspective peculiar to them, that they all share. But this should be understood itself as an outdated and racist idea, because it sublimates the intrinsic intersectionality of identity-- each piece of culture wasn't just authored by a culture but people, with a fractal of identities, not just Chinese but "Straight or Gay" "Man or Woman (or otherwise)" "Urban or Rural" "Conservative or Revolutionary" and so forth. 

It attempts to package the marginalized people of a society within the same ideological context as their oppressors (the ones internal to their society, rather than ones subjugating their society as a whole) by repainting them in the colors of a primarily national outlook, as a prize piece in a culture war entirely divorced from their original context, and by people who can only loosely be described as "the same people" as their own outlook is mostly different, and much closer to that of their enemies in the same culture war.

In the context of OA, we see this come to the fore in the fact that the discourse on Anti-Asian racism largely ignores the Asian authorship of many of its influences-- namely Chinese and Japanese Action Cinema and the way in which it is a product of their ability to project their culture and value system into the larger world during the 1970s and 80s. Unlike discourses that relate to blacks in the U.S. and indigenous people under the descendants of imperialists the world over, this one relates to both people who make up the dominant classes of their cultural origin point AND migrants (who are a naturally vulnerable class). When discussing Samurai, we are discussing the culture that subjugated the Ainu of Hokkaido and later the Ryukyu islands before a major military defeat at the hands of another force of imperialism... all within the last two hundred years. Chinese Imperialism is both more recent and older, although it was at the time of this publication, undergoing an unprecedented period of intellectual freedom and openness (prior to Tiannmen Square in 1989, which saw the end of this period) and was even then perpetrating both a physical and cultural genocide of the Uygher (which began in the 50s) whilst stressing reunification with Taiwan.

I bring up these thoughts because racism is understood in the modern movement to require power and privilege, not just prejudice, but awarding those in an Asian context somewhat requires narrowing the scope to Asian experiences within the United States, even while the United States was being strongly and consistently impacted by cultural exports from their homelands. Some of the most 'sacred' bits of Americanah from this era and the previous (Westerns) are based on templates exported from Japan (with Seven Samurai dropping in 1954 to be reimmortalized as the Magnificent Seven in 1960, and did you know Kurosawa apparently had a hand in writing the Japanese scenes for Tora! Tora! Tora! ? I just found out) In this context OA can be understood as an outgrowth of global Asian cultural power (specifically that of certain players, who are themselves particularly privileged relative to other less powerful or recognized nations within the Eastern 'sphere') tempered by relative lack of information, and the pulpy indignity of American Fantasy during this era (or at least the eras that most influenced the creators of the game.) Of course, this is then mitigated by the fact that the United States still had greater privilege overall than either power after the outcomes of the second world war only a few decades earlier, and was simultaneously acting on them (especially Japan, and Korea as well, who is usually left out of the discourse.)

Very Hot Take: Anyone who tells you its simple is being largely reductionist by appealing to a kind of ideological trope, because the current discourse is kind of scary, and a kind of unquestioning deference is a comforting means of avoiding accusation. But largely, it betrays a privileged attitude that understanding racism for themselves is beyond them, and must be taken as a matter of faith-- which conveniently absolves of the need to understand it, and deflects responsibility for the ethics of the power they're wielding elsewhere-- often against _other members _of the group who might be harmed. You should absolutely be empathetic, and you should absolutely read analysis from members of the group in question, in fact it should be your main (but not only) source! You should do so knowing that it won't serve your own interests by being open and shut, even if someone tries to sell you on their position with the promise that it is, be prepared for a diversity of experience, and take action with an eye for validating those perspectives simultaneously, looking for the lessons they have to teach you and respecting the intrinsic complexity of both other cultures and your own.

Ok sorry that was so long, its a bunch of stuff that boiled up in the last seven pages of reading, and how it intersects with my critical, identity and social justice centric background.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Feb 2, 2022)

Argyle King said:


> That's my point.
> 
> So, in contemporary times, if there's a particular identity associated with selling more books, a similar approach could be used.



In the past, folks have used pseudonyms because the people in power had set up racist and sexist systems to prevent other folks from gaining power.

This is a very different situation. This is about increasing representation, and holding publishers and creators responsible. In fact, I find the whole idea of commodification of race to be pretty gross and disingenuous, as if the fear that someone might lie about their identity should prevent anyone from trying to diversify the voices being published.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 2, 2022)

Things I’ve noticed about this and similar threads:

1) discounting current complaints because few people gave credence to past complaints

2) assuming anyone of a given race- on either side of the discussion- has THE definitive take, and positions all others of that race can be disregarded.

Thing is…this is complex stuff.  Change takes time, and definitely won’t occur if nobody complains.  And sometimes, even problematic aspects of culture have silver linings.

For example, for a *very* long time, the only roles black actors could get on stage, screen, radio or TV were steeped in negative stereotypes.  But for all the distasteful things about those roles, they paved the way for subsequent actors to get more meaningful and less stereotyped roles.

And even as the roles those early actors played perpetuated racist myths, they also provided those actors incomes that made some of them well-off by the standards of even contemporary  white society.

OA _is_ a deeply flawed product.  People have said it for years.  But it also opened a door to including non-European cultures as centerpieces for RPGs.  It’s failings have largely been improved upon by subsequent iterations and even the products of other companies.


----------



## Argyle King (Feb 2, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> In the past, folks have used pseudonyms because the people in power had set up racist and sexist systems to prevent other folks from gaining power.
> 
> This is a very different situation. This is about increasing representation, and holding publishers and creators responsible. In fact, I find the whole idea of commodification of race to be pretty gross and disingenuous, as if the fear that someone might lie about their identity should prevent anyone from trying to diversify the voices being published.




It shouldn't prevent someone. That was not any part of my statement. 

Commodifying an identity isn't an unheard of concept though. There are several months throughout the year during which companies (some of whom have rather horrible attitudes during human beings as a whole) target particular communities.

Yes, for writers, oppression was a factor in using different names. George Eliot is one of many examples. 

There are also writers who wrote under different names so as to have creative freedoms they may have otherwise been denied due to what their other names were seen as representing. For example, Anne Rice wrote some of her books using the name A.N. Roquelare (among others).

Hearing other voices is certainly a good thing. But a name on a page doesn't necessarily equate to a voice within a book. Even in just the context of this thread and OA, there are questions about how much (or how little) certain people were involved in writing a book.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 2, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> *In addition, the OP didn't ask the same question as is in the title. *The actual question the OP posed is as follows:
> 
> _But what are your thoughs...was it that bad back in ye olden times?_
> 
> Answering that question would require ... you know, discussing the standards for the time, and whether it was "good" or "bad," not just people discussing how they feel about it now having come across it for the first time.



The OP did ask the question, because he asks it in the title; however, there are multiple questions that the OP asks: 
(a) The Title: _"Oriental Adventures, was it really that racist?"_ 
(b) Beginning of the Post: _"...did Kwan have a point?"_ (What is Kwan's point? This refers back to the perceived racism in OA.) 
(c) End of the Post: _"But what are your thoughts...was it that bad back in ye olden times?" _

The latter question does not, IMHO, erase the other questions or OP's framework about racism in OA, but, rather, it builds upon it, expanding it to the wider cultural Sitz im Leben of the work's creation. 

(2) In regards to the last question, this is where I find the German expression of "_jein_"* helpful. However, I believe that both @The-Magic-Sword and @Dannyalcatraz have addressed the nuance of that question: i.e., the "silver linings" of problematic aspects of culture and the unintended harm that can result from people, out of ignorance or otherwise, trying to do good. 

* A portmanteau of the German words "ja" (yes) and "nein" (no), which is often used in colloquial parlance to mean "yes and no."


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 2, 2022)

Umbran said:


> I'm sorry to say, but... you don't speak for all your people.
> 
> You tell us that we should remain silent.  But history and many in various minority communities tell us that our silence communicates complicity, agreement, and acceptance.




Not really interested in getting back into this topic but this turn in the conversation caught my attention. 

I feel like there is a bit of a double standard here. When posters from group A say they are bothered by something or want people to speak up, then a lot of folks say we need to be quiet and listen. But then when a poster isn't bothered and says he doesn't need people to speak up (I don't think he was saying people should be silent, I think he was expressing skepticism towards people who are loud about this because it feels paternalistic to him: I could be wrong, not sure the poster's full range of views here), the poster is told he doesn't speak for 'all your people' (and that we must say something otherwise we are complicit). If you believe in listening to people from that group, shouldn't you also consider what this person has to say and not attack them?

I can see where he is coming from in some respects. My wife is from Thailand. Obviously if someone says something outrageously offensive, I need to say something. But I also need to read my wife and let her defend herself, and, probably more importantly, I have to consider if my reaction is going to make things worse for her (this has happened once before). Also my reactions are not always going to the the same as hers. There were things I thought would upset her, but she was totally fine with, or even appreciated (awkward things people said but they were done with good intentions, which to her is the most important thing). And the issue of treating a group of people like children, that is a real issue and it is insulting to people when that seems to be going on. It can also come off as sounding like "We know better than you".


----------



## Alzrius (Feb 2, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Seems to me not much energy is spent on the complaining, but a LOT of energy (for example, the origin of this thread) is spent on complaining about the complaining.



I don't think anyone has made a twenty-six-hour Youtube series complaining about this thread.


----------



## nevin (Feb 2, 2022)

ryu289 said:


> From here:
> 
> 
> Well here is the thing, did Kwan have a point? Sure people might say "let us have fun" but I suspect that to Asian and Muslim characters, seeing their culture reduced to a theme-park version would be turned off for understandable reasons.
> ...



D&D is a theme park of white Midieval fantasy culture.  Then they added oriental adventures, mazteca, al qaddim and lots of other theme parks.


----------



## Ixal (Feb 2, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Not really interested in getting back into this topic but this turn in the conversation caught my attention.
> 
> I feel like there is a bit of a double standard here. When posters from group A say they are bothered by something or want people to speak up, then a lot of folks say we need to be quiet and listen. But then when a poster isn't bothered and says he doesn't need people to speak up (I don't think he was saying people should be silent, I think he was expressing skepticism towards people who are loud about this because it feels paternalistic to him: I could be wrong, not sure the poster's full range of views here), the poster is told he doesn't speak for 'all your people' (and that we must say something otherwise we are complicit). If you believe in listening to people from that group, shouldn't you also consider what this person has to say and not attack them?
> 
> I can see where he is coming from in some respects. My wife is from Thailand. Obviously if someone says something outrageously offensive, I need to say something. But I also need to read my wife and let her defend herself, and, probably more importantly, I have to consider if my reaction is going to make things worse for her (this has happened once before). Also my reactions are not always going to the the same as hers. There were things I thought would upset her, but she was totally fine with, or even appreciated (awkward things people said but they were done with good intentions, which to her is the most important thing). And the issue of treating a group of people like children, that is a real issue and it is insulting to people when that seems to be going on. It can also come off as sounding like "We know better than you".



This topic in general is sadly full with double standards, both about which voices speak for the majority and are valid and which are anecdotal evidence, but also which culture needs to be defended and which culture is ok to put in a blender.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 2, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> I don't think anyone has made a twenty-six-hour Youtube series *complaining about this thread.*



Neither has Asians Represent.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 2, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> Neither has Asians Represent.




No one should have an issue with people that are passionate about something.

I think that the issue that some of us have is that people are repeatedly told, "Oh, you have to watch this in order to have an opinion." Of course, _this _happens to be 26 hours. 

Then, if you do watch it (or try, in good faith, to watch significant portions of it because ... again, 26 hours) and you don't agree with it uncritically, you are dismissed- not on the basis of analyzing their points (good, bad, and incorrect), but only because you don't agree with everything that is in there.

This thread (and prior ones) should show that reasonable people can disagree with some of the issues raised. Of course, unreasonable people can too, but that's a different issue entirely.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 2, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Not really interested in getting back into this topic but this turn in the conversation caught my attention.
> 
> I feel like there is a bit of a double standard here. When posters from group A say they are bothered by something or want people to speak up, then a lot of folks say we need to be quiet and listen.




I think this is will be difficult to discuss without an example - can you find a discussion in which that's actually happened on these boards?

There are times when allies need to speak up, and others where they need to listen and be educated.  Those can both be mentioned in the same thread, without there being an inconsistency or double standard. Thus, we'd want to see a specific instance in which there's a mixed message.



Bedrockgames said:


> ... the poster is told he doesn't speak for 'all your people' (and that we must say something otherwise we are complicit). If you believe in listening to people from that group, shouldn't you also consider what this person has to say and not attack them?




None of the demographics we might discuss on this are monoliths.  There will be disparate views within them all.  So, if we are to listen and consider, it won't be a matter of hearing one voice, instantly agreeing and falling into step with that one.  It is a process of listening to many, and weighing as best we can.  

Noting that a single individual doesn't represent the whole isn't an attack.  



Bedrockgames said:


> I can see where he is coming from in some respects. My wife is from Thailand. Obviously if someone says something outrageously offensive, I need to say something. But I also need to read my wife and let her defend herself, and, probably more importantly, I have to consider if my reaction is going to make things worse for her (this has happened once before).




Yes.  You are married to her, and that gives you a rather specific set of responsibilities with regards to her, above and beyond that of a general ally.  You certainly need to give her voice, and her individual needs, priority.

I am not married to the poster up thread.  I have a responsibility to listen to, and consider their words.  But I have a responsibility to listen to many others with equal priority.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 2, 2022)

Umbran said:


> I think this is will be difficult to discuss without an example - can you find a discussion in which that's actually happened on these boards?




I don't think an example is required as it happens all the times in these discussions (the last time the discussion was had, it seemed to be a common enough occurrence). But I don't think it would be helpful to take specific instances of that and call out individual posters. Part of the problem I have with these discussions is how contentious they have become and how hostile we have become towards one another. So I wouldn't want to contribute further by singling out individual posters on this particular matter. That said, I think most people can remember things like this occurring. Maybe you saw the same posts and didn't agree, which is fine. We can have different opinions about posts. My point wasn't to rehash those particular sets of posts, it was to say I understand what the poster you were responding to is talking about.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 2, 2022)

Complex things are complex. Sometimes it might seem like somebody is contradicting themselves (and sometimes they are!) but dealing with messy issues is…messy.

Unfortunately, an easy and cheap rhetorical technique is to latch onto inconsistencies and try to use that to undermine the people who are trying to argue a position that acknowledges the messiness.

Which is unfortunate, because it means extreme and simplistic (and therefore unrealistic) positions are more defensible.

Having changed my position on many social/economic issues over the years, the one thing I’m most convinced of is that any position…on either side of the spectrum…that assumes these things are clear cut and easily reducible to simple truths, is just wrong.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 2, 2022)

Umbran said:


> None of the demographics we might discuss on this are monoliths.  There will be disparate views within them all.  So, if we are to listen and consider, it won't be a matter of hearing one voice, instantly agreeing and falling into step with that one.  It is a process of listening to many, and weighing as best we can.




I agree 100% that groups are not monoliths and that truth isn't automatically granted based on which group people belong to. My point is when people like myself and others have made this kind of point in the past, the response has been something a long the lines of we have to listen to people based on their group identity. And I am just pointing out, that only seems to be the case so long as people belonging to that identity take position X on the issue rather than Y. But yes, I agree listen to many people. And I think part of what I am trying to also say is, in doing so, I hear a lot of people saying things more a long the lines of Jd Smith1 (or arguments in that sphere of thought).


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 2, 2022)

Umbran said:


> Yes.  You are married to her, and that gives you a rather specific set of responsibilities with regards to her, above and beyond that of a general ally.  You certainly need to give her voice, and her individual needs, priority.
> 
> I am not married to the poster up thread.  I have a responsibility to listen to, and consider their words.  But I have a responsibility to listen to many others with equal priority.




The point about my wife, was just that my experience with her has given me a sense, based on things I have seen, of what JD is saying. Which is that being overly paternalistic is also a problem. And that sometimes there is this narrative of what is considered offensive or bad by a group and when you start talking to people within that group the reactions are actually a lot more mixed. Or there is a narrative that they can only be helped if white people step in and do something. I can see where he is coming from on this.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 2, 2022)

Umbran said:


> Noting that a single individual doesn't represent the whole isn't an attack.




Attack might have been a strong word, and tone isn't really discernible in posts, so I may have misread your intentions here. My immediate response was the phrasing felt aggressive and like he was being shut down for taking a view that wasn't what you felt was the majority opinion. But I can see how I may have read tone in that which wasn't there.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 2, 2022)

MGibster said:


> While this is a valid criticism, I see it as culturally insensitive rather than racist.  Offensive?  Sure, I wouldn't want someone thinking I ate poutine or enjoyed all dressed flavored Ruffles just because I'm on the same continent as Canada.  It's not like we treat western fantasy settings any differently.




"Cultural insensitive" and "racist" are two different points on the same continuum. No one's claiming that the authors and designers behind the OA line are klan members or even explicitly racist folks. Their intent was to celebrate, respect, and include Asian cultures in D&D. They were not fully successful, in large part because of the time these products were written and the resources that were available.



> This critique ignores that Japan has been sharing their stereotypes of samurai with the world for decades now.  These stereotypes of samurai are also found in Japanese movies such as Akira Kurosawa's _Seven Samurai,_ the Samurai Trilogy starring Toshiro Mifune as Miyamoto Musashi, and in more recent movies like _13 Assassins_.  It isn't just how the west views samurai it's how much of the fiction originating in Japan has presented the samurai to us.



This critique doesn't ignore your point, your point isn't relevant to the critique. Is the samurai stereotyped within Japanese culture and media? Yes. Has Japanese media taken the samurai world-wide for decades now? Yes.

Not relevant. Many of the cultures in Kara-Tur are closely modeled on non-Japanese real-world cultures. To describe their inhabitants as samurai is offensive to some folks of Asian descent, Japanese or otherwise. It bothered everyone on the Asians Represents panel, and they aren't alone. It doesn't bother all Asian-descent gamers, but that doesn't make the critique less valid.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 2, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Unfortunately, an easy and cheap rhetorical technique is to latch onto inconsistencies and try to use that to undermine the people who are trying to argue a position that acknowledges the messiness.



This is also how you engage in a debate as well.  Think of an argument as a dining room table.  Your conclusion is the table top which is supported by your premises which are the table legs.  If your premises are faulty then it won't support the table top.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 2, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> This critique doesn't ignore your point, your point isn't relevant to the critique. Is the samurai stereotyped within Japanese culture and media? Yes. Has Japanese media taken the samurai world-wide for decades now? Yes.



I don't agree.  I think any critique of OA that doesn't take into account the influence Japanese media on Americans is faulty.


----------



## Deset Gled (Feb 2, 2022)

As someone who played with 3e OA a lot and 1e OA very little, I would say that I don't consider either racist based on the standards when they were written.  I would expect a lot of editing to be done if WotC wanted to release a new version (most notably, the name itself "Oriental Adventures" would have to be changed), but it could be done respectfully and tastefully.  Just like current versions of gods, demons, and monsters reference a weird mixture of mythology and folklore while attempting to minimize offense to real world cultures and religions, the same could be done with a predominantly Asian influence.


----------



## Jiggawatts (Feb 2, 2022)

I am curious, what is the prevailing opinion on modern Legend of the Five Rings?


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 2, 2022)

MGibster said:


> This is also how you engage in a debate as well.  Think of an argument as a dining room table.  Your conclusion is the table top which is supported by your premises which are the table legs.  If your premises are faulty then it won't support the table top.




That has nothing to do with the point I was making, which is that the premises (in this case) aren't mathematical equations, and don't lead to clean answers. There is no solution that neatly solves all the problems.  That's just the nature of hard problems.

But the absence of perfect answers and clean solutions does not meant the premises are invalid or faulty.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 2, 2022)

Jiggawatts said:


> what is the prevailing opinion




Is there any such thing, on any topic?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 2, 2022)

MGibster said:


> I don't agree.  I think any critique of OA that doesn't take into account the influence Japanese media on Americans is faulty.




The other thing to try and remember is that many of these issues that keep getting raised were addressed by the author (Zeb Cook) _at the time_. From his introduction-

_The bulk of this material deals with Japan, with China a close second. This is not due to any oversight. ... From the standpoint of gaming, Japan's history and culture provides greater opportunities for adventure and advancement. ... Of course, anyone who looks carefully at China will find the same occurred there. However, fewer people cared to write about it.

...But accuracy can often be unplayable or just unacceptable. ...and rules that apply to a Japanese culture would certainly be incorrect in strict Chinese culture! Furthermore, the world presented had to be what people think the Orient is, not necessarily what it actually is. Thus, reference sources went beyond books and included popular Japanese movies about samurai and ninja, the whole family of Hong Kong kung-fu movies, comics, and even those endearing epics of giant reptiles and funny dinosaurs._

OA, p. 4 (emphasis supplied).


Many of the issues discussed are complex here; everything from the difference between issues that affect cultures (such as those in Japan and China) as opposed to issues that affect the Asian diaspora in North America. Examining this book can tell you a lot about systemic issues as they existed in 1985, but what shines though in most places is that, _compared to most material at that time and certainly in comparison to most gaming material_, OA was very much ahead of its time, in the research done, appreciation of the differences, and use of playtesters for critique and feedback.

Compared to the stereotypes that the 80s often visited upon us (such as Lung Duk Dong in Sixteen Candles), it was much better. That said, it can also be a useful lens to examine the ways in which even the better works _necessarily _fell into the same traps of that time period. Unfortunately, those conversations tend to require nuance, which is a quality sorely lacking in most of these discussions.

IMO, YMMV, etc.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 2, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> That has nothing to do with the point I was making, which is that the premises (in this case) aren't mathematical equations, and don't lead to clean answers. There is no solution that neatly solves all the problems. That's just the nature of hard problems.



Yes, but what you call cheap rhetorical techniques are what others, at least me, considers normal debating techniques.  You go after someone's premises and that's especially true when they're weak and inconsistent.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 2, 2022)

Myrdin Potter said:


> I have a basic issue of the critics assuming the mantle of all Asians (or Chinese or whatever) when we are talking about a Canadian guy from Toronto looking at it from their lens.
> 
> I lived in China for 5 years and if you think the stereotypes are bad in OA, you should see the historical dramas on mainstream TV in China.
> 
> ...



None of the critics of OA claim to speak for all Asians. Where did you get that impression?

The panelists of the Asian Represent podcast are not the only voices expressing discomfort with Oriental Adventures. They are also a diverse group, they're all Asians, they're all nerds, but they come from different ethnic backgrounds, educational backgrounds, and different careers, different gaming/nerd preferences. One thing they all have in common is making clear they DON'T speak for all Asians, nor do they pretend to.

Oriental Adventures is "out-of-print" . . . kinda. You can easily still purchase digital books, and POD (print-on-demand) versions are available for most (all?) titles in the line. And the issues of Asian representation in D&D started with the Oriental Adventures hardcover . . . . but persist to this day in current 5E products, if to a lesser degree.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 2, 2022)

MGibster said:


> I don't agree.  I think any critique of OA that doesn't take into account the influence Japanese media on Americans is faulty.



As has been pointed out multiple times, no one claims that Oriental Adventures is racist in intent, but it is problematic (insensitive or racist) in effect.

Japanese media has a huge influence on American culture, more so than other Asian cultures, and when Americans conflate all Asians as "the same", that stereotype is largely Japanese flavored. Your point explains WHY a pan-Asian D&D setting relies so heavily on Japanese tropes. In that sense, you are not wrong.

But it doesn't change the insensitive/racist effect of the book. It doesn't make it less offensive to those of Asian descent. It doesn't reduce the harm.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 2, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> As has been pointed out multiple times, no one claims that Oriental Adventures is racist in intent, but it is problematic (insensitive or racist) in effect.



I get that.  I really do.  I even agree with many people on the elements that are problematic.  



Dire Bare said:


> But it doesn't change the insensitive/racist effect of the book. It doesn't make it less offensive to those of Asian descent. It doesn't reduce the harm.



Okay.  So I think we've gotten some things mixed up over the course of the thread.  I'm pushing back on the idea that the samurai are negative stereotypes as viewed through western eyes.  I think the way samurai are presented can be explained by the Japanese material Americans consumed.  I agree with you that it's not cool to superimpose Japan over the whole of Asia.


----------



## Mordhau (Feb 2, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> No one should have an issue with people that are passionate about something.
> 
> I think that the issue that some of us have is that people are repeatedly told, "Oh, you have to watch this in order to have an opinion." Of course, _this _happens to be 26 hours.
> 
> ...



There's nothing wrong with them doing what they do.  But their medium and method are very poor for getting a clear message across.

I've watched some of their videos and they're all over the place.  They're thinking through things as they go which means they get things wrong and leap to conclusions.  Now they do say that's because they're just giving their impressions as they go, so that's fine, but it does make it a poor source for anyone really wanting to understand the real issues - unless perhaps one watches the whole thing which is interminably wrong.

It would be really helpful if someone involved, after having done all that reading and discussing and thinking out loud about their conclusions would actually write up the summation of the critique in essay form.  (Writing remains a vastly superior form of superior anaylsis as it can be checked, edited and corrected and others can quote it and review it directly rather than say, inaccuratley mischaracterising something that someone may have said one hour into a youtube video). They're under no obligation to to do that if they don't want to - but it would certainly help to have a better discussion.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 2, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Yes, but what you call cheap rhetorical techniques are what others, at least me, considers normal debating techniques.  You go after someone's premises and that's especially true when they're weak and inconsistent.




Maybe that's the difference.  

I think the right response is to say, "There seems to be a contradiction here: can you explain X?"

But, yes, some people will take that opening to "go after" their "opponent."   "Ha!  You contradicted yourself with X.  Obviously your premises are weak."

I guess it depends on your goals.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 2, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> But, yes, some people will take that opening to "go after" their "opponent." "Ha! You contradicted yourself with X. Obviously your premises are weak."



And to be fair, I do think you have a valid point.  There are people who use those techniques to be disruptive rather than generate discussion.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 2, 2022)

MGibster said:


> I get that.  I really do.  I even agree with many people on the elements that are problematic.
> 
> 
> Okay.  So I think we've gotten some things mixed up over the course of the thread.  I'm pushing back on the idea that the samurai are negative stereotypes as viewed through western eyes.  I think the way samurai are presented can be explained by the Japanese material Americans consumed.  I agree with you that it's not cool to superimpose Japan over the whole of Asia.



Using samurai to represent non-Japanese characters (_in a pseudo-historical setting like Kara-Tur_) is a different issue than the existence of the stereotype itself. Sure.

The samurai isn't (in my experience) a NEGATIVE stereotype, but it is a reductive and historical inaccurate stereotype. How much that bothers you depends on your knowledge of the historical samurai, awareness of the stereotype, and your own personal experience with appropriation. The fact remains, for at least some of Asian-descent, it's problematic.

Is it the worst offense in Oriental Adventures? Are there other, larger issues that are more impactful? Maybe, but not my point. It is but ONE example of the problematic elements in the product line.

Reductive stereotypes, even if "positive", can be harmful. The stereotype of African-American men being stronger, faster, and better athletes than other groups is a good example. How harmful is the stereotype of the samurai? Just a teeny bit? A whole bunch? I'm don't feel qualified to comment on that, but I do try to listen to those who feel it does carry baggage with it.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 2, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Maybe that's the difference.
> 
> I think the right response is to say, "There seems to be a contradiction here: can you explain X?"
> 
> ...



"Debate techniques" . . . at least the ones I'm familiar with . . . are adversarial and the purpose is to "win" the debate, not come to a consensus or to uncover truth.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 2, 2022)

Mordhau said:


> There's nothing wrong with them doing what they do.  But their medium and method are very poor for getting a clear message across.
> 
> I've watched some of their videos and they're all over the place.  They're thinking through things as they go which means they get things wrong and leap to conclusions.  Now they do say that's because they're just giving their impressions as they go, so that's fine, but it does make it a poor source for anyone really wanting to understand the real issues - unless perhaps one watches the whole thing which is interminably wrong.
> 
> It would be really helpful if someone involved, after having done all that reading and discussing and thinking out loud about their conclusions would actually write up the summation of the critique in essay form.  (Writing remains a vastly superior form of superior anaylsis as it can be checked, edited and corrected and others can quote it and review it directly rather than say, inaccuratley mischaracterising something that someone may have said one hour into a youtube video). They're under no obligation to to do that if they don't want to - but it would certainly help to have a better discussion.



A few of us do keep recommending the Asians Represent podcast, true. But the podcast shouldn't be seen as the definitive resource on what is or isn't wrong with Oriental Adventures . . . but it is a good start, it is informative, and it's a good way to start getting a feel for how some in the Asian community view these types of work.

And . . . there's not a lot of other resources out there to point you towards. At least, not that I'm aware of. Doesn't mean it's just the folks of Asians Represent that have issues with OA, they're just the first to do a detailed analysis of it. Again, to my knowledge.

It would be nice if someone did a summary of the points they raise in each episode . . . . but until some enterprising blogger does so, we've got the podcast itself.

Each episode is long, close to 2 hours. They only get through a few pages each episode. Their conversation wanders, they aren't very focused, not all of them are familiar with D&D (not to the level many super-fans on ENWorld are), and some of the panelists do tend to jump to conclusions. It's a messy podcast, but the issue is messy and complex itself, so . . . .

This isn't an issue where you'll find easy, black-and-white answers. I get less upset with folks who disagree over how severely problematic OA is, than I do with folks who just outright dismiss the experiences and voices of those who do see it as a severely flawed work.


----------



## Ixal (Feb 2, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> Using samurai to represent non-Japanese characters (_in a pseudo-historical setting like Kara-Tur_) is a different issue than the existence of the stereotype itself. Sure.
> 
> The samurai isn't (in my experience) a NEGATIVE stereotype, but it is a reductive and historical inaccurate stereotype. How much that bothers you depends on your knowledge of the historical samurai, awareness of the stereotype, and your own personal experience with appropriation. The fact remains, for at least some of Asian-descent, it's problematic.
> 
> ...



Oh please.
No one except studied historians (and probably not even them) do not have a reductive view of the past. Especially in entertainment our view of Samurai, Ninja, Mongols, Vikings, Knights, Romans, druids, nobles, medieval peasants, and so on is reductive. If that is the benchmark you set then everyone talking about anything historic is racist.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 2, 2022)

MGibster said:


> I get that.  I really do.  I even agree with many people on the elements that are problematic.
> 
> 
> Okay.  So I think we've gotten some things mixed up over the course of the thread.  I'm pushing back on the idea that the samurai are negative stereotypes as viewed through western eyes.  I think the way samurai are presented can be explained by the Japanese material Americans consumed.  I agree with you that it's not cool to superimpose Japan over the whole of Asia.



Sorry, I may have missed it, but, who is saying that the depictions of Samurai is, in itself, a negative stereotype?  I certainly haven't. As far as it goes, it's a pretty decent depiction of samurai.  It's not disrespectful, it hits the main points, and does so pretty well.   I certainly have no problem with the samurai as a character class.  Arguements for historical accuracy aren't really all that valid IMO, simply because D&D has never tried for historically accuracy.

Samurai are no more or less accurate than druids or pretty much any other class.

The issue isn't samurai, AFAIK.  The issue is that samurai are used to represent "elite warrior" for all East Asian cultures.  Again, it's the fact that the book basically over writes every other culture and replaces it with samurai, kensai, yakuza and a host of other elements and then claims that it's representing all of East Asia.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 2, 2022)

When it comes to stuff like Samurai, I think there is difference between embracing tropes from a genre or from a style of cinema (Samurai Cinema, Westerns, Knights etc), accuracy in representing the historical reality of those things, and being disrespectful. If you just take a look at Medieval Europe for example, D&D and most fantasy RPGs are not an accurate representation of Medieval era or of knights in general. And there are tons of anachronisms in these RPG genres as well. That doesn't make them bad. Part of what makes them what they are, is these inaccuracies. 

One of my criticisms of this conversation (and it isn't limited to this, you see it elsewhere in the gaming community even when politics and culture isn't being discussed) is this equation of accuracy with good, and of accuracy with respectful. And I am not sure that is a good measure. When concepts get translated into other cultures, they are going to make them their own (that is why you as Spaghetti Westerns and why you have western tropes translated into say the wuxia genre). And there is a big difference between emulating history and emulating a genre. I am also a little wary of this idea of entertainment being wholesome or pure. I think entertainment and art are designed to move us, and occasionally shock or jar us. I am not saying these criticism conversations shouldn't happen. I am totally fine with different conversations being had in any fan community about its media. I think where I tend to get frustrated is it seems like one point of view about media analysis is dominating and being accepted as the way. But them I grew up admiring the gritty films of the 1970s, and the bloody martial arts movies of that period as well.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 2, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> The samurai isn't (in my experience) a NEGATIVE stereotype, but it is a reductive and historical inaccurate stereotype. How much that bothers you depends on your knowledge of the historical samurai, awareness of the stereotype, and your own personal experience with appropriation. The fact remains, for at least some of Asian-descent, it's problematic.



And if it's problematic for some, so what?  I don't mean that to sound flippant, but there's almost always going to be a small group of people who find something problematic.  It seems fairly sensible that if a lot of people find something problematic we should push for change.  But if only a small percentage of people find something problematic what then? From where I'm sitting, I don't care if the samurai is reductive or historically inaccurate any more than I care about the Druid in D&D or the knight in _Pendragon.  _So when someone tells me the samurai is reductive and historically inaccurate I can agree, but what then?  Is it still okay for me to enjoy the character class?  Is it okay for a game published in the United States to include such a samurai?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 2, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> "Debate techniques" . . . at least the ones I'm familiar with . . . are adversarial and the purpose is to "win" the debate,




This followed on my point so I should probably address it a little. I didn't bring up inconsistencies as a rhetorical tactic (though I can see where it might be taken that way). I do think pointing out inconsistencies is a way to identify an argument that may have flaws. And I think when we are engaged in a moral argument about race, it can be very important if there are inconsistencies in how some people from a given group are being listened to and how other people from that same group are being listened to. I understand there are reasons why these inconsistencies are justified in some peoples minds. I haven't found those reasons very persuasive personally, but people can disagree with me. I was just making an observation regarding a point another poster had made. And I think the issue was a much larger one that the consistency side point I had been making (we are all guilty of inconsistency at some point, myself included, so I don't think of it as a terminal point in the debate). 



> not come to a consensus or to uncover truth.




Some of this though there are just going to be different schools of thought on these issues and we may have to learn to live with that. I think the time for consensus for most people was long ago when all these arguments were initially laid out. At this point, most people, I think, have had time to weigh those arguments and reach their conclusions. I am sure some will change their minds or be persuaded by a new set of points here or there (or by a rephrasing of older points). But my worry in the hobby is around how divided we are becoming. And I think part of being in the hobby going forward is going to involve learning to post side by side with people who disagree with us on some of these thorny topics (or at the very least trying to understand where people are genuinely coming from). In these latest rounds of conversations I have tried to be a lot more charitable in my judgment of people arguing for positions I disagree with. I doubt I will ever agree with them. But I can at least try to understand they probably think they are coming from just as good of a place as I think I am coming.


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 3, 2022)

Haiku Elvis said:


> Going back to Asia more specifically using Japan as a bellwether for anything pan-asian even if designed to be mainly Japanese inspired, isnt a good idea as it again asumes it's all kinda the same thing. Ask a Japanese person if the term "Asiajin" (Asian person) in Japanese includes Japanese people and they'll be offended.
> Japanese people like the British judge a lot of their standing in the world based on how much attention the US gives them and tend to be quite forgiving with how it is portrayed.
> The Last Samurai was very popular in Japan despite the inaccuracies and the whole white saviour thing as the japanese characters were portrayed well and the actors in it got a lot of respect and attention in the US. Whereas in the same year Lost in Translation was greeted kind of negatively as it is based on the premise of ooh look Japan is so strange,  which was kind of insulting to a lot of Japanese people and Memoires of a Geisha shortly afterwards went down like a lead balloon after they cast a Chinese actoress in the main role but the book had been fairly popular.
> Getting actual Japanese people to test your game is good but assuming that means it's then Asian approved is just another way of saying "but you're all the same aren't you" when you get down to it.



In my development of my published Kaidan setting of Japanese Horror (PFRPG), I made emphasis that Kaidan (like Japan) is an island nation, a defining characteristic of Japanese culture - Japan is exactly geographically defined as an archipelago. In other fantasy Japan depictions of a large landlocked nation surrounded by mountains and the sea - is a depiction of China. Landlocked nations that trade or have even infrequent encounters with other peoples, do not have the same sense of otherness, that islanders do. The Chinese and Japanese have a close historical relationship (often not a good one). The concept of "the other" from a Japanese point of view, is anything not from Japan. There are some shared ideas between China and Japan (ie: Buddhism), even shared genetics, but they are very different people, each with unique history thousands of years old. You cannot conflate one with the other. The sense of "the other" was a defining aspect of Kaidan, so I kept it an archipelago, not a fantasy China, geographically speaking.


----------



## Mordhau (Feb 3, 2022)

Legend of the Five Rings does this weird thing where it wants to keep the Japanese diet centred around sea food, (and goes even stricter by putting prohibitions on meat) but in a China like empire.  

It really doesn't make sense for people hundreds of kilometres inland to forgo meat for a diet of fish.

But this isn't just an Asian setting thing.

The thing that bothers me is the sheer ubiquity of Japan in anything gaming related compared to anything else in Asia.

You would think with the popularity of Wuxia, and the thousands of years of history and fantastical fiction like Journey to the West to draw from, that something more would at least have been done with a China based setting at some point by someone.  (Plus a lot of the material from Wuxia just seems flat out closer to D&D than a lot of Japanese sources of inspiration).  But it's always Japan.  Search for things like Asian theme battlemaps and assets and the like, and they're almost always based on Japan.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 3, 2022)

Mordhau said:


> You would think with the popularity of Wuxia, and the thousands of years of history and fantastical fiction like Journey to the West to draw from, that something more would at least have been done with a China based setting at some point by someone.  (Plus a lot of the material from Wuxia just seems flat out closer to D&D than a lot of Japanese sources of inspiration).  But it's always Japan.  Search for things like Asian theme battlemaps and assets and the like, and they're almost always based on Japan.




There are quite a few: Tianxia, Weapons of the Gods, Qin, Hearts of Wulin, Art of Wuxia, etc


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 3, 2022)

MGibster said:


> And if it's problematic for some, so what?  I don't mean that to sound flippant, but there's almost always going to be a small group of people who find something problematic.  It seems fairly sensible that if a lot of people find something problematic we should push for change.  But if only a small percentage of people find something problematic what then? From where I'm sitting, I don't care if the samurai is reductive or historically inaccurate any more than I care about the Druid in D&D or the knight in _Pendragon.  _So when someone tells me the samurai is reductive and historically inaccurate I can agree, but what then?  Is it still okay for me to enjoy the character class?  Is it okay for a game published in the United States to include such a samurai?



Sigh.

How many offended folks is the bar for something to be problematic? You assume it's a "small group" regarding the samurai . . . .

The reductive stereotype of the samurai isn't a uniquely Western stereotype applied to Japanese culture, it also exists within Japanese culture. How different the current Japanese stereotype is from the Western one I'm not sure . . . 

Folks have commented on it, and expressed their views it is problematic to some degree, both within and without of the D&D game. How many? I don't know, there hasn't been a survey I'm aware of. I also don't care.

It's not a "small group". Is it a majority? A large minority? And again, where do we draw the line before we acknowledge the problem?


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 3, 2022)

Mordhau said:


> (Plus a lot of the material from Wuxia just seems flat out closer to D&D than a lot of Japanese sources of inspiration).  But it's always Japan.  Search for things like Asian theme battlemaps and assets and the like, and they're almost always based on Japan.



Oh, I don't disagree. I created a fantasy Japan, because it's what I know - I mean I know lots of nuance and put it into the setting. I don't have nuanced knowledge of China, nor any other part of Asia. I know as much as most westerners know of the rest of Asia, but that's not nuance. Regarding the oddball (at least from a western point of view) folklore of Japan... Kaidan is a horror setting, and I presented such things as kappa with a sense of horror, despite being a turtle-like frog-like being that has almost a comical aspect. My kappa have more an air of something to fear rather than to laugh at, even as a player character race. It's still odd, but have a sense of being less than a comical character.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 3, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> Sigh.
> 
> How many offended folks is the bar for something to be problematic? You assume it's a "small group" regarding the samurai . . . .
> 
> ...



You can acknowledge the problem while still going on with the continued use. This happens a lot in academia where you can acknowledge known limitations in your work up front (in game products a foreword or sidebar). It doesn’t mean the work isnt still worth making.

As for where we draw the line? Well that depends on the publisher and what the current Overton window is for good taste in the TTRPG world.

I’d suggest something would have to be pretty grossly offensive to not be made at all. It’s not enough to simply criticize or disapprove of a way a product has been handled. Why? Because not everyone agrees on what is problematic and not everyone feels strongly even when it is agreed. There are movements within the rpg industry advocating for different things that might influence overall thought but there are by no means a defined code for what’s in and what’s out. This isn’t a student union where concrete decisions are made by the few dozen folks who turn up to a motion. it’s a world wide industry with tens of millions of consumers and thousands of producers.

Ultimately you have to make an editorial decision. I’d suggest asking a few questions. Starting with will the benefit gained to publishing it outweighs the negative effects of publishing it? Probably a bit obvious but this is the overall judgement you need to make.


How intrinsic was the problematic element to the work?
Will the subsequent advocates for the work outweigh the detractors to the point where the product will get traction?
Are detractors going to be in your target market?
Will problematic elements prevent you later expanding into new markets that you hope to work in?
Do detractors need specialist expertise to see the issue as problematic or would any reasonable person reach that point with a small amount of explanation?
Is the problematic point an established fact or is it still an area for debate?
Are other publishers already using the problematic elements in question? How were they received? Is it an industry standard?
What have you got to lose if you take a risk and get it wrong?
Incidentally I would describe an advocate simply as someone who would recommend the product as a whole. A detractor as someone who would actively not recommend.

As an example let’s take the campaign product Odyssey of the Dragonlords, by Arcanum Worlds as an example. I’ve seen criticism in one review that the history of setting involves a colonizing force that the PCs assist and support against the indigenous folks in the campaign setting. It isn’t quite as clear cut as that: the game actually has the PCs work extensively (and even play) indigenous races. It’s the indigenous gods that the PCs are set against (who are unremittingly evil and exploitative even of their own people) not the people themselves. The colonizers were migratory not exploitative. The work sets the original colonizers as a mix of villains and good folks and pits the PCs against some of them. Despite these motivations at least one reviewer felt that element was bad enough to mention in a review and I would describe them as a detractor.


The element was intrinsic to the setting and the story they were telling.
This level criticism seems to be fairly unique - limited to a small number of reviewers (possibly just one)
They probably are in the target market though.
There aren’t any intended target markets this is likely to excluded from.
One would need a degree of expertise to understand why this would be an issue. A lay person today would need it explaining at length I think. Particularly with the mitigating points I made.
The area is still a matter for debate. Not whether colonization is good or not, but whether we can tell stories using that trope.
It is a common trope in rpg games.
This was a newly formed design house - albeit working a massive publisher.

All in all. I think they were right to publish the work. It’s success and the intended follow up Raiders of the Savage Sea is testament to the fact that the gamble paid off and was well received. If Arcanum Worlds hadn’t produced the work - despite this criticism - then we would have missed out on an awesome adventure.


----------



## Mordhau (Feb 3, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> There are quite a few: Tianxia, Weapons of the Gods, Qin, Hearts of Wulin, Art of Wuxia, etc



Rpgs yes.  I guess I was thinking specifically in the D&D sphere.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 3, 2022)

MGibster said:


> And if it's problematic for some, so what?  I don't mean that to sound flippant, but there's almost always going to be a small group of people who find something problematic.  It seems fairly sensible that if a lot of people find something problematic we should push for change.  But if only a small percentage of people find something problematic what then? From where I'm sitting, I don't care if the samurai is reductive or historically inaccurate any more than I care about the Druid in D&D or the knight in _Pendragon.  _So when someone tells me the samurai is reductive and historically inaccurate I can agree, but what then?  Is it still okay for me to enjoy the character class?  Is it okay for a game published in the United States to include such a samurai?




It seems to me your fixation on the samurai, and the number of people who find it problematic, and your question about whether it's ok for you to enjoy such a class (short answer: yes), suggests you don't actually understand the issues with OA.

I mean, ok, I'm sure you can find somebody, somewhere, saying the popularity of the samurai is a problem.  But even in this thread it has been explained multiple times what the larger concerns about OA are.  And it's not the popularity of the samurai.

Here's how I personally see the issue:

1. There's a staggering amount of racism in the U.S. against asian, or asian-american, people.  (And the following line of reasoning applies to all other groups facing discrimination, ethnic or otherwise.)

2. So called "positive" stereotypes (e.g., asians are good at math) seem harmless, or even beneficial, but all stereotypes support the (false) notion that there are correlations between ethnicities and genetic proclivities, and _that_ belief is dangerous.  E.g., if you are willing to believe that asians are genetically good at math, you're also more likely to believe they are genetically not creative.  (My 8th grade history teacher, Mrs. Hosman....1921-2005...actually said that "the Japanese are like monkeys: they are really good at copying others."  I was not sufficiently shocked at the time.)

3. There are a number of elements of OA which propagate stereotypes, including the "exotic" trope.  

4. OA also, as has been mentioned repeatedly in just this thread, simultaneously bases Kara Tur off of all of Asia, and inserts Japanese culture into the entirety.  Given that much of the 20th century involved Japan trying to do exactly that, often very brutally, and that there are many people who have first hand memory of those atrocities, and even more people whose parents and grandparents were affected, this is...shockingly insensitive.

5. While quite a few people of Asian descent think this all is shrug-worthy, there are also a number of people who seem genuinely bothered by this, and feel that it demonstrates a generally dismissive/disrespectful attitude toward their experience.

6. In general I think it's more noble to try to not do/say/write hurtful things, and I also am all for making as many people as possible feel welcome in gaming.

7. Although I think I care about these problems, in general I don't do much about it if it involves personal sacrifice.  I don't send my kids to public school.  I just bought a house in a town where housing costs are a serious problem, just because I thought it would be fun to live here.  I would vote to increase taxes on my income bracket, but in the meantime I'm not giving away that money.  And so on.  I feel a little uneasy about some of my choices, but honestly I'm most focused on giving my own kids as many advantages as possible.

8. But here are people asking me to sacrifice something utterly negligible: they are asking me to not support the kind of stereotypes presented in OA.  (And to re-think orcs and drow, and frown on chainmail bikinis, etc.). I don't really know that any of this will make any difference, but my response is, "Ok, fine.  If the sacrifice you are asking is that I very slightly adjust my make-believe game about elves and dragons, THAT I can do."  And I'm kind of ashamed that's all I'm really doing.  

And it just astounds me that there are people who aren't even willing to do that much, without kicking and screaming and demanding peer-reviewed data and predicting parade-of-horribles consequences and basically looking for any excuse they can find to deny there's a problem.  And if they don't have all the advantages and privileges that I do, but are members of a group that have and do suffer discrimination, I find it even more astounding.  

I honestly have a hard time finding a generous explanation for that behavior.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 3, 2022)

gamerprinter said:


> Oh, I don't disagree. I created a fantasy Japan, because it's what I know - I mean I know lots of nuance and put it into the setting. I don't have nuanced knowledge of China, nor any other part of Asia. I know as much as most westerners know of the rest of Asia, but that's not nuance. Regarding the oddball (at least from a western point of view) folklore of Japan... Kaidan is a horror setting, and I presented such things as kappa with a sense of horror, despite being a turtle-like frog-like being that has almost a comical aspect. My kappa have more an air of something to fear rather than to laugh at, even as a player character race. It's still odd, but have a sense of being less than a comical character.



And it's very well done too.  

But, yeah, the issue of Asia=Japan has a lot of historical reasons.  Pop culture being a huge one.  Hollywood bought into the whole ninja/samurai schtick for a very long time.  Power Rangers and Sailor Moon.  Going all the way back to Godzilla and Gatchaman.  Most of us who grew up watching American TV, saw "Fantasy Japan" on TV far more than "Fantasy China" or "Fantasy India".  Never minding places like Korea or the Phillipines.  Outside of MASH, has anything referenced Korea?  

Granted, now, we're seeing a HUGE explosion of K-pop and other Korean culture stuff being exported.  My Netflix cue is full of stuff out of Korea.  Some of it pretty damn good.  I mean, Squid Game was pretty darn cool.  

Rolling that back into the 80's or even the late 90's/early Oughts when the original OA and the 3e OA were being written, and it's not really all that surprising to see "Fantasy Asia=Fantasy Japan".  Doesn't excuse it, mind you, but, it's not exactly shocking either.


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 3, 2022)

I'm fascinated with Indian culture and religion, for example, and would love to visit a setting in such an analog, done well. I lack the nuance needed to give it any kind of justice, myself, thus wouldn't take on the task, as I don't qualify. I'm not strictly a Japanophile, just having a deep love of my heritage, a love of folklore and an avid gamer - I've simply absorbed Japan more than the others, not for the same reasons as the rest of the west. And I don't mean to keep plugging Kaidan, but it's my closest link to this thread, because both OA and Ravenloft were in mind as I conceived it. Kaidan is unique and not really either of those, just some inspiration.


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 3, 2022)

While the samurai were all trained with the weapons of the occupation and served a master, the Bushi are a social caste, moreso than the imperial military. The managerial class of society in feudal Japan - the accountants, the lawyers, the politicians; the professional class were the samurai. Certainly the actual military were samurai, aside from conscripted fighters. There is a hierarchy within ranks of the samurai. The hatamoto bannermen of the Shogun, although considered highest ranking, had a political animosity to other samurai, that led to actual armed conflicts between them. Jizamurai, on the other hand, were farmer samurai. Literally a commoner who performed admirably as a conscript in a war for their lord, and was granted samurai status, but without the pay a lord provides his samurai. They live on the wage of a farmer (60% taxed), are required to own the daisho (katana and wakizashi), possess all various "uniforms" - specific colors of garments, for specific social events - which is expensive, especially to a farmer. Technically, the lowest rank of samurai is the street cop - the police of feudal Japan were samurai (outside of the redlight/theater districts of cities which are policed by yakuza, believe it or not). So my perception of samurai is waaay different than some of the comments in this thread about them. They aren't as romantic and admirable as you seem to think...

Unlike laws between nobles and commoners in the west, in Japan, samurai were expected to know the law and obey them. Punishments to samurai were harsher than punishments to commoners. A commoner that commits arson is beaten, usually killed, but not always. A samurai who commits arson is burned alive.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 3, 2022)

Mordhau said:


> Rpgs yes.  I guess I was thinking specifically in the D&D sphere.




I think Louis Porter Jr, put something to a while back


----------



## MGibster (Feb 3, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> How many offended folks is the bar for something to be problematic? You assume it's a "small group" regarding the samurai . . . .



I wouldn't say it's a bar but it's certainly a factor.  Like the saying goes, you can't please everyone and you will almost always find some people unhappy with the way something is presented.  And, yes, I assume it's a small group because, like I said, this is the version of the samurai as presented to us by Japanese movies.  



Dire Bare said:


> It's not a "small group". Is it a majority? A large minority? And again, where do we draw the line before we acknowledge the problem?



I wish I knew the answer to this but I don't so it's something I wrestle with.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 3, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> It seems to me your fixation on the samurai, and the number of people who find it problematic, and your question about whether it's ok for you to enjoy such a class (short answer: yes), suggests you don't actually understand the issues with OA.



I wouldn't call it a fixation, but okay.  And, yes, I understand the issues with OA and find most of the complaints to be valid.  


Bill Zebub said:


> I mean, ok, I'm sure you can find somebody, somewhere, saying the popularity of the samurai is a problem. But even in this thread it has been explained multiple times what the larger concerns about OA are. And it's not the popularity of the samurai.



Yes.  I get that.  I've acknowledged that more than once and I'll acknowledge it again.  



Bill Zebub said:


> But here are people asking me to sacrifice something utterly negligible: they are asking me to not support the kind of stereotypes presented in OA. (And to re-think orcs and drow, and frown on chainmail bikinis, etc.).



And I don't think I'm one of those people.  I've repeatedly said that I recognize the problematic aspects of OA.  But while I broadly agree with the criticisms of OA, it doesn't follow that I agree with all the criticisms.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 3, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> 8. But here are people asking me to sacrifice something utterly negligible: they are asking me to not support the kind of stereotypes presented in OA. (And to re-think orcs and drow, and frown on chainmail bikinis, etc.). I don't really know that any of this will make any difference, but my response is, "Ok, fine. If the sacrifice you are asking is that I very slightly adjust my make-believe game about elves and dragons, THAT I can do." And I'm kind of ashamed that's all I'm really doing.
> 
> And it just astounds me that there are people who aren't even willing to do that much, without kicking and screaming and demanding peer-reviewed data and predicting parade-of-horribles consequences and basically looking for any excuse they can find to deny there's a problem.  And if they don't have all the advantages and privileges that I do, but are members of a group that have and do suffer discrimination, I find it even more astounding.




Will try to respond to your other points later as you took the time to lay them out clearly and I think they warrant a reaction. I just wanted get to this one while I have a few moments. Hopefully my thoughts on this are well organized I think part of the issue here is, it is easy for someone on my side to read your post and do so in bad faith or uncharitably. But I also think this swings the other way. I am sure both sides of this discussion have a small number of jerks who either are just interested in controlling art or exploiting sensitivity to self aggrandize, or as you say people on my side of the discussion who just want to be horrible....but I think that is probably a very narrow sliver of the people involved. Most of the posters seem genuinely concerned about issues arising out of this on both ends. And it is leading them to different places. What to you is utterly negligible, to others is a very serious issue of free creativity and expression. And it isn't rooted in a desire to promote bad stereotypes, it is more rooted in disagreements over what content constitutes that, how pristine content needs to be, and whether it is okay for things written in the past that do have those things to exist and to be understood within the context of their time. There is also concern about problems being misidentified, exaggerated, etc. I am not saying you have to agree with all these things. I just think what is really going on is a genuine disagreement over some very core assumptions (and not a disagreement over whether a particular group of people should be treated well and should be made welcome). A lot of this debate, I think to many of us, rings a lot like "won't someone think about the children", where changes are demanded by a small group of people who are bothered, but the concern is, are those changes really improving anything or are they leading to less creativity, less interesting concepts, etc. 

I can give a perfect example outside this topic: mob cinema. My grandfather used to get Italian American magazine and they would constantly have ads or articles in there condemning movies about the mafia or games about the mob, excuse they thought it promoted a harmful stereotype about Italians. But my grandfather loved mafia movies. I love mafia movies. Some of the greatest artistic achievements by Italian Americans relate to things like mafia-inspired novels, mafia films, etc. If the small group of Italian Americans who opposed that stuff got their way, you might not have Mean Streets, The Godfather or Goodfellas. And that was all being done in the name of something doing 'harm'. But I think the issue is, these things are usually more complicated than one side being super evil and one side being super righteous. Generally I come down in favor of free artistic expression.


----------



## GreyLord (Feb 3, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> A few of us do keep recommending the Asians Represent podcast, true. But the podcast shouldn't be seen as the definitive resource on what is or isn't wrong with Oriental Adventures . . . but it is a good start, it is informative, and it's a good way to start getting a feel for how some in the Asian community view these types of work.
> 
> And . . . there's not a lot of other resources out there to point you towards. At least, not that I'm aware of. Doesn't mean it's just the folks of Asians Represent that have issues with OA, they're just the first to do a detailed analysis of it. Again, to my knowledge.
> 
> ...




There ARE other sources.  I've been trying to say that when I've made statements in the thread.

The PROBLEM is that they do NOT AGREE with what the youtube videos are talking about...and I think because of that NO ONE here that agrees with those youtubers wants to actually LOOK at the issues or the actual items in them.

It is a multi-faceted issue...and much more complex.  MANY would see those youtubers as actually PROMOTING the ideals of racists that want to ERASE Asian culture itself, OR ACT as a proxy in the tensions between the Americas and China (and other parts of Asia) currently.

OA criticism is merely a symptom of a MUCH LARGER issue that is currently ongoing within the Asian-American community at large.  Many of the younger generation are jumping on a bandwagon that many of the older generation see as unnecessary or even frivolous.  AT times, not only do they not agree, they refuse to go along with the younger generation's insistence of things.  Not all of the younger generation is on the bandwagon either (respect of elders is actually still a thing in some societies).  The older you get, the less of that generation are on the bandwagon (so, you have some elderly that are with the entire protest movement, but it's far smaller than the percentage of the youth).

A LOT of it is seen that the younger  generation simply does NOT understand what it means to be Chinese, or Japanese, or any sort of individual from East-Asia.  Even those who visit just do not get the culture.  They are..."Very American" to put it lightly.  Ironically, this means that the greatest amount of discrimination they may actually get is NOT from fellow Americans, but from other East Asians if they go to those nations from which their heritage derives.  They do not see...eye to eye. 

The criticism of OA is just a small indicator of a much wider disparity among the community presently, one that is NOT hard to find or read about if one is actually seeking to UNDERSTAND the greater underlying issues in the debate.

I imagine in the Americas, eventually, the younger generations opinions will attain a bigger foothold and become the dominant opinion, but it will still be awhile because they will have to wait for the older generations (The ones that actually came here and paved he way for them, made the sacrifices, and put down the foundations) die off. 

Part of it is trying to find their OWN identity in the Americas and determine how that identity will be and how they will work with it.  They aren't truly part of their ancestoral nation's heritage anymore and aren't really accepted back into those nations as full individuals, but at the same time there is an inherent racist element in America that also acts against them.  The younger generation is forging their way into creating an identity that hopefully, will make them equal to others eventually.  HOW this is done and how they approach it is different from individual to individual.  It is still being forged.  EVENTUALLY I think those like the people appearing on the youtube video series will be the ones who determine what this identity IS...but it's still a generation or two off.

I cannot do it justice (even my description above is FAR too simple of an explanation, it is FAR too complex of an issue to really discuss in detail here) on the various aspects and complexities of the many and varied views on the issues.  There are so many different aspects and views on it that there is no one voice that I could point to and say...this is it...listen to this. 

So, yes, there are those that will complain about things like OA and they will find similar voices to their own to agree with them.  They are a SINGLE voice on an issue which has dozens if not hundreds of other voices and views.  It's not as simple as simply saying....listen to this youtube video series and you will have a foundation.  It doesn't give you a foundation in squat.  It doesn't give you a good start...in fact, it may actually give you a FALSE start if you are using it as the foundation of where to start.  It tells you ONE POINT of view of dozens, many which disagree STRONGLY with the ideas that youtube video series is presenting.  It doesn't really address the ACTUAL issues behind why they are criticizing OA, even while utilizing OA and other items as tools to promote their viewpoints.  The actual ISSUES are what are the point in some ways, but most won't even KNOW what they are if they just use those videos as a "starting point."

There are many different variants and views.  Some which may align somewhat with the views of the video series, some which agree with some points, disagree with others, and some which are the opposite of what the series is promoting.  Going in and thinking that these guys are a good start to understanding the issue is a mistake from the beginning.  It explains THEIR viewpoints, which is ONE PART of the entire equation, but really ignores the views of many others who do not agree with them on the very basis of the argument they are pushing (which is a LOT bigger than OA.  OA is simply a tool that is being used in a small part of it to sort of push their viewpoint on the issue).


----------



## Voadam (Feb 3, 2022)

Mordhau said:


> Rpgs yes.  I guess I was thinking specifically in the D&D sphere.



There was the free official Dragon Fist AD&D 2e variant game by Chris Pramas. It was late 2e and only online but fairly fantastic. It was a fantasy Chinese martial arts setting inspired by a lot of Honk Kong martial arts and fantasy/monster/ghost movies so a lot of evil sorcerers, hopping vampires, and everybody gets some cool D&D martial arts.

Very deliberately and explicitly Fantasy China martial arts action movie tropes heavy.

Zero samurai or feudal Japanese honor overlay.

It was a little higher powered than baseline D&D so a bit like 2e Diablo.

It also flipped THACO to an attack bonus against ascending AC in D&D before 3e.

It used to be free from WotC's website but I doubt they still host it. Worth checking out if you can find it.


----------



## Irlo (Feb 3, 2022)

I saw and/or listened to only a few hours of the 26-hour series, skipping around a lot and sometimes not paying attention as I washed dishes or cooked dinner, so I don't have a full picture. The point of the show, I thought, was to voice their impressions of the OA books from a few different perspectives. No one pretended to speak with one voice for all Asians, did they? (Maybe I missed something.) For me, it was an opportunity to hear some ideas about books that I enjoyed and recognized as sketchy.


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 3, 2022)

While this it was created for Pathfinder, specifically, and not D&D - I still say it's "in the D&D sphere". Rite Publishinng, who published my Kaidan setting, also published Heroes of the Jade Oath, with a China analog map, and cleaves closer to China history/mythology than OA. You might not count Pathfinder settings as "D&D sphere" but I do.


----------



## Deset Gled (Feb 3, 2022)

ryu289 said:


> But what are your thoughs...was it that bad back in ye olden times?




I'm going back to the OP to bring up a point that I think people have lost sight of in the past few pages.  Specifically, the concept of "ye olden times".

The first OA was published in 1985, which was 37 years ago.  By contrast, 37 years before 1985 was 1948.

1948 was just post WWII, and pre-equal rights movement.  In 1985, that was recent enough that people who lived through those events were still alive, but an entire epoch of racial awareness had taken place in between.  I am confident the writers of the original OA felt like they were not being racist.  At the very least, they could compare themselves to people who wrote about Asian fantasy/culture in 1948 and say "we did better".  I am also confident that if we tried to re-write OA today, we could do better.  37 years from now, I hope authors can do better than us.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 3, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Here's how I personally see the issue:
> 
> 1. There's a staggering amount of racism in the U.S. against asian, or asian-american, people.  (And the following line of reasoning applies to all other groups facing discrimination, ethnic or otherwise.)




I am in agreement that racism is bad. And I think most others are. People probably disagree on the degree and where exactly the problems lie, but things like the violent attacks on asian people in the US are a big concern to me. Where I might disagree with you is what causes this, whether something like an RPG is part of the problem (and whether altering tropes, or putting warnings on old products will change that). I do think this is a problem. And it is one I am personally quite concerned about.



> 2. So called "positive" stereotypes (e.g., asians are good at math) seem harmless, or even beneficial, but all stereotypes support the (false) notion that there are correlations between ethnicities and genetic proclivities, and _that_ belief is dangerous.  E.g., if you are willing to believe that asians are genetically good at math, you're also more likely to believe they are genetically not creative.  (My 8th grade history teacher, Mrs. Hosman....1921-2005...actually said that "the Japanese are like monkeys: they are really good at copying others."  I was not sufficiently shocked at the time.)




Two things on this one. I think positive stereotypes can be an issue, but I don't think they are always one...at least they aren't the same as negative stereotypes. My dad's side of the family is Jewish and when that has come up I haven't minded people saying "Oh so you must be really smart then". It is a stereotype. But I feel different about that than someone saying something like "You are tricky" (which I have encountered once). The issue of genetics is another topic too. I don't think of these things as genetic, I can see cultural reasons for these things. I think most people my age, because a lot of the racism that remained when we were kids was based on old racialist theories and so much of the bad history around stuff like the holocaust was rooted in things like eugenics, we tend to really be wary of genetic claims to cultural differences. I see any differences that do exist as cultural, not a product of blood or genes.

What your teacher said would have shocked me (even as a kid in the 80s). That is pretty awful.



> 3. There are a number of elements of OA which propagate stereotypes, including the "exotic" trope.




I agree there are stereotypical things in OA. I am not saying it is perfect. There were some criticisms of it in the prior discussion I agreed with. I also think it was, in many ways, ahead of its time, while also a product of it. Like a lot of older things it also used language or made assumptions you wouldn't see today. I think the way to handle that is to understand when you look at books from the past, those things are going to be present. But I also think it is a lot more complicated than many of the criticisms made it out to be (as posters like @Snarf Zagyg  have pointed out). And it was a significant book. It is an important part of D&D history. As well as being a very well made one in my opinion (it may have flaws, especially through a lens brought by people living today, but is also have a  lot of value: I would like to continue to be able to see it in its entirety---and think people should have access to it. Now obviously the end result was not its removal, but that wasn't clear as an outcome when this conversation first started.

On exotic. I am not as moved by that particular argument. I think it can very much go overboard. But exotic is just something that is unfamiliar or foreign and novel to your experience. One of the appeals of French cinema for instance if you are American is it feels exotic at first. Now that fades with time. But it is a legitimate feeling one has. Trying to depict a setting as exotic compared to the standard expectations in fantasy, that doesn't trouble me. But I do think with exposure, things just do feel less exotic the more familiar they become to people.






> 4. OA also, as has been mentioned repeatedly in just this thread, simultaneously bases Kara Tur off of all of Asia, and inserts Japanese culture into the entirety.  Given that much of the 20th century involved Japan trying to do exactly that, often very brutally, and that there are many people who have first hand memory of those atrocities, and even more people whose parents and grandparents were affected, this is...shockingly insensitive.



This really seems like a reach to me. I can sort of understand complaints that it is a pastiche of asian culture (I think those complaints are misguided as pastiche, in my view, is  perfectly acceptable aesthetic) but to argue that by prioritizing Japanese tropes, it was perpetuating Japanese Imperialism from earlier in the century.....that really makes no sense. I don't think anyone in their right mind would read Oriental Adventures and see it as an endorsement of Japanese occupation of Korea or China for example. This is the kind of argument that you really have to squint hard to see. By the time you get to the 80s, the reason the book is using so much Japanese material is because Japanese martial arts tropes were everywhere in the culture (there was the ninja craze, the Shogun Miniseries, karate was everywhere, etc).



> 5. While quite a few people of Asian descent think this all is shrug-worthy, there are also a number of people who seem genuinely bothered by this, and feel that it demonstrates a generally dismissive/disrespectful attitude toward their experience.




I don't disagree with this point. But I don't think people within group A disagreeing over whether X is a problem, means it is automatically a problem (see the point about mafia tropes in my other post). And I don't think anyone is saying none of the criticisms are valid. But not everyone agrees with the critical lens that has been applied here, and importantly some think the solutions proposed can do more harm than good



> 6. In general I think it's more noble to try to not do/say/write hurtful things, and I also am all for making as many people as possible feel welcome in gaming.




I don't think we should be hurtful or hateful towards anyone. But I also think we've developed so many nuanced rules around these kinds of issues, that it has reached a point where people don't even know what words they can use and how to speak. It has gone from "be respectful" to "you must follow this elaborate code of etiquette to not offend" or you literally have to hire people to edit your material for offensive content (sensitivity readers). I don't think that is a real open and honest exchange of ideas or a good way to go about making art, literary works or games. Don't be a jerk, for sure, but also fairly judge whether someone is being a jerk, or if they just inadvertently crossed an invisible line. To me it feels more like we are stifling creativity than we are actually combating racism. 




> 7. Although I think I care about these problems, in general I don't do much about it if it involves personal sacrifice.  I don't send my kids to public school.  I just bought a house in a town where housing costs are a serious problem, just because I thought it would be fun to live here.  I would vote to increase taxes on my income bracket, but in the meantime I'm not giving away that money.  And so on.  I feel a little uneasy about some of my choices, but honestly I'm most focused on giving my own kids as many advantages as possible.




One thing to keep in mind is many of us are not coming from the place you are here. Many of us are not in that kind of financial position at all. And I think that colors these conversations a lot

In terms of sacrifice. I don't know what to make of this comment without seeing what you are specifically talking about sacrificing.






> 8. But here are people asking me to sacrifice something utterly negligible: they are asking me to not support the kind of stereotypes presented in OA.  (And to re-think orcs and drow, and frown on chainmail bikinis, etc.). I don't really know that any of this will make any difference, but my response is, "Ok, fine.  If the sacrifice you are asking is that I very slightly adjust my make-believe game about elves and dragons, THAT I can do."  And I'm kind of ashamed that's all I'm really doing.




The stuff with drow, the stuff with orcs, even the stuff with OA, it isn't support of stereotypes. A lot of the criticisms by posters on the other side of the discussion are more about: are orcs really a stand in for black people, are drow really a for black people, are chainmail bikinis so awful we shouldn't ever see them, etc. Again a lot of us lived through the whole PMRC thing in the 80s, and lived through the moral panic of the satanic panic. Our point of view is probably shaped by an understanding that people frequently misunderstand art, frequently read only surface level when it comes to tropes, and often fail to understand things like irony in these discussions. And we prioritize things like artistic and creative freedom (while also not liking racism). A lot of these kinds of arguments have been made before to file off the rough edges of things. But I do believe that filing tends to make things a lot less interesting on the whole. And when it comes to OA, we are talking about how we see and what we do with a historic book (not a new edition of OA coming out next week).


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 3, 2022)

My connection to Japan's escapades in northern China, prior WW2. My great, grandfather was an elite physician - our family were doctors (commoners) who served the the house of the daimyo in Matsue, Japan (sea of Japan side) for 700 years. He owned a farm, 3 houses, and his family residence. When the "heroes" were coming home from Manchuria, the Japanese government promised each veteran a plot of land and a home as payment. However, the Japanese government didn't own any land to give. Officials came to my great grand father's house and other people like him, and told him they were seizing his farm, and 3 other homes. He could keep his residence and his medical clinic/office. In exchange, all his 6 sons were exempt from military service to Japan. My youngest great uncle, his son, said "the hell with that" and joined the Japanese army as a physician and was killed at Iwo Jima. None of the rest of my family, including my grandfather fought in WW2. None fought in China.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 3, 2022)

Long post, so I'm just going to pull out a couple of things...


Bedrockgames said:


> Two things on this one. I think positive stereotypes can be an issue, but I don't think they are always one...at least they aren't the same as negative stereotypes. My dad's side of the family is Jewish and when that has come up I haven't minded people saying "Oh so you must be really smart then". It is a stereotype. But I feel different about that than someone saying something like "You are tricky"




I guess you feel differently, but where I come out is that if it's ok to say Jews are smart, it is opening the door to "all Jews are X" being logically valid.  And X won't always be positive.

So, no, I don't think positive stereotypes are positive.  I mean, sure, I'd rather be called smart than lazy, but I don't want either label simply because of my ethnicity.




Bedrockgames said:


> On exotic. I am not as moved by that particular argument. I think it can very much go overboard. But exotic is just something that is unfamiliar or foreign and novel to your experience.




Even when I was in college in the 80's, asian women I was friends with would describe to me how they were objectified as sex objects and the challenges that created to being taken seriously in academia and business, but in a way that differed from a similar experience of western women.  'Exotic' is the closest word they had to explain the difference.




Bedrockgames said:


> A lot of the criticisms by posters on the other side of the discussion are more about: are orcs really a stand in for black people, are drow really a for black people,




Maybe you are seeing different posts than I am, but what I have seen is that people defending traditional D&D portrayal keep saying "orcs aren't a stand in for black people", and those on the other side saying, "No, you don't get it.  It's not about them being a stand-in for black people, it's about the language being used to describe them, and being used to justify slaughtering them and taking their stuff, is the same language that was used to justify enslaving black people (and killing indigenous people, etc.)"

And yet, somehow, the first group still keeps coming back to the same red herring argument, endlessly.  I don't get it.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 3, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Long post, so I'm just going to pull out a couple of things...
> 
> 
> I guess you feel differently, but where I come out is that if it's ok to say Jews are smart, it is opening the door to "all Jews are X" being logically valid.  And X won't always be positive.
> ...




I am not saying it is good. I am saying it is not my biggest priority compared with negative stereotypes, and that it is complicated (in the case of the people saying "you must be smart" in some instances it was well-intentioned and an attempt to be friendly or polite.....but someone calling you tricky, that gets into much more concerning and bigoted territory: I do agree people can move from positive to negative, it does open a door.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 3, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Even when I was in college in the 80's, asian women I was friends with would describe to me how they were objectified as sex objects and the challenges that created to being taken seriously in academia and business, but in a way that differed from a similar experience of western women.  'Exotic' is the closest word they had to explain the difference.




i very much agree with there being a problem when it comes to how a lot of American guys view Asian women. And I think that is probably too large a conversation for this thread. Like I said, saying things are exotic can be an issue, but most of the time we are talking about meanings like "this architecture is interesting and unfamiliar". That is a lot different, and a genuine response to something new.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 3, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Maybe you are seeing different posts than I am, but what I have seen is that people defending traditional D&D portrayal keep saying "orcs aren't a stand in for black people", and those on the other side saying, "No, you don't get it.  It's not about them being a stand-in for black people, it's about the language being used to describe them, and being used to justify slaughtering them and taking their stuff, is the same language that was used to justify enslaving black people (and killing indigenous people, etc.)"
> 
> And yet, somehow, the first group still keeps coming back to the same red herring argument, endlessly.  I don't get it.




I don't want to relitigate this, but my point was people heard your argument but just didnt' agree with the conclusions you were drawing. Like you are making a straight line between killing orcs and the killing of indigenous people, and the posters on the other side were essentially saying they felt there really wasn't a connection there (other than people pointing to a linguistic pattern that had little to do with killing orcs in a game of D&D)


----------



## Irlo (Feb 3, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Like you are making a straight line between killing orcs and the killing of indigenous people,



No, that wasn't the argument.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 3, 2022)

Irlo said:


> No, that wasn't the argument.




Again, not trying to relitigate. Lots of arguments were made in those threads. My point was just that people saw the argument and simply reached a different conclusion. It wasn't because people were awful human beings or even because they had different political views than you, it was because they didn't think the argument being made was convincing.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 3, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> And yet, somehow, the first group still keeps coming back to the same red herring argument, endlessly.  I don't get it.




And to be clear here, I am not saying I think you have to agree with the arguments. Or that you have to agree with the points I am making. What I was saying is, you seem to be suggesting people are doing this either in bad faith, ro because they are bad people, or at least, you can't comprehend it (just basing this on how you've phrased this point in your recent posts). I think the answer is simply people disagree about this stuff. You can make an argument you think is sound, and you might think "if someone agrees with the points in this argument, and still reaches conclusion X, surely they are bad people". But the problem is a lot of times, people don't agree with the points (or some of the points) leading to the conclusion in the argument. So it is just two sides seeing the same phenomena, examining the same arguments and teaching very different conclusions. Like I said, there may be some jerks in the mix. But I think most people just see these issues a little differently from one another. I think it is important for us to learn to start living with that difference, because it really is getting to a point where it feels like people hate each other based on their views of gaming media.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 3, 2022)

At the end of the day, I think we're got near universal agreement that there are problems with OA and that a similar book published today should handle things differently.  That seems like progress to me.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 3, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't want to relitigate this, but my point was people heard your argument but just didnt' agree with the conclusions you were drawing. Like you are making a straight line between killing orcs and the killing of indigenous people, and the posters on the other side were essentially saying they felt there really wasn't a connection there (other than people pointing to a linguistic pattern that had little to do with killing orcs in a game of D&D)




First of all, it's isn't exactly a straight line from killing orcs to killing indigenous people.  The line goes:

Killing orcs <---- because they're stupid, primitive, promiscuous, savage == history of 'stupid, primitive, promiscuous, savage' being used to explain why some people are less human than we are ----> killing those people

Does that make sense?  It's not the parallel of the killing, it's the parallel of the justification language.

Also it doesn't really matter AT ALL if some people don't think there's a connection between those two things, especially if those people are not members of the groups we are discussing.  At least some members of those groups, and potentially a high percentage of them, do think there's a hurtful connection (not just in D&D or RPGs in general, but in any fiction).

And, even though I'm not in any of those groups, based on everything I've learned about psychology and trauma, I very much believe there's a relevant connection, and "being offended" or "being uncomfortable" doesn't do justice to the impact.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 3, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> First of all, it's isn't exactly a straight line from killing orcs to killing indigenous people.  The line goes:
> 
> Killing orcs <---- because they're stupid, primitive, promiscuous, savage == history of 'stupid, primitive, promiscuous, savage' being used to explain why some people are less human than we are ----> killing those people
> 
> ...




Fair enough, but can you see how some people might see this same argument, and hear these same points made by people, and still coming away seeing it differently (seeing the way orcs are handled as being harmless or trivial, or having a different read than you on what most people from those actual groups are saying)?


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 3, 2022)

MGibster said:


> At the end of the day, I think we're got near universal agreement that there are problems with OA and that a similar book published today should handle things differently.  That seems like progress to me.




Yes.  And even though I'm very much in the "OA is a huge embarrassment" camp, I'm not calling for censorship of the book.  Go ahead and trade used copies on the Internet.  I _do_ think WotC should not be selling digital copies, not because the government is forcing them to, or the mob is threatening them, but because it's an embarrassment.  And they _should_ be working on a new, massive tome of similar content, produced in collaboration with people who can guide them through the minefield of social and cultural issues.  

And when this new tome still has some flaws...which it will...we should point out those flaws, and discuss them, and say, "Yeah, but least WotC tried, and this is a HUGE improvement over OA.  The next one will be even better."


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 3, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> It's not the parallel of the killing, it's the parallel of the justification language.




And I think the view on the other side is one of two responses: 1) that parrellel doesn't matter if you are talking about fictional orcs in a fantasy setting, 2) It isn't truly a parallel 

Again I don't think you have to agree with these points, and I don't think its worth going over all this again in this thread. I just think its obvious people could have been in that argument, seen what you were saying and reached differing conclusions, not because of bad faith, or because they are bad people, but because they simply reach a different conclusion than you.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 3, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Fair enough, but can you see how some people might see this same argument, and hear these same points made by people, and still coming away seeing it differently (seeing the way orcs are handled as being harmless or trivial, or having a different read than you on what most people from those actual groups are saying)?




Yeah, I do fully expect that to happen.  And it boggles my mind that people, when they contrast their inability to imagine there's a problem with the fact of lots of people (of the ethnic groups involved) saying there _is_ a problem, conclude that all those other people must be lying or exaggerating.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 3, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> I'm not calling for censorship of the book.  Go ahead and trade used copies on the Internet.  I _do_ think WotC should not be selling digital copies, not because the government is forcing them to, or the mob is threatening them, but because it's an embarrassment.  And they _should_ be working on a new, massive tome of similar content, produced in collaboration with people who can guide them through the minefield of social and cultural issues.




I think it is harder though to buy used copies of first edition D&D books now. Ten or twenty years ago, I remember buying these books for pennies. Now collectors have made the prices quite high and some books you can't find. My view on these books is it is good for WOTC to be stewards of the old TSR books, not because everything in them is great, but because these are primary sources in gaming history and it has value to make cheap print and PDF versions available so people can use them both to shed light on the games they play, but also so they can analyze them for the purposes of engaging in the history of gaming (including people who want to take a more critical lens to the content).


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 3, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> And to be clear here, I am not saying I think you have to agree with the arguments. Or that you have to agree with the points I am making. What I was saying is, you seem to be suggesting people are doing this either in bad faith, ro because they are bad people, or at least, you can't comprehend it (just basing this on how you've phrased this point in your recent posts). I think the answer is simply people disagree about this stuff. You can make an argument you think is sound, and you might think "if someone agrees with the points in this argument, and still reaches conclusion X, surely they are bad people". But the problem is a lot of times, people don't agree with the points (or some of the points) leading to the conclusion in the argument. So it is just two sides seeing the same phenomena, examining the same arguments and teaching very different conclusions. Like I said, there may be some jerks in the mix. But I think most people just see these issues a little differently from one another. I think it is important for us to learn to start living with that difference, because it really is getting to a point where it feels like people hate each other based on their views of gaming media.




I don't understand the relevance between that and the phenomenon I'm describing, which is people who don't think there's a problem who keep reverting to their own framing of the problem, while rejecting the framing offered by the people who _do_ think there's a problem....I don't know what to make of that.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 3, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> I don't understand the relevance between that and the phenomenon I'm describing, which is people who don't think there's a problem who keep reverting to their own framing of the problem, while rejecting the framing offered by the people who _do_ think there's a problem....I don't know what to make of that.




That is just disagreement. I mean one group thinks A is a problem, another thinks A is not a problem. Just because you find something to be a problem, and just because you feel other people do as well, it doesn't mean I have to find it to be a problem, and it doesn't mean I have to agree with your assessment of how many other people find it to be a problem. But it is a little more deep than that I think because usually there are a number of points as to why you would find A to be a problem, and people might have varying degrees of agreement and disagreement with each of those points.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 3, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> That is just disagreement. I mean one group thinks A is a problem, another thinks A is not a problem. Just because you find something to be a problem, and just because you feel other people do as well, it doesn't mean I have to find it to be a problem, and it doesn't mean I have to agree with your assessment of how many other people find it to be a problem. But it is a little more deep than that I think because usually there are a number of points as to why you would find A to be a problem, and people might have varying degrees of agreement and disagreement with each of those points.




Here's my perception of the conversation:
"A is a problem"
"B just isn't true."
"I didn't say B, I said A is a problem."
"But B isn't a problem!"


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 3, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Here's my perception of the conversation:
> "A is a problem"
> "B just isn't true."
> "I didn't say B, I said A is a problem."
> "But B isn't a problem!"




If that is happening it is probably a communication issue. But even so, someone doesn't have to agree with you that A is a problem. If they are missing your point, responding to the wrong point, I think most of the time that is a product of people rapidly responding to posts on a forum, and a product of people reading other peoples posts through their own lens (I have definitely had my own words fired back at me in an uncharitable way). This is one of the reasons why I am saying we need to get more comfortable with our disagreements without despising one another, because I think once it becomes a moral difference, those kinds of reframing you are pointing to become more and more common


----------



## Voadam (Feb 3, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> This really seems like a reach to me. I can sort of understand complaints that it is a pastiche of asian culture (I think those complaints are misguided as pastiche, in my view, is perfectly acceptable aesthetic) but to argue that by prioritizing Japanese tropes, it was perpetuating Japanese Imperialism from earlier in the century.....that really makes no sense. I don't think anyone in their right mind would read Oriental Adventures and see it as an endorsement of Japanese occupation of Korea or China for example. This is the kind of argument that you really have to squint hard to see. By the time you get to the 80s, the reason the book is using so much Japanese material is because Japanese martial arts tropes were everywhere in the culture (there was the ninja craze, the Shogun Miniseries, karate was everywhere, etc).



I think whether you need to squint hard to see an issue here is going to vary from person to person.

The claim is not that OA is an endorsement of Japanese occupation.

The issue here is a structural one, because of overlaying fantasy Japanese feudal culture onto the fantasy Chinese it both diminishes and erases Chinese culture from the picture (not to mention the East Asian nations erased from any representation in the fantasy Asia) and this is particularly grating given the historical context of the occupation and imposition of Japanese culture.

I think someone thinking about it from the perspective of a background in one of those occupied places can empathize with finding this presentation and those parallels off-putting and distasteful.

This can vary a lot. 

Warhammer is mostly fantasy Holy Roman Empire Germany but also has a Grail Knights land supplement that is a mashup of England and France. England and France have historically been enemies and world power rivals for centuries from before the Normans conquered England up through the Napoleonic era. Mostly people find Warhammer not problematic here even with the culture mashup and apparent complete erasure of Ireland and Scotland from their fantasy Europe.

It would be easy to think of examples though that would make the juxtaposition and overlays more grating to some.

If you had a fantasy Middle East area and based it on Israel and Jewish traditions and had a cleric equivalent rabbi class in D&D that could be a neat cool fantasy thing. If you detail the area's culture as all Jewish but then at the end mention the area includes a much bigger fantasy Arabia as well as the fantasy Israel kingdom, it could be offputting to see that the fantasy Arab areas get the entirely Jewish culture and traditions applied, to see in the follow up supplements on the fantasy Arab areas that their cleric equivalents are called Rabbis with power to make clay golems, and so on. I find it easy to think that from a Palestinian perspective viewing such a presentation of a Jewish overlay onto an Arab area could be distasteful and grating.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 3, 2022)

Voadam said:


> I think whether you need to squint hard to see an issue here is going to vary from person to person.
> 
> The claim is not that OA is an endorsement of Japanese occupation.
> 
> ...



Fair enough, the poster used language more like 'this is highly insensitive' (not an exact quote) and not "this is an endorsement of Japanese occupations in the 20th century). But even then, i think that is a very tenuous point. Especially given that OA was written in the 80s, when Japan was no longer an imperial power. But I just don't really see how heavily relying on Japanese tropes would be read as something like Japan occupying China. That seems like highly symbolic thinking to me. Like you have to go out of your way to be troubled by it. At the very least, it is super obvious this wasn't the intention. The aim was explicitly stated in the Zeb Cook quote provided earlier, where it had to do with things like familiarity, marketability, etc. 

That said, I understand the other argument here: the pastiche one. I disagree with it. But I don't think it is an argument you have to squint to understand or perceive.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 3, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Yes. And even though I'm very much in the "OA is a huge embarrassment" camp, I'm not calling for censorship of the book.



This kind of rings hollow for me.  It's like hearing from the Tennessee school board that they're not censoring _Maus _they're just removing it from the curriculum.  It's true in a technical sense I guess but somehow not a satisfactory conclusion.


----------



## Willie the Duck (Feb 3, 2022)

MGibster said:


> This kind of rings hollow for me.  It's like hearing from the Tennessee school board that they're not censoring _Maus _they're just removing it from the curriculum.  It's true in a technical sense I guess but somehow not a satisfactory conclusion.



That seems a stretched analogy. That Tennessee school board has the power to do something about whether others have ready access to a given product. BZ can do nothing but advocate what they'd like to see other people decide with regards to picking up the book.


----------



## Voadam (Feb 3, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> But I just don't really see how heavily relying on Japanese tropes would be read as something like Japan occupying China. That seems like highly symbolic thinking to me. Like you have to go out of your way to be troubled by it.



It would be the overlay of Japanese stuff onto the representation of fantasy Chinese given the history and context of the Japanese occupation. 

In OA 6 Ronin Challenge the oriental adventures module is set in Shou Lung the fantasy Chinese empire. One of the pregens is a Shou Lung yakuza with a background that "Even the head of the clan, *the oyabun*, has taken note of this hardened veteran."

There is an attempt in OA6 to make some things more Chinese appropriate, there is a list of Shou Lung equivalent class names, but OA's base fantasy samurai Japanese culture and names and feudal Japanese honor system overlayed onto non-Japanese fantasy Asian countries is still a big mismatch that can be grating.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Feb 3, 2022)

MGibster said:


> This kind of rings hollow for me.  It's like hearing from the Tennessee school board that they're not censoring _Maus _they're just removing it from the curriculum.  It's true in a technical sense I guess but somehow not a satisfactory conclusion.



I'm curious, let's say that Wizards of the Coast did produce something in the past that everyone agreed was racist. What do you think the right thing for WotC to do would be?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 3, 2022)

TerraDave said:


> But there are plenty that are, or use some well known Chinese legend or element.
> 
> And so much cultural mash-up. Very, very good mashup.



I don't think it is the same thing... Japanese culture grew up in the shadow of China. They got their writing system (one of the main ones anyway, and the first one) from China. They got one of their major religions from China. They got a lot of stories, traditions, and attitudes from China as well. So, when you look at elements in Japanese fantasy, or even some myths/legends, a lot of it is heavily influenced by Chinese elements. Consider the whole thing with 'Fantasy Martial Arts' (which covers a lot of what makes up 'superhero' equivalents in both Japanese and Chinese lore and fiction) and the associated teaching traditions and attitudes about how and why you pass on knowledge, its all very clearly got a pretty common source.

The point is, if you see something in a Japanese Manga or whatnot, just because it evokes something that is typical of Chinese stories or culture, doesn't mean it isn't very much a traditional part of Japanese culture. Same with Korea, which has a very strong tradition of getting things from Chinese culture as well. Its a lot like European cultures, actually. King Arthur and the whole Arthurian cycle as it is generally known to us today (IE Mallory as the primary source) is a mashup of Welsh, Irish, British, and Medieval French which is mashed in on top of that, and then transmitted BACK to England. That doesn't make it not a British legend though. You can see the elements that came from various places, but they do all kind of just belong together. It is kind of the same with Tolkien. He was drawing MOSTLY from Old English mythology, to a degree, but when he mashes in something that might be referencing Finnish myths, its hard to say where one starts and another one ends.

So, I think Japanese Manga and such are pretty uniquely Japanese, they aren't appropriating stuff from someone else, its just that their culture drew a lot of influences from another one.

IMHO, as others have stated, this is a lot of the issue with OA, it just doesn't seem to understand. They take a uniquely Japanese (and rather historically narrow and anachronistic one at that) and then view all of Chinese culture as if it was basically the same. Actually a lot of it COULD work, but not without a lot more subtle presentation. Like, Chinese ideas of honor maybe do sound a good bit like Bushido, but you cannot just lump it all under this one term and not do a lot of violence to the whole thing. OA's 'not-China' does not read much like China at all in many ways (though in other ways maybe it does capture some of the general concept). Anyway, I'm not really qualified to say a whole lot on that subject, as I probably know no more than Zeb Cook, lol! (not to knock the guy, he seems rather cool).


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 3, 2022)

MGibster said:


> This kind of rings hollow for me.  It's like hearing from the Tennessee school board that they're not censoring _Maus _they're just removing it from the curriculum.  It's true in a technical sense I guess but somehow not a satisfactory conclusion.



The reasons why some groups want to censor Maus, and others are simply pointing out problematic elements of Oriental Adventures . . . . completely opposite sides of the spectrum.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 3, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> I'm curious, let's say that Wizards of the Coast did produce something in the past that everyone agreed was racist. What do you think the right thing for WotC to do would be?



Put a disclaimer on it.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 3, 2022)

MGibster said:


> This kind of rings hollow for me.  It's like hearing from the Tennessee school board that they're not censoring _Maus _they're just removing it from the curriculum.  It's true in a technical sense I guess but somehow not a satisfactory conclusion.



Nobody is telling people they cannot play OA and arresting them if they show it to their friends (or even play it in a class in school). I think its a bit dangerous to compare acts of outright censorship and equate them to criticism. That is not even noting the rather large differences in subject matter between the two things, and thus the reasons WHY one might not like it.


----------



## Mordhau (Feb 3, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I don't think it is the same thing... Japanese culture grew up in the shadow of China. They got their writing system (one of the main ones anyway, and the first one) from China. They got one of their major religions from China. They got a lot of stories, traditions, and attitudes from China as well. So, when you look at elements in Japanese fantasy, or even some myths/legends, a lot of it is heavily influenced by Chinese elements. Consider the whole thing with 'Fantasy Martial Arts' (which covers a lot of what makes up 'superhero' equivalents in both Japanese and Chinese lore and fiction) and the associated teaching traditions and attitudes about how and why you pass on knowledge, its all very clearly got a pretty common source.
> 
> The point is, if you see something in a Japanese Manga or whatnot, just because it evokes something that is typical of Chinese stories or culture, doesn't mean it isn't very much a traditional part of Japanese culture. Same with Korea, which has a very strong tradition of getting things from Chinese culture as well. Its a lot like European cultures, actually. King Arthur and the whole Arthurian cycle as it is generally known to us today (IE Mallory as the primary source) is a mashup of Welsh, Irish, British, and Medieval French which is mashed in on top of that, and then transmitted BACK to England. That doesn't make it not a British legend though. You can see the elements that came from various places, but they do all kind of just belong together. It is kind of the same with Tolkien. He was drawing MOSTLY from Old English mythology, to a degree, but when he mashes in something that might be referencing Finnish myths, its hard to say where one starts and another one ends.
> 
> ...



Bushido itself is actually pretty much a 19th century invention.  It would be a bit squicky imposing it on China due to the part it played in the rise of Japanese Nationalism.

But to my mind that's not the real issue.  The issue is that what people want from Fantasy Japan is Japanese Feudalism and imposing that kind of social structure on China is a real distortion.


----------



## Mordhau (Feb 3, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Nobody is telling people they cannot play OA and arresting them if they show it to their friends (or even play it in a class in school). I think its a bit dangerous to compare acts of outright censorship and equate them to criticism. That is not even noting the rather large differences in subject matter between the two things, and thus the reasons WHY one might not like it.



Censorship _was_ called for, however.

No one seems to be asking for it now, which is good, but it is part of the context of the discussion.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Feb 3, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Put a disclaimer on it.



Do you feel like they would have an.obligation to keep selling it?


----------



## MGibster (Feb 3, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> Do you feel like they would have an.obligation to keep selling it?



No, I don't think they have an obligation to keep selling it any more than someone has an obligation to purchase it.  If WotC decides tomorrow they'd rather not sell it that's certainly within their rights.


----------



## The-Magic-Sword (Feb 3, 2022)

Which is why we shouldn't rely on corporations to always make things available into perpetuity and maintain strong archives freely accessible to everyone. 

/librarian


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 3, 2022)

MGibster said:


> This kind of rings hollow for me.  It's like hearing from the Tennessee school board that they're not censoring _Maus _they're just removing it from the curriculum.  It's true in a technical sense I guess but somehow not a satisfactory conclusion.




I meant censorship in the technically accurate sense, not in the hysterical, sky-is-falling sense used by people who say (inaccurately) that Twitter is infringing on their First Amendment rights.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 3, 2022)

Voadam said:


> I watched the whole 2 hour first episode of the Asians Represent series of reading 1e OA. The factually inaccurate 1 hour discussion of comeliness mechanics as being created for OA to play up sexualized stereotypes of sexy dragon lady Asian women and unattractive or desexualized Asian men was very offputting. The comeliness mechanics can feed into those stereotypes, but it was factually not created for OA to sexualize and otherize Asians by being only applicable to Asian characters.
> 
> Comeliness was a terrible sexualized mechanic but prior to OA it was developed and published for generic 1e AD&D in Dragon Magazine issue 67 (November '82), The World of Greyhawk Campaign Setting Boxed Set (October '83) and Unearthed Arcana (June '85) all before Oriental Adventures (October '85). OA was a full player's handbook type book with all the player rules for a complete 1e game using the new OA classes and such and so included comeliness as part of that.
> 
> ...



Comeliness was developed for use in the book Deities & Demigods AFAIK. That was definitely the first place it appeared in print in a D&D book. At least at the time I assumed it was intended to help portray elements of these mythical creatures that the basic stats didn't cover well (at least in the author's opinions). I don't believe it was described there as a general 7th ability score to be applied to PCs. That depiction came later in UA, which came out about the same time as OA (as you point out). I haven't gone and dug for Dragon 67, its packed away in my garage, lol, so not sure if it was just an article about gods of WoG or if it discussed PCs. Anyway, I have to totally agree with you and Snarf, Comeliness was NOT developed for OA, it was definitely first dreamed up by Gary around 1980/81 and then he seems to have intended it to be rolled into the standard rules as it appears in WoG (though not in reference to PCs especially) and then UA/OA, only to vanish (along with most references to UA stuff) soon after. I'd note that the only innovation of that time period that really 'stuck' was NWPs, which UA/OA/DSG/WSG, and then 2e ALL implement (and not always consistently).

Really the only uniquely OA subsystems are the one related to honor, and then Martial Arts. I don't know what Asian people of various ilks think of honor, though I would note that I've watched a LOT of those Chinese-made pseudo-historical fantasy/romance series (even Netflix has a couple of them, though there are actually 100s in China if you can find them online, sadly only a few have translations). In pretty much all those series a conception of what I would call 'family honor' that is very similar to what is presented in OA is usually a central plot element. Now, maybe there are finer points I'm missing, but my wife (who is Chinese) certainly thinks the SHOWS have got it right. She doesn't really care about RPGs, so I haven't been able to get her to comment on the text of OA...


----------



## Mordhau (Feb 3, 2022)

I remember watching the Asians Represent podcast about the Legend of the FIve Rings, and they complained a lot about honour being used as a specifically 'asian' feature of games.  It's difficult to summarise exactly what the issue was however, due to the nature of the medium.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 3, 2022)

Umbran said:


> So, they got a fact wrong there.  However, that the mechanic was not made for that purpose does not mean that the mechanic is not problematic in the OA context.  There's still a solid argument that, given the stereotype issues, Comeliness should have been _left out_ of OA.



Shouldn't it have been left out of ALL OF D&D? lol. It was kinda OK as used in D&DG as sort of a 'super power' or 'power of horror' for gods. The UA version for PCs is just dumb, painfully dumb. And equally dumb in OA.


----------



## Mordhau (Feb 3, 2022)

I think a general issue though (I don't remember how it works in OA) with these kinds of systems is honour being treated as a personal characteristic rather than as a social system.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 3, 2022)

Gradine said:


> Here's the problem; this isn't correct at all. OA didn't _invent _or _introduce _comeliness; but it was _deliberately included_ as part of the setting and system, and that _is _an issue for the reasons they describe.
> 
> It can seem like racialized beauty stereotypes aren't _that important_, but it's actually a pretty big deal for quite a lot of people.
> 
> ...



Yeah, and this I have to really agree with. It wasn't invented for OA, and I think the motivating impulse for including it in OA was simply because OA was intended to reflect the 'state of the art' of AD&D at the time it was published. HOWEVER, it sure did plop itself into the middle of a whole raft of problems! First of all THE ENTIRE DEPICTION OF WOMEN IN D&D/RPGS was not exactly healthy (and is arguably still rather problematic) and that is just piling on top of the whole "exoticism thing" that exists WRT any female human of non-European appearance in the US (as well as many who ARE actually European).

I can tell you, this is something to really think about, being an American 'white guy' who first married a black African woman, and then marries a Chinese woman. Hmmm, yeah, not a consciously intended pattern of behavior. Still, check your psyche gentlemen!  I've also witnessed a couple of fairly icky examples of this. I ran into 2 'gentlemen' in Beijing International Airport, IIRC who seem to have shown up in China simply because they were under a number of delusions about 'Asian Girls' as they put it. Frankly they were dumbasses, but they sure got their ideas from someplace. It was beyond me to even attempt to put them straight, but I figure 50/50 they made it back home without spending some time in a Chinese jail... lol. So, I find it quite easy to sympathize with complaints of sexualization and exoticization, It very definitely exists!


----------



## MGibster (Feb 3, 2022)

Mordhau said:


> I remember watching the Asians Represent podcast about the Legend of the FIve Rings, and they complained a lot about honour being used as a specifically 'asian' feature of games. It's difficult to summarise exactly what the issue was however, due to the nature of the medium.



That's a fair criticism I think.  Ideas of honor aren't in short supply throughout western history motivating fictional and historical individuals alike but we don't often see it manifested in RPGs.  When toying around with the creating a Roman type setting, I came up with Gravitas which was a measure of how seriously people took your character.  Someone with a high Gravitas would find that they're generally trusted and their words given a of weight.  But at the same time, they'd find themselves somewhat constrained as any perceived bad behavior or failing to live up to one's word might lower their Gravitas.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 3, 2022)

Mordhau said:


> I think a general issue though (I don't remember how it works in OA) with these kinds of systems is honour being treated as a personal characteristic rather than as a social system.



In L5R, you have Honor and you have Glory.  Honor is more personal in that in that most other characters/NPCs aren't going to know what your score is.  Glory is more social as its an indication of our social standing and can go up or down depending on your deeds.  What I liked most about the Honor system in L5R is that there were both advantages and disadvantages to having a high or low rating.  A character with a lower Honor could do all sorts of things without penalty compared to a character with a high Honor.  But a high Honor character could use their Honor in place of a stat to make certain rolls.


----------



## Mordhau (Feb 3, 2022)

The thing I find about such systems is that they tend to apply in situations where social contexts don't really matter.

If I want to secretly murder my enemy in a way that no one would know about I lose honour, but that makes no real sense, because no one will know.  Honour is a social thing.

And your honour follows you around when interacting with people who have no idea who you are.


----------



## Voadam (Feb 3, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Comeliness was developed for use in the book Deities & Demigods AFAIK. That was definitely the first place it appeared in print in a D&D book. At least at the time I assumed it was intended to help portray elements of these mythical creatures that the basic stats didn't cover well (at least in the author's opinions). I don't believe it was described there as a general 7th ability score to be applied to PCs. That depiction came later in UA, which came out about the same time as OA (as you point out). I haven't gone and dug for Dragon 67, its packed away in my garage, lol, so not sure if it was just an article about gods of WoG or if it discussed PCs.



Close. 

1e Deities and Demigods has rules on page 7 for expanding Charisma up to 25 and down to -7 with super high and low Charisma having an awe/horror mechanic that was very much based on the divine nature of the being.

Here is the text of the horror mechanic for negative charisma.

In certain instances, some divinities are so loathsome and repellent as to actually have negative charisma. This applies only to the truly ghastly divine beings. The horror which their appearance and presence inspires causes creatures in the hit dice or level range noted below to be stunned with fear and detestation until the being is no longer in sight. While in this condition a creature can do nothing but defend itself physically against attacks. As with awe power, even if a person were to be given negative charisma through some terrible curse or change, he or she would not acquire the horror ability. The reaction of the average creature to a hypothetical non-divine being with a negative charisma would be a desire to kill it immediately.
Charisma Score Reaction Adjustment Horror
-1 -40% Up to 1 HD/level
-2 45 Up to 2 HD/levels
-3 50 Up to 4 HD/levels
-4 55 Up to 6 HD/levels
-5 69 Up lo 8 HD/leveIs
-6 65 Up to 10 HD/levels
-7 70 Up to 12 HD/levels

This is a bit different in description and mechanics from comeliness.

In Dragon 67 (I have the CD archive so it is easy to pull out) the article called Loyal Readers is on page 67 and is Gygax responding to readers' letters and then discussing comeliness.

Here is the beginning of the Comeliness discussion.

A BEAUTIFUL IDEA
Frank Mentzer and Francois Marcela-Froideval are already hard at work, and I am being flooded with suggestions and ideas from these Good Gentlemen. Francois uses a “Beauty” attribute for his characters, and I have come to the conclusion that you might also like to use such a rating. Here are my thoughts:
Comeliness is my word for the attribute. Beauty is too specific, as it calls to mind a positive state of good looks. “Comeliness” has a more neutral connotation; i.e., a character with a 3 attribute score for Beauty would be a non-beauty, but a 3 in Comeliness implies ugliness.
Comeliness is not charisma. Charisma, however, can affect comeliness. After the six attributes of a character are determined, his or her looks must be determined. Is the character ugly, homely, plain, or pretty? This characteristic is determined by the comeliness roll. 3d6 are rolled and totalled. The resulting number, between 3 and 18 inclusive, is modified:

It then discusses a -25 to 30 range of scores. I have not compared it side by side with the WOG, UA, OA charts to compare specifics but high charisma has a charm effect and then if you reject someone their reaction becomes as if the comeliness was negative but half the score.


----------



## Mordhau (Feb 3, 2022)

Mordhau said:


> I remember watching the Asians Represent podcast about the Legend of the FIve Rings, and they complained a lot about honour being used as a specifically 'asian' feature of games.  It's difficult to summarise exactly what the issue was however, due to the nature of the medium.



Actually, from what I remember they link honour to the general sense of exoticism.  Western characters don't need honour scores, but eastern characters have their actions constrained in all kinds of weird ways as a means of emphasising their exotic differences.

Which I think, is fair to a point, but I think they push it to far, with their point that people are just people.  One thing I always try to keep in mind when studying history is that people from other times and places are always _both_ unbelievably familiar and utterly strange_ at the same time_.  I don;t think it's wrong to pull that sense of strangeness to the front, as long as we don't forget to root it in the familiar.

The problem with most western fantasy is that it isn't attempting to explore unfamiliar cultures at all - not even the unfamiliar cultures of its own historical periods.

Of course I may be mischaractersing what they said, but that's going to happen because it's a podcast - if it was written down I would go and check my interpration was correct.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 3, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I think it was modeled after the similar system (on?) in Busido, which was published a few years before that.
> 
> But yeah, having an "honor system" for OA, but not for feudal knights and Paladins? Definitely sus.



Ehhhhhh, I would argue that the system for Paladins, at least, is MUCH STRICTER. What is considered 'honorable' in each system is a bit different, and I think the OA system is intended to be a bit more nuanced (and consider this within the context of all the debates about alignment). I mean, I agree that no system of honor, or alignment, etc. is ever going to capture 1/10th of the subtlety of actual human thought and belief, nor the intricacies of culture and tradition. Not even to say anything about how each individual expresses them in a unique way. (I haven't gone back to UA to see what it says about Cavaliers but whatever it is I'm sure it can be criticized in basically the same ways). 

I liked how 4e handled it in their articles on Oriental PCs (basically a 4e take on OA, it was just a couple of Dragon articles so it didn't get into a lot of depth). There is a general discussion of how you could implement honor, but it isn't hard and fast rules, and IIRC it did note that there's no reason why it should only be associated with certain types of characters (the 4e 'OA' PCs don't have their own unique classes). So, while it is linked to the other elements of these 'themes', it isn't required to use them, nor limited to them.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 3, 2022)

Mordhau said:


> The thing I find about such systems is that they tend to apply in situations where social contexts don't really matter.
> 
> If I want to secretly murder my enemy in a way that no one would know about I lose honour, but that makes no real sense, because no one will know.  Honour is a social thing.
> 
> And your honour follows you around when interacting with people who have no idea who you are.



Funny, I would say it’s the other way around: honor is about how you act when nobody but you will ever know.

That said, lots of people try to create a perception that they are honorable.

Off-topic, though.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 3, 2022)

MGibster said:


> That's a fair criticism I think.  Ideas of honor aren't in short supply throughout western history motivating fictional and historical individuals alike but we don't often see it manifested in RPGs.  When toying around with the creating a Roman type setting, I came up with Gravitas which was a measure of how seriously people took your character.  Someone with a high Gravitas would find that they're generally trusted and their words given a of weight.  But at the same time, they'd find themselves somewhat constrained as any perceived bad behavior or failing to live up to one's word might lower their Gravitas.




I used Auctoritas for my Roman setting. And Respectabilty in my mafia game


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 3, 2022)

Mordhau said:


> Actually, from what I remember they link honour to the general sense of exoticism.  Western characters don't need honour scores, but eastern characters have their actions constrained in all kinds of weird ways as a means of emphasising their exotic differences.



If I remember it was that and that games set in the west don't usually have an equivalent (even though arguably there are plenty of honor systems in western cultures: the cowboy operates by an honor code centered around a specific understanding of masculinity for instance). I think they may have also brought up the way the word honor was used with asian characters in movies (especially in the 80s) even if the film was modern.


----------



## Mordhau (Feb 3, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Funny, I would say it’s the other way around: honor is about how you act when nobody but you will ever know.
> 
> That said, lots of people try to create a perception that they are honorable.
> 
> Off-topic, though.



It doesn’t really matter.  By that definition there’s no reason to track it.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 3, 2022)

Jiggawatts said:


> One byproduct of the way things have gone the last few years and I think one of the most prevalent takeaways we are going to see perpetuated in the near future is that creative folks are going to have a sharp tendency to stay in their lane. They will feel a need to write and create art that is solely within their personal frame of reference and not veer outside of that in the slightest, because it is safer that way.



The problem is there isn't really such a 'frame of reference'. What am I 'supposed' to write about? I'm an American of European descent. OVER 300 years ago my 14th times great grandfather immigrated to America (long before there was a US) from Germany (which actually didn't even exist as a nation at that time, and is an agglomeration of several distinct, though related, cultures to start with). What can I write about? lol. What is 'my lane'??? I mean, I'm not actually complaining, and it isn't nearly as problematic for me as it is for some.

Still, am I forbidden to touch on American cultural elements which were introduced by non-Europeans? How about Frenchmen, but not Germans? lol. The whole CONCEPT is gravely flawed. I know you're not advocating for anything like this, I just felt it needed to be pointed out and your comment touched on it. Anyway, I think there are valid questions about racial bias, certainly. I think there are valid questions about cultural exploitation too. OTOH culture mostly is a constant process of adopting things from other places, adapting them, smooshing them together with other things from other traditions, etc. It is both problematic to say that a clearly dominant (in several respects) Euro-American society is perfectly OK to just heedlessly incorporate anything we feel like from people's who are seriously harmed by our attitudes and actions, AND problematic to say that some group 'owns the right' to be gatekeepers of something. This is of course even beyond the questions of whom it is who has any right to claim to speak for a culture. 

I think there isn't an answer here, there never was, never will be. We can however safely say that when other people get hurt, we should pay attention. This is simply being a good human being. Do the right thing, and to hell with theories and whatever. The past is done (but not dead, no no) and we can't revisit it, so we are simply bound to all try to be considerate people, eh? 

This is the thing that racism fails at, and one way to distinguish it. You can argue a lot of theories and whatever, but IMHO, certainly in my experience, we were a good bit less considerate back in the old days (sad that a time when I was already an adult is now the old days, heh). Were things much worse 'back then'? Sure! But the notion put forward by some today that it is 'all OK now.' or that there's 'just a few bad eggs' or whatever, that's total BS. Yet that is the whole argument that seems to be put forward by these people complaining about a 'cancel culture', that somehow THEIR offensiveness is OK, because nowadays we live in some sort of mythical Age of Aquarius and its all Rainbow Unicorn Farts, and we know how sweet those are!


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 3, 2022)

Jiggawatts said:


> One byproduct of the way things have gone the last few years and I think one of the most prevalent takeaways we are going to see perpetuated in the near future is that creative folks are going to have a sharp tendency to stay in their lane. They will feel a need to write and create art that is solely within their personal frame of reference and not veer outside of that in the slightest, because it is safer that way.




And this is one of my big concerns in these conversations and about the impact I think they are having.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 4, 2022)

Myrdin Potter said:


> I have a basic issue of the critics assuming the mantle of all Asians (or Chinese or whatever) when we are talking about a Canadian guy from Toronto looking at it from their lens.
> 
> I lived in China for 5 years and if you think the stereotypes are bad in OA, you should see the historical dramas on mainstream TV in China.
> 
> ...



hahaha, my wife is Chinese and she LOVES those shows (well, she does call some of them 'stupid' in all fairness). They really are FILLED with cultural stereotypes/myths, but oddly ones that the Chinese (I assume) hold about themselves, or at least about their society at some time in history (these are almost always set in some vague unspecified period in the distant past). I wouldn't say that makes it OK for us to perpetuate those myths and exaggerations. I guess arguably it is not so bad if they do so themselves, much like its kind of OK for Hollywood to make movies about gunfights in the Old West, etc. even though its all completely absurd.

Well, then there's the interesting point that the milieu of a lot of these shows would make kick ass RPG scenarios, lol. Maybe or maybe not employing some version of D&D, but they often have a lot of crazy action, 'magic', super heroic characters, and fairly usable scenarios too. I'm kind of thinking that the lesson there might be that "the fantasy in most RPGs is pretty shallow stuff", perhaps, though I don't want to make such broad generalizations...


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 4, 2022)

Mordhau said:


> It doesn’t really matter.  By that definition there’s no reason to track it.




(still off-topic) Nonsense! I could imagine a powerful game mechanic based off of it.


----------



## Mordhau (Feb 4, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> (still off-topic) Nonsense! I could imagine a powerful game mechanic based off of it.



Generally the player controls their character's own self-perceptions.

In any case, the problem with such systems is not that they track someone's internal sense of their own honour, it's that they tend to confuse honour as a measure of social standing with one's sense of ones own ethical behaviour and make it both at the same time.

It's like you murdered that guy two towns back by stabbing him in the back and now it affects the way the current lord two in this town deals with you, despite the fact that he has no way of knowing that you did that thing.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 4, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> And this is one of my big concerns in these conversations and about the impact I think they are having.




Yeah the parade-of-horribles argument _does_ seem fairly popular.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 4, 2022)

Mordhau said:


> Generally the player controls their character's own self-perceptions.
> 
> In any case, the problem with such systems is not that they track someone's internal sense of their own honour, it's that they tend to confuse honour as a measure of social standing with one's sense of ones own ethical behaviour and make it both at the same time.
> 
> It's like you murdered that guy two towns back by stabbing him in the back and now it affects the way the current lord two in this town deals with you, despite the fact that he has no way of knowing that you did that thing.



Oh, I meant a game mechanic in the mystical/magical sense. Not in anybody’s perception. Unless, of course, they have a power that lets them see it.

Sort of like a Luck rating.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 4, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Not really interested in getting back into this topic but this turn in the conversation caught my attention.
> 
> I feel like there is a bit of a double standard here. When posters from group A say they are bothered by something or want people to speak up, then a lot of folks say we need to be quiet and listen. But then when a poster isn't bothered and says he doesn't need people to speak up (I don't think he was saying people should be silent, I think he was expressing skepticism towards people who are loud about this because it feels paternalistic to him: I could be wrong, not sure the poster's full range of views here), the poster is told he doesn't speak for 'all your people' (and that we must say something otherwise we are complicit). If you believe in listening to people from that group, shouldn't you also consider what this person has to say and not attack them?
> 
> I can see where he is coming from in some respects. My wife is from Thailand. Obviously if someone says something outrageously offensive, I need to say something. But I also need to read my wife and let her defend herself, and, probably more importantly, I have to consider if my reaction is going to make things worse for her (this has happened once before). Also my reactions are not always going to the the same as hers. There were things I thought would upset her, but she was totally fine with, or even appreciated (awkward things people said but they were done with good intentions, which to her is the most important thing). And the issue of treating a group of people like children, that is a real issue and it is insulting to people when that seems to be going on. It can also come off as sounding like "We know better than you".



Yeah, I think it is the difference between standing in solidarity WITH people, and trying to stand FOR them, which is generally not cool. However, it gets complicated by the question of who has the power to effect change? I mean, to put it simply, if some big dude starts pushing my wife around, I don't care if he's racist or not, and I don't care if she can generally handle her own problems, I'm going to be in between them, and if he doesn't can it right quick I'm gonna punch his lights out. I am definitely not going to wait to find out if its OK with her, I'm just plain 50 pounds heavier and 6 inches taller than she is! Its more complicated if its some other sort of power, because it then gets wrapped up in the question of someone else's powerlessness, etc. I think we are well-advised to let people deal with the issues that are facing them, and just be willing to do something if asked, but also willing to act on our beliefs when it seems necessary. At best its a test of good judgment for sure. I know I've got it wrong once or twice too as you allude to.


----------



## J.Quondam (Feb 4, 2022)

Jiggawatts said:


> One byproduct of the way things have gone the last few years and I think one of the most prevalent takeaways we are going to see perpetuated in the near future is that creative folks are going to have a sharp tendency to stay in their lane. They will feel a need to write and create art that is solely within their personal frame of reference and not veer outside of that in the slightest, because it is safer that way.




Maybe another way to look at it though is not that creators will stay in their own lane, but rather that they'll simply avoid - or at least be more careful in - certain other lanes?

I mean, a creator who does _not_ intend to provoke a negative response, probably will just be more circumspect, work in collaborations, do deeper research, etc, in order to make their work as broadly palatable for their audience. Similarly, any creator who _does_ intend to provoke a response of some sort is not going to stop doing what they're doing, because "being edgy" is probably what they're going for, anyway. 

And most hopefully, maybe broad efforts to assuage, avoid, and/or adapt to tough issues like this could encourage the most innovative creators to open up _entirely new_ lanes to the mainstream.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 4, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Yeah the parade-of-horribles argument _does_ seem fairly popular.




I am happy to have a conversation with you, but I am not going to continue engaging you if you are going to keep sniping at me like this. I am attempting to reach across the aisle and bridge our disagreement. Personally I think this was a valid concern. You can disagree but I think it is a real thing, and I think it is something a lot of creative people are experiencing in the present climate.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 4, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yeah, I think it is the difference between standing in solidarity WITH people, and trying to stand FOR them, which is generally not cool. However, it gets complicated by the question of who has the power to effect change? I mean, to put it simply, if some big dude starts pushing my wife around, I don't care if he's racist or not, and I don't care if she can generally handle her own problems, I'm going to be in between them, and if he doesn't can it right quick I'm gonna punch his lights out. I am definitely not going to wait to find out if its OK with her, I'm just plain 50 pounds heavier and 6 inches taller than she is! Its more complicated if its some other sort of power, because it then gets wrapped up in the question of someone else's powerlessness, etc. I think we are well-advised to let people deal with the issues that are facing them, and just be willing to do something if asked, but also willing to act on our beliefs when it seems necessary. At best its a test of good judgment for sure. I know I've got it wrong once or twice too as you allude to.




And obviously when you are out in the world with your wife, things are different (especially if you are concerned about things like some of the attacks that have happened).


----------



## Irlo (Feb 4, 2022)

Creators create things. Writers write, artists make art, and game designers produce games. They make deliberate decisions that convey information and emotion. None of them, presumably, want to convey negative impressions unintentionally. So they do the work. Collaboration, research, whatever, to make sure the lane is clear. At the very least they can glance into the rear-view mirror before swerving.

Honestly, I don't care if thoughtless would-be game designers who are inclined to publish without reflection and insight are dissuaded from publishing. In fact, that's probably a good thing. Actual creative people will continue to work, and we'll get better games out it.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 4, 2022)

J.Quondam said:


> And most hopefully, maybe broad efforts to assuage, avoid, and/or adapt to tough issues like this could encourage the most innovative creators to open up _entirely new_ lanes to the mainstream.



Honestly, that's probably the takeaway really.

Heck, one only has to look at genre fiction from early 20th century to now.  The genre has expanded considerably and there seems to be absolutely no lack of creativity in the genre despite the fact that there has been a push to be more inclusive and more mindful for decades.  

If being mindful was going to result in the stunting the growth of the genre, we would have already seen it.  Fifty years ago, a woman SF writer was practically unheard of.  Many wrote under male names - Andre Norton, James Triptree Jr.  just to name a couple.  Hell, in the 90's, J. K. Rowlings wrote under the name J. K. because her editor insisted that no one would buy fantasy novels written by a woman.  

Editors don't do that for kicks.  Not if they want to stay in a job.  It's 100% their job to know the market and, at the time, the market pretty much said that unless you were writing about dragons, women couldn't write fantasy.  I'm exaggerating, I know, but, the point very much does remain.

I mean, Hell, Margaret Atwood swore up and down that A Handmaids Tale wasn't science fiction because she knew that if she admitted that it was, it would be dumped into the SF ghetto and entirely ignored as literature.  

The thing to remember here and the takeaway for me is that things really have gotten better.  They have.


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 4, 2022)

Mordhau said:


> Bushido itself is actually pretty much a 19th century invention.  It would be a bit squicky imposing it on China due to the part it played in the rise of Japanese Nationalism.
> 
> But to my mind that's not the real issue.  The issue is that what people want from Fantasy Japan is Japanese Feudalism and imposing that kind of social structure on China is a real distortion.



Actually, not true. During the Sengoku Era roughly 1480 to 1580, was the century of war, and for the first time every provincial daimyo was raising an army to make the rather loose confederation of the empire of that time, governed under a single ruler to unite the empire. House codes are rules demanded of the samurai of a given house, and these rules varied - some were not Bushido like at all, rather more brutal. House Takeda was one of the major provinces and powerful armies, although it's daimyo supported Tokugawa's forces, it had the largest cavalry in Japan at the time. The house code of Takeda was almost a match of the current rules of Bushido.

After America forced Japan to open in 1868, Japan made enormous efforts to modernize, militarize, and utilize some of the samurai beliefs, before they die. Scholars created the modern version of Bushido, derived from the Takeda house code. While the word "bushido" was never used in the feudal period, the essence of the idea is based on a real samurai house code. Noting, of course, if you understand the rules of Bushido, nobody can follow them all, the rules contradict each other. Never bring dishonor on yourself or your house, but obey every command of your lord, even if he asks you to dishonor yourself and several of the other rules of Bushido. Loyalty precedes all other rules of Bushido.


----------



## Mordhau (Feb 4, 2022)

gamerprinter said:


> Actually, not true. During the Sengoku Era roughly 1380 to 1580, was the century of war, and for the first time every provincial daimyo was raising an army to make the rather loose confederation of the empire of that time, governed under a single ruler to unite the empire. House codes are rules demanded of the samurai of a given house, and these rules varied - some were not Bushido like at all, rather more brutal. House Takeda was one of the major provinces and powerful armies, although it's daimyo supported Tokugawa's forces, it had the largest cavalry in Japan at the time. The house code of Takeda was almost a match of the current rules of Bushido.
> 
> After America forced Japan to open in 1868, Japan made enormous efforts to modernize, militarize, and utilize some of the samurai beliefs, before they die. Scholars created the modern version of Bushido, derived from the Takeda house code. While the word "bushido" was never used in the feudal period, the essence of the idea is based on a real samurai house code. Noting, of course, if you understand the rules of Bushido, nobody can follow them all, the rules contradict each other. Never bring dishonor on yourself or your house, but obey every command of your lord, even if he asks you to dishonor yourself and several of the other rules of Bushido. Loyalty precedes all other rules of Bushido.



Yeah but from what I understand the modern conception, that honour was everything during the Sengoku period of Japan that we see reflected in games like Legends of the Five Rings, "Honour is stronger than steel" was not really anymore true of Japan than it was of medieval Europe.


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 4, 2022)

It was always idealistic - thus unrealistic. It's a romantic notion today. During the Sengoku period, some samurai fought under one lord in one battle and then fought against that lord, under another lord in the next battle - and that isn't considered dishonorable. So the idea of Bushido honor is myth, but it's still sought out be each samurai to varying degrees, always failing of course, as is the nature of the code.


----------



## Mordhau (Feb 4, 2022)

Sounds a lot like chivalry, and the fact that the English King who made the biggest deal about chivalry, Edward III, was also the one who first introduced long bows and cannons into medieval warfare.


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 4, 2022)

In re: "Asians Represent"  - if their complaint is grounded in total ignorance, it damages their credibility overall. 


Mordhau said:


> Legend of the Five Rings does this weird thing where it wants to keep the Japanese diet centred around sea food, (and goes even stricter by putting prohibitions on meat) but in a China like empire.
> 
> It really doesn't make sense for people hundreds of kilometres inland to forgo meat for a diet of fish.



L5R only has the samurai and Noble castes being fish and fowl; the other castes eat red meats. From what histories I have read, that's fairly accurate, even in the highlands. 

L5R also makes itself clear: Rokugan isn't Japan. D&D3.5 OA wasn't Rokugan, but included things needed for Rokugan, and for Kara Tur, and for several other things, but only clearly indicated the Rokugan elements. Half of OA isn't suitable for L5R.

It's also worth noting that Edge Studios (from Spain, IIRC) have announced they are doing a new D&D5E L5R setting book. 
3.5 OA was bad as L5R, bad as D&D, bad as Kara Tur, and just not a good thing for anyone.



Hussar said:


> And it's very well done too.
> 
> But, yeah, the issue of Asia=Japan has a lot of historical reasons.  Pop culture being a huge one.  Hollywood bought into the whole ninja/samurai schtick for a very long time.  Power Rangers and Sailor Moon.  Going all the way back to Godzilla and Gatchaman.  Most of us who grew up watching American TV, saw "Fantasy Japan" on TV far more than "Fantasy China" or "Fantasy India".  Never minding places like Korea or the Phillipines.  Outside of MASH, has anything referenced Korea?
> 
> ...



True, but the Chop Sockey genre was almost entirely Taiwaneese...
Most of the crime dramas were using Chinatown and Chinese theming instead of Japanese.

Japanese was being imported as a set of specific subgenres and Chinese was being filtered through the Westerns, the police procedurals, and the American Immigrant experience. Only one show comes to mind showing both the clash of immigrant values and home-nation values, and doing so with any sensitivity at all, in the 70's and 80's: Hawai'i Five-O. It also touched on Native Issues. In the 1960's, 1970's, and early 1980's.



Dire Bare said:


> The reasons why some groups want to censor Maus, and others are simply pointing out problematic elements of Oriental Adventures . . . . completely opposite sides of the spectrum.



Maus is excellent. But it's not suitable for elementary schools. There is, however, a noted sociopolitical stripe within the US that are holocaust deniers, amongst other things... So Maus is a problematic issue, because some of the voices for it think it's all lies; some thing




AbdulAlhazred said:


> Nobody is telling people they cannot play OA and arresting them if they show it to their friends (or even play it in a class in school).



Sure feels like it.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> I think its a bit dangerous to compare acts of outright censorship and equate them to criticism. That is not even noting the rather large differences in subject matter between the two things, and thus the reasons WHY one might not like it.



When the critics are advocating for censorship, things get less cut and dried. I've seen critics calling for censorship _IN THIS THREAD! _One posted feels that the original and 3.5 OA shouldn't be available in PDF. 

And, because of the factual issues brought up with the Asians Represent analysis of the Comeliness stat, as criticism goes, they've lost enough credibility that I won't be listening to anything they're saying.  It indicates either a lack of research (it's easy to check that Comliness predates OA), or a desire to be offended, or perhaps even intellectual dishonesty. I don't know which, and don't care which.

Was OA a problem back in the day? Yes, but IMO, not for the racism. It was bad mostly because it was cumbersome to use in play. The Honor system was a bookkeeping nightmare. As was the Face system. AD&D Non-Weapon Proficiencies were an option in AD&D1, but strongly encouraged after UA, and almost mandatory in OA. This annoyed a lot of DMs. The book was mechanically divisive BITD; that the setting was insensitive? Most were. Most still are.

*Fundamentally, if your game incorporates any culture other than the present day of your places of residence and/or upbringing, you're going to be using tropes and stereotypes.* RPGs are not a cure for systemic racism; they're not even big enough a market for anyone to really pay attention to outside the RPG market. D&D is maskable in a rounding error for HasBro, even if D&D is a significant minority of WotC's income. And they are, at best, schematic and/or trophic in their coverage of any culture.

I make no bones about it: I love  several cultural appropriation games: L5R, Feng Shui, Warhammer FRP, Blood & Honor, Elf Quest, Pendragon... 
I don't think any were done with intent to offend; I do know that some find them offensive. 
If Nyambe had used a better engine, I'd have given it a shot... but it stayed too stock D&D 3.x...


----------



## Mordhau (Feb 4, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> In re: "Asians Represent"  - if their complaint is grounded in total ignorance, it damages their credibility overall.
> 
> And, because of the factual issues brought up with the Asians Represent analysis of the Comeliness stat, as criticism goes, they've lost enough credibility that I won't be listening to anything they're saying.  It indicates either a lack of research (it's easy to check that Comliness predates OA), or a desire to be offended, or perhaps even intellectual dishonesty. I don't know which, and don't care which



What it is, is basically a book club reading that's recorded.  It really needs to be understood in that context.  The people doing it are also not really true experts.  (In the Legends of the Five Rings podcast this book was recommended - I had red flags coming up for me within a few pages so I looked up the author - sure enough I discovered the author is a controversial western 'expert' who apparently doesn't speak any Japanese.)

You have to understand what it is, it's a group of educated asian people reading gaming takes on asia and seeing how it strikes them as they go, which means the way they feel about what they are reading may also change with that.  It's the sort of thing you'd usually do for your own understanding and edification and write up any conclusions you come to later, but because we live in the 2020s, the raw discussion is the product, which can be a problem in a whole lot of ways.  It's naturally going to include all sorts of speculative interpretations.

For all I know if you keep watching they might acknowledge at some point that they were wrong about the origins of the comeliness stat.  (I suspect the number of people who have watched the whole reading of OA all the way through is probably pretty small - and of those who did, they were probably watching it while doing other things, which would suggest they probably missed a lot anyway.)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 4, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> RPGs are not a cure for systemic racism; they're not even big enough a market for anyone to really pay attention to outside the RPG market.



True.

But they also shouldn’t have a pass on perpetuating it, either.


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 4, 2022)

Seppuku, gutting yourself, was always about honor, but was as often used as protest, rather than a deed you do, due to your dishonor. Nobunaga's samurai commander recommended his lord not make a certain action, which would bring dishonor on the cause. Because Nobunaga disregarded his advice, the commander committed seppuku as protest against his lord's actions. It did affect Nobunaga's future.


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 4, 2022)

Mordhau said:


> What it is, is basically a book club reading that's recorded.  It really needs to be understood in that context.  The people doing it are also not really true experts.  (In the Legends of the Five Rings podcast this book was recommended - I had red flags coming up for me within a few pages so I looked up the author - sure enough I discovered the author is a controversial western 'expert' who apparently doesn't speak any Japanese.)
> 
> You have to understand what it is, it's a group of educated asian people reading gaming takes on asia and seeing how it strikes them as they go, which means the way they feel about what they are reading may also change with that.  It's the sort of thing you'd usually do for your own understanding and edification and write up any conclusions you come to later, but because we live in the 2020s, the raw discussion is the product, which can be a problem in a whole lot of ways.  It's naturally going to include all sorts of speculative interpretations.
> 
> For all I know if you keep watching they might acknowledge at some point that they were wrong about the origins of the comeliness stat.  (I suspect the number of people who have watched the whole reading of OA all the way thorugh is probably pretty small - and of those who did, they were probably watching it while doing other things, which would suggest they probably missed a lot anyway.)



Given their misattribution of attack... they are NOT getting that chance, because they look from the outside like they're looking to find offense.

If one goes into a book looking to be offended, almost all have something one can find to take offense to. That they made that particular error strongly implies ignorance of the subject they're reviewing, and especially of the context in which it was written. WHich, for me, are further red flags.

Which basically means I'm not going to bother with pretty much anything from them, as I have a presupposition that they're looking to be offended, and I have enough toxic in my life.

And while I want to see good representation, I don't buy in to the "only a given ethnicity should be allowed to write a game about that ethnicity" nor that trope-based gaming is bad, even when those tropes are stereotypes.

Every fantasy RPG is a cultural appropriation. If that's not acceptable, get a different hobby.... Or write a better game.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> True.
> 
> But they also shouldn’t have a pass on perpetuating it, either.



They don't. The players may, but the games themselves only do so if the players/GM buy into it.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 4, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> Given their misattribution of attack... they are NOT getting that chance, because they look from the outside like they're looking to find offense.
> 
> If one goes into a book looking to be offended, almost all have something one can find to take offense to. That they made that particular error strongly implies ignorance of the subject they're reviewing, and especially of the context in which it was written. WHich, for me, are further red flags.
> 
> ...



When the book's title is "Oriental Adventures" . . . that alone primes the pump!


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 4, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> In re: "Asians Represent"  - if their complaint is grounded in total ignorance, it damages their credibility overall.




No. Just no.



> L5R also makes itself clear: Rokugan isn't Japan.




Rokugan isn't Japan. But it is largely based on Japanese myth and culture. That brings with it a certain responsibility.



> D&D3.5 OA wasn't Rokugan, but included things needed for Rokugan, and for Kara Tur, and for several other things, but only clearly indicated the Rokugan elements. Half of OA isn't suitable for L5R.




Heh, setting aside any cultural issues . . . Oriental Adventures 3E was a mess. When I picked that title up, I was not familiar with "Legend of the 5 Rings" other than an awareness it was a card game. Trying to parse out what did and didn't belong in this setting from that book . . . I was so confused. Turned me off L5R for a long time. I might check out the upcoming D&D 5E take you mentioned.

And almost immediately on the heels of that book's publication, WotC sold off L5R to AEG (_yes, it's more complicated than that_). I did, however, really enjoy the line of support books published by AEG . . . I wonder how a read-thru on the Asians Represents podcast would treat that product line.



> Maus is excellent. But it's not suitable for elementary schools. There is, however, a noted sociopolitical stripe within the US that are holocaust deniers, amongst other things... So Maus is a problematic issue, because some of the voices for it think it's all lies; some thing




Maus is rarely a part of the curriculum for elementary schools, if ever. It's usually assigned at the middle or high school level. Having that particular stripe of American culture doesn't make the book problematic, although it does sadly make it political. At least, not problematic in the sense we're talking here regarding OA.



> Sure feels like it.
> 
> When the critics are advocating for censorship, things get less cut and dried. I've seen critics calling for censorship _IN THIS THREAD! _One posted feels that the original and 3.5 OA shouldn't be available in PDF.




And yet, that's not what's happening at all. The one poster you reference upthread (unless I missed somebody) mentioned they felt it might be better if WotC pulled digital/pod publication of the title. Didn't demand it, just felt it might be the right call. That's not a call for censorship.

Most voices are simply calling for awareness, and a drive to do better.



> And, because of the factual issues brought up with the Asians Represent analysis of the Comeliness stat, as criticism goes, they've lost enough credibility that I won't be listening to anything they're saying.  It indicates either a lack of research (it's easy to check that Comliness predates OA), or a desire to be offended, or perhaps even intellectual dishonesty. I don't know which, and don't care which.




Nope. No loss of "credibility". The podcast is a "first look" reaction series. Not a researched textual analysis. Regardless of any "errors", the panelists first reaction is their honest first reaction.

The "mistake" regarding the Comeliness stat is something just about anybody could make, it's only D&D super-nerds who can follow the tricky history of when that canard was introduced to the game. And . . . mistake or not . . . they are reacting to the inclusion of a new rule focused on beauty that doesn't sit well with orientalist views on Asian beauty. But, we've covered that already upthread, so . . .

That isn't their only "mistake" . . . . but it doesn't blow any credibility or invalidate the opinions and voices of the podcast panelists, and the other Asian-descent gamers who've expressed similar views in the past.



> I don't think any were done with intent to offend




Of course not. No one in the podcast or this thread has accused the designers of these games of racist intent.

I love most of the games you list. But it doesn't mean I can't listen to folks who express concerns with how they treat race and culture, respect and accept those views. And still love those products, warts and all. I'm just a lot more careful about how I use them at the table, and I'm a more aware consumer when looking for new products influenced by cultures other than my own.


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 4, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> L5R also makes itself clear: Rokugan isn't Japan. D&D3.5 OA wasn't Rokugan, but included things needed for Rokugan, and for Kara Tur, and for several other things, but only clearly indicated the Rokugan elements. Half of OA isn't suitable for L5R.
> 
> It's also worth noting that Edge Studios (from Spain, IIRC) have announced they are doing a new D&D5E L5R setting book.
> 3.5 OA was bad as L5R, bad as D&D, bad as Kara Tur, and just not a good thing for anyone.



Kind of funny, it was Gencon 08 or 09, I forget which, I walked up to the L5R booth (forget who the publisher was), and looked at their new edition hardback. Because I am a pro cartographer for the game industry. Naturally, I went straight to the Rokugan map as the first thing to look at, just after opening the book for the first time. I did a double take and noticed an error on the map, almost immediately - and I pointed out to the publisher at the table. He said, "you're right!" Just a look at that map, told me, I probably would issues with this game. That was the only time I ever looked at L5R - I knew about the card game, though never played that either...


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 4, 2022)

Irlo said:


> Creators create things. Writers write, artists make art, and game designers produce games. They make deliberate decisions that convey information and emotion. None of them, presumably, want to convey negative impressions unintentionally. So they do the work. Collaboration, research, whatever, to make sure the lane is clear. At the very least they can glance into the rear-view mirror before swerving.
> 
> Honestly, I don't care if thoughtless would-be game designers who are inclined to publish without reflection and insight are dissuaded from publishing. In fact, that's probably a good thing. Actual creative people will continue to work, and we'll get better games out it.



I do all those things! Though I'm better at some of it, more than others, but I do it all. I do publish for other author/game designers, but am too cheap to hire out art, and as good a cartographer as I'll ever otherwise find at what I charge myself for doing it, so I'll just call myself a creator. I honestly cannot conceive of creation and being thoughtless at the same time - I cannot separate the two.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 4, 2022)

gamerprinter said:


> I did a double take and noticed an error on the map, almost immediately - and I pointed out to the publisher at the table. He said, "you're right!" Just a look at that map, told me, I probably would issues with this game. That was the only time I ever looked at L5R - I knew about the card game, though never played that either...



In at least one of the editions, the fact that the map of Rokugan isn't accurate is canon.  Maybe you're the reason why?


----------



## Hussar (Feb 4, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> Every fantasy RPG is a cultural appropriation. If that's not acceptable, get a different hobby.... Or write a better game.



That's... certainly an opinion.  Not one I agree with, but, it's certainly one take.

But, I have to say, @aramis erak, if you are feeling attacked for holding certain views, there might be, just maybe, a problem with the views.


----------



## Mordhau (Feb 4, 2022)

Rokugan is...interesting.

For one thing as a game, it's not just a "D&D style setting but Japanese". It's genuinely trying to present a setting focused on a rather different more poltical kind of gaming experience (to the extent that the upcoming 5e edition has already stated how they're going to use a fairly different take on the setting to make it more suitable for D&D style gaming).  There's really not many other games that are trying to do what it does.

Secondly, it's clearly Japan for 'fans' of Japan, even though I believe they had one person with a background in Japanese studies in the original design team.  This means it's not an accurate take on Japan but more a mythologised take, but then Morte d'Arthur is not an accurate take on Medieval England either.  It's the legend of Japan rather than the reality.  (Admittedly a legend as interpreted by westerners, which can be somewhat problematic, but not necessarily unsalvagably so).

The fact that both these things are true presented some difficulties from what I saw from the read through on the podcast.  Are certain things presented the way they are for specific gaming purposes, or out of exoticist orientalism?   Or both?  It also didn't help that some of the people in the discussion clearly weren't all that sympathetic to the specific gaming goals (but of course not everyone is going to be).


----------



## MGibster (Feb 4, 2022)

Hussar said:


> That's... certainly an opinion. Not one I agree with, but, it's certainly one take.



It is not always easy to see the difference between cultural appropriation and borrowing or exchange.  Despite not having a drop of Scandinavian blood running through my vines (that I know of), if I were to produce game set in the not Viking age complete with pillaging, longboats, and runes I would likely get very few complaints about appropriation.  Like I said, I'm not Scandinavian, but Vikings are nevertheless a part of my history since they encaged in cultural exchanges with all sorts of people throughout Europe, Asia, and parts of North America so maybe I'm safe there. 

On the flip side, sometimes it's pretty easy to see when it's appropriation and offensive.

Edit:  I would like to note for the record that I do not possess vines which blood, sap, or any other liquid is transferred.  I am in fact a mammal and would like that to be known.


----------



## Irlo (Feb 4, 2022)

gamerprinter said:


> I do all those things! Though I'm better at some of it, more than others, but I do it all. I do publish for other author/game designers, but am too cheap to hire out art, and as good a cartographer as I'll ever otherwise find at what I charge myself for doing it, so I'll just call myself a creator. I honestly cannot conceive of creation and being thoughtless at the same time - I cannot separate the two.



Good! So you won’t be driven away from working on projects outside of your lane, because you approach your work thoughtfully.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 4, 2022)

MGibster said:


> It is not always easy to see the difference between cultural appropriation and borrowing or exchange. Despite not having a drop of Scandinavian blood running through my vines (that I know of), if I were to produce game set in the not Viking age complete with pillaging, longboats, and runes I would likely get very few complaints about appropriation. Like I said, I'm not Scandinavian, but Vikings are nevertheless a part of my history since they encaged in cultural exchanges with all sorts of people throughout Europe, Asia, and parts of North America so maybe I'm safe there.
> 
> On the flip side, sometimes it's pretty easy to see when it's appropriation and offensive.




Oh for sure. It’s a complex issue that gets made even more complex by the feelings of everyone involved. You see it all the time where saying that Work X has problems and people immediately take that to mean accusations that the creator is bad. 

So yeah totally agree that it’s not simple in any way.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 4, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> When the critics are advocating for censorship, things get less cut and dried. I've seen critics calling for censorship _IN THIS THREAD! _One posted feels that the original and 3.5 OA shouldn't be available in PDF.




This is a curious paragraph.  It seems to suggest that the mere unavailability of the PDF, whoever makes the decision to stop selling it, would be censorship.  I'm sure you know the definition of censorship, so I'm puzzled.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 4, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> This is a curious paragraph.  It seems to suggest that the mere unavailability of the PDF, whoever makes the decision to stop selling it, would be censorship.  I'm sure you know the definition of censorship, so I'm puzzled.



Out of curiosity - Do those pdf rights allow say a library to lend out the pdf?


----------



## Voadam (Feb 4, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> This is a curious paragraph.  It seems to suggest that the mere unavailability of the PDF, whoever makes the decision to stop selling it, would be censorship.  I'm sure you know the definition of censorship, so I'm puzzled.



ACLU definition

Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.

In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period.

Wikiepedia definition

*Censorship* is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies. 

Merriam Webster definition

transitive verb
*: *to examine in order to suppress (see suppress sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable  
censor the news
 also                                                                                     
*: *to suppress or delete as objectionable
censor out indecent passages                         


The U.S. Constitutional First Amendment Rights deal with protection from the government.

Censorship is a broader concept than just government suppression of ideas. Government censorship is a subset of censoring.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 4, 2022)

Has anyone else noticed that orcs and drow are believed to be too similar to depictions of one particular race/culture and OA is criticized for not being similar enough of certain races/cultures.

Anyways back to your regularly scheduled programming. Beep. beep. boop. bop.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 4, 2022)

Voadam said:


> ACLU definition
> 
> Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.
> 
> ...




Right.  So if WotC pulls OA because it's the right thing to do, it's not censorship.

Of course, there are some people (the usual suspects) who would cry and scream about cancel culture, and WotC succumbing to pressure, etc. etc.    /shrug


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 4, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Right.  So if WotC pulls OA because it's the right thing to do, it's not censorship.
> 
> Of course, there are some people (the usual suspects) who would cry and scream about cancel culture, and WotC succumbing to pressure, etc. etc.    /shrug



Just curious - Can a person legally transfer the rights of their pdf to another person or to a library to lend out?  I don’t know the actually answer but it seems pertinent.

if a company sets themselves up as the only way possible to procure a work and then chooses to stop selling a digital copy, and none of those digital copies which were sold can be transferred individual to individual - then IMO that’s not ethical (regardless of whether you call it censorship). I don’t care whether they continue to sell it or whether the simply update their terms to allow the already sold work to be transferred between individuals (if it isn’t legally possible already).


----------



## Mordhau (Feb 4, 2022)

I'm old enough to remember when "It's only censorship when the government does it" was a right wing talking point.


----------



## Random Task (Feb 4, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Right.  So if WotC pulls OA because it's the right thing to do, it's not censorship.
> 
> Of course, there are some people (the usual suspects) who would cry and scream about cancel culture, and WotC succumbing to pressure, etc. etc.    /shrug



There are books with actively malignant depictions of ethnic minorities that have been endlessly republished for hundreds of years.  Seems a little overblown to be making these stop sale demands for something like OA, at least 1st edition (the one I'm familiar with).


----------



## Voadam (Feb 4, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Right.  So if WotC pulls OA because it's the right thing to do, it's not censorship.
> 
> Of course, there are some people (the usual suspects) who would cry and scream about cancel culture, and WotC succumbing to pressure, etc. etc.    /shrug



If WotC as the rights holder decides to suppress OA from distribution because of its content, that seems to be a straightforward instance of private institution censorship.

It is within their legal rights to do so and does not infringe on anybody's first amendment rights, but it seems to be clearly within the definitions of censorship.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 4, 2022)

Mordhau said:


> I'm old enough to remember when "It's only censorship when the government does it" was a right wing talking point.



Pretty sure censorship via removal of service for thoughts and opinions by our utilities has been something everyone has been universally against.  

the only new question for our times is how much large social media should be treated as public utilities.


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 4, 2022)

Because Bushido honor was truly an unachievable goal most of the time, in those rare instances where actions lead to Bushido honor uniquely appearing in history, it tied the concept intrinsically to the Japanese people as a whole, into their soul. The 47 Ronin incident really happened, and is probably the most Bushido honor moment in Japanese history - and it moved the entire nation.

Briefly put, a young daimyo from a rural province in northwestern Japan seemed a rube to the Shogun's magistrate who was leading a meeting of daimyo at the capital. These meetings have uniform colored garment requirements. The magistrate sent a message to the young daimyo that the colors of the next day were white, when they were going to be black, so the young daimyo appeared at the gathering looking like a fool. The magistrate chastised him, so the daimyo unsheathed his sword, but was immediately surrounded and arrested by the Shogun's men. Rather than granting him the honor of committing sepukku for his "crime", he was beheaded. The 47 samurai serving the daimyo awaiting outside the Shogun's castle, became ronin as soon as the master was slain. Everybody expected the ronin to attack and soldiers were ready in ambush, but their commander knew what was up and retreated from the Shogun's capital. They seemingly parted ways for two years, many gaining reputations as drunks in local taverns. All the while the ronin were gathering funds, having weapons and armor made in secret. Finally on a cold, snowy winter's night just outside of Kyoto, the ronin force gathered and marched to the magistrate's personal fortification, the ronin snuck over the walls and killed everyone in the compound including the magistrate. Then they left, appeared at a cemetery where they decided to all be buried and all 47 ronin committed seppuku.

I've visited that cemetery.

So, realistic or not, Bushido honor is intrinsically tied to the Japanese soul - and it's real in that way.


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 4, 2022)

Hussar said:


> That's... certainly an opinion.  Not one I agree with, but, it's certainly one take.
> 
> But, I have to say, @aramis erak, if you are feeling attacked for holding certain views, there might be, just maybe, a problem with the views.



Myself? Only by the prior two responses... and I pretty much expected such. 

I've no reason to listen to any particular group who's looking to be offended; they're going to, delusionally or not, find something.  Nearly every time. 

The impassioned defenses of "it's their modality that lead them to be wrong" isn't an excuse I'd accept; it is actually further condemnation - they've engaged in a practice that is going to lead to misattributtion of malice. At that point, there's literally nothing I'd trust from them as anything constructive.

AD&D 1E's OA wasn't great, but it was fun at the time. I'd not use it now, not because of the setting, but because the rules simply suck. At which point, the setting is nearly irrelevant.


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 4, 2022)

Mordhau said:


> I'm old enough to remember when "It's only censorship when the government does it" was a right wing talking point.



So, at least 10 years old. Got it. 
(I've heard it from politicians less than 6 years ago.)
That is, however, the legal situation in the US: censorship is only unlawful when done by the government. And even then, certain forms are allowed.

En World engages in censorship daily. Heck, in this thread we've seen it. (Not commenting on the moderation for quality nor reasons, only that it happened and is legit for En World to do so. It's a sucky task, but one worth the efforts. I'm not complaining).


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 4, 2022)

Random Task said:


> There are books with actively malignant depictions of ethnic minorities that have been endlessly republished for hundreds of years.  Seems a little overblown to be making these stop sale demands for something like OA, at least 1st edition (the one I'm familiar with).




Who is making demands? Where?


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 4, 2022)

Voadam said:


> If WotC as the rights holder decides to suppress OA from distribution because of its content, that seems to be a straightforward instance of private institution censorship.
> 
> It is within their legal rights to do so and does not infringe on anybody's first amendment rights, but it seems to be clearly within the definitions of censorship.




Does that mean that anybody who owns the rights to a work must continue to make it available, or be guilty of censorship?


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 4, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Does that mean that anybody who owns the rights to a work must continue to make it available, or be guilty of censorship?



IMO.  An actual physical book that you own.  Absolutely not.  A digitial pdf where your ownership is treated just as owning the physical book.  Absolutely not.  A digital pdf that you signed a EULA saying you can use it but can't transfer it others - I think that last one is censorship if the company in question doesn't either a) grant those subject to that EULA full rights to transfer their 'copy' of the work when they stop selling it OR b) keep selling the pdf under that EULA.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 4, 2022)

GreyLord said:


> There ARE other sources. I've been trying to say that when I've made statements in the thread.
> 
> The PROBLEM is that they do NOT AGREE with what the youtube videos are talking about...and I think because of that NO ONE here that agrees with those youtubers wants to actually LOOK at the issues or the actual items in them...



*Mod Note:*

That’s a long post with some…_awkward_ twists and turns.  I don’t think you intended it as such, but some passages come off a bit anti-inclusive.

I think it’s abundantly clear that no group is monolithic in their opinions on subjects that affect them, and Asian gamers are no different.

But to _assume_ that Asian gamers’ view that OA is problematic isn’t in the majority of their community right now (or wasn’t in the past) isn’t supported by the facts.  Neither is the contrary.  Simply put, hard data one way or the other is scarce or nonexistent.

All we *know* is that complaints were made from the first release, and continue to this day,


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 4, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> IMO.  An actual physical book that you own.  Absolutely not.  A digitial pdf where your ownership is treated just as owning the physical book.  Absolutely not.  A digital pdf that you signed a EULA saying you can use it but can't transfer it others - I think that last one is censorship if the company in question doesn't either a) grant those subject to that EULA full rights to transfer their 'copy' of the work when they stop selling it OR b) keep selling the pdf under that EULA.



Yeah, three times you’ve responded to my posts with questions/comments about the transferability of PDFs. I have no %#?$ing idea. IANAL. 

All I said is that I think WotC should stop selling new copies. Not hunt down and confiscate old physical copies. Not release a virus to destroy existing PDFs. Just…stop selling some of their old IP. Maybe even give a 1 month warning, so people who REALLY want 40 year old bad content can do so.

And then release an awesome new update (hopefully with a new title) for 5e.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 4, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> It indicates either a lack of research (it's easy to check that Comliness predates OA), or a desire to be offended, or perhaps even intellectual dishonesty.



*Mod Note:*

“…a desire to be offended”?  My dog heard this whistle.  Let’s not blow it again.


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 4, 2022)

You want to know what negatively affected the Japanese as far feeling something like "appropriation", was James Clavell's Shogun. It's based on a true story - an English merchant captain shipwrecks off Japan and is taken into the House of Nobunaga and treated as a samurai. Except Clavell changed all the real names to fictional names, including Nobunaga as Toranaga (which isn't really a Japanese word; Japanese names are nouns.) Why in the Hell would Clavell do that - that really pissed off the Japanese in the 1970's. I don't believe most Japanese are truly offended by American stylized poor Japanese attempts like OA, they don't really think about that at all. They assume we're ignorant, and of course, for the most part, we are... Shogun TV short series was a bigtime television event at the time, so that affected them more directly.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 4, 2022)

Voadam said:


> ACLU definition
> 
> Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.
> 
> ...




The bolded part is important because people often defend against the first when you are talking about the second in these conversations. Just because you haven't violated someone's first amendment rights by going after the machinery of how works are made available (i.e. organizing and pressuring a publisher to take down content you dislike) doesn't mean it isn't censorious (and I think censoriousness, especially if we are talking about something like a game book or movie that has been made available to people, and people want access to it is wrong). And in the case of OA, it is hard to have a conversation about it, if people can't access the text.


----------



## Voadam (Feb 4, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Does that mean that anybody who owns the rights to a work must continue to make it available, or be guilty of censorship?



It means anyone who suppresses information because of its content is definitionally engaging in censorship.

An intellectual property rights holder choosing to make a work unavailable because of its content is engaging in censorship.

Someone advocating for the removal of access to a work based on its content is advocating for censorship of that work.

Definitionally.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 4, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Shouldn't it have been left out of ALL OF D&D?




Maybe.  But, you seem to be discarding how context matters.  It can be _worse_ in some situations than others.

Imagine you have a recipe for... strawberry spaghetti.  It is kind of nasty.  However, it is _even worse_ if you are serving it to someone you know is allergic to strawberries.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 4, 2022)

Umbran said:


> Maybe.  But, you seem to be discarding how context matters.  It can be _worse_ in some situations than others.
> 
> Imagine you have a recipe for... strawberry spaghetti.  It is kind of nasty.  However, it is _even worse_ if you are serving it to someone you know is allergic to strawberries.



Yea, but sometimes we think we are the allergic when we are actually the server


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 4, 2022)

Umbran said:


> Maybe.  But, you seem to be discarding how context matters.  It can be _worse_ in some situations than others.
> 
> Imagine you have a recipe for... strawberry spaghetti.  It is kind of nasty.  However, it is _even worse_ if you are serving it to someone you know is allergic to strawberries.




Again, that's a terrible analogy. The continued doubling-down on this incorrect point is not something that engenders trust with people discussing this. It's a version of, "Heads I win, tails you lose." No matter how incorrect something is, it's still correct because REASONS! 

Comeliness had been previously introduced as a standard ability. It is no different that what was published in UA earlier. I mean ... no different (as I pointed out before, it's quite literally the exact same as the UA page). Just like, say, Wisdom (as I have already pointed out). If the youtubers had been ignorant of Wisdom as an ability score in D&D, and had made the point that the "Wise Asian" is a fraught stereotype, would you be defending that as well? That it should have been removed?

Or is that you instinctively know that this is ridiculous, because you know that the ability score is part of D&D, not particular to that setting?

It's the same here.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 4, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Again, that's a terrible analogy.




Okay, so, we disagree.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 4, 2022)

I think we can all at least agree that strawberry spaghetti is a terrible recipe


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 4, 2022)

Voadam said:


> It means anyone who suppresses information because of its content is definitionally engaging in censorship.



Ok, I can buy that definition.

So if I’ve composed the post that I’d really dearly love to write, and then think, “That will just get me permanently banned,” and delete it, and it’s gone forever, preventing Morrus from ever waxing eloquent in red text about its artistic merit…I’ve censored myself. I’ve engaged in censorship.

Yeah, I agree. I’ll retract my previous claims about the word’s narrower use.

Which means censorship doesn’t really have a negative meaning, either. So if WotC decides they don’t like the optics of selling bad content and so they stop selling it, they are censoring themselves, but that’s not definitionally a bad thing.

EDIT: Expressed another way, the word "censorship" (even more than "to censor") carries a negative connotation, which is evoked when we exclaim, "That's censorship!"  But, as has been pointed out, the actual definition is much broader.  It also covers benign cases such as, "I almost said the F-word in front of my kids, but censored myself."


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 4, 2022)

This comeliness debate reminds me of the word "niggardly".  Sure, you can argue about the word's etymological roots, but it's still a dumb-@$$ move to use it, especially as a public figure. Similarly, we can argue about how comeliness pre-dated OA, but just the fact that TSR folks didn't think, "You know, rolling this new attribute out on a large scale _in this particular book_ might not be the best idea" shows they weren't aware of the sensitivities involved.  It was clueless, but (probably) not evil.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 4, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Ok, I can buy that definition.
> 
> So if I’ve composed the post that I’d really dearly love to write, and then think, “That will just get me permanently banned,” and delete it, and it’s gone forever, preventing Morrus from ever waxing eloquent in red text about its artistic merit…I’ve censored myself. I’ve engaged in censorship.




There's a phrase for this- it's called the "chilling effect." If you know that speech is likely to get censored, you are less likely to speak. In addition, because most censorship is imprecise, the chilling effect necessarily goes beyond what would actually be suppressed.




Bill Zebub said:


> Yeah, I agree. I’ll retract my previous claims about the word’s narrower use.
> 
> Which means censorship doesn’t really have a negative meaning, either. So if WotC decides they don’t like the optics of selling bad content and so they stop selling it, they are censoring themselves, but that’s not a bad thing.




Words can have many connotations depending on use. Discriminating is usually bad, but a discriminating palate is usually a good thing.

Moderation is a form of censorship as you point out. Whether it's "good," or "bad," can depend on the circumstance.

Self-censorship can be terrible- for example, the chilling effect that we see with a lot of Hollywood productions vis-a-vis China.

Of course, many of us have long experiences (both within the hobby, and in general) with people that demand private entities not allow "bad content." The definition of that "bad content" has changed over time, but the impulse behind it hasn't. 

I mean, it's pretty easy to see this repeated over time-
_Which means censorship doesn’t really have a negative meaning, either. So if 7-11 decides they don’t like the optics of selling bad content and so they stop selling it, they are censoring themselves, but that’s not a bad thing.  _-The American Family Association.

We are all the heroes of our own stories. No one in the history of ever has thought, "I'm suppressing the good content!" And yet ... you either support the principles or you don't. I don't know that I'm right, but I know that I invoked this principle to defend things I believed in greatly, so I'm loathe to give it up.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 4, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Similarly, we can argue about how comeliness pre-dated OA, but just the fact that TSR folks didn't think, "You know, rolling this new attribute out on a large scale _in this particular book_ might not be the best idea" shows they weren't aware of the sensitivities involved.  It was clueless, but (probably) not evil.




This is incorrect. One more time- _ It wasn't rolled out in OA._

The rollout for Player Characters occurred in UNEARTHED ARCANA_. _People discuss how it was referenced earlier, but the big rollout was UA, which came first.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 4, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> There's a phrase for this- it's called the "chilling effect." If you know that speech is likely to get censored, you are less likely to speak. In addition, because most censorship is imprecise, the chilling effect necessarily goes beyond what would actually be suppressed.



Glad to know that has a name.


----------



## GreyLord (Feb 4, 2022)

I apologize if I offended anyone in this thread.  It was not my intent..  

I know the some Asian-American writers (and one in particular with the RPG community) currently.  One has been rather interested in the debate.  

Would you guys like me to encourage him to make an account and put him on so you can ask someone who is part of the Asian community his thoughts?   (rather than me trying to relate them via him talking over my shoulder)?

I'm not sure if I could convince him however.  He has been more than happy to read and comment, but he does not feel safe in creating an account here currently (and normally, most of his writing he does not reveal his ancestry either, he says it is a good way to ensure no one reads your stuff for some items).  

Much of what I said in this thread was regurgitating what he was stating to me.  It probably would be better if HE were the one saying it, but as I said, he does not feel confident he would be free to speak his mind (and I HAVE admittedly toned down some of his comments he said to me) on the matter without persecution.  

It was NOT meant to be offensive to people though, and I apologize if it was.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 4, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> In re: "Asians Represent"  - if their complaint is grounded in total ignorance, it damages their credibility overall.
> 
> L5R only has the samurai and Noble castes being fish and fowl; the other castes eat red meats. From what histories I have read, that's fairly accurate, even in the highlands.
> 
> ...



I have seen very little, almost no, calls for OA to be removed from the market in this thread. Anyway, its not usually a good idea to tar everyone with a view different from yours with the viewpoint that is most extreme. I don't think the overall feeling here is even really that critical of OA or of WotC. As for dismissing Asians Present, eh... I think you may be overreacting here. From what I have seen, it is not intending to present itself as a factual analysis done in a scholarly manner. Its simply some people going off on a topic they consider relevant to themselves. Sometimes they say things that are a bit inaccurate. I think that SOMETIMES that might point to specifics that they're just wrong about, like Comeliness (and look, I misremembered it being in D&DG, does that make everything I have to say in this thread invalid?). 

I don't think its wrong to love games that maybe were not squeaky clean in terms of appropriating or misrepresenting some aspect of culture, being sexist, etc. There's no law that says good isn't mixed with bad! 

One of the key ways to look at these sorts of issues IS from the perspective of people from a culture (or other group) that is being depicted. A real, genuine, issue that I have witnessed in all its glory is the effects of the constant negative/mis portrayal of some group in the lives of its members. Its like, they sit down at a table to play some D&D with their friends, and what do they find? The same nasty BS that got thrown in their face at work! Yeah, it isn't, maybe in either case, actively malicious, but it sure does spoil the mood! Nobody wants to have to deal with it in their recreation of all places. But yes, its complicated, and messy, and its not wrong to want them to not get in your face about what you do with YOUR leisure time either. On the THIRD HAND, why should they be happy about the perpetuation of negative stereotypes about them? See, no black and white, at all. Very very messy.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 4, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I think that SOMETIMES that might point to specifics that they're just wrong about, like Comeliness (and look, I misremembered it being in D&DG, does that make everything I have to say in this thread invalid?).




You were thinking of the '83 World of Greyhawk deities. 

Because, in the end, it's all about Greyhawk. Or pizza. 

mmmmmm..... Greyhawk Pizza.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 4, 2022)

GreyLord said:


> I apologize if I offended anyone in this thread.  It was not my intent..
> 
> I know the some Asian-American writers (and one in particular with the RPG community) currently.  One has been rather interested in the debate.
> 
> ...



Just a suggestion - perhaps have him write an essay on the topic and post it for him. Let him see read the comments and tone and then decide if he wants to make an account to reply to anything there?


----------



## GreyLord (Feb 4, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> Just a suggestion - perhaps have him write an essay on the topic and post it for him. Let him see read the comments and tone and then decide if he wants to make an account to reply to anything there?




I've already done something similar in this thread.  I don't think it was all that well received.

Edit:  IT WAS cut and toned down by myself though.  There were some things that could have been construed as rather personal items that I felt would be inappropriate to be posted here.  There were some rather strong feelings pertaining to some items on the internet being posted as representative to Asians which...in his view...have actually harmed Asian artists working in the field currently and thus are actively harming Asian artists and writers.  I cut MOST of that out and edited it in several other areas.  Thus, a lot of it was reworded by me to be less aggressive than it originally was.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 4, 2022)

GreyLord said:


> I've already done something similar in this thread.  I don't think it was all that well received.



I think laying out an essay is substantially different than what was done here.  I’d also recommend it being a thread opener as opposed to content in the middle of an already contentious thread. But just a suggestion.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Feb 4, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> There's a phrase for this- it's called the "chilling effect." If you know that speech is likely to get censored, you are less likely to speak. In addition, because most censorship is imprecise, the chilling effect necessarily goes beyond what would actually be suppressed.



But that phrase also implies that it is universally bad that people think before they speak and self-censor, which I don't think is actually true, as a rule. Indeed as a person with ADHD who finds it hard to do those things (self-censor etc.), one thing I value about forums is that it gives me more of an opportunity to do so.

Calmer heads prevailing is often a good thing, in my experience, at least on a smaller scale. I mean, there's a reason the UK has restrictions on what politicians can say to each other in the House of Parliament, for example. Yeah, they lead to some awkward situations (you can't call a demonstrated liar, a liar, for example), but they also prevent the kind more abusive discourse we see in a lot of countries. At the same time they're free from libel laws and the like so can say things individuals might not.

I think part of the issue is that the West has come out of this period where censorship was a big issue (particularly earlier in the Cold War and before WW2), and people, especially those who are closer to that time, are kind of jumping at shadows about it because the fear remains it could be again.


----------



## GreyLord (Feb 4, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> I think laying out an essay is substantially different than what was done here.  I’d also recommend it being a thread opener as opposed to content in the middle of an already contentious thread. But just a suggestion.




I DID have another friend (Chinese lady) I thought about asking her to do that.  She would be an interesting one to talk to with it.  She isn't really into RPGs though, so her responses to things might be a little...interesting (she probably has no interest in the RPG items and would consider them not enough to worry about for example).  She is far more involved in the larger issue affecting the community though.  I'm not sure if this would be the site for her, but she probably would be far more interesting to talk to on the overall topic though.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 4, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> There's a phrase for this- it's called the "chilling effect."




Uh....yeah.  Thanks.



Snarf Zagyg said:


> If you know that speech is likely to get censored, you are less likely to speak. In addition, because most censorship is imprecise, the chilling effect necessarily goes beyond what would actually be suppressed.
> 
> Words can have many connotations depending on use. Discriminating is usually bad, but a discriminating palate is usually a good thing.
> 
> ...




The magnitude of the chilling effect is going to be proportional to the nature of the censorship.

Sure, if I think I'll be cut out of the Chinese market, or even get arrested if I ever go to China, I'm going to be extremely careful about what I produce, and probably avoid some truths that should be said.

But if Morrus merely deleted my more egregious posts...which would be censorship, but without penalties...there would be a lot more of them.  If he just flagged them as offensive (a kind of censorship) but left them up, there would be even more of them.  (That might even be an incentive to push the envelope.)

I'm not sure I buy that a fear that a publisher might stop selling your work after 35+ years, as attitudes change, when the work in question is a supplement to a game that will probably itself be replaced by a new edition multiple times before then, produces much of a chilling effect.  And, if it does, the behavior it chills might just carelessness with cultural sensitivities, which would be a good thing.

I made a snarky comment upthread about parade-of-horribles, but it does apply in this case.  One can't prove there _wouldn't_ be a negative chilling effect in this (or any) particular case, of course, which gives it the illusion of a powerful argument.

But just as many posters seem to feel that using the language of imperialism to describe orcs couldn't possible have any negative consequences in the real world, I just can't imagine that a publisher deciding to stop publishing 37 year old niche content is going to have any kind chilling effect on creativity.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 4, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> Has anyone else noticed that orcs and drow are believed to be too similar to depictions of one particular race/culture and OA is criticized for not being similar enough of certain races/cultures.
> 
> Anyways back to your regularly scheduled programming. Beep. beep. boop. bop.



Are you implying there can only be one form of racist or culturally inappropriate materials or activities? These are two completely different issues, even if they are related in the sense that they both fall within the greater realm of racist depictions, etc. (there are a few different labels that could be applied). So, I submit that your observation is essentially meaningless.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 4, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Are you implying there can only be one form of racist or culturally inappropriate materials or activities?



Nope.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> These are two completely different issues, even if they are related in the sense that they both fall within the greater realm of racist depictions, etc. (there are a few different labels that could be applied). So, I submit that your observation is essentially meaningless.



IMO. Not all observations must say something profound.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 4, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> Just curious - Can a person legally transfer the rights of their pdf to another person or to a library to lend out?  I don’t know the actually answer but it seems pertinent.
> 
> if a company sets themselves up as the only way possible to procure a work and then chooses to stop selling a digital copy, and none of those digital copies which were sold can be transferred individual to individual - then IMO that’s not ethical (regardless of whether you call it censorship). I don’t care whether they continue to sell it or whether the simply update their terms to allow the already sold work to be transferred between individuals (if it isn’t legally possible already).



You're into a very complex set of topics related to IP laws. IANAL, so I cannot really give you a legally useful opinion. OTOH I have some experience as a creator of certain kinds of works... When you sell a physical item there is, in the US, a doctrine, the 'Doctrine of First Sale' which states that the original creator gives up their rights with respect to THAT INSTANCE of what was sold. Thus if you bought a copy of OA from TSR in 1986, you own it. You can sell it, lend it, destroy it, give it away, show it to people, whatever you want, as long as you don't reproduce it. However, it is less clear with digital material. First Sale DOES still apply, but it is a whole lot less clear what constitutes an 'original' when dealing with digital material! Libraries HAVE successfully argued that they can lend material, and they do it all the time. 

There is also the question of 'Fair Use', a copyright is not an absolute right. The public has certain rights WRT a work, including the right to reproduce parts of it for educational purposes, criticism, etc. within certain limits (basically as long as it doesn't degrade the value to the rights holder, or deprive them of the benefits of their rights, but this is a super complex area of law that is virtually decided on a case-by-case basis). 

So, WotC, as the copyright holder of the work, OA in this case, can stop selling it. They can't do much else. MAYBE they could come after you for 'selling your copy of the PDF' online, but they would probably have to prove there are effectively multiple copies in existence as a result. Libraries can probably lend it out too, that's pretty established. 

A FURTHER complexity is that not everything that people got in their hands was 'free and clear'. Especially in modern times businesses have taken to 'licensing things out'. That is they claim they didn't really sell it to you, that they "still own it." This has sometimes worked, and sometimes courts have basically said "If it quacks like a duck, its a duck!" There can also be NDAs and various contractual arrangements that could limit what can be done with media, though they are not generally very applicable to something that is being sold to the public.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 4, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> But just as many posters seem to feel that using the language of imperialism to describe orcs couldn't possible have any negative consequences in the real world, I just can't imagine that a publisher deciding to stop publishing 37 year old niche content is going to have any kind chilling effect on creativity.




Not to belabor the obvious, but when people here keep saying, "But no one is calling for it to no longer be available," you are, in fact, one of the very few people making that exact demand.

And you have also compared this to other issues such as "orcs" and "chainmail bikinis." Now, as someone who is pretty well-versed in historical D&D, I can assure of the following ...

_There is something problematic in almost every ... single ... thing ... published before 1990 ... and probably up to and including now. _

Every thing? Maybe not. But whether it's cheesecake art (your "chainmail bikins") or Dragon Magazine articles referring to Africa as "the Darkest Continent," or the "Good Wife" and "Random Harlot" tables in the 1e DMG or the Elmore art that appropriated iconography of Native Americans (American Indians) or the poor phrasing in the Monster Manuals and other books ... or whatever, there's something that someone can complain about.

And seeing as it took a lot of effort to get WoTC _to even make their back catalog available_, I am not a big fan of people trying to restrict it now. Why?

Because the people like you who want it restricted don't use it at all. So you're right when you keep saying it's no big deal ... to you. Whereas the people like me and others who do use it (either parts of the mechanics for older games, or because we research the history of gaming) will lose out. That's the thing about speech suppression- the people calling for it never use it, so it's no big deal for them, right?

Anyway, I doubt that this particular thing will have that much of a chilling effect; but the discourse certainly does. How many people have we seen mention the whole, "Stay in your lane" in this thread? That you'll be fine if you stay in that lane? That's ... yeah, that's the definition of chilling speech.

Again, I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with you. Not because I like "racist speech," but because I uphold the principle even when it is speech I don't like, simply because I have used it to defend the speech I do like. YMMV.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 4, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> The problem is there isn't really such a 'frame of reference'. What am I 'supposed' to write about? I'm an American of European descent. OVER 300 years ago my 14th times great grandfather immigrated to America (long before there was a US) from Germany (which actually didn't even exist as a nation at that time, and is an agglomeration of several distinct, though related, cultures to start with). What can I write about? lol. What is 'my lane'??? I mean, I'm not actually complaining, and it isn't nearly as problematic for me as it is for some.



Similar boat here. The males figures in my patriarchal (e.g., Northern English/Ulster-Scots) and matriarchal (i.e., Rhineland German) lineages both have lived in America for 300+ and 280+ years, respectively. My ancestors lived in the same region of Western North Carolina for about 250+ years, both extending before there was even a United States of America. I was born and raised in a region where the people identify predominately as "American" partially because knowledge of our ancestry has faded into a speculative vague awareness and (generally) a more localized sense of "who are your people?" and/or "where are you from?" 

And expanding a point that I made earlier: 


Aldarc said:


> I can't say that I agree. There has been pushback against lumping Aztecs, Mayans, Incans, etc. all together into a mash: such an approach is essentially a Euro-American colonialist enterprise. I recall pushback against that here by a poster from (I believe) Mexico.
> 
> Moreover, the quiet trend over the past ten to twenty years in European TTRPGs has been pushing back against the American homogenized-approach to European fantasy. There have been a lot more native European TTRPG publishers who are publishing their own vision for European fantasy, often focused on their own country/region's fantasy folklore or fantastical sensibilities.



When it comes to greater trends in TTRPG publishing, that also includes the various peoples of the Americas. The _Coyote & Crow RPG_ made a fairly big splash last year as a sci-fi alternate America written by a team of Native Americans. Similarly, there are several TTRPGs that are written by Appalachian natives that are writing TTRPGs based in Appalachian folklore (e.g., _Holler: An Appalachian Apocalypse_ for Savage Worlds, as well as an upcoming _Old Gods of Appalachia TTRPG_ for Cypher System, from the podcast of the same name). 

This is not to say that "this is our lane," but, rather, to point that TTRPGs have provided a way to empower various ethnicities, nations of people, and other backgrounds to shape the narrative of their identity in a way that is not necessarily imposed on them by "outsiders," whether that is in a homogenized, pastiche, or deragatory form.


----------



## Mannahnin (Feb 4, 2022)

Mordhau said:


> I remember watching the Asians Represent podcast about the Legend of the FIve Rings, and they complained a lot about honour being used as a specifically 'asian' feature of games.  It's difficult to summarise exactly what the issue was however, due to the nature of the medium.






MGibster said:


> That's a fair criticism I think.  Ideas of honor aren't in short supply throughout western history motivating fictional and historical individuals alike but we don't often see it manifested in RPGs.



The Honor score is a pretty important mechanic in _Pendragon_.  It's fairly central to PCs, and while the mechanic is less complex than what I remember of OA's Honor score (or On, from FGU's _Bushido_, which preceded it by several years), it's definitely part of genre emulation there.  I can't remember if Lee Gold's _Land of the Rising Sun_ also published by FGU, included an honor "score" per se, but it definitely had rules for honor.

Of course the honor code for Cavaliers in _1E AD&D'_s _Unearthed Arcana_ was famously restrictive and severe, though rather than giving Cavalier characters an honor score, as I recall, it was a code like Paladins had, but larger, more restrictive, and more likely to result in intra-party conflict or the death of the Cavalier character. And the mechanical consequences for not observing it were loss of the class.  It seems to me that OA was designed in reference to and following UA with Comeliness, and perhaps so with Honor, as well, perhaps Zeb Cook thinking that it was a more broadly applicable concept within that setting than for just two classes in regular AD&D, but also correspondingly thinking that it had to be more flexible to allow different characters to operate differently in regards to societal honor.  As opposed to Paladins and Cavaliers (and to a lesser extent Rangers, Clerics, and Monks) just getting "follow these rules or lose your cool abilities".

The Code of Bushido itself having detailed tenets and rules was something which clearly appealed to wargamers and roleplaying gamers interested in feudal Japan, and it seems like they latched onto it as something which could be mechanically represented to help emulate the genre, as Greg Stafford did with Arthurian romances' chivalric honor in Pendragon.

So in context, we have at least three or four strong prior examples of honor mechanics in other games/supplements, designed for genre emulation.  All for knightly/chivalric type characters and societies.  Knights, Cavaliers, and Samurai for the most part.  In that context, honor mechanics are not an asian feature of games, though they ARE one that consistently was used in asian games, which were designed to emulate popular fiction and dramatized history about samurai.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 4, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Not to belabor the obvious, but when people here keep saying, "But no one is calling for it to no longer be available," you are, in fact, one of the very few people making that exact demand.




"Demand"?

Please quote my post where I am making such a demand.

I think WotC should pull it.  If I were in charge at WotC that's what I would do.  That's an opinion, not a demand.  

I mean, for $%@#'s sake, if I were making "demands" do you think I'd be posting them in a thread on Enworld?  

Oh...wait...this is the "chilling effect" you were talking about at work, right?  Sneaky.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 4, 2022)

Umbran said:


> Maybe.  But, you seem to be discarding how context matters.  It can be _worse_ in some situations than others.
> 
> Imagine you have a recipe for... strawberry spaghetti.  It is kind of nasty.  However, it is _even worse_ if you are serving it to someone you know is allergic to strawberries.



Actually, I agree with you, context does matter. My comment was intended in a very literal sense, just that it shouldn't have ever existed as a stat (and even in 1985 I thought so, for the same reasons it is objected to today). So, yeah, doubly bad in OA, but should never have existed at all. I guess I could have elaborated that point. Thx.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 4, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> "Demand"?
> 
> Please quote my post where I am making such a demand.
> 
> ...




If you want to engage in semantics, that is your prerogative.

Here's what I said-

_Not to belabor the obvious, but when people here keep saying, "But no one is calling for it to no longer be available," you are, in fact, one of the very few people making that exact demand._

I will edit it for you-
_
Not to belabor the obvious, but when people here keep saying, "But no one is calling for it to no longer be available," you are, in fact, one of the very few people making that exact repeated call that WoTC make it no longer available. 



_


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Feb 4, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> If you want to engage in semantics, that is your prerogative.
> 
> Here's what I said-
> 
> ...



I mean, I feel like you're being a bit of a naughty little Thundercat here because it seems like his actual position is:

"If it were up to me, I'd remove it from the catalogue", which I dunno, seems to distinct from "It oughta be banned!" (i.e. directly calling for it). Like I don't think that's just a semantic distinction. There are loads of things which, were it up to me, I'd do, but I'm not actually going around saying "oughta happen" or the like. Calling for something and having an opinion seem different to me.

Like, if it were up to me, I would bring back 4E in a a properly-supported digital way, but equally, I'm not calling for WotC to do that. It's just something I'd like. YMMV.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 4, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> If you want to engage in semantics, that is your prerogative.
> 
> Here's what I said-
> 
> ...




You just did it again!

Yes, I'm "engaging in semantics" because I'm talking about the meaning of a word, which is what semantics is.  But you're trying to use the phrase "engaging in semantics" to dismiss my argument as sophistry.

You are hyperbolizing my opinion, by trying to turn it into a "demand" or a "call", and I don't believe what I have written meets either of those definitions.  But both carry a connotation that furthers a story many people are pushing, that the mob is trying to pressure WotC into pulling content.

Maybe you'd like to suggest specific phrasing I could use in the future, that would enable me to express my opinion without crossing the line into "demands" or "calls"?


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 4, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Like, if it were up to me, I would bring back 4E in a a properly-supported digital way,




What's the opposite of censorship?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 4, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> Nope.
> 
> 
> IMO. Not all observations must say something profound.



Well.... You actually made an argument. It had a logical form, but the argument itself was nonsensical. I interpreted it as an attempt to discredit ideas that you seemed to disagree with by, at best, poor reasoning, and at worst a highly dubious type of rhetorical technique in which the speaker KNOWS their argument is nonsensical but believes it will inflame the supporters of their point of view and make them feel validated. 

I mean, I'm not in a position to say more than it was illogical. It is, to restate, IMHO at least, perfectly logical to say that a depiction of Orcs which labels them as 'evil' and various other negative stereotypes AND depicts them in a way that evokes a set of physical traits held to be typical of certain ethnicities is a case where making the depiction LESS like some genre tropes/fiction which it was drawn from would be positive. In the case of say OA Samurai as a stereotype of certain Japanese value systems, it would instead be better if the material was MORE accurate. Clearly these are not mutually inconsistent statements, nor inconsistent views, and holding both of them does not make either of them less valid.


----------



## Voadam (Feb 4, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> This comeliness debate reminds me of the word "niggardly".  Sure, you can argue about the word's etymological roots, but it's still a dumb-@$$ move to use it, especially as a public figure. Similarly, we can argue about how comeliness pre-dated OA, but just the fact that TSR folks didn't think, "You know, rolling this new attribute out on a large scale _in this particular book_ might not be the best idea" shows they weren't aware of the sensitivities involved.  It was clueless, but (probably) not evil.



I don't think separating appearance from charisma is particularly problematic of itself, in either a generic sense or in the East Asian context. I don't feel it is something that particularly needs to be statted out in a game and it could potentially lead to problematic issues about beauty, but generally I do not think it is a big deal itself. I don't really have a problem with it as a core stat in White Wolf games, for instance.

The big problem I see with Comeliness the 1e AD&D stat is the mechanics and descriptions. They take away autonomy in reaction to appearance. They direct roleplay to beauty trope scripts. They feed into exaggerated sexualization and toxic relationship dynamics. The codifying of a hostile reaction to rejection by attractive people is particularly problematic in my view.

This is an issue for both men and women but generally much more of an issue for women.

This is fairly consistent with and feeds into problematic sexy dragon lady tropes about Asian women, but also problematic sexualization tropes about blondes, redheads, Black women, Latina women, and many specific ethnicity women sexualization tropes.

I am glad it was not carried forward into 2e and beyond.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 4, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> I _do_ think WotC should not be selling digital copies, not because the government is forcing them to, or the mob is threatening them, but because it's an embarrassment.





Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean, I feel like you're being a bit of a naughty little Thundercat here because it seems like his actual position is:
> 
> "If it were up to me, I'd remove it from the catalogue", which I dunno, seems to distinct from "It oughta be banned!" (i.e. directly calling for it). Like I don't think that's just a semantic distinction. There are loads of things which, were it up to me, I'd do, but I'm not actually going around saying "oughta happen" or the like. Calling for something and having an opinion seem different to me.
> 
> Like, if it were up to me, I would bring back 4E in a a properly-supported digital way, but equally, I'm not calling for WotC to do that. It's just something I'd like. YMMV.



Imo I think the truth is somewhere in between.  It’s more than ‘if it was me I would not sell it.’  But it’s less than ‘Wotc must not sell it’. 


Bill Zebub said:


> I _do_ think WotC should not be selling digital copies, not because the government is forcing them to, or the mob is threatening them, but because it's an embarrassment.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 4, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean, I feel like you're being a bit of a naughty little Thundercat here because it seems like his actual position is:




He's repeatedly said that "WoTC should stop selling new copies."* Now, if you want say that he is just expressing his _opinion_, and despite his many posts on the subject, he doesn't really care if they do or not, and wouldn't actually call for them to do it or support his stated opinion, then cool.

I tend to not agree. If someone wants to say that I am of the opinion that WoTC should not remove it, or that I am "calling" on them to keep it, especially to the extent that people are ascribing a position to me vis-a-vis others on this thread, I think that would be fair.

But I'm not you.


*"All I said is that I think WotC should stop selling new copies."


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 4, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> Similar boat here. The males figures in my patriarchal (e.g., Northern English/Ulster-Scots) and matriarchal (i.e., Rhineland German) lineages both have lived in America for 300+ and 280+ years, respectively. My ancestors lived in the same region of Western North Carolina for about 250+ years, both extending before there was even a United States of America. I was born and raised in a region where the people identify predominately as "American" partially because knowledge of our ancestry has faded into a speculative vague awareness and (generally) a more localized sense of "who are your people?" and/or "where are you from?"
> 
> And expanding a point that I made earlier:
> 
> ...



It sure is an amazingly complicated world we live in now...

I think that we should respect people's cultures, and I do think there IS something that can be harmful cultural exploitation, but at the same time nobody really 'owns' culture. Definitely does seem to me that we should try to handle material of any sort respectfully. I would not, for example, try to do some work depicting the religious or ceremonial beliefs/practices of indigenous people, especially when said people are now living on reservations and much of their culture was actively targeted, depicted in a bad way with malice, etc. Heck, I just don't know nearly enough about it. If I were interested in making a gaming product about it, I'd hardly blame people from that culture for being highly critical of my bumbling ineptness and insensitivity! OTOH I think we probably safely incorporate details into a much different depiction that isn't intended to invoke or reference said culture. I mean, if I made a D&D product where the dwarves painted designs on their armor that looked similar to some indigenous art, that MIGHT be OK. 

I guess in the end, it never hurts to find someone that might be more knowledgeable than yourself on a topic and see what they say. Seems like even TSR sort of did that way back when, lol.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 4, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Well.... You actually made an argument. It had a logical form, but the argument itself was nonsensical. I interpreted it as an attempt to discredit ideas that you seemed to disagree with by, at best, poor reasoning, and at worst a highly dubious type of rhetorical technique in which the speaker KNOWS their argument is nonsensical but believes it will inflame the supporters of their point of view and make them feel validated.



Please stop assuming bad faith.  
Please stop assuming I'm making a point I never made.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> I mean, I'm not in a position to say more than it was illogical. It is, to restate, IMHO at least, perfectly logical to say that a depiction of Orcs which labels them as 'evil' and various other negative stereotypes AND depicts them in a way that evokes a set of physical traits held to be typical of certain ethnicities is a case where making the depiction LESS like some genre tropes/fiction which it was drawn from would be positive. In the case of say OA Samurai as a stereotype of certain Japanese value systems, it would instead be better if the material was MORE accurate. Clearly these are not mutually inconsistent statements, nor inconsistent views, and holding both of them does not make either of them less valid.



IMO, and I don't mean this to be personal as it's something i think we all do.  When we see someone disagreeing and making points that we disagree with, we have a tendency to think that everything they post must somehow relate toward that topic in a way we disagree with.  So, we conclude that a particular post must be making a point we disagree with so we 'fill in the gaps' so that in our minds it actually does.  I've done this many times and I'm sure I will again in the future.  I mean go back and read my post - there was no conclusion in my post.  I didn't say it was bad or inconsistent or hypocritical that this was happening.

And just to go on record - I totally agree that those are not mutually inconsistent statements or inconsistent ones.  I can still find them being juxtaposed beside each other to be interesting... or maybe I can't?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 4, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> Please stop assuming bad faith.
> Please stop assuming I'm making a point I never made.
> 
> 
> ...



Cool. It just seemed like an odd thing to juxtapose without there being an implicit argument there. But lets agree to agree


----------



## Mannahnin (Feb 4, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> And just to go on record - I totally agree that those are not mutually inconsistent statements or inconsistent ones.  I can still find them being juxtaposed beside each other to be interesting... or maybe I can't?



You certainly can, but there did seem to be a logical implication.  If you find the contrast interesting for another reason than thinking them contradictory, it's probably worth spelling out your line of thought.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 4, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> The Honor score is a pretty important mechanic in _Pendragon_.  It's fairly central to PCs, and while the mechanic is less complex than what I remember of OA's Honor score (or On, from FGU's _Bushido_, which preceded it by several years), it's definitely part of genre emulation there.  I can't remember if Lee Gold's _Land of the Rising Sun_ also published by FGU, included an honor "score" per se, but it definitely had rules for honor.
> 
> Of course the honor code for Cavaliers in _1E AD&D'_s _Unearthed Arcana_ was famously restrictive and severe, though rather than giving Cavalier characters an honor score, as I recall, it was a code like Paladins had, but larger, more restrictive, and more likely to result in intra-party conflict or the death of the Cavalier character. And the mechanical consequences for not observing it were loss of the class.
> 
> ...



Honor systems in role-playing games are not unique to Asian-inspired games or supplements . . . true. But almost every Asian-inspired game book does include an honor system, they are more common than in non-Asian game books. And the critique of the honor system in Oriental Adventures is more in context of D&D. At the time, there was not an honor system for the core European-inspired characters, OA introduced it in the context of something you'll need with Asian-inspired characters. Yes, there was the chivalric codes for the cavalier and paladin, but those are limited by class, not by fantasy ethnicity.

Again, this was not done with racist intent. But it is problematic in the context of the D&D game. Listen to the Asian voices telling you their reactions to this game element.

Are all honor systems bad choices in Asian-inspired games? Not necessarily, but I think you'd want to tread carefully if writing or designing such a game.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 4, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Cool. It just seemed like an odd thing to juxtapose without there being an implicit argument there. But lets agree to agree



Lol maybe so. I blame all weirdness on it being 1:30 am when I was posting. I’m lucky to have typed actual sentences together.


----------



## Alzrius (Feb 4, 2022)

Voadam said:


> I am glad it was not carried forward into 2e and beyond.



Fun fact: Comeliness did survive into AD&D 2E as part of the RPGA. However, it was overhauled quite a bit.

You can see this in _Polyhedron_ #89, as an addendum to the adventure "The Ugly Stick." There, Comeliness has a description consisting of three paragraphs and a table, wherein it explicitly says that it's not like how it was in AD&D 1E. Instead, all it does is provide modifiers to reaction adjustments (with the values mirroring those of the reaction adjustments for Charisma).


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 4, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> Fun fact: Comeliness did survive into AD&D 2E as part of the RPGA. However, it was overhauled quite a bit.
> 
> You can see this in _Polyhedron_ #89, as an addendum to the adventure "The Ugly Stick." There, Comeliness has a description consisting of three paragraphs and a table, wherein it explicitly says that it's not like how it was in AD&D 1E. Instead, all it does is provide modifiers to reaction adjustments (with the values mirroring those of the reaction adjustments for Charisma).




In the 90s I remember a lot of people using comeliness as a kind of optional rule (don't think it was in the 2E PHB---though that did have a ton of optional rules in it). Personally I was never a big fan of it because I felt CHR elegantly folded in many different characteristics that could make a person appealing (and in real life charisma has a potency that a concept like comeliness doesn't). But I don't think anything was meant by its inclusion in OA other than it being a recently devised stat they felt might meet some kind of demand.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 4, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> You certainly can, but there did seem to be a logical implication.  If you find the contrast interesting for another reason than thinking them contradictory, it's probably worth spelling out your line of thought.



Don’t know that I’d have any idea how. I also wouldn’t have any idea how to explain to someone what I like about chocolate cake.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 4, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> He's repeatedly said that "WoTC should stop selling new copies."* Now, if you want say that he is just expressing his _opinion_, and despite his many posts on the subject, he doesn't really care if they do or not, and wouldn't actually call for them to do it or support his stated opinion, then cool.
> 
> I tend to not agree. If someone wants to say that I am of the opinion that WoTC should not remove it, or that I am "calling" on them to keep it, especially to the extent that people are ascribing a position to me vis-a-vis others on this thread, I think that would be fair.
> 
> ...




I have to agree with you on this. I mean in any other arena if you say "I think X should stop doing Y" or "I would like to see X stop doing Y", you are calling for them to stop doing Y. This doesn't seem like an issue where you can have it both ways. Maybe he does mean something else by it. Sometimes we post things and paint ourselves into a corner, staking out territory we don't really care to defend (but the trial of posts in a conversation leads us there). Fair enough f that is the case. But if someone is maintaining they would like WOTC to take down the book, that is a pretty concrete position on the issue in my view.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 4, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> The problem is there isn't really such a 'frame of reference'. What am I 'supposed' to write about? I'm an American of European descent. OVER 300 years ago my 14th times great grandfather immigrated to America (long before there was a US) from Germany (which actually didn't even exist as a nation at that time, and is an agglomeration of several distinct, though related, cultures to start with). What can I write about? lol. What is 'my lane'??? I mean, I'm not actually complaining, and it isn't nearly as problematic for me as it is for some.
> 
> Still, am I forbidden to touch on American cultural elements which were introduced by non-Europeans? How about Frenchmen, but not Germans? lol. The whole CONCEPT is gravely flawed. I know you're not advocating for anything like this, I just felt it needed to be pointed out and your comment touched on it. Anyway, I think there are valid questions about racial bias, certainly. I think there are valid questions about cultural exploitation too. OTOH culture mostly is a constant process of adopting things from other places, adapting them, smooshing them together with other things from other traditions, etc. It is both problematic to say that a clearly dominant (in several respects) Euro-American society is perfectly OK to just heedlessly incorporate anything we feel like from people's who are seriously harmed by our attitudes and actions, AND problematic to say that some group 'owns the right' to be gatekeepers of something. This is of course even beyond the questions of whom it is who has any right to claim to speak for a culture.
> 
> I think there isn't an answer here, there never was, never will be. We can however safely say that when other people get hurt, we should pay attention. This is simply being a good human being. Do the right thing, and to hell with theories and whatever. The past is done (but not dead, no no) and we can't revisit it, so we are simply bound to all try to be considerate people, eh?



This is a particularly current problem right now considering how issues of identity politics have flooded the zeitgeist of the last few decades and seem to be increasing in tempo - and right now as a culture, we're still not very adept at it at using it consistently and constructively. There are some really extreme viewpoints out there as well as really shallow critics who aren't very good at in-depth analysis or self-reflection. I expect things will swing back and forth between push, counter push, reaction, counter reaction for a while. And that's not necessarily a comfortable place to be. 
As far as what people can do now who want to put their ideas out there, best you can do is to be as considerate as you can, master as thoroughly as you can, set appropriate expectations, use appropriate informants (live or textual), and be prepared to weather the storm of criticism hoping that your care and effort will win most reasonable critics over. And, yeah, that's a potentially huge undertaking that not everyone is up to, particular that last one. It may keep people with great ideas and good knowledge from putting out their work. That's a shame, but it's also the reality we've got.


----------



## Mannahnin (Feb 4, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> Honor systems in role-playing games are not unique to Asian-inspired games or supplements . . . true. But almost every Asian-inspired game book does include an honor system, they are more common than in non-Asian game books.



Yup. As I wrote.



Dire Bare said:


> Honor systems in role-playing games are not unique to Asian-inspired games or supplements . . . true. But almost every Asian-inspired game book does include an honor system, they are more common than in non-Asian game books. And the critique of the honor system in Oriental Adventures is more in context of D&D. At the time, there was not an honor system for the core European-inspired characters, OA introduced it in the context of something you'll need with Asian-inspired characters. Yes, there was the chivalric codes for the cavalier and paladin, but those are limited by class, not by fantasy ethnicity.



Sure, but I think it's clear that the honor systems were imposed in an attempt to emulate conduct rules consonant with the genres being simulated.  Pendragon gives the PCs all Honor scores as OA does.  It appears to be based on the fiction, not on ethnicity.  OA implements it for every PC in Kara-Tur because that's what Zeb (following Bob Charette and Paul Hume, and Lee Gold) understood to be its importance in the genre via pop culture and fiction. 

AD&D didn't already have honor/conduct mechanics for all PCs because most PCs are supposed to be rogues and picaros.  Paladins, Cavaliers, Rangers, and to some extent Clerics and Monks, do have conduct rules and requirements.  (Hmm. Although the GM is required to judge alignment adherence and conduct for all PCs for advancement purposes, come to think of it.)  They just hadn't implemented Honor as a concept in the same mechanical way.  "Hmm, I'm making a game based primarily on samurai and ninja fiction.  It needs some new interesting mechanics.  Martial arts, definitely!  What else comes up all the time in that fiction?  Hmm...."



Dire Bare said:


> Again, this was not done with racist intent. But it is problematic in the context of the D&D game. Listen to the Asian voices telling you their reactions to this game element.
> 
> Are all honor systems bad choices in Asian-inspired games? Not necessarily, but I think you'd want to tread carefully if writing or designing such a game.



Absolutely.  As I listen to asian voices I'm going to do my best to take on board observations of things I miss that I didn't have a cultural reference for.  Sometimes folks outside the culture being discussed miss subtleties like that.  Similarly, I'm also going to necessarily note when they are missing context and off base.  With Comeliness they were totally off base.  With Honor there's some validity to the concerns.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 4, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> With Comeliness they were totally off base.  With Honor there's some validity to the concerns.



The AR podcast were under the impression that Comeliness was introduced with Oriental Adventures. This is technically not correct, but it isn't a major faux-pas in the slightest. And their reactions that the inclusion of a Comeliness mechanic, not present in core D&D, in an Asian supplement, was honest and legit.

It is problematic. Not by intent, but by effect.

Likewise with honor systems. The AR crew pushes back on the idea that all Asian people live guided by honor, any more or less than peoples in other parts of the world. Honor for ALL Asian characters, but honor for only SOME Western characters, by profession, is the issue.

Cook was trying to emulate his experience with the genre, there was no ill intent. But again, it's problematic for many Asian-descent gamers. 

That Honor systems exist in other games isn't directly relevant. It's problematic in some of those RPGs for similar reasons, and in others it is less so, or even not at all. Depends on the focus of the game, and the implementation of "honor".


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Feb 4, 2022)

I'm sure the OA has a lot of problematic stuff in it, especially by modern standards. That of course don't mean that some of the critique couldn't be mistaken. In any case, the book is ancient history, so I'm not sure why it terribly matters now. Sure, it is important to endeavour to do better in the future, and I'm sure they will. When depicting a culture, it of course is important to listen and respect the views of the people whose culture it is. But that also means people _actually from outside of North America._ It often feels that these discussions are rather America-centric, and cultures outside America are merely used as props for internal American dialogue.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 4, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I have to agree with you on this. I mean in any other arena if you say "I think X should stop doing Y" or "I would like to see X stop doing Y", you are calling for them to stop doing Y.




Naw, that's just false.  Certainly if I'm hiking in the woods with my dog, and say, "I think so-and-so should stop posting on Enworld" I am not calling on that person to do anything.  You're only "calling on somebody to do something" if you think that somebody is monitoring (and caring) what you say, which I don't believe is the case here.  

But, I'm curious: in a public arena, do you think there is _any_ way to express the sentiment "I don't think (entity) should (verb)" and have it be an opinion, not a call or demand?  What would that language look like?  Does it require explicit disclaimers?


----------



## Einlanzer0 (Feb 4, 2022)

Racism is a term that has become dramatically overused to try to smear people that have no ill intent. There's nothing more inherently racist about Oriental Adventures than there is about all of the Western tropes included in many generic fantasy settings. It's far more racist to infantalize huge groups of people by culturally monolithing them and then pandering to what you perceive as their justified sensitivity as though they were children. 

Eventually we'll get out of this paradigm and return to some semblance of normalcy where terms like racism and sexism actually mean something as opposed to just being mindless ways of projecting your own prejudice, poisoning wells, and/or shouting down views that threaten your sense of identity.

Also, ugh, Umbran strikes again.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 4, 2022)

By the way, I don't deny there's a such thing as chilling effect.  I've swung way around over the last few decades on my views about a lot of these issues, but one thing I haven't bought into is the taboo against "cultural appropriation"  and I think when activists attack an author for writing about an experience which isn't their own...not just for getting it wrong, but for daring to even do so...it dissuades other authors (which is the goal) and stifles creativity.

But just like I think the anti-cultural-appropriation point of view is taking things to an extreme, I also don't think things should be taken to the extreme the other way, i.e. "no content should ever be discontinued for any reason because of the chilling effect"....which feels like the argument being presented here.


----------



## Einlanzer0 (Feb 4, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> By the way, I don't deny there's a such thing as chilling effect.  I've swung way around over the last few decades on my views about a lot of these issues, but one thing I haven't bought into is the taboo against "cultural appropriation"  and I think when activists attack an author for writing about an experience which isn't their own...not just for getting it wrong, but for daring to even do so...it dissuades other authors (which is the goal) and stifles creativity.
> 
> But just like I think the anti-cultural-appropriation point of view is taking things to an extreme, I also don't think things should be taken to the extreme the other way, i.e. "no content should ever be discontinued for any reason because of the chilling effect"....which feels like the argument being presented here.




There's really no such thing as anti-cultural appropropriation. The idea of cultural appropriation is nonsensical in virtually every context under which it is applied. Culture is shared organically and it is usually a sign of progress. Battling cultural diffusion is something that is motivated by fearful tribalism and is almost universally regressive and toxic. Ironic considering it's usually people who claim to be liberal who make a big issue out of it.

Telling a white person they can't just enjoy yoga's benefits or wear dreadlocks without a bunch of pretense and playing apologetics about it constantly is every bit as full of conservative prejudice as telling a racial minority they should self-segregate and not enjoy baseball. It should be called out that one of these things happens all the time and the other literally never happens. Nobody should be surprised that we're getting more divided.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 4, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> The AR podcast were under the impression that Comeliness was introduced with Oriental Adventures. This is technically not correct, but it isn't a major faux-pas in the slightest. And their reactions that the inclusion of a Comeliness mechanic, not present in core D&D, in an Asian supplement, was honest and legit.
> 
> It is problematic. Not by intent, but by effect.




But that's just not correct. Look, if someone is complaining about _Uncle Tom's Cabin_, and they think it was written two years ago, they might have honest and legit reactions to it that are also wrong because they don't understand the history.

Here, on this issue, they were just wrong. There was nothing about the mechanic in the book (as I have repeatedly said, they used the _exact same language_ that was used in the "regular" Unearthed Arcana) that was problematic vis-a-vis Asian cultures or stereotypes; just the normal, problematic issues for that mechanic.

In other words, the only objection is if you assume that the ability was introduced only for an Asian setting; just like if you assumed, incorrectly, that Wisdom had been put in there just for the Asian setting. Or Strength. Or Intelligence.

Unfortunately for the thesis, it has nothing to do with the setting at all, and is orthogonal to issues related to stereotypes of Asian beauty and/or ugliness. 



Dire Bare said:


> Likewise with honor systems. The AR crew pushes back on the idea that all Asian people live guided by honor, any more or less than peoples in other parts of the world. Honor for ALL Asian characters, but honor for only SOME Western characters, by profession, is the issue.
> 
> Cook was trying to emulate his experience with the genre, there was no ill intent. But again, it's problematic for many Asian-descent gamers.
> 
> That Honor systems exist in other games isn't directly relevant. It's problematic in some of those RPGs for similar reasons, and in others it is less so, or even not at all. Depends on the focus of the game, and the implementation of "honor".




This, on the other hand, is a valid observation. While there was no ill intent, it is certainly problematic that D&D only introduced (and only used) an "Honor" mechanic in their OA- especially given that it should have equally been applicable to the other chivalry issues that they had just revamped in Unearthed Arcana.



Right there - that's the difference and a point of some frustration. When people are discussing things, we should respect feeling and honest reactions. But we also need to respect facts. If a part of a person's critique is based on a misunderstanding, or they simply got something wrong, it doesn't invalidate everything they say- but it does invalidate the thing that is incorrect. And the more people keep saying that actual facts don't matter, the more it seems like the purpose is not to accurately critique the issues of a book, but rather to say that a book has issues regardless of the content.


----------



## Alzrius (Feb 4, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> D&D only introduced (and only used) an "Honor" mechanic in their OA



Well, again, that wasn't the only place where that rule came into effect.


----------



## Shades of Eternity (Feb 4, 2022)

Fraid so.

watch any "asian" episode on 80's tv and you'll get the same vibe...unfortunately.

heck

Kara-Tur - Some Thoughts - Part 1 - Overview 

This was written more sensitively and it got chewed out on another forum.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 4, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> Well, again, that wasn't the only place where that rule came into effect.




Totally forgot you posted that ... my knowledge of 2e splat books is limited.


----------



## Einlanzer0 (Feb 4, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Right there - that's the difference and a point of some frustration. When people are discussing things, we should respect feeling and honest reactions. But we also need to respect facts. If a part of a person's critique is based on a misunderstanding, or they simply got something wrong, it doesn't invalidate everything they say- but it does invalidate the thing that is incorrect. And the more people keep saying that actual facts don't matter, the more it seems like the purpose is not to accurately critique the issues of a book, but rather to say that a book has issues regardless of the content.




I mostly agree with this, but there's a signficant caveat. Feelings and emotions are a result of biases shaped from years of being taught how to think moreso than they are a result of just baseline experience. It's not only important to challenge facts, but also to challenge (respectually) the biases that are at play in shaping peoples' subjectve interpretation of reality. This is something we have societally lost touch with over the past couple of decades.

When someone claims offense to something, it's worth fully unpacking that and not just pandering to it. As humans, we should respect one another enough to challenge each other as adults, and that includes pointing out biases that might be at play in how they interpret situations they encounter.

A really good example of this dilemma is the "scope creep" on blackface. It actually refers to something very specific, but more and more things are lumped under the idea of blackface in ways that make zero sense. Here's a newsflash - darkening your complexion slightly to dress as Prince for halloween isn't even remotly the same thing as performing a blackface minstrel show where you exaggerate features to mock an entire race. Why do we act like they are? It's completely irrational and a sign of how we've grown carried away pandering to victimhood.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 4, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> The AR podcast were under the impression that Comeliness was introduced with Oriental Adventures. This is technically not correct, but it isn't a major faux-pas in the slightest. And their reactions that the inclusion of a Comeliness mechanic, not present in core D&D, in an Asian supplement, was honest and legit.



I'm sure their reactions were honest and legit.  And we've all been there.  We've all reacted strongly to something only to find that our initial reaction was predicated on having limited information.  The right thing to do when presented with additional information is to reevaluate your opinion based the additional factors you now know about.  But a lot of people just double down with their initial reaction new information be darned.  (Sorry about swearing there.)


----------



## Mannahnin (Feb 4, 2022)

Einlanzer0 said:


> When some says that something offends them, it's worth fully unpacking that and not just pandering to it.



Sure, but validating people's feelings doesn't have to mean pandering.  It's worth listening respectfully, being open to the possibility that we might be wrong, and being respectful if we're going to offer pushback or correction.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 4, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> Sure, but validating people's feelings doesn't have to mean pandering.  It's worth listening respectfully, being open to the possibility that we might be wrong, and being respectful if we're going to offer pushback or correction.



I mostly agree but I’ve got to ask is the person sharing their feelings doing so respectfully?  Are they open to the possibility they might be wrong.  Personally thats where my problem with these topics begin.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 4, 2022)

Einlanzer0 said:


> I mostly agree with this, but there's a signficant caveat. Feelings and emotions are a result of biases shaped from years of being taught how to think moreso than they are a result of just baseline experience. It's not only important to challenge facts, but also to challenge (respectually) the biases that are at play in shaping peoples' subjectve interpretation of reality. This is something we have societally lost touch with over the past couple of decades.
> 
> When some says that something offends them, it's worth fully unpacking that and not just pandering to it.




Eh, I'm not sure I'd use the phrase "challenging" when it comes to people's feelings and reactions. 

I think it can be very hard to understand the life experience of other people- we do our best, we can listen, but it's hard. Even if you're a member of one marginalized community, it can be difficult to understand the experiences of another one. If you're a gay man, you might have certain memories of fear and discrimination, but those won't be the same as what is experienced growing up a straight women in our society. For that matter, neither of those is the same is being black and trans. 

I can disagree on a factual basis with some of what was stated in the youtube series, but I also try to hear what their experience is like. I am also reminded of a commenter here ... for him, OA was a disappointment, because he was an Asian-American that wasn't of Japanese or Chinese heritage, and it was crushing to see that his heritage wasn't represented. It was a familiar experience for many in the 80s, when the dominant culture lumped all Asians together.

Respect and civility should be the touchstones for a better understanding ... on all sides.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 4, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I can disagree on a factual basis with some of what was stated in the youtube series, but I also try to hear what their experience is like.




+

Spot on.

Of the many possible reactions, a possible one was might be "They got the comeliness thing wrong, but I also didn't understand until watching that video how sensitive some asian readers are to something that I thought of as shallow but benign.  There's obviously something in their experience there.  I guess I learned something."

And not, "They got some basic (albeit obscure) facts wrong, so obviously there's nothing in there worth paying attention to."

(edit: Corrected a typo.  Obviously you should discount the rest of my post if I'm the kind of guy who makes typos.  Actually, you'd better assume the opposite of my argument is true, just to be safe.)


----------



## Alzrius (Feb 4, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> Sure, but validating people's feelings doesn't have to mean pandering.  It's worth listening respectfully, being open to the possibility that we might be wrong, and being respectful if we're going to offer pushback or correction.



That's true, but it's hard to do when people define their upset as "harm," and say that any attempts to correct that are denying that characterization. 

I once saw someone on this board make an analogy in this regard, saying that denying someone's emotional harm when they perceive something upsetting was the same thing as denying their physical harm after seeing their foot get stomped on (or something like that, it was a while ago). That struck me as a very poor analogy, because the source of physical harm in that instance is discrete - in the sense of being separate and distinct - whereas emotions virtually never are.

A friend of mine likes playing competitive games online. There's a lot of trash-talking that goes on, a lot of which would be offensive by most standards. In most cases he shrugs that off, but in one instance he completely blew up, yelling at the top of his lungs and almost throwing his controller through the screen before logging off. At a glance, it seemed like the offensive language had set him off.

The thing was, I knew him better than that, and after he'd had some time to cool off I asked him what was _really_ wrong. He admitted that they were looking at a round of layoffs at work, and he was worried that he was about to lose his job (and the health insurance that his son needs). 

Now, at the time I'm sure he never would have admitted that, and said that it was the offensive language that upset him. But emotional reactions aren't discrete the way physical harm is, and so you can't really draw that comparison between the two.


----------



## Einlanzer0 (Feb 4, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Eh, I'm not sure I'd use the phrase "challenging" when it comes to people's feelings and reactions.
> 
> I think it can be very hard to understand the life experience of other people- we do our best, we can listen, but it's hard. Even if you're a member of one marginalized community, it can be difficult to understand the experiences of another one. If you're a gay man, you might have certain memories of fear and discrimination, but those won't be the same as what is experienced growing up a straight women in our society. For that matter, neither of those is the same is being black and trans.
> 
> ...




Again, though, it's not really so much about their experiences - it's about the way emotions are shaped by biases. This is why we have an increasing problem with entitlement and people screaming over each other instead of taking the time to absorb different perspectives.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 4, 2022)

Einlanzer0 said:


> This is why we have an increasing problem with entitlement and people screaming over each other instead of taking the time to absorb different perspectives.




As long as you are applying 'entitlement' to the most extreme factions of both sides, I'm in agreement.


----------



## Voadam (Feb 4, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> The AR podcast were under the impression that Comeliness was introduced with Oriental Adventures. This is technically not correct, but it isn't a major faux-pas in the slightest. And their reactions that the inclusion of a Comeliness mechanic, not present in core D&D, in an Asian supplement, was honest and legit.



I believe they honestly felt that OA's comeliness mechanic was othering and sexualizing Asians.

I believe they said fairly up front that they come from a 3e background and this is the only 1e book they had read.

So they come upon the comeliness stat in OA which is not in 3e.

The part I found offputting is that they do not say "This is new to us. We don't know if this is specific to OA or not. If so it would raise problematic issues of exocitization, othering, and sexualization of Asians in the problematic sexy dragon lady tropes and sexuality portrayal issues of Asian men."

They say it is only in OA and so OA is othering Asians from the introduction of the mechanic in OA. The not knowing and then filling in the blanks with the more problematic assumption to come to their conclusion, and no acknowledgement that that is what they are doing, is off-putting.

If I was not familiar with 1e and just watched their podcast I would have thought that D&D only putting out beauty mechanics in OA was decently strong supporting evidence of design intent to exoticize and sexualize Asians.

Knowing the context of 1e comeliness I don't consider the inclusion of comeliness as supporting evidence of design intent to exoticize and sexualize Asians in OA. Other parts of OA can be taken as exoticization, but I don't think the design intent was to particularly sexualize Asians. The one picture in OA of a woman is not salacious, there is no discussion of geishas or such, and the most I can think of for sexualization was the back cover text sentence about the Orient opening her gates to the West.

Knowing the podcasters were making factual statements about stuff they were actually only making factually incorrect inferences on is an issue. That they jump to the more problematic inference when doing so is another issue. That they make conclusions about OA in that first episode based on this factually incorrect problematic inference is an issue. That this is still the common go-to reference for exploring racism in OA is an issue.


----------



## Cadence (Feb 4, 2022)

Accidental duplicate.


----------



## Cadence (Feb 4, 2022)

Deleted.  Too political and off topic.


----------



## Einlanzer0 (Feb 4, 2022)

Cadence said:


> Yes, anything can be taken to an extreme, but...
> 
> Today some African Americans can't wear natural hairstyles in schools or at work, some Indians are made fun of for having dots on their heads, Sikhs are beaten up for looking like they belong to a totally different religion (as if bearing up that one was good!), some Native Americans are still living in substandard conditions on land there ancestors were forced to move to, women with face coverings are harassed, those speaking anything bit English on the street are not uncommonly told to speak American or move back home.
> The horror of someone having to spend a few minutes thinking about their Halloween costume or not having some themes at a sorority or fraternity party.
> ...




Thing is - all of these things are more ideological narratives stemming from obsessions with the past than they are salient points about modern society. Native Americans are born US citizens and can leave reservations, pursue education, anything they want. White people are far more criticized for things like wearing dreads than black people are - virtually no one who has good hygiene is criticized for wearing natural hairstyles. Hate crimes against Sikhs and religious minorities aren't particularly common, and western women carry tons of privilege in all kinds of unrecognized ways.

My European friend from Serbia, who is both white and christian, has been told to go back where he came from on more than one occasion - one time even being verbally assaulted by a stranger in the street. It has nothing to do with anything other than he's from another country and can situationally spark someone's generalized xenophobia.

But here's the real issue - constantly pandering to these kinds of ideas as a justification for double standards is ironically the best way to _keep people trapped in the past _rather than allowing us to move together into a more egalitarian future. And it isn't unique to them - all kinds of people have faced oppression throughout history.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 4, 2022)

MGibster said:


> I'm sure their reactions were honest and legit.  And we've all been there.  We've all reacted strongly to something only to find that our initial reaction was predicated on having limited information.  The right thing to do when presented with additional information is to reevaluate your opinion based the additional factors you now know about.  But a lot of people just double down with their initial reaction new information be darned.  (Sorry about swearing there.)



I'm not sure if you aren't getting my point, or we just disagree.

Yes, their initial reaction was an honest reaction based on a slight misunderstanding of where Comeliness is coming from. My point is . . . it doesn't matter where Comeliness first appeared. Their first reactions were not wrong, and they don't need to be re-evaluated.

From a purely game-centered perspective, Zeb Cook included Comeliness because it was the latest in AD&D technology at the time, it didn't (likely) have anything to do with his views on Asian culture. Any resulting cultural insensitivity was unintentional. Explain this to the panelists of Asians Represent . . . . and it changes nothing.

But if you are familiar with the racist tropes the West often uses towards Asian cultures, focusing on the physical beauty, femininity, of both Asian males and females is a real problem. The inclusion of Comeliness in OA inadvertently plays right into that, and is therefore problematic and hurtful. Unintentionally so.

Had Zeb Cook, back in the day, been more aware of these cultural issues, he would have likely decided NOT to include Comeliness in OA, and saved it for a later book.


----------



## Irlo (Feb 4, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> I'm not sure if you aren't getting my point, or we just disagree.
> 
> Yes, their initial reaction was an honest reaction based on a slight misunderstanding of where Comeliness is coming from. My point is . . . it doesn't matter where Comeliness first appeared. Their first reactions were not wrong, and they don't need to be re-evaluated.
> 
> ...



Thank you for saying this. You saved me a lot of time.


----------



## Cadence (Feb 4, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> I'm not sure if you aren't getting my point, or we just disagree.
> 
> But if you are familiar with the racist tropes the West often uses towards Asian cultures, focusing on the physical beauty, femininity, of both Asian males and females is a real problem. The inclusion of Comeliness in OA inadvertently plays right into that, and is therefore problematic and hurtful. Unintentionally so.
> 
> Had Zeb Cook, back in the day, been more aware of these cultural issues, he would have likely decided NOT to include Comeliness in OA, and saved it for a later book.




The smart student and wise older person are also stereotypes of Asian Americans.  If the panelists had been coming to OA from a game that lacked Int or Wis, and critiqued the inclusion of those in a game about East Asia centered on physical combat, would you feel the same way about the criticism?  

[Apologies if you answered a similar question from someone else earlier and I missed it. And thank you for all of your posts in this and similar threads].


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 4, 2022)

Cadence said:


> Deleted.  Too political and off topic.



Censorship!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 4, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> By the way, I don't deny there's a such thing as chilling effect.  I've swung way around over the last few decades on my views about a lot of these issues, but one thing I haven't bought into is the taboo against "cultural appropriation"  and I think when activists attack an author for writing about an experience which isn't their own...not just for getting it wrong, but for daring to even do so...it dissuades other authors (which is the goal) and stifles creativity.
> 
> But just like I think the anti-cultural-appropriation point of view is taking things to an extreme, I also don't think things should be taken to the extreme the other way, i.e. "no content should ever be discontinued for any reason because of the chilling effect"....which feels like the argument being presented here.



Cultural Appropriation as a concept has always raised my hackles a bit. I DO agree with the idea (reality I guess we should say) that a cultural heritage can be EXPLOITED. So, if I, some white American guy possessed of a whole fortune, which one could argue is partly built on the backs of depriving indigenous people of their heritage, and then I use that fortune to create a business selling goods who's design trades on their traditional designs, and thus depriving them of income, that is utterly exploitation, pure and simple. Heck, I guess it would only get worse if I actually paid them peanuts to do the designing and making of the goods! And this, to a wide variety of degrees, DOES happen.

OTOH if I created some music that sounded a lot like a genre traditional to some ethnic group/culture that also incorporated elements from other places, and its simply out there as another possible form of music for people to enjoy, am I guilty of something? OK, there are still some possible pitfalls, treading on some sacred tradition or something, but I don't think its probably exploitative, and I don't think there's anyone who can which people do and don't have the right to do that. This sort of interpretation of cultural appropriation generally strikes me as being poorly considered, at best. 

I remember just being totally dumbfounded when I heard some science fiction novel being called an appropriation because it was written in a Magical Realist style (this was maybe 20 years ago before this become something of a trend or fad). Like, what? Who is it that 'owns' this style of writing? I actually just walked out on the person who was expounding this particular notion, it was just the height of absurdity.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 4, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> I'm not sure if you aren't getting my point, or we just disagree.



I get it.  But we disagree.  From my perspective, their reaction to comeliness is based on the idea that it was added it OA because it was OA and not to D&D in general.  I get that their initial reaction is genuine.  But if they continue to have that reaction after learning a little history behind it, I'm not going to be overly concerned about it.  I don't consider it reasonable.  It's like hearing people complain about the word picnic because they erroneously believe the word as racist origins.  If they continue having that reaction despite learning that the racist connection is false, I just don't care if they continue having a negative reaction to the word.


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 4, 2022)

I have this other weird take from Japanese culture, that most wouldn't notice, I'd think. When you think of feudal Japan even with it's brutality, the fact that it was a police state across the whole empire - we think of Japanese as refined and cultured, if very alien to our own European examples. However, I see almost a refined and cultured allusion to Native American culture. Here me out. Japanese personal names, at least the old classical styles of names in old Japan are plants, flowers, forces of nature, ideals - they almost sound native. My Japanese grandfather, whom I never met - passed long before I was born. And noting the Japanese put the last name (family name) first, and personal following - in order of precedence. Shimizu Yukio was his name. Shimizu means "purest water" and Yukio means "snow" with the male identifier (Yukiko would be the feminine). Snow of the Purest Water sounds like a Native American name, to me. Shinto, their older religion, while ancient and refined is very much worship of kami, in the form of natural beings and natural places - places of rare beauty like at hot spring, a waterfall, a lush pond, a curious rock formation at the edge of the sea; almost animal spirits. That's where the shrines are located. So while the Japanese were technologically, mathematically advanced enough to easily adapt to more modern outside cultures with - almost equivalent to Europe, in a completely different way. Yet, at the same time there's a deeper Native American quality about them. I don't know, maybe it's just me - but that seems possible.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Feb 4, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Cultural Appropriation as a concept has always raised my hackles a bit. I DO agree with the idea (reality I guess we should say) that a cultural heritage can be EXPLOITED. So, if I, some white American guy possessed of a whole fortune, which one could argue is partly built on the backs of depriving indigenous people of their heritage, and then I use that fortune to create a business selling goods who's design trades on their traditional designs, and thus depriving them of income, that is utterly exploitation, pure and simple. Heck, I guess it would only get worse if I actually paid them peanuts to do the designing and making of the goods! And this, to a wide variety of degrees, DOES happen.
> 
> OTOH if I created some music that sounded a lot like a genre traditional to some ethnic group/culture that also incorporated elements from other places, and its simply out there as another possible form of music for people to enjoy, am I guilty of something? OK, there are still some possible pitfalls, treading on some sacred tradition or something, but I don't think its probably exploitative, and I don't think there's anyone who can which people do and don't have the right to do that. This sort of interpretation of cultural appropriation generally strikes me as being poorly considered, at best.
> 
> I remember just being totally dumbfounded when I heard some science fiction novel being called an appropriation because it was written in a Magical Realist style (this was maybe 20 years ago before this become something of a trend or fad). Like, what? Who is it that 'owns' this style of writing? I actually just walked out on the person who was expounding this particular notion, it was just the height of absurdity.



Yeah, I rather agree. I feel that at least some forms of worrying about cultural appropriation might cause more harm than good. It also gives "western culture" a weird monopoly, as it effectively free for everyone to use without fear of such complaints.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 4, 2022)

Cadence said:


> The smart student and wise older person are also stereotypes of Asian Americans.  If the panelists had been coming to OA from a game that lacked Int or Wis, and critiqued the inclusion of those in a game about East Asia centered on physical combat, would you feel the same way about the criticism?
> 
> [Apologies if you answered a similar question from someone else earlier and I missed it. And thank you for all of your posts in this and similar threads].



Oh good lord. The "smart student" and "wise elder" are hardly stereotypes unique to Asian cultures. But let's say they were . . . .

Most of the panelists are D&D players, and even D&D creators. They aren't grognards, they weren't around when OA was first introduced in the 80s, but most of them are familiar with D&D. The panelists who aren't (yet) D&D players often hold back their criticism until others on the panel chime in, or the do re-evaluate during the discussion.

The panelists are aware that . . . .

Core D&D has the six attributes including Int and Wis, as does Oriental Adventures. The attributes apply to all D&D characters, regardless of book or cultural influence. You can also describe any character within the range of abilities.

Core D&D does not have Comeliness or an honor system, which Oriental Adventures does. 

If both Comeliness and honor had been presented in the core books and applied to the entire game, that actually would be a different situation. But that's not the case. It doesn't matter than Comeliness first appeared in Unearthed Arcana . . . what, months? . . . before Oriental Adventures. It's not part of the core game.

By Pelor's beard, Comeliness all on it's own is such a toxic and problematic addition to D&D even before the orientalism issues . . . . I really don't get the pushback from folks on this.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 4, 2022)

MGibster said:


> I get it.  But we disagree.  From my perspective, their reaction to comeliness is based on the idea that it was added it OA because it was OA and not to D&D in general.  I get that their initial reaction is genuine.  But if they continue to have that reaction after learning a little history behind it, I'm not going to be overly concerned about it.  I don't consider it reasonable.  It's like hearing people complain about the word picnic because they erroneously believe the word as racist origins.  If they continue having that reaction despite learning that the racist connection is false, I just don't care if they continue having a negative reaction to the word.



I'm not sure what you mean by continue to have that reaction. I mean, we don't know what Daniel Kwan, et al, think about it right now today. If they were to now say "we still find it problematic because Comeliness as an ability score feeds a trope of 'beautiful exotic Asian women' I would definitely agree. While this criticism is definitely a bit different from "it was only included to cater to this notion" it is still substantively the same idea, Comeliness is a bad idea in this book. It may well be a bad idea PERIOD, but they were after all not talking about other books.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 4, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by continue to have that reaction. I mean, we don't know what Daniel Kwan, et al, think about it right now today. If they were to now say "we still find it problematic because Comeliness as an ability score feeds a trope of 'beautiful exotic Asian women' I would definitely agree. While this criticism is definitely a bit different from "it was only included to cater to this notion" it is still substantively the same idea, Comeliness is a bad idea in this book. It may well be a bad idea PERIOD, but they were after all not talking about other books.



This is the problem with doing hot takes or reaction videos.  I'm not going to hold it against them as it doesn't invalidate the main body of their complaints.  It's not like we're dealing with a house of cards here.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 4, 2022)

MGibster said:


> This is the problem with doing hot takes or reaction videos.  I'm not going to hold it against them as it doesn't invalidate the main body of their complaints.  It's not like we're dealing with a house of cards here.




I don't either. But I do hold the continued pushback on simple factual issues against people.

I don't expect people to get or know everything; we all make mistakes. But it's the people who try to browbeat others into accepting that an obvious mistake isn't one that I get concerned about.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 4, 2022)

gamerprinter said:


> I have this other weird take from Japanese culture, that most wouldn't notice, I'd think. When you think of feudal Japan even with it's brutality, the fact that it was a police state across the whole empire - we think of Japanese as refined and cultured, if very alien to our own European examples. However, I see almost a refined and cultured allusion to Native American culture. Here me out. Japanese personal names, at least the old classical styles of names in old Japan are plants, flowers, forces of nature, ideals - they almost sound native. My Japanese grandfather, whom I never met - passed long before I was born. And noting the Japanese put the last name (family name) first, and personal following - in order of precedence. Shimizu Yukio was his name. Shimizu means "purest water" and Yukio means "snow" with the male identifier (Yukiko would be the feminine). Snow of the Purest Water sounds like a Native American name, to me. Shinto, their older religion, while ancient and refined is very much worship of kami, in the form of natural beings and natural places - places of rare beauty like at hot spring, a waterfall, a lush pond, a curious rock formation at the edge of the sea. That's where the shrines are located. So while the Japanese were technologically, mathematically advanced enough to easily adapt to more modern outside cultures with - almost equivalent to Europe, in a completely different way. Yet, at the same time there's a deeper Native American quality about them. I don't know, maybe it's just me - but that seems possible.



Well, I would guess this is true of all cultures if you go deep enough into the past. Chinese names have similar character for instance, my wife's name would literally translate as Bright Jade. My daughter's given name has a meaning of "green grass on the bank of a stream" etc. I mean, the thematic content can be different. So for instance traditional biblical names relate to religious themes, whereas traditional European ones often reflect trades or place of origin, but in most cases the meanings have been worn away with time, though obviously not entirely. My family name is easily enough identified as meaning "Herder of Cows" 

But I get what you're driving at, many 'indigenous' names seem to relate to nature pretty closely. Maybe there's some kind of principle at work here in terms of what sort of names survive or get adopted in different cultures. In a few games I've run I did something like giving all the names of places and people literal meanings in modern English. One might argue that this gives an impression that is closer to what a lot of names would have sounded like to people in past cultures (at least some).


----------



## billd91 (Feb 4, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> I'm not sure if you aren't getting my point, or we just disagree.
> 
> Yes, their initial reaction was an honest reaction based on a slight misunderstanding of where Comeliness is coming from. My point is . . . it doesn't matter where Comeliness first appeared. Their first reactions were not wrong, and they don't need to be re-evaluated.
> 
> ...



I think there's a yes, but... in here that does get to the issue of holding people to differing standards.

In order for Zeb Cook to have avoided treading on a racist trope by including comeliness in OA, he'd have to have taken things to a  high standard of research and sensitivity editing. Whereas you're basically giving the Asians Represent panelists a pass on even being familiar with the 1e AD&D context in which OA was published. I'm not saying that you're entirely wrong in doing so because some of their criticisms are about topics not inherent to the structures of AD&D but are about broader stereotypes (particularly using Japan for all of Asia), but it is one of those issues that gives people pause in how the concepts of identity and appropriation are used.


----------



## Cadence (Feb 4, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> Oh good lord. The "smart student" and "wise elder" are hardly stereotypes unique to Asian cultures. But let's say they were . . . .




That all Asian students are supposed to be smart felt like it was a thing as far as stereotypes go.




Dire Bare said:


> Most of the panelists are D&D players, and even D&D creators. They aren't grognards, they weren't around when OA was first introduced in the 80s, but most of them are familiar with D&D.




That's why I set it up as assuming they came to it from a game that lacked Int and Wis. (Because otherwise they would have known it was always in the game.



Dire Bare said:


> If both Comeliness and honor had been presented in the core books and applied to the entire game, that actually would be a different situation. But that's not the case. It doesn't matter than Comeliness first appeared in Unearthed Arcana . . . what, months? . . . before Oriental Adventures. It's not part of the core game.




We were all eagerly waiting for OA back then, but certainly took most of the things in it as optional. We might have used comeliness for one or two characters.  (We also threw out some things in the core too).

It would probably be good before putting things from any supplement (Xanthar, Tasha, etc ..) into a setting to think about it how they fit too.



Dire Bare said:


> By Pelor's beard, Comeliness all on it's own is such a toxic and problematic addition to D&D even before the orientalism issues . . . . I really don't get the pushback from folks on this.




Intelligence isn't also problematic?  Intelligence (IQ, labeling folks based on it, etc...)  has the connection with the way it is used in real life to marginalize and demean folks, but is also something that is really hard to roleplay at the table (do you come up with better/worse ideas because of the score on the paper).

It's one of the things I'd change in any homebrew I cooked up myself.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 4, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> Just curious - Can a person legally transfer the rights of their pdf to another person or to a library to lend out?  I don’t know the actually answer but it seems pertinent.
> 
> if a company sets themselves up as the only way possible to procure a work and then chooses to stop selling a digital copy, and none of those digital copies which were sold can be transferred individual to individual - then IMO that’s not ethical (regardless of whether you call it censorship). I don’t care whether they continue to sell it or whether the simply update their terms to allow the already sold work to be transferred between individuals (if it isn’t legally possible already).



Catching up on the thread, so, sorry if this was answered.

Electronic copies of books are certainly available at many libraries now.  And, the fact that the publisher has stopped printing a given book has no impact on that.

As far as person to person, I don't think that's legal no matter what.  Well, unless the publisher expressly allows it I suppose.  But, if I buy an ePub of some novel, I'm not allowed to transfer that epub to other people.


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 4, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Well, I would guess this is true of all cultures if you go deep enough into the past. Chinese names have similar character for instance, my wife's name would literally translate as Bright Jade. My daughter's given name has a meaning of "green grass on the bank of a stream" etc. I mean, the thematic content can be different. So for instance traditional biblical names relate to religious themes, whereas traditional European ones often reflect trades or place of origin, but in most cases the meanings have been worn away with time, though obviously not entirely. My family name is easily enough identified as meaning "Herder of Cows"
> 
> But I get what you're driving at, many 'indigenous' names seem to relate to nature pretty closely. Maybe there's some kind of principle at work here in terms of what sort of names survive or get adopted in different cultures. In a few games I've run I did something like giving all the names of places and people literal meanings in modern English. One might argue that this gives an impression that is closer to what a lot of names would have sounded like to people in past cultures (at least some).



Well that's true. My last name is Tumey, derived from the Celtic, O'Tuama, which meant "of the dykes" - some region in Ireland with predominant Neolithic earthen dykes where they are from (County Cork, Ireland).


----------



## Einlanzer0 (Feb 4, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> I'm not sure if you aren't getting my point, or we just disagree.
> 
> Yes, their initial reaction was an honest reaction based on a slight misunderstanding of where Comeliness is coming from. My point is . . . it doesn't matter where Comeliness first appeared. Their first reactions were not wrong, and they don't need to be re-evaluated.
> 
> ...




It blows my mind how many basic logic failures are embedded in posts like this.

Firstly - yes, emotional reactions _can _be wrong, because they emerge from cognitive biases, not so much raw experience, and routinely need to be reevaluated. It's much better to help people mature in that process rather than just enabling blind emotional reactions tied to victimhood-seeking. Doing the latter is a form of infantalization - i.e. what's _actually _racist.

Secondly, you are taking a 2010s pop culture thought paradigm as though it's just basic scientific fact, suggesting its moral superiority in a way that reeks of extreme elitism, and applying it to someone and something that happened a long time ago when people simply didn't have the same types of indoctrination they do today.

Lastly, archetypcal tropes and heightened beauty standards are common across all forms of fantasy. Western fantasy is also full of the same kinds of tropes. There's nothing particularly unique about Asian-influenced fantasy. Fundamentally, suggesting that OA is racist is extraordinarily pedantic, ridiculous, and rests entirely on the cognitive bias of the observer rather than on any objective evidence that might support such a claim.


----------



## Voadam (Feb 4, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> Yes, their initial reaction was an honest reaction based on a slight misunderstanding of where Comeliness is coming from. My point is . . . it doesn't matter where Comeliness first appeared. Their first reactions were not wrong, and they don't need to be re-evaluated.
> 
> From a purely game-centered perspective, Zeb Cook included Comeliness because it was the latest in AD&D technology at the time, it didn't (likely) have anything to do with his views on Asian culture. Any resulting cultural insensitivity was unintentional. Explain this to the panelists of Asians Represent . . . . and it changes nothing.
> 
> But if you are familiar with the racist tropes the West often uses towards Asian cultures, focusing on the physical beauty, femininity, of both Asian males and females is a real problem. The inclusion of Comeliness in OA inadvertently plays right into that, and is therefore problematic and hurtful. Unintentionally so.



I am going to disagree with you.

I think their factual mistake that Comeliness originated in OA was foundational to their initial emotional reaction and to their conclusion that Comeliness in OA was othering and sexualizing Asians.

I think if they had been cognizant of the three year multiple publication history of Comeliness in 1e that preceeded OA, if they had been playing 1e D&D with comeliness before reading OA for instance, they would have considered it terrible and consistent with and feeding into the dragon lady tropes, but would not have felt it was designed to further those tropes for Asians specifically and to specifically otherize and exoticize Asians. I think they would still feel it was terrible given the context of the Asian tropes, but their view of its role in OA would be different.

Being specifically targeted by OA to be portrayed as uniquely exotically sexualized and alienated from the default because of Asian racial identity is different than everyone being sexualized by D&D.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 4, 2022)

Why are people pretending that the comeliness thing is the sole criticism of the youtube series, ignoring the fact that they bring up several hours more of reactions, and then pretend that being wrong about this one thing somehow completely invalidates all of their thoughts?

Never minding that focusing on this one specific thing pretty much derails any conversation that has been going on about the larger context and issues surrounding the book?

Why is it, every single time we try to talk about this sort of thing - whether it's chainmail bikinis, or cultural expression or whatever - people want to endlessly myopically focus on one tiny little thing?

So, they were wrong about comeliness?  Who cares?  Why does that matter?  Does having comeliness in the OA suddenly redeem it in your eyes?

"Oh, here I was thinking that a book that trivializes numerous cultures by presenting one single culture, with TONS of historical baggage" as the only culture of note was a bad thing, BUT, they have a comeliness stat so, I guess everything is okay?"

WTF?


----------



## MGibster (Feb 4, 2022)

Hussar said:


> Why are people pretending that the comeliness thing is the sole criticism of the youtube series, ignoring the fact that they bring up several hours more of reactions, and then pretend that being wrong about this one thing somehow completely invalidates all of their thoughts?



Can you point out someone in this thread who is engaging in such skullduggery?  


Hussar said:


> So, they were wrong about comeliness? Who cares? Why does that matter? Does having comeliness in the OA suddenly redeem it in your eyes?



It seems to matter a great deal to people who say it doesn't matter whether they knew anything about comeliness in D&D in general.   So you tell me.  Why does it matter so much?


----------



## Mordhau (Feb 4, 2022)

Maybe someone should summarise some of their other main criticisms of the book for discussion?

Part of the problem with discussion of the issue is the main source of criticism is an interminably long podcast discussion going on episode after episode.  Is there someone here who actually watched the whole thing?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 4, 2022)

Einlanzer0 said:


> A really good example of this dilemma is the "scope creep" on blackface. It actually refers to something very specific, but more and more things are lumped under the idea of blackface in ways that make zero sense. Here's a newsflash - darkening your complexion slightly to dress as Prince for halloween isn't even remotly the same thing as performing a blackface minstrel show where you exaggerate features to mock an entire race. Why do we act like they are? It's completely irrational and a sign of how we've grown carried away pandering to victimhood.



*Mod Note:*

_HOOOO-BOY!_

You can EASILY dress as Prince without “slightly darkening your face”.  See Al Roker on the flip side, NOT using lightening makeup to dress as Caucasian celebs.

The cases in which you can _acceptably_ use makeup to appear as a member of a different RW race are exceedingly rare, and mostly confined to theatrical/televisual/cinematic performances.  Typically comedic ones where the person doing so is part of the joke.  See Eddie Murphy in _Coming To America_ or Gene Wilder in _Silver Streak._

And even then, if you’re a member of the privileged in your society, you may STILL get called in it.  See Ted Danson who did blackface at the insistence of Whoopi Goldberg- his girlfriend at the time.

Sooooo, you’re really not going to find a lot of allies for your position in POC America.   
Kids: Just say “No!” to blackface, brownface, redface and yellowface.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 5, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Can you point out someone in this thread who is engaging in such skullduggery?
> 
> It seems to matter a great deal to people who say it doesn't matter whether they knew anything about comeliness in D&D in general.   So you tell me.  Why does it matter so much?



Let's see.... sliding WAYYY back in the thread to like one post above mine...



Voadam said:


> I am going to disagree with you.
> 
> *I think their factual mistake that Comeliness originated in OA was foundational to their initial emotional reaction and to their conclusion that Comeliness in OA was othering and sexualizing Asians.*
> /snip
> ...



You were saying @MGibster?


----------



## Hussar (Feb 5, 2022)

Mordhau said:


> Maybe someone should summarise some of their other main criticisms of the book for discussion?
> 
> Part of the problem with discussion of the issue is the main source of criticism is an interminably long podcast discussion going on episode after episode.  Is there someone here who actually watched the whole thing?



Fair question.  It has been posted a few times, but, it does get lost in the noise.

Primarily:  OA trivializes Asian cultures by presenting a primarily Chinese setting and then overlaying 99% Japanese culture over top.  To the degree of using Japanese names for classes, monsters, and the art in the book is primarily Japanese.

I think that pretty much covers the main bit.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 5, 2022)

Hussar said:


> Let's see.... sliding WAYYY back in the thread to like one post above mine...
> 
> 
> You were saying @MGibster?



I was saying I haven't seen anyone dismiss all the criticisms against OA.  I still haven't.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 5, 2022)

Einlanzer0 said:


> Thing is - all of these things are more ideological narratives stemming from obsessions with the past than they are salient points about modern society.



Mod Note:

If it were all in the past, people wouldn’t still be complaining.

You’ve racked up a BUNCH of reports in this thread.  Time for a vacation from it.

Einlanzer0 has involuntarily left this thread.


----------



## Mordhau (Feb 5, 2022)

Hussar said:


> Fair question.  It has been posted a few times, but, it does get lost in the noise.
> 
> Primarily:  OA trivializes Asian cultures by presenting a primarily Chinese setting and then overlaying 99% Japanese culture over top.  To the degree of using Japanese names for classes, monsters, and the art in the book is primarily Japanese.
> 
> I think that pretty much covers the main bit.



Ok yes.  And I agree with that.  However, we have discussed that at some length in this thread already, and a little about the possible issues with honour.

Are there things we haven't discussed?  I'm still somewhat confused about what is supposed to be so harmful that Daniel Kwan thought WotC should have it removed from sale.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 5, 2022)

Mordhau said:


> Ok yes.  And I agree with that.  However, we have discussed that at some length in this thread already, and a little about the possible issues with honour.
> 
> Are there things we haven't discussed?  I'm still somewhat confused about what is supposed to be so harmful that Daniel Kwan thought WotC should have it removed from sale.



Yeah, I gotta agree on the "removed from sale" part.  It does seem a bit over the top as a reaction.  Granted, the issues discussed do make the continued sale of the book, and profiting from it a bit on the icky side.  I mean, we all agree that this book is less than stellar in its treatment of culture.  

So, I guess where someone falls out on this issue is more, "Is it okay to keep selling stuff you know is culturally insensitive?"  It's not like WotC doesn't know.  They can't claim ignorance here.  They know so well that they put a disclaimer on it.  So, the argument could be made that this isn't enough and the right thing to do here would be to stop making money off of it.

I'm not sure I agree with that.  I can certainly see the point.  And I would 100% support WotC if they chose to remove the work from the catalogue.  But, by the same token, I'm not going to get too bent out of shape over it either.  They have provided the disclaimer, which, to me, is enough in this case.  

In my 100% personal opinion, this is one of those edge cases where it could really go either way.  Doing nothing wasn't really an option, but, making a disclaimer and then making sure it doesn't happen again seems, to me anyway, as doing enough.

Now, if they were to pump out another Oriental Adventures like this in 2022, my song would likely change considerably.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 5, 2022)

Hussar said:


> Why are people pretending that the comeliness thing is the sole criticism of the youtube series, ignoring the fact that they bring up several hours more of reactions, and then pretend that being wrong about this one thing somehow completely invalidates all of their thoughts?
> 
> Never minding that focusing on this one specific thing pretty much derails any conversation that has been going on about the larger context and issues surrounding the book?
> 
> ...



Yeah. Ignoring the forest for one very specific tree, so to speak.

I feel like I played into the focus on Comeliness by trying to explain . . . .


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 5, 2022)

Hussar said:


> Yeah, I gotta agree on the "removed from sale" part.  It does seem a bit over the top as a reaction.  Granted, the issues discussed do make the continued sale of the book, and profiting from it a bit on the icky side.  I mean, we all agree that this book is less than stellar in its treatment of culture.



I respect the voices that would rather WotC discontinue the sale of Oriental Adventures and other highly problematic titles. I don't agree, but I respect the point of view and I understand where its coming from (I think).

Oriental Adventures 1E is largely of historical value at this point. Not many folks playing AD&D 1E anymore. The only reason to really offer it for digital sale is nostalgia and research . . . . and a case can be made that the issues with the title outweigh the reasons to keep it available.

But while I've come to accept the title as highly problematic, I'm glad it's available. It's hard to have these discussions without the source material to refer to. It's hard to try to do better if you don't understand where we went wrong in the past. And the title, while problematic, isn't without merit and value in-and-of-itself.

There are fans releasing Oriental Adventures updates on the DM's Guild . . . . I have no experience with any of them, but I hope they are attempting to take the material and do better when it comes to portraying these issues in the game. It's nice to have the original material as a starting point. It'd be nicer, as some have asked on this thread, if there was a nice summary of the issues for those interested.


----------



## Irlo (Feb 5, 2022)

Hussar said:


> Yeah, I gotta agree on the "removed from sale" part.  It does seem a bit over the top as a reaction.  Granted, the issues discussed do make the continued sale of the book, and profiting from it a bit on the icky side.  I mean, we all agree that this book is less than stellar in its treatment of culture.



It occurs to me that if Kwan hadn't called for removal of OA from the virtual shelves:

1) I never would have been pointed toward the videos;
2) I wouldn't have heard the interesting perpectives on the book;
3) This discussion wouldn't be happening; and
4) WotC would not have even placed a disclaimer on old products.

It's apparent that disclaimer have sparked a lot of thought and conversation. Despite the extremes and sometimes the heated exchanges, I think that's worthwhile.

I'm not suggesting that Kwan's request was insincere, but I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that Kwan didn't really expect WotC to pull the book. Sometimes you ask for more than you expect to get so that you get something, and that something is better than nothing, even if it's not perfect.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 5, 2022)

MGibster said:


> This is the problem with doing hot takes or reaction videos.  I'm not going to hold it against them as it doesn't invalidate the main body of their complaints.  It's not like we're dealing with a house of cards here.




I think these kinds of videos and podcasts, especially long form ones, are basically conversations. So I don't think it is fair to hold them to the same degree of scrutiny as say an article or a scholarly book. People will be reacting in real time, responding and thinking as they respond. It is not possible for people to be aware of everything. Ideally people know as much as possible prior to such a discussion but I think it still has to be understood as a conversation. Where I think there is more responsibility to sink into the details and for people to offer up facts, debate facts, is in conversation like this one as points and arguments from conversation on such podcasts filter into the broader gaming community. I am not particularly concerned that a point about comeliness was made in one of the many youtube panel discussions that were posted, and that there may be information they weren't aware of when they made that point. But now that we are talking about the issue of comeliness, that it was introduced prior to OA is relevant. 

But just in terms of podcasts, when you have people talking for extended periods of time like that, things come up that can't be vetted in real time, and people have organic throughs that can't pass through a filter of research and fact checking. And people will often say things they would have phrased a lot differently or more precisely if they had more time to formulate the thought. I do a lot of movie podcasts. They aren't exactly high level critical reactions, but it is very easy to get basic things wrong or slightly off when you are recording hours at a time and having a conversation about media.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 5, 2022)

Irlo said:


> It's apparent that disclaimer have sparked a lot of thought and conversation. Despite the extremes and sometimes the heated exchanges, I think that's worthwhile.




My feeling on this is the conversation itself is good to have. It is healthy to have conversations so long as we aren't despising each other at the end of them over elf games and fantasy media. I do think the disclaimer itself is misguided. It isn't the end of the world to have one. I just don't believe they are the best idea in the world. They are also extremely broad reaching. I think it is better for people to read older books and come to their own conclusions about what moral failings they have, rather than WOTC make that determination in advance for the reader.


----------



## The-Magic-Sword (Feb 5, 2022)

For the record, saying you support something while "not calling for it to happen" is generally accepted to be a means of evading responsibility for calling for something while still calling for it. Usually it comes up with something that would be illegal (inciting violence) to call for, but I think the premise is the same even if the degree of bad is different. If you do it with something bad, it normalizes the bad thing by endorsing it and makes the world a more hospitable place for people who want to do it.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 5, 2022)

The-Magic-Sword said:


> For the record, saying you support something while "not calling for it to happen" is *generally accepted *to be a means of evading responsibility for calling for something while still calling for it.




Citation needed.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 5, 2022)

Hussar said:


> So, I guess where someone falls out on this issue is more, "Is it okay to keep selling stuff you know is culturally insensitive?" It's not like WotC doesn't know. They can't claim ignorance here. They know so well that they put a disclaimer on it. So, the argument could be made that this isn't enough and the right thing to do here would be to stop making money off of it.



That's a rabbit hole I'd be interested in seeing how far down we should go.  People still enjoy _Breakfast at Tiffany's _despite Mickey Rooney's performance as Mr. Yunioshi.  _John Carter of Mars _and _Tarzan of the Apes _by Edgar Rice Burroughs contain elements we'd consider insensitive today but people still purchase these books and enjoy them.  These are works that have and continue to influence us.  They're culturally relevant.  So I guess the question is, for anyone who wants to argue that it isn't right to make any profit from these works, how much of our culture do they want to hide or otherwise make inaccessible to others because they contain elements we consider insensitive today?


----------



## MGibster (Feb 5, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think these kinds of videos and podcasts, especially long form ones, are basically conversations. So I don't think it is fair to hold them to the same degree of scrutiny as say an article or a scholarly book.



I'm not going to hold them to the same scrutiny as I would a scholarly work.  At the same time, I'm going to hold them to the same standards I would hold anyone else who is presenting an argument.  Maybe this is a generational thing, but I really hate the way they present their argument in real time rather than figuring things out first, putting their thoughts in order, and then presenting their conclusions.  Plenty of people produce videos where they present their arguments in a clear concise and thoughtful manner.  



Bedrockgames said:


> But just in terms of podcasts, when you have people talking for extended periods of time like that, things come up that can't be vetted in real time, and people have organic throughs that can't pass through a filter of research and fact checking.



If they're going to have people on to talk about something then at least make sure those guests actually know what they're talking about.  Again, maybe this is a generational thing.


----------



## ryu289 (Feb 5, 2022)

MGibster said:


> That's a rabbit hole I'd be interested in seeing how far down we should go.  People still enjoy _Breakfast at Tiffany's _despite Mickey Rooney's performance as Mr. Yunioshi.  _John Carter of Mars _and _Tarzan of the Apes _by Edgar Rice Burroughs contain elements we'd consider insensitive today but people still purchase these books and enjoy them.  These are works that have and continue to influence us.  They're culturally relevant.  So I guess the question is, for anyone who wants to argue that it isn't right to make any profit from these works, how much of our culture do they want to hide or otherwise make inaccessible to others because they contain elements we consider insensitive today?



To be fair, those books are far more progressive than we give them credit for: Tarzan / YMMV - TV Tropes

It wouldn't be that hard to turn down the steryotypes/add nuance and keep them more or less in their Pulp Action roots, which are usually universal to begin with


----------



## MGibster (Feb 5, 2022)

ryu289 said:


> To be fair, those books are far more progressive than we give them credit for: Tarzan / YMMV - TV Tropes
> 
> It wouldn't be that hard to turn down the steryotypes/add nuance and keep them more or less in their Pulp Action roots, which are usually universal to begin with



It doesn't matter if they're more progressive than we give them credit for nor does it matter that we can tone down the stereotypes or add nuance.  The point is that these books and movies exist in their original form and publishers still profit from their sales.  And if it's wrong for OA to be sold on the grounds that it's culturally insensitive then we really need to examine the other media we continue to enjoy despite any problematic elements.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 5, 2022)

MGibster said:


> I'm not going to hold them to the same scrutiny as I would a scholarly work.  At the same time, I'm going to hold them to the same standards I would hold anyone else who is presenting an argument.  Maybe this is a generational thing, but I really hate the way they present their argument in real time rather than figuring things out first, putting their thoughts in order, and then presenting their conclusions.  Plenty of people produce videos where they present their arguments in a clear concise and thoughtful manner.
> 
> 
> If they're going to have people on to talk about something then at least make sure those guests actually know what they're talking about.  Again, maybe this is a generational thing.




I don't know if it is generational or not (I grew up in the 80s if that helps us gauge our respective age difference). But I just draw a distinction between formats that are conversational (which this one clearly was) and ones that are presenting information. This struck me as a thinking out loud approach, and I think the audience was meant to understand that. Now I disagreed with a number of their conclusions (a lot of what they argued seemed based in Edward Said's ideas and I am not personally very persuaded by the book Orientalism), but I don't think there is anything wrong with the format they chose, and the way in which they brought up different ideas. Again I think the bigger issue on this stuff is on the audience end: people need to understand when they watch or listen to conversational shows, that that is what they are. They aren't academic lectures, books, or even blog posts. These are spontaneous conversations and while people can bring notes to them and organize their thoughts as best they can, the ideas are often emerging live and that is going to be a little messier than if you are giving a clear presentation of an idea. If this were done as a presentation I would agree with you. 

At the same time, I don't think it is fair in these discussions to point to an hours long podcast when people disagree with you about something and say "here is my evidence". Or to say they are definitive, when the ideas were themselves often taking shape over the course of the program. Because those podcasts are so long, people do seem to be coming away from them with different takes. And so I think here, we all should be trying to lay out our positions and arguments as clearly as we can.


----------



## The-Magic-Sword (Feb 5, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Citation needed.



For what? the concept of Plausible Deniability?

Here's an Academic presentation illustrating how it works I guess.

Here's TV Tropes, which should be a good metric for its use in a lay context, and how pervasive the concept of it is.

Its become very popular in politics, often by politicians who want to call for something without having to be responsible for having said it. 

You also have the concept of Stochastic Language e.g. "Stochastic Terrorism" where the goal is to have speech that outlines that something should be done, or that it would be a good thing, without asking someone directly to do it, so that the person can't be held responsible when someone does it. In the case of Stochastic Terrorism its violence, but in this context, it would be normalizing pressure restricting speech both to have a chilling effect on target forms of speech, and to have what I suppose would be a "warming effect" on the actions the person deploying it would like to see happen.


----------



## Mordhau (Feb 5, 2022)

Well if we want an alternative to the podcast, there's always this article.  (Which truly is dreadful - never trust the writing of anyone who uses the phrase "always already").

Does anyone know of any writing on the topic that's actually good?


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 5, 2022)

The-Magic-Sword said:


> For what? the concept of Plausible Deniability?




if you don’t already see the difference between a leader sending coded messages to followers, and nobodies on a web forum expressing opinions, I’ll pass on trying to enlighten you.


----------



## The-Magic-Sword (Feb 5, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> if you don’t already see the difference between a leader sending coded messages to followers, and nobodies on a web forum expressing opinions, I’ll pass on trying to enlighten you.



Nice dodge


----------



## Hussar (Feb 5, 2022)

MGibster said:


> That's a rabbit hole I'd be interested in seeing how far down we should go. People still enjoy _Breakfast at Tiffany's _despite Mickey Rooney's performance as Mr. Yunioshi. _John Carter of Mars _and _Tarzan of the Apes _by Edgar Rice Burroughs contain elements we'd consider insensitive today but people still purchase these books and enjoy them. These are works that have and continue to influence us. They're culturally relevant. So I guess the question is, for anyone who wants to argue that it isn't right to make any profit from these works, how much of our culture do they want to hide or otherwise make inaccessible to others because they contain elements we consider insensitive today?




And that’s not an unreasonable take. 

To be fair though, at a guess, I’d say far far more people read Burroughs in a library than going out and buying it. 

Heck you can read all of Burroughs online legally for free, so it’s not like it’s not available. Likewise Breakfast at Tiffanies will enter public domain very soon. Again it’s not lost. 

Not being available to purchase doesn’t mean it’s no longer available at all.

—-
Dammit autocorrect UNreasonable.


----------



## Irlo (Feb 5, 2022)

MGibster said:


> So I guess the question is, for anyone who wants to argue that it isn't right to make any profit from these works, how much of our culture do they want to hide or otherwise make inaccessible to others because they contain elements we consider insensitive today?



2.74%


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 5, 2022)

The-Magic-Sword said:


> Nice dodge



I recognize a windmill for what it is.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 5, 2022)

Hussar said:


> To be fair though, at a guess, I’d say far far more people read Burroughs in a library than going out and buying it.



You may very well be correct but I don't know how we'd verify it.  I know I've never checked out anything by Lovecraft from the public library and probably bought all the stories I own from Barnes & Noble and Amazon.  I did purchase _John Carter of Mars _as a teenager in the early 90s but that was probably from a B. Dalton or Waldenbooks at the mall.  But let's not get too hung up on the examples I used.  Surely there are other works that will not be in the public domain any time soon which might be culturally relevant and yet contain problematic aspects.  (I think _Breakfast at Tiffany's_ might already be in the public domain.)  



Hussar said:


> Not being available to purchase doesn’t mean it’s no longer available at all.




No, but it can make it more difficult to get ahold of the work.  The internet does make it easier to make sure that works are still available.  I don't think I've ever purchased a REH Conan story but got them all from Project Gutenberg.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 5, 2022)

MGibster said:


> No, but it can make it more difficult to get ahold of the work.  The internet does make it easier to make sure that works are still available.  I don't think I've ever purchased a REH Conan story but got them all from Project Gutenberg.




Totally off-topic, but I acquired my full set one by one in used bookstores while wandering around on a Eurail pass as a teenager in the 80’s, reading them on trains. Still have them, and always will.


----------



## Irlo (Feb 5, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> My feeling on this is the conversation itself is good to have. It is healthy to have conversations so long as we aren't despising each other at the end of them over elf games and fantasy media. I do think the disclaimer itself is misguided. It isn't the end of the world to have one. I just don't believe they are the best idea in the world. They are also extremely broad reaching. I think it is better for people to read older books and come to their own conclusions about what moral failings they have, rather than WOTC make that determination in advance for the reader.



I’m leaning the other direction. The disclaimer doesn’t say anything, really. It certainly doesn’t point to any particular moral failure in the books, and it’s applied to all the old material if I understand correctly. It leads no one to any conclusions, makes no determinations. It’s so general as to be nearly useless.

I genuinely find it fascinating that others see it differently.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 5, 2022)

Irlo said:


> I’m leaning the other direction. The disclaimer doesn’t say anything, really. It certainly doesn’t point to any particular moral failure in the books, and it’s applied to all the old material if I understand correctly. It leads no one to any conclusions, makes no determinations. It’s so general as to be nearly useless.
> 
> I genuinely find it fascinating that others see it differently.




Let’s be honest here. Leading people to conclusions is the last thing we want. And, it’s hardly like this is being done in a vacuum. It would’ve pretty hard not to know what’s meant by the disclaimers. 

It raises awareness. That’s what it’s supposed to do. Which means that if someone reads this and then wonders what the fuss is, they can ask. 

It’s simply public recognition.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 5, 2022)

Irlo said:


> I’m leaning the other direction. The disclaimer doesn’t say anything, really. It certainly doesn’t point to any particular moral failure in the books, and it’s applied to all the old material if I understand correctly. It leads no one to any conclusions, makes no determinations. It’s so general as to be nearly useless.



Quite frankly, if the title of _Oriental Adventures _doesn't clue a potential customer into into the fact that this book might contain material we don't consider proper today, well, I have little hope for that person.  As adults, we bear some responsibility for what we choose to consume and WotC isn't obligated to hold our hands and wipe our noses for us.  The disclaimer is enough for a potential customer to know that they might find something offensive in the product.


----------



## Irlo (Feb 5, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Quite frankly, if the title of _Oriental Adventures _doesn't clue a potential customer into into the fact that this book might contain material we don't consider proper today, well, I have little hope for that person.  As adults, we bear some responsibility for what we choose to consume and WotC isn't obligated to hold our hands and wipe our noses for us.  The disclaimer is enough for a potential customer to know that they might find something offensive in the product.



I’m a little confused by your response. I was replying to a post that implied that the disclaimer conveyed WotC’s determination of the book’s faults. It does not.

I’m inclined to react negatively to the “wipe our noses” comment but I’m not sure I’m reading your intentions correctly. Is that directed at me? I don’t need WotC’s guidance. 

I think the more honest disclaimer would be, “We are a company that tries to produce inclusive modern games, and these legacy products don’t meet our standards, but we’re selling them anyway.”


----------



## Mordhau (Feb 5, 2022)

Irlo said:


> I’m a little confused by your response. I was replying to a post that implied that the disclaimer conveyed WotC’s determination of the book’s faults. It does not.
> 
> I’m inclined to react negatively to the “wipe our noses” comment but I’m not sure I’m reading your intentions correctly. Is that directed at me? I don’t need WotC’s guidance.
> 
> I think the more honest disclaimer would be, “We are a company that tries to produce inclusive modern games, and these legacy products don’t meet our standards, but we’re selling them anyway.”



Problem is some of them might meet current standards.  Some of them may well have been written by people who were very careful and thoughtful about what they're doing.

I think part of the point of the disclaimer is to avoid being forced to go into the weeds on indvidual products - which could lead to endless arguments (If they do start removing products or putting specific dislaimers then they open themselves up to an endless round of "What about X?")

I know there are a lot of people who claim the disclaimer is unfair to creators from the past. I don't think that's justified at all, but using the stronger wording you suggest it might be.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 5, 2022)

Irlo said:


> I’m a little confused by your response. I was replying to a post that implied that the disclaimer conveyed WotC’s determination of the book’s faults. It does not.



I think it does convey WotC's determination of the book's faults.  It doesn't list them all in a comprehensive manner, but anyone who wants to purchase OA will read the disclaimer and understand there's some content in that does not align with modern sensibilities.  



Irlo said:


> I’m inclined to react negatively to the “wipe our noses” comment but I’m not sure I’m reading your intentions correctly. Is that directed at me? I don’t need WotC’s guidance.



It's not directed at you personally it's directed at anyone who purchases books or pays to see a movie.  



Irlo said:


> I think the more honest disclaimer would be, “We are a company that tries to produce inclusive modern games, and these legacy products don’t meet our standards, but we’re selling them anyway.”



Okay.  How is that any more helpful than their current disclaimer?


----------



## Voadam (Feb 5, 2022)

Hussar said:


> Let's see.... sliding WAYYY back in the thread to like one post above mine...
> 
> 
> You were saying @MGibster?



My skullduggery knows no bounds.  

So you take my disagreeing with you on the point you raised of whether their factual mistake on comeliness affected their conclusion about the impact of comeliness in OA as "pretending that the comeliness thing is the sole criticism of the youtube series, ignoring the fact that they bring up several hours more of reactions, and then pretend that being wrong about this one thing somehow completely invalidates all of their thoughts?"

As I said earlier I watched their two hour first episode having heard it was a good analysis of problematic issues in OA. Half of the first episode is Comeliness with the point that comeliness was added to OA to otherize Asians. I find that analysis flawed and have said so. When it gets brought up again by people saying their point still stands after you take away the factual mistake I disagree and so I have engaged again on that topic.

I didn't watch any more of the series and so I only really comment on the parts I saw. It has been a while now so the parts that stand out were the parts that rubbed me the wrong way. I own OA though and engage on direct issues raised about OA.

I would not expect that to be characterized as pretending that comeliness otherizing and sexualizing Asians specifically is the sole criticism of the series. I explicitly said up front that I only watched the first episode so not discussing opinions of theirs I have not heard I think would be considered the default.

I assume somewhere in the 20+ hours they have discussed the overlay of Japanese culture and names onto fantasy China in the context of WWII Japanese occupation. Probably in-depth when they got to their review of the Kara Tur setting boxed set as OA has only about one page on the Fantasy China empires portions of Kara Tur, half of its total discussion of Kara Tur as an actual continent setting. OA is spectacularly short on the actual setting, compared with the discussions about fantasy feudal Japanese culture, honor system, agriculture, and economic system and such earlier in the book. I can't remember how in depth they got on the Japanese overlay issue in the first episode, but I believe it was raised.

I remember there was also a discussion in the first episode about Orientalism in general, the title Oriental Adventures, the introductions, the Japanese focus of the book versus all Asia, and some drinking. The second half of the first episode was about ability stats including a discussion of their issues with samurai having a wisdom requirement. Then Comeliness.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 5, 2022)

Hussar said:


> And that’s not an unreasonable take.
> 
> To be fair though, at a guess, I’d say far far more people read Burroughs in a library than going out and buying it.
> 
> ...



I can confirm this. The only reason why I had read any of these books was because of my father, who was showing me his old library of books around the time that he was introducing me to fantasy reading. This was also how I got my taste of out-of-vogue pulp S&S fantasy, by '90s standards: e.g., Fritz Lieber, Michael Moorcock, etc. 

While one can certainly still find these books in your brick and mortar book stores, they don't really line shelves as much as a lot more modern fantasy or even advertise them as much, even back then in the '90s. Tarzan has more of a pop status now - mired in its racial issues - than a literary one.


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 5, 2022)

Hussar said:


> Why are people pretending that the comeliness thing is the sole criticism of the youtube series, ignoring the fact that they bring up several hours more of reactions, and then pretend that being wrong about this one thing somehow completely invalidates all of their thoughts?



snip


Hussar said:


> WTF?



Go read "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"...

Note also, it's the first thing I'd heard about the group, and it's basically a slander. It's also 15 seconds and access to google that is provably false. Comeliness


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 5, 2022)

Irlo said:


> I’m leaning the other direction. The disclaimer doesn’t say anything, really. It certainly doesn’t point to any particular moral failure in the books, and it’s applied to all the old material if I understand correctly. It leads no one to any conclusions, makes no determinations. It’s so general as to be nearly useless.
> 
> I genuinely find it fascinating that others see it differently.




It does point to  particular issues:  racial, gender and ethnic prejudice (it just doesn't point to particular books or places in those books). I do agree it is so broad it isn't really easy to identify what that is specifically in reference to. But such a broad brush, when you are talking about prejudice is going to shade peoples' readings I believe. Again, I don't think it substantially so. And I don't think it is all that unusual for companies to do these days. I just find the practice misguided, and it feels very condescending and paternalistic to me, as I think people should be able to encounter old and historic content, and understand those things themselves, and reason out what that means for themselves. 

When I was young and I first read Lovecraft for example, there was some racial things that were glaringly obvious to me (particularly as a New Englander). I didn't need a content warning to prepare myself for that. And I don't need a disclaimer in order to reach the conclusion that WOTC doesn't hold views expressed in IP they own that is over 30 years old. And the reality of those books is far more complicated than a simple disclaimer can explain. When you go back to older books: there will be ideas there that you might find objectionable. I would expect books made in the mid-80s to reflect what was acceptable in the mid-80s. 

But as things go, a disclaimer is the most mild of things they can do. I also don't see how a warning label would really satisfy either party here. As you point out, for you it doesn't really do much of anything. And as I am pointing out, it just makes me feel like WOTC doesn't trust me as a reader to form my own options about content that was written in the 80s (I understand why in this day and age, companies feel the need to be more clear about where their values are: but personally I am enormously skeptical anytime a corporation pontificates about its values---especially when all that really seems to require is saying nice words: but they still get to be driven by greed and behave in exploitative ways-----not accusing WOTC of the latter, just I see a lot of companies say pretty things about being good stewards of the earth or standing against racism, while they work hand-in-hand with repressive governments or exploit their workers).

Again this may be a generational thing. I was a kid in the 80s and came of age in the 90s. As children we had the moral majority and the PMRC, as teenagers and in our 20s we were steeped in an anti-corporate, anti-marketing, counter culture. I grew up with things like senate hearings about the filfthy fifteen (which included songs like She Bop) from the PMRC. That movement largely failed to censor as much as it had hoped but they did get one thing: warning labels. I understand warning labels don't do much, but I suspect some of my negative reaction to them is because I associate them with misguided moral crusaders who don't the least charitable and most simplistic analysis of the art they are attacking (not saying people here are doing that, but that is my instinctual reaction to warnings on art or entertainment). But a warning isn't like taking out content or making something not available. 

And I think another thing a lot of people my age came away with from that whole thing was this exaggerated sense of the impact people thought media had. One of the bands on the list was Merciful Fate. I love Merciful Fate and King Diamond. King Diamond has some pretty dark lyrics and is himself a satanist. I was somehow able to listen to that music and have the lyrics influence my behavior in real life (if anything they served as a useful outlet most likely). I understood it was art and performance and that I didn't have to share any of King Diamond's personal beliefs to appreciate the music and stories he was telling. From what I gather most studies have shown metal heads turned out just fine. If they had succeeded in getting someone like King Diamond banned, or censoring his content, that would have only resulted in less art in the world (and I think King Diamond put out a lot of very interesting music). But they didn't just go after the scary metal bands, they also went after Prince, Cyndi Lauper and even Sheena Easton. I say this, not to argue there is no place for discussion of the morality of content, but just to explain my sense that many of the people taking my position are doing so because of that background and that period we lived through (and there was a lot more than just the PMRC going on at that time). I see a lot of posters taking my positions who indicate similar experiences.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Feb 5, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> When I was young and I first read Lovecraft for example, there was some racial things that were glaringly obvious to me (particularly as a New Englander). I didn't need a content warning to prepare myself for that. And I don't need a disclaimer in order to reach the conclusion that WOTC doesn't hold views expressed in IP they own that is over 30 years old. And the reality of those books is far more complicated than a simple disclaimer can explain. When you go back to older books: there will be ideas there that you might find objectionable. I would expect books made in the mid-80s to reflect what was acceptable in the mid-80s.



I think the issue can be that it's not always a simple as that, especially if you're within the groups targeted.

With Lovecraft, reading it in the UK in the early '90s, I was not warned about it being racist, like at all, and indeed the racism initially was so bizarre and extreme, I didn't even read it quite as racism, but as like, talking about beings that weren't human. It was only as I read more that I realized "Oh, he means like actual normal Black people, holy hell this is super-goddamn racist!". As I've mentioned before there's some stuff where even manages to be racist against Irish and Scottish people, which is pretty eye-popping.

As for "it was acceptable in the '80s" I think the issue is that some of this stuff wasn't even then. OA was though. Indeed, I would argue OA (specifically) is actually _less_ racist than a lot of stuff and _less_ problematic than a lot of '90s stuff - but the difference I think is that the '90s stuff was raising a ton more eyebrows at the time. Like, World of Darkness: Gypsies pretty much immediately started getting called out for it's crude attempt to "flip racism" which ended up just being SUPER-racist.

I think it would be nice to have slightly better disclaimers on some "serious offender" books. I don't think every book which drops in a bit of casual misogyny or the like (because loads do - we've barely talked about that, but the tables in 1E are the tip of the iceberg!) is going to be able to be covered, but stuff that really "floors it" on the racism/misogyny etc. front may warrant a better description. I mean, last I checked, GAZ10 basically doesn't even get called out as "BRACE FOR RACISM!!!" in its description by Shannon Applecline, it's just more "Haha this book is pretty quaint!". Someone out there probably got quite a "What the..." moment if they were just buying a bunch of Mystara stuff and got to that, unsuspecting!



Bedrockgames said:


> Again this may be a generational thing.



I think it absolutely is, and honestly I see where your generation is coming from in a lot of ways (I mean I'm presuming you're slightly older than me, I'm 43), because the politicians of the Gen X era were very, very keen on trying to ban everything media-wise, with heavy metal, D&D, video games, sexy music (the Satanic Panic is sort of a few degrees to the side of this as it never really penetrated government above a fairly low level) and so on. It's certainly enough to make one pretty concerned about that kind of thing. 

I think it's one of those pendulum things though and maybe Gen X is perhaps, overprotective of some _perceived_ attempts to shut down "free speech" from younger generations and that the definition of free speech is sometimes stretched a tad widely - hence the whole "cancel culture" vs "consequences culture" discourse (is it "against free speech" to decide not to buy a thing from someone you think is a jerk and to say so?). The big difference being that in the '80s and '90s, the shutdowns were all from governments and related authorities, whereas in the '10s, it's more individuals saying "No thanks" en masse (not even "protesting" in most cases).


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 5, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> The big difference being that in the '80s and '90s, the shutdowns were all from governments and related authorities, whereas in the '10s, it's more individuals saying "No thanks" en masse (not even "protesting" in most cases).




I just need to interject here. This is something that some of us keep referring to (usually obliquely, in order to keep the thread on topic).

It is certainly not the case that the suppression was mostly from state action (aka, government) in the 80s and 90s. Just like today, sporadic attempts to get state action involved would almost always get shot down by the courts.* Instead, it was continual fighting regarding pressuring private actors to suppress speech.

Of course, back then the primary pressures were aimed at keeping "harmful" speech away from people and punishing private entities that facilitated that speech- you know, "harmful" speech that might tell them that being gay wasn't bad (in the 80s, trans issues were barely on the radar). Or (in the case of D&D) that playing D&D wasn't immoral or satanic. Or that explicit music or "rap" wasn't the downfall of civilization.

One of the primary ways in which this was fought was to invoke the principles of freedom of speech, so that retailers like Waldenbooks would continue carrying this so-called harmful speech despite continued pressure.

Again, I think people make credible arguments as to why, "This time it's different." But that doesn't mean that there are credible arguments the other way as well.  A person can agree that speech is harmful, or distasteful, or offensive, and still  disagree as to the proper course of action.


*I am referring to the United States in my examples.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 5, 2022)

Hussar said:


> Catching up on the thread, so, sorry if this was answered.
> 
> Electronic copies of books are certainly available at many libraries now.  And, the fact that the publisher has stopped printing a given book has no impact on that.
> 
> As far as person to person, I don't think that's legal no matter what.  Well, unless the publisher expressly allows it I suppose.  But, if I buy an ePub of some novel, I'm not allowed to transfer that epub to other people.



I really would NOT be so sure about that! If you SELL me an ePub, the First Sale Doctrine would seem, ON THE FACE OF IT, to still apply. OTOH if you 'license' it to me, there are still serious questions. That is, if the licensing is essentially a sham, if the transaction has all the character of a sale, many courts have held that it "quacks like a duck" and again the same doctrine holds. That is far from universal, and what any given court would rule is difficult to foretell. Still, you can easily argue there's a CONTRACTUAL issue, but not a copyright violation, which is a lot easier to deal with. Also, what are the damages, $29.95? Trebled?! Wow!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 5, 2022)

Einlanzer0 said:


> It blows my mind how many basic logic failures are embedded in posts like this.
> 
> Firstly - yes, emotional reactions _can _be wrong, because they emerge from cognitive biases, not so much raw experience, and routinely need to be reevaluated. It's much better to help people mature in that process rather than just enabling blind emotional reactions tied to victimhood-seeking. Doing the latter is a form of infantalization - i.e. what's _actually _racist.
> 
> ...



So, you're going to tell me that there's no such thing as a particular sexual objectification and body image tropes/exoticism tropes (they're quite thoroughly mixed into one big hairball IMHO) about Asian women? Now who's biases are we talking about! See how that works? 

I will be totally honest, your entire post reeks of an attempt to label things that threaten your personal worldview. Thirdly you're using another argument which effectively dismisses all historical crimes as just some passing phase. "Oh, we're over that now, its ancient history, get over it!" Yeah, politely HELL NO! I'd be careful of this path, because most of the people who tread it are not people you probably want to be associated with.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 5, 2022)

Hussar said:


> Why are people pretending that the comeliness thing is the sole criticism of the youtube series, ignoring the fact that they bring up several hours more of reactions, and then pretend that being wrong about this one thing somehow completely invalidates all of their thoughts?
> 
> Never minding that focusing on this one specific thing pretty much derails any conversation that has been going on about the larger context and issues surrounding the book?
> 
> ...



It is just another rhetorical form of the old 'Motte & Bailey'. Once you adopt this position and we 'move on' they'll just surrender the bailey and go back to claiming there's 20 other things they have issue with, or "Its all just ridiculous" (and then circle right back to their first point again). The truth is the whole discussion has probably gone as far as it can go, MOST everyone has surrendered the basic ground of "Yeah, OA has issues." Any sort of agreement beyond that requires that someone update their world view and see things from another perspective. That will undermine some treasured cultural narrative, etc. and it ain't going to happen in a forum thread. I would posit that we are done here. Cheer up, 20 years ago you wouldn't even have been able to keep the thread open for 2 pages.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 5, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I think the issue can be that it's not always a simple as that, especially if you're within the groups targeted.
> 
> With Lovecraft, reading it in the UK in the early '90s, I was not warned about it being racist, like at all, and indeed the racism initially was so bizarre and extreme, I didn't even read it quite as racism, but as like, talking about beings that weren't human. It was only as I read more that I realized "Oh, he means like actual normal Black people, holy hell this is super-goddamn racist!". As I've mentioned before there's some stuff where even manages to be racist against Irish and Scottish people, which is pretty eye-popping.





Well, we are all limited to our own identities, but I still think people can make informed attempts to understand other points of view and other experiences. In terms of not being targeted, maybe not in the case of the OA book, but in many other instances I had in mind for historical readings, I was certainly among the groups targeted. It is hard to read old books and not encounter someone with negative feelings or even hatred towards who you are at some point. Which is my point. And some of that may be having a history background. Where when I encounter something like that, my impulse is curiosity. 

That is one of the reasons I brought up Lovecraft. And the Irish and Scottish stuff is no accident. It is one of the reasons people need to take a more nuanced lens to Lovecraft's attitudes on race (I am not defending his views on race, just pointing out it is a different kind of racism than people are accustomed to thinking about). Now I should say, it has been about ten years since I have done heavy reading of Lovecraft (I read him almost religiously in high school and into my 20s). More recently I've been fonder of Howard (I just like Conan stories a lot for some reason). I am hoping to go back and read all of Lovecraft again when I have time to do so. So my breakdown here might be mixing up details I am remembering. I am going by what I remember (the most recent re-read of Lovecraft for me was Herbert West about a year ago when I rewatched the re-animator). 

His racism, and I think he is too big a topic to really get into in this thread but I want to address it, is uniquely patrician New England form of racism. And that is an easily misread form of racism. It isn't like the racism of say the segregated south, where the emphasis is on the dividing line between white and black. It is more like a continuum and grounded in xenophobia and concern about bloodlines I think. It is a type of racism that is very specific about what it likes: English Blood (and specifically people in New England with bloodlines that can be traced back to the very early days of the first settlers). The term we used to use her for that is a Yankee. That word means other things in other parts of the country, and even in New England today its largely lost the meaning I am using here. But when I was a kid when my grandfather talked about yankees, he wasn't talking about him and I, he was talking about New England patricians). I am Italian, Jewish and Irish: as far as I can tell from reading his stories and some of the things he has said, Lovecraft had misgivings about all of those groups (though he did marry a Jewish woman, so his feelings clearly complicated). And I believe it was the Irish he held in the lowest regard among the three (I could be wrong on that). My point here is just that, if you are not English, there is a good chance that Lovecraft's xenophobia and racism are targeted at you (some more than others obviously). Because it is about ethnic purity, and the Anglo-heritage of New England, versus the melting pot and new immigrant groups breathing life into the culture. And that kind of thinking is something I remember encountering still in New England as a kid. Again it had mostly faded but there were traces of it. In my grandfather's generation (he was born in the 20s) it was a lot more common. He told me for example the Italian from the brickyard (a section of Lynn where the italians used to live) weren't allowed to go into the Diamond District. I don't think this was an official decree. I doubt there was an ordinance against it, but it was known he couldn't go there freely (unless he was helping build a wall or something). 

I do think it is also just a complicated topic with Lovecraft and race, and I am not refreshed enough on his writing to comment deeply. But I think in terms of when and where he lived, that viewpoint wasn't all that uncommon (I even remember bumping into it in the 80s here). And he was a very complicated person. In these discussions I think we often get a very simplified presentation from ether the 'he was not a racist' or 'he was a racist' camp, and the reality is pretty messy and evolves over time (and seems to change in different contexts). 

What I will say is I think we sometimes make the mistake of reading everything he wrote through the lens of his racism. Or misapplying exactly what races he has in mind. There are a number of stories I remember where you have these old new england communities and I actually read the racial stuff in some of those as being more about inbred New England patricians in places like Marblehead (but I have seen others interpret them as other groups). I've also read plenty of stories where I don't think race was really a big concern in his mind and people have projected that onto the tales. I am not saying my interpretations are the correct ones, this is just how I reacted to some of those stories when I first read them (and I think being from this region helped inform that intrepration). The race thing is there for sure in places (and it is often directed at everything from black people to Italians), but I think we are so conscious of it now it is becoming our primary lens for reading Lovecraft and lovecraft was a deep horror writer who wasn't soley about race.


----------



## Irlo (Feb 5, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Okay.  How is that any more helpful than their current disclaimer?



Not more helpful. More honest.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 5, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I think it absolutely is, and honestly I see where your generation is coming from in a lot of ways (I mean I'm presuming you're slightly older than me, I'm 43), because the politicians of the Gen X era were very, very keen on trying to ban everything media-wise, with heavy metal, D&D, video games, sexy music (the Satanic Panic is sort of a few degrees to the side of this as it never really penetrated government above a fairly low level) and so on. It's certainly enough to make one pretty concerned about that kind of thing.
> 
> I think it's one of those pendulum things though and maybe Gen X is perhaps, overprotective of some _perceived_ attempts to shut down "free speech" from younger generations and that the definition of free speech is sometimes stretched a tad widely - hence the whole "cancel culture" vs "consequences culture" discourse (is it "against free speech" to decide not to buy a thing from someone you think is a jerk and to say so?). The big difference being that in the '80s and '90s, the shutdowns were all from governments and related authorities, whereas in the '10s, it's more individuals saying "No thanks" en masse (not even "protesting" in most cases).




I do appreciate you engaging this part of what I said and seeing where I am coming from. One thing to keep in mind though is this wasn't strictly from the government down. We had a lot of grass roots support for those things in general. We often talk about the culture war now, but there was one in the 80s too in the US, between the parents who came down on different sides of the 60s and Vietnam. And we were living in the wake of all that. 

On the cancel culture thing, that is too big a topic for here I think. I tend to agree with people like Jon Stewart on this, where I think engagement is very important, and engagement is something we are losing the ability to do. And I think people are misguided putting their faith in platforms controlled by powerful corporations and misguided to think that this is simply people saying 'no thanks' en masse. My view is there is obviously, as there was in the 80s, grass roots support for some of these sentiments. People are saying no thanks. I can understand why people want to do things that pressure speech they dislike off of platforms. But I think that is shortsighted (eventually those tools get used by people on the other side to stop you from speaking too), and it empowers corporations who are going to be more than happy to have a lever they can pull to stifle information and speech that ought to be seen and heard (I don't trust that facebook, twitter, youtube, or whatever the platform is suddenly doing things out of the goodness of their heart, nor do I think they are not going to warp the sentiments you are describing and use them to their advantage to cloud the material harm they do in the world----another reason I think distinguishing between physical and non-physical harm is important). Again, this may be generational. But that is how life is: the way I was raised, what I experienced, makes me value freedom of expression tremendously. And I think it is something that is really hard to get back once you lose it (and it isn't only threatened by powerful governments, it can be threatened by corporations and oligarchs-----it can even be threatened by the majority without institutional or government power if they are committed enough to stopping an idea they don't like).


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 5, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> As for "it was acceptable in the '80s" I think the issue is that some of this stuff wasn't even then. OA was though. Indeed, I would argue OA (specifically) is actually _less_ racist than a lot of stuff and _less_ problematic than a lot of '90s stuff - but the difference I think is that the '90s stuff was raising a ton more eyebrows at the time. Like, World of Darkness: Gypsies pretty much immediately started getting called out for it's crude attempt to "flip racism" which ended up just being SUPER-racist.




Certainly, this is true. And a lot of the discussion around content that hasn't aged so well is going to be 'just how acceptable was this at that time' (not always an easy question to answer). At the very least though, the bar being set in a different place, was usually something that allowed the thing in question to arise (it may be a problem for people even in the time it was made, but you likely had more people openly saying that thing). The gypsies guide is something that I think was not as immediately controversial in the states (I didn't learn there was controversy around that book until the mid-2000s because I saw people talking about it on the internet). In the 90s, in the US, gypsies were having a renaissance in horror and RPGs I think (for a lot of reasons). But I think one of the big ones was they represented a bohemian ideal of freedom to a lot of generation X at the time. So I just remember seeing a lot of gypsy tropes, and thinking those tropes were positive (I haven't read the WoW gypsies book so no idea what I would have thought of that had I done so). Most Americans knew very little about Roma (but my impression is there is a lot more direct awareness in Europe). I never even encountered Roma until I went to Venice right before 9/11. The only other exposure I had was once, when I was a kid, some Roma passed through our area and it was in the news. But I think we had very little cultural awareness of them here.


----------



## Irlo (Feb 5, 2022)

MGibster said:


> I think it does convey WotC's determination of the book's faults.  It doesn't list them all in a comprehensive manner, but anyone who wants to purchase OA will read the disclaimer and understand there's some content in that does not align with modern sensibilities.
> 
> 
> It's not directed at you personally it's directed at anyone who purchases books or pays to see a movie.
> ...



So, I'm just wrong.

I thought the disclaimer was applied to all the legacy products on for sale on-line, and that contributed to my impression that it wasn't pointing to any particular book's fault but was so broadly applied as to be meaningless. 

That's the not the case.

My apologies for the error.

Carry on.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 5, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> It is certainly not the case that the suppression was mostly from state action (aka, government) in the 80s and 90s. Just like today, sporadic attempts to get state action involved would almost always get shot down by the courts.* Instead, it was continual fighting regarding pressuring private actors to suppress speech.




This is important and this is where a lot of these groups succeeded. Going after bookstore chains and music store chains was a big part of their strategy (and it sometimes worked----and its one of the reasons you often have two versions of a CD)


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 5, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Of course, back then the primary pressures were aimed at keeping "harmful" speech away from people and punishing private entities that facilitated that speech- you know, "harmful" speech that might tell them that being gay wasn't bad (in the 80s, trans issues were barely on the radar). Or (in the case of D&D) that playing D&D wasn't immoral or satanic. Or that explicit music or "rap" wasn't the downfall of civilization.




This is true, but it wasn't all this. The PMRC also raised concerns about sexualization of women and objectification of women. The 80s movement against freedom of expression was a coalition of right leaning religious groups and left leaning groups. You had both rightwing and leftwing speech concerns mixed in there.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 5, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Again, I think people make credible arguments as to why, "This time it's different." But that doesn't mean that there are credible arguments the other way as well.  A person can agree that speech is harmful, or distasteful, or offensive, and still  disagree as to the proper course of action.




This was the heart of the free speech movement. You were very often defending speech you disagreed with, because that is where the encroachment starts (no one begins by censoring speech we all agree is great, it starts with stuff there is consensus around, and then that mechanism tightens and tightens).


----------



## Alzrius (Feb 5, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> This was the heart of the free speech movement. You were very often defending speech you disagreed with, because that is where the encroachment starts (no one begins by censoring speech we all agree is great, it starts with stuff there is consensus around, and then that mechanism tightens and tightens).



I agree completely, and think it's worth noting that too often that particular stance on principle is demonized as being cover for promulgating various unpalatable messages. While there are undoubtedly bad actors who use free speech as an excuse for pushing ideas that are distasteful (at the very least), that doesn't mean that the metaphorical well has been poisoned. Principled arguments on this particular subject remain important (at least, I think they do).


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 5, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> One of the primary ways in which this was fought was to invoke the principles of freedom of speech, so that retailers like Waldenbooks would continue carrying this so-called harmful speech despite continued pressure.




And one reason this also matters is because that content can disappear if it isn't commercially available. People have argued that because of public domain, because of the internet, these things have no real danger of disappearing. But I think stuff like the TSR back catalog could easily disappear or become inaccessible. In fact until they put that stuff up on drivethru, a lot of it was (I know because I was trying to re-buy Ravenloft books I no longer had and some of them you simply couldn't get or you could only get if you were willing to fork over a lot of money). Twenty years ago, you could get many of these books cheap used. But collectors changed that (and time changes that even without collectors). I suppose you can argue that people can always go to piracy sites, but technically those are illegal. People want to obtain these things legally. And it is the same with movies. I am a martial arts film buff, and collect DVDs, VHS and Blurays. Movies do disappear. There are films you can't get, or films that you can only get incomplete versions of. Often this isn't a result of censorship (though it can be). But it is a product of things not being commercially available and there not being any reason for the company to either maintain the masters or for people to have physical copies of the media. To me, that is a loss of culture over time. I want to be able to engage with old media. Something as simply as a company not publishing something when it wants to or can, can result in that thing not being available. And even when there are still copies around, people have different degrees of access to libraries. Even when things are on the internet, people have different degrees of access to the internet.


----------



## The-Magic-Sword (Feb 5, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I really would NOT be so sure about that! If you SELL me an ePub, the First Sale Doctrine would seem, ON THE FACE OF IT, to still apply. OTOH if you 'license' it to me, there are still serious questions. That is, if the licensing is essentially a sham, if the transaction has all the character of a sale, many courts have held that it "quacks like a duck" and again the same doctrine holds. That is far from universal, and what any given court would rule is difficult to foretell. Still, you can easily argue there's a CONTRACTUAL issue, but not a copyright violation, which is a lot easier to deal with. Also, what are the damages, $29.95? Trebled?! Wow!



In theory yes, and libraries have done so, but there has definitely been a lot of erosion, here's a page of resources on the subject from the American Library Association. The main problem is that when a patron borrows a digital copy of a library book, they are themselves creating a new copy of it, that's just how sharing content digitally works. That essentially functions as a loophole in the intent of first sale by ensuring that any (digital) sharing of that material violates copyright by producing a copy of it. 

The U.S. is in dire need of copyright reform.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 5, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Well, we are all limited to our own identities, but I still think people can make informed attempts to understand other points of view and other experiences. In terms of not being targeted, maybe not in the case of the OA book, but in many other instances I had in mind for historical readings, I was certainly among the groups targeted. It is hard to read old books and not encounter someone with negative feelings or even hatred towards who you are at some point. Which is my point. And some of that may be having a history background. Where when I encounter something like that, my impulse is curiosity.
> 
> That is one of the reasons I brought up Lovecraft. And the Irish and Scottish stuff is no accident. It is one of the reasons people need to take a more nuanced lens to Lovecraft's attitudes on race (I am not defending his views on race, just pointing out it is a different kind of racism than people are accustomed to thinking about). Now I should say, it has been about ten years since I have done heavy reading of Lovecraft (I read him almost religiously in high school and into my 20s). More recently I've been fonder of Howard (I just like Conan stories a lot for some reason). I am hoping to go back and read all of Lovecraft again when I have time to do so. So my breakdown here might be mixing up details I am remembering. I am going by what I remember (the most recent re-read of Lovecraft for me was Herbert West about a year ago when I rewatched the re-animator).
> 
> ...



I would say, familiarize yourself with the correspondence of Lovecraft, which has been analyzed and discussed quite thoroughly. He's as much a raving monstrous bag of toxic racism as Uncle Adolf at his worst, to put it quite bluntly. In his stories I think it is pretty blatant too though, to be honest. With few exceptions every story talks about 'degenerates' and references concepts like miscegenation, which are simply blatant outright racism in its most virulent forms. It would really be hard to find someone more racist, even if we can say that perhaps HPL didn't DO much/anything actively about it (and I'm not sure that we can assume this). As for his choice of a spouse... well, that didn't last long! While I really enjoy the genre(s) he helped to develop, I can only say that I have no illusions about or patience with the man himself. He was a rotten apple in that regard, perhaps for reasons that we should attribute to forces outside of his own person to a degree, but if I absolve this one, who is it that I would condemn?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 5, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I would say, familiarize yourself with the correspondence of Lovecraft, which has been analyzed and discussed quite thoroughly. He's as much a raving monstrous bag of toxic racism as Uncle Adolf at his worst, to put it quite bluntly. In his stories I think it is pretty blatant too though, to be honest. With few exceptions every story talks about 'degenerates' and references concepts like miscegenation, which are simply blatant outright racism in its most virulent forms. It would really be hard to find someone more racist, even if we can say that perhaps HPL didn't DO much/anything actively about it (and I'm not sure that we can assume this). As for his choice of a spouse... well, that didn't last long! While I really enjoy the genre(s) he helped to develop, I can only say that I have no illusions about or patience with the man himself. He was a rotten apple in that regard, perhaps for reasons that we should attribute to forces outside of his own person to a degree, but if I absolve this one, who is it that I would condemn?




I have read them. But it has been a while like I said. And again, I am not defending his views. Again, read what I said. I feel like I am seeing a caricature of the point I was trying to make.

Also just to ground this in some common point, this is the wikipedia entry on H.P. Lovecraft's views on race:



> Race​Race is the most controversial aspect of Lovecraft's legacy, expressed in many disparaging remarks against non-Anglo-Saxon races and cultures in his works. As he grew older, his original racial worldview became a classism or elitism which regarded the superior race to include all those self-ennobled through high culture. From the start, Lovecraft did not hold all white people in uniform high regard, but rather esteemed English people and those of English descent.[139] In his early published essays, private letters and personal utterances, he argued for a strong color lineto preserve race and culture.[140] His arguments were supported using disparagements of various races in his journalism and letters, and allegorically in his fictional works that depict non-human races.[141] This is evident in his portrayal of the Deep Ones in _The Shadow over Innsmouth_. Their interbreeding with humanity is framed as being a type of miscegenation that corrupts both the town of Innsmouth and the protagonist.[142]
> 
> Initially, Lovecraft showed sympathy to minorities who adopted Western culture, even to the extent of marrying a Jewish woman he viewed as being "well assimilated".[143] By the 1930s, Lovecraft's views on ethnicity and race had moderated.[144] He supported ethnicities' preserving their native cultures; for example, he thought that "a real friend of civilisation wishes merely to make the Germans more German, the French more French, the Spaniards more Spanish, & so on".[145] This represented a shift from his previous support for cultural assimilation. However, this did not represent a complete elimination of his racial prejudices.[146] Scholars have argued that Lovecraft's racial attitudes were common in the society of his day, particularly in the New England in which he grew up.[147]




That isn't much different from things I was stating. My point wasn't that he wasn't racist, or that it isn't present in the works. It was that his racism was a specific brand of New England Racism (which was directed at just about anyone who wasn't English), that his views are not always easy to pin down because they shifted over time and he was a troubled man, and that his works are more complicated than just being products of that racism). I can hold in my head the idea that Lovecraft was racist, while also understanding the works have value beyond that, that you can enjoy them despite the racism, and that he is a very complicated human being.

And on the point of miscegenation, yes I find miscegenation appalling (both because I am in an interracial marriage and a product of unions Lovecraft would have considered miscegenation. That doesn't mean I can't also enjoy the horror stories he wrote, or that I can't see them in numerous lights (i.e. not reduce every story to racial issues). I live in New England. I like reading the works of New England horror authors. Again the most recent story I read, which is something of an atypical Lovecraft story but it is the one I remember best at the moment, is Herbert West-Reanimator.  There is racism in that story, it is definitely there for sure. But there are other themes. The core idea of the story can easily be told without the racism for example.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 5, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> He's as much a raving monstrous bag of toxic racism as Uncle Adolf at his worst, to put it quite bluntly.




This needs some serious push back. No doubt, Lovecraft held racist views, I believe he even expressed admiration for Hitler (though I also understand he was uneasy about some of the news he heard coming out of Germany later on), but Hitler murdered 6 million Jews (and many others, including something like a million Roma). Hitler had murderous views on race. Lovecraft wrote books, and expressed racist views that were weirdly oriented around English blood-lines. I don't see either as a good thing, but there is a reason we say "He's the next Hitler" and not "He's the next Lovecraft" when we are worried that someone is evil and dangerous. Again, I am not saying Lovecraft's views on race were good, or should be defined. But I don't think it is accurate or wise to compare Lovecraft and Hitler in that way because all it does is minimize the evil of Hitler.


----------



## Alzrius (Feb 5, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> But I don't think it is accurate or wise to compare Lovecraft and Hitler in that way because all it does is minimize the evil of Hitler.



This needs to be repeated ad nauseam. Contemporary rhetoric around Lovecraft tends to say that he was egregiously racist even compared to other racists of his time. That's simply not true; while his views were odious, the manifestation of them was to write stories with xenophobic overtones, give his cat an offensive name, and write a bigoted poem (which he never intended for publication; it wasn't until decades after his death that it was released publicly). That's a _very_ far cry from putting on a white sheet and committing mass murder and domestic terrorism, let alone setting up concentration camps.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 5, 2022)

Irlo said:


> So, I'm just wrong.
> 
> I thought the disclaimer was applied to all the legacy products on for sale on-line, and that contributed to my impression that it wasn't pointing to any particular book's fault but was so broadly applied as to be meaningless.
> 
> ...



I might have missed part of this conversation, but . . . the disclaimer IS on all of the D&D legacy products, and I'm fairly sure it's on all the other legacy products as well (Gamma World, Star Frontiers). The only products that don't have the legacy disclaimer are the current 5th Edition titles on D&D Beyond.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 5, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> As for his choice of a spouse... well, that didn't last long!




On this point, I wasn't saying it nulifies his views on Jews. But like I said, I am Italian, Irish and Jewish. I have always been curious about his specific attitudes towards those groups for personal reasons. When it comes to his views on Jewish people, I think this a detail that complicates the man further. Obviously it wasn't a very successful marriage, and I have long assumed his views on race may have been a part of that (though that is just my guess). Also, there is something kind of sad about a person who failed at so many things (including love and marriage), and ended up dying such a grisly death (I can sympathize with the bowel cancer because I have had about 7 bowel surgeries myself, not for cancer but certainly not something I would want to ever have to repeat). I see him more as a pathetic figure. Someone who maybe was clinging to this idea about the value of English bloodlines, because maybe that was all he really had. It doesn't justify it, but it is an explanation that makes me more puzzled and curious than angry when I read about him.


----------



## Alzrius (Feb 5, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> I might have missed part of this conversation, but . . . the disclaimer IS on all of the D&D legacy products, and I'm fairly sure it's on all the other legacy products as well (Gamma World, Star Frontiers). The only products that don't have the legacy disclaimer are the current 5th Edition titles on D&D Beyond.



Not quite. "D&D Next," the moniker for the various proto-5E products such as _Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle_, _Dreams of the Red Wizards: Dead in Thay_, _Vault of the Dracolich_, and a couple of other titles on DriveThruRPG, are also lacking the disclaimer.

_Please note my use of affiliate links in this post._


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 5, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> I might have missed part of this conversation, but . . . the disclaimer IS on all of the D&D legacy products, and I'm fairly sure it's on all the other legacy products as well (Gamma World, Star Frontiers). The only products that don't have the legacy disclaimer are the current 5th Edition titles on D&D Beyond.




Does that mean it is also on 3rd edition and 4th edition products, or is it just the TSR products?


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 5, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Well, we are all limited to our own identities, but I still think people can make informed attempts to understand other points of view and other experiences. In terms of not being targeted, maybe not in the case of the OA book, but in many other instances I had in mind for historical readings, I was certainly among the groups targeted. It is hard to read old books and not encounter someone with negative feelings or even hatred towards who you are at some point. Which is my point. And some of that may be having a history background. Where when I encounter something like that, my impulse is curiosity.
> 
> That is one of the reasons I brought up Lovecraft. And the Irish and Scottish stuff is no accident. It is one of the reasons people need to take a more nuanced lens to Lovecraft's attitudes on race (I am not defending his views on race, just pointing out it is a different kind of racism than people are accustomed to thinking about). Now I should say, it has been about ten years since I have done heavy reading of Lovecraft (I read him almost religiously in high school and into my 20s). More recently I've been fonder of Howard (I just like Conan stories a lot for some reason). I am hoping to go back and read all of Lovecraft again when I have time to do so. So my breakdown here might be mixing up details I am remembering. I am going by what I remember (the most recent re-read of Lovecraft for me was Herbert West about a year ago when I rewatched the re-animator).
> 
> ...



It's not complicated at all. Lovecraft was racist. Racist by today's standards, and racist by his day's standards.

Is it valuable to explore the nuance of his racism? Sure, if you are interested in that. Is doing so necessary to having an informed opinion on the man and his work? No.

What do we do about it? The man is, of course, long dead.

Some, once they find out how racist the dude was, decide not to read his works anymore, or even newer works in the mythos. That's fine and fair. Others decide that, despite his racism, his work has value, and choose to read it anyway. That's fine and fair too, as long as your are aware and acknowledging the racism within his stories. Many creators build on his stories, but work hard to remove the racist elements so that more people can enjoy the weird horror of the mythos stories. That's my favorite response!

The response I don't like is from folks who dismiss his racism as "_not that bad_" or "_of the time_" (not referring to you @Bedrockgames). Or who adapt or build upon his work and carry over that racism into new stories and games, even if unintentionally. That furthers the harm.

*Back to Oriental Adventures . . . *

Oriental Adventures is a racist work. Not intentionally racist, but it's a part of the systematic racism of the West towards Asia. It's important to be aware of this, and to strive to do better. Can we have good discussions about the specifics of how OA is racist? Yes, I think that's valuable. But I also think some dishonest debaters deliberately pull these discussions into the weeds as a debate tactic to lessen the problems with the title (again, not aimed at you @Bedrockgames).

If all a gamer knows is that OA is a super problematic title, and forms an opinion on that without knowing all of the details, that's okay. If they decide to not purchase it, read it, or use it in their games . . . that's fine and fair.

Is it okay for gamers to use the title and build on it? Use it at their table? Create new products, fan products or products for publication, based on Oriental Adventures? In my view, if you going to do that, you do need to be aware of some of the details and have a feeling for HOW and WHY the title is problematic, so that you don't carry that over to your table, or into your new DM's Guild product. And you certainly shouldn't include the word "oriental" in your title!


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 5, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> It's not complicated at all. Lovecraft was racist. Racist by today's standards, and *racist by his day's standards.*



I think the last point is a lot less clear. You are talking about the US up through the 30s. Whole sections of the country still had segregation at that time. So for the country, I would say much of the racism he expressed wasn't that unusual. It was unusual in that it was oddly fixated on English blood. But that again, is a product of his New England racism. Which I think makes his racism not that unusual for his time and his place. I am not defending it. And I am not saying there weren't lots of people who disagreed with it in his time. But that was an era when both racism was incredibly common and  it was also a time when you had lots of widespread racialist ideas, like eugenics. Ultimate we witnessed where these things can lead. Obviously there were people who disagreed with him (I imagine most of my ancestors who would have come here around that time, would have disagreed very strongly with his ideas). But his ideas would have been not uncommon among New England patricians and even among many academics at the time. And that stuff was still lingering around even in the 80s when I was a kid. And the wikipedia article I posted a link to essentially says just that: his views weren't uncommon for his time or place


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 5, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> This needs to be repeated ad nauseam. Contemporary rhetoric around Lovecraft tends to say that he was egregiously racist even compared to other racists of his time. That's simply not true; while his views were odious, the manifestation of them was to write stories with xenophobic overtones, give his cat an offensive name, and write a bigoted poem (which he never intended for publication; it wasn't until decades after his death that it was released publicly). That's a _very_ far cry from putting on a white sheet and committing mass murder and domestic terrorism, let alone setting up concentration camps.



*Mod Note:*

Past a certain point, debating degrees of bigotry is kinda pointless and doesn’t need the ad nauseum treatment.

Moving on.

(Request, not question.)


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 5, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think the last point is a lot less clear. You are talking about the US up through the 30s. Whole sections of the country still had segregation at that time. So for the country, I would say much of the racism he expressed wasn't that unusual. It was unusual in that it was oddly fixated on English blood. But that again, is a product of his New England racism. Which I think makes his racism not that unusual for his time and his place. I am not defending it. And I am not saying there weren't lots of people who disagreed with it in his time. But that was an era when both racism was incredibly common and  it was also a time when you had lots of widespread racialist ideas, like eugenics. Ultimate we witnessed where these things can lead. Obviously there were people who disagreed with him (I imagine most of my ancestors who would have come here around that time, would have disagreed very strongly with his ideas). But his ideas would have been not uncommon among New England patricians and even among many academics at the time. And that stuff was still lingering around even in the 80s when I was a kid. And the wikipedia article I posted a link to essentially says just that: his views weren't uncommon for his time or place



I don't think it's "less clear" at all. It also doesn't matter.

We have made huge gains in how we view race, culture, and ethnicity since Lovecraft's time, to be sure. But the idea that his level of racism was common . . . . nah. And even if that were true, that it somehow lessens the harm of it . . . . nah.

But, again, it doesn't matter. I don't live in Lovecraft's time. I live today. I'm going to judge the man and his work by today's standards, because that's when I'm going to read his stories, or stories based on his work, or play games based on the mythos.

*Back to Oriental Adventures . . . .*

Same with OA. I understand that Zeb Cook was a pretty good guy whose intent was to celebrate and include Asian representation in D&D. The racism in OA was unintentional and carried over systematic racism embedded in our society at the time, rather than Cook's own prejudices. We weren't having the conversations back then about race and culture that we are having today, thanks to social media and the BLM movement.

But I'm still going to judge the book by today's standards, and decide how I'm going to react to it by today's standards. Because that's when I live, today.

_EDIT: Added in some "Back to Oriental Adventures" commentary, and also . . . . . Well, I was alive and playing D&D back in '88. How I view the title has changed over time and is different from my 16-year-old self . . . because times have changed, and so have my views._


----------



## Voadam (Feb 5, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Does that mean it is also on 3rd edition and 4th edition products, or is it just the TSR products?



I believe it is on everything from WotC/TSR up through 4e.

For instance Heroes of the Feywild is one of the later 4e books from 2011 and has it.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 5, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> But, again, it doesn't matter. I don't live in Lovecraft's time. I live today. I'm going to judge the man and his work by today's standards, because that's when I'm going to read his stories, or stories based on his work, or play games based on the mythos.




That is fair. You can read past works how you want to. My feeling on this though, and why I mentioned nuanced----I don't think I meant that word the way you thought I did in my post---- is when you take a strong moral lens, and strong sense of moral revulsion, to a work that old, while that might serve you well if you are worried about carrying those ideas into the future (personally I am not worried about carrying Lovecraft's racial ideas into the future because I disagree with them very strongly), one thing I think it can do is distort your interpretation of the past work in question. Sort of how when Medieval Christians read classical writers and were revolted by the pagan elements, it led to distortions of the ideas themselves. And I think this matters with a writer like Lovecraft because he did contribute tremendously to the horror genre, and he brought a lot more than just racism to the table. When you reduce, and I am not saying you are doing so, everything he wrote to the weird New England xenophobic racism he had, it misses a lot of the nuance of his writings and the _nuance_ of who he was as a person. Even understanding the racism in his work requires a nuanced analysis of it, because his racism had a very particular form (and you really aren't going to understand how it is shaping those stories if you don't accurately have a read of his views and understand he extends it to groups we would today regard as white). He may well have been a racist, but if you stop there, you aren't really examining a human being anymore, you are just turning them into something cartoonishly evil. And I do think he was a very troubled and disturbed person in a lot of ways.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 5, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> We have made huge gains in how we view race, culture, and ethnicity since Lovecraft's time, to be sure. But the idea that his level of racism was common . . . . nah. And even if that were true, that it somehow lessens the harm of it . . . . nah.




There were a lot of people who held views like that. That is why you had a thriving eugenics movement in the US, it is why you had scientific racism and why you, again, had rampant segregation and racism in huge sections of the country. I have my grandfather's boxing license from the 1930s, it lists his complexion as medium (they were not tracking complexion for benign reasons). And the society he described to me sounded very much like one that reflected the ideas about lineage that Lovecraft held. It being common, doesn't make it good. It does provide some context. And that can be useful for discussion. But I think with Lovecraft, what you might be able to say is he was oddly obsessed with it. That I think is true. But again I see that as likely arising from his lack of success in life (like I said, the way I think of Lovecraft is he is probably someone who, the only thing he really had to cling to was his sense of greatness through this bloodline).


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 5, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> But, again, it doesn't matter. I don't live in Lovecraft's time. I live today. I'm going to judge the man and his work by today's standards, because that's when I'm going to read his stories, or stories based on his work, or play games based on the mythos....
> But I'm still going to judge the book by today's standards, and decide how I'm going to react to it by today's standards. Because that's when I live, today.



And this to me is entirely fair. I think you should be able to read and analyze this stuff, and respond to it, however you see fit. The only thing I really object to in threads like this is when people insist others must also use that lens, or when they assume bad intentions because someone is analyzing it in a different way. I just think it is okay for people to approach these things with priorities and different filters. Like I said I tend to take a very historical lens to these things (and I often do find that harder to do if the work in question is from within my own lifetime), because that is what my education was in (and I absorbed ideas from people I admired about how best to examine old texts). One thing I definitely picked up from that was a winnowing of my anger as I read things. To learn to not respond with strong negative emotions because it tended to cloud my analysis. Obviously there are plenty of historical schools of thought that do so, but I was always drawn to the ones that didn't and cultivated that approach (again I do find this much easier to do with people who are long dead or to events I don't have strong emotional connections to). And when I do bump into stuff that bothers me, I tend to be more curious about why it's there and want to find out what its sources are.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 5, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I really would NOT be so sure about that! If you SELL me an ePub, the First Sale Doctrine would seem, ON THE FACE OF IT, to still apply. OTOH if you 'license' it to me, there are still serious questions. That is, if the licensing is essentially a sham, if the transaction has all the character of a sale, many courts have held that it "quacks like a duck" and again the same doctrine holds. That is far from universal, and what any given court would rule is difficult to foretell. Still, you can easily argue there's a CONTRACTUAL issue, but not a copyright violation, which is a lot easier to deal with. Also, what are the damages, $29.95? Trebled?! Wow!




Fair enough. I was more talking about the libraries. Resale of epubs is not something I know a great deal about. 

My point was that not being available for sale does not mean unavailable.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Feb 5, 2022)

I have to say that a lot of the purpose of this discussion eludes me. There seems to be a broad consensus that OA is problematic, at least by modern standards, and that Lovecraft was hella racist. I am not really sure that it is super helpful to try to pinpoint in some sort of scientific accuracy exactly how problematic or how much hella racist. These things are nebulous and somewhat subjective, and if we zoom close enough we can always find some minuscule definitional thing to disagree and bicker about. But why would we need to do that?


----------



## Alzrius (Feb 5, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> These things are nebulous and somewhat subjective, and if we zoom close enough we can always find some minuscule definitional thing to disagree and bicker about. But why would we need to do that?



Because too often, there's a sense that if you don't condemn something in the strongest terms possible, then you're tacitly acting as an apologist for it. That's an extreme position which eschews nuance, scorns compromise, and further inflames division. Bad things are bad, but some bad things are worse than others, and there's value in not losing sight of that. As someone else once said, that's why we have three degrees of burns, four degrees of murder, and six degrees of Kevin Bacon.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 6, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I have read them. But it has been a while like I said. And again, I am not defending his views. Again, read what I said. I feel like I am seeing a caricature of the point I was trying to make.
> 
> Also just to ground this in some common point, this is the wikipedia entry on H.P. Lovecraft's views on race:
> 
> ...



Right, I clearly also enjoy the literature. All I'm saying is, there's not much in HPL that isn't touched by his unfortunate views on race. I agree there are other themes, though the core theme of alienation and otherness that his works evoke seems rather tied to the racial beliefs, or they appear to arise at least from a common sense of insecurity. Honestly, the primary impression I get from Lovecraft is that the man was extremely insecure! He was clearly not fully capable of functioning independently in the world. To be blunt he was a very weird and fundamentally alienated person. Probably one of the things that attracted me to his writing is an identification with that element. I'd not disagree that part of the reason he may have expressed it in the terms he did, as racism, is probably rooted in the environment where he grew up. This would also tend to help account for the very commonness of his sentiments. His affectation of a set of opinions which seems to identify him with a local cultural elite works here too, his attitudes align him with (at least in his mind, if not actually) with the upper echelons of Boston society of his time.

Did he evolve? Gosh there are some pretty vile quotes from letters he wrote in at least the late 20's. Perhaps he mellowed out some? I don't know, but his later mythos stories seem as bigoted as the earlier ones, so its hard to say in what way that is. Generously the way you interpret Lovecraft IMHO is that he just saw a monstrous reality EVERYWHERE around him, and attributed its horror to a range of causes, of which racial degeneracy was a very easy one. I mean, he's also got a bad opinion of every remote part of the Earth. Heck, as far as I can tell from biographical reading he really was virtually unable to leave his own residence, certainly not for an extended period of time. It appears he ONCE went to New York City for a fairly short period and then abandoned his wife, permanently, so he could run home. So, perhaps we can be less hard on the guy than on nasty self-serving racists who's views seem largely to have been held because it gave them access to power. Thus, yes, in a way I feel sorry for the guy, but he was still a bigot, and that's still on him.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 6, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> I don't think it's "less clear" at all. It also doesn't matter.
> 
> We have made huge gains in how we view race, culture, and ethnicity since Lovecraft's time, to be sure. But the idea that his level of racism was common . . . . nah. And even if that were true, that it somehow lessens the harm of it . . . . nah.
> 
> ...



Its a very good general point. I DO judge these things by today's standards. Not to say I want to go back to 1985 or 1935 and do that, but we are in 2022 now, and that's where people are being exposed to it today. It isn't about vilifying people from the past, especially, but just labeling their works for what they ARE TODAY. In the case of Lovecraft mostly rife with racist views. In the case of OA just kind of awkwardly mired in some negative stereotypes, etc. So, Zeb Cook (whom I believe is still around, though I understand he hasn't really commented and is not particularly active in the RPG world these days) I haven't any reason to say anything against. At worst he seems to have done his best, at least he approached his material with a loving attitude. HPL? Who cares? He's long gone!


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 6, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Right, I clearly also enjoy the literature. All I'm saying is, there's not much in HPL that isn't touched by his unfortunate views on race. I agree there are other themes, though the core theme of alienation and otherness that his works evoke seems rather tied to the racial beliefs, or they appear to arise at least from a common sense of insecurity. Honestly, the primary impression I get from Lovecraft is that the man was extremely insecure! He was clearly not fully capable of functioning independently in the world. To be blunt he was a very weird and fundamentally alienated person. Probably one of the things that attracted me to his writing is an identification with that element. I'd not disagree that part of the reason he may have expressed it in the terms he did, as racism, is probably rooted in the environment where he grew up. This would also tend to help account for the very commonness of his sentiments. His affectation of a set of opinions which seems to identify him with a local cultural elite works here too, his attitudes align him with (at least in his mind, if not actually) with the upper echelons of Boston society of his time.
> 
> Did he evolve? Gosh there are some pretty vile quotes from letters he wrote in at least the late 20's. Perhaps he mellowed out some? I don't know, but his later mythos stories seem as bigoted as the earlier ones, so its hard to say in what way that is. Generously the way you interpret Lovecraft IMHO is that he just saw a monstrous reality EVERYWHERE around him, and attributed its horror to a range of causes, of which racial degeneracy was a very easy one. I mean, he's also got a bad opinion of every remote part of the Earth. Heck, as far as I can tell from biographical reading he really was virtually unable to leave his own residence, certainly not for an extended period of time. It appears he ONCE went to New York City for a fairly short period and then abandoned his wife, permanently, so he could run home. So, perhaps we can be less hard on the guy than on nasty self-serving racists who's views seem largely to have been held because it gave them access to power. Thus, yes, in a way I feel sorry for the guy, but he was still a bigot, and that's still on him.




I agree with most of this. The guy definitely had issues. It is one of the things that makes is writing compelling I think (I am no psychologist, and I certainly can relate to a provincial attitude you might develop living in New England, but his inability to function and to exist in other places, suggests serious mental health issues to me). That kind of mind is probably why he was so good at taking mundane things and making them eerie. Though I do have to wonder, given that he died of intestinal cancer, if the inability to travel away from his home was in any way related to physical health issues. This would be pure speculation on my part but if he had say, untreated celiac disease (which mostly would have gone untreated in those days except for the banana diet), that supposedly increases the risk of cancer in the small intestine. And, it can also do a number on you mentally because your body isn't getting all the nutrients it needs when you aren't treating an illness like that. Again pure speculation, but dying so young from that particular form of cancer makes me wonder if there was an existing condition that not only explains the cancer but some of his peculiarities. 

In terms of how much he evolved, I am no expert on that. My impression is he had moments later in life where he may have nudged away from some of his more extreme views. I could be wrong. And he died young, importantly prior to full scale revelations about Nazi Germany and the end of WWII, so it is hard to know how he would have come out on the other end of that (if it would have led to him re-evaluating some of his ideas about race and ethnicity). I've read articles that say he did evolve, I have read articles that say he didn't. I have seen indications of growth but also seen pretty wild statements later in his life.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 6, 2022)

Something to keep in mind too is that there is a spectrum of reactions from “do nothing” to “burn every single copy of the work and destroy it utterly”. 

Obviously disclaimers are closer to the do nothing end of the spectrum. But it’s an ongoing process. Do disclaimers do the job? Well, time will tell. They raise awareness and spur conversation so on some level they are successful. 

I would much rather we start at the minimum end than not though. It’s like medicine. It’s much better to start at the weakest end of the choice of medicine and work your way up rather than start at the strongest and work downward. 

It appears that disclaimers seem to be doing the trick in this case. It’s minimally invasive while still satisfying most people’s concerns. 

Are there still grumbles from the ends? Sure. That’s all part of the conversation. And maybe later we will change things again. 

But I’d much rather they start small and work their way up.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Feb 6, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> It is certainly not the case that the suppression was mostly from state action (aka, government) in the 80s and 90s. Just like today, sporadic attempts to get state action involved would almost always get shot down by the courts.* Instead, it was continual fighting regarding pressuring private actors to suppress speech.



I get what you're saying, but I don't really agree that it's true, except in the sense that it's usually more the _threat_ of government action than actual legislation. That's never not been true though.

Apart from MADD, which was largely unsuccessful in its goals, despite pretences by both MADD and D&D players that they were successful, everything I'm aware of only actually started to get any real traction once the government got involved. Music is a good example - when it was just ageing moaners complaining about "That Heavy Metal!", there was no actual impact in most places (and where there was, it was linked to the culture of the area and not something that could be legislated in either direction). Whereas when the explicit lyrics warnings and so on came in, that very much down to the government getting involved, and the RIAA deciding they'd better do something before the government did. Of course that too was a hilarious backfire (if the RIAA even ever intended it to work!) as what label could possibly be more enticing? The logo even looks awesome, and I do not think that was an accident.

I also don't agree at all that attempts to invoke "free speech" were terribly effective in fighting against any of this stuff. I've seen nearly-zero evidence to support that. I mean, obviously I wasn't there, but none of the documentaries and so on I've watched or stuff I've read seems to suggest that had any real impact. What people listen to is the dollar. If people keep buying heavy metal, mainstream retailers aren't going to pull it.

As an aside, I know we can't discuss "politics", but right now, this very minute, the US has a _huge problem_ with people attempting to prevent discussion of certain issues, and actively trying pull books from libraries and schools (kinda funny given the internet exists, I know), and even to burn those books in some cases. And it's pretty much the same people as MADD, and they're absolutely utilizing governmental/hierarchical power (rather than voting with their feet or their dollars), in this case local governmental and school boards and stuff to do this. If they weren't it wouldn't be an issue. And it's rather different to what people seem so worried about here.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 6, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> I have to say that a lot of the purpose of this discussion eludes me. There seems to be a broad consensus that OA is problematic, at least by modern standards, and that Lovecraft was hella racist. I am not really sure that it is super helpful to try to pinpoint in some sort of scientific accuracy exactly how problematic or how much hella racist.



I'm not really sure it's all that useful to pinpoint how racist Lovecraft was either.  When I disagree that he was particularly racist for his era it isn't to excuse him, but simply to point out that his era is considered by many historians to be the nadir of race relations following the Civil War.  As vile as Lovecraft's opinions were, he opinions would have been shared by millions of his contemporaries.  

Overall, I think we're still trying to figure out how to come to terms with the problematic nature of the stories that we enjoyed and have continued to influence us.  A few years ago, the common refrain was "It's okay to like something that's problematic just so long as you recognize it's problematic," but it appears as though we're moving in a direction where that's no longer true.  I say "it appears," because on this message board I've seen people mention that Lovecraft doesn't belong in a school's library, that his work shouldn't appear in any game's bibliography, and of course that OA shouldn't even be sold today.  So I guess the purpose of this thread is this:  *How do we come to terms with the problematic nature of past works?  *

I wonder if part of the reasons behind these discussions is that past works are more easily accessible today than they were just a few years ago.  I went and saw _The Monster Squad _with my family when it was in theaters in 1987.  Around 2018, I saw that it was on Netflix and decided to give it a watch.  After 31 years, about the only thing I could really remember was that Wolfman had nards, but while watching it on Netflix, I was surprised when one of the students went off on a homophobic rant about their principle (or teacher).  I also made note of Horace, maybe aged 13 in the movie, was toting a shotgun which he used to kill the Fishman.  I don't know if you'd find many movies aimed at children where a kid gets ahold of a firearm to defend themselves with these days.  And then there was Dracula, who was far more menacing than I remember.  Dude straight up tries to murder the kids by throwing a stick of dynamite in their treehouse.  Without Netflix, I never would have watched _The Monster Squad _in 2018.  I would have remembered the movie through the hazy lens of 11 year old me versus the much older me who had a different perspective on things.  Likewise, I don't know if we'd be having this discussion about OA if it weren't so easily accessible now.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 6, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> I have to say that a lot of the purpose of this discussion eludes me. There seems to be a broad consensus that OA is problematic, at least by modern standards, and that Lovecraft was hella racist. I am not really sure that it is super helpful to try to pinpoint in some sort of scientific accuracy exactly how problematic or how much hella racist. These things are nebulous and somewhat subjective, and if we zoom close enough we can always find some minuscule definitional thing to disagree and bicker about. But why would we need to do that?



There is an Other, and it must be defeated.


----------



## Haiku Elvis (Feb 6, 2022)

Einlanzer0 said:


> Thing is - all of these things are more ideological narratives stemming from obsessions with the past than they are salient points about modern society. Native Americans are born US citizens and can leave reservations, pursue education, anything they want. White people are far more criticized for things like wearing dreads than black people are - virtually no one who has good hygiene is criticized for wearing natural hairstyles. Hate crimes against Sikhs and religious minorities aren't particularly common, and western women carry tons of privilege in all kinds of unrecognized ways.
> 
> My European friend from Serbia, who is both white and christian, has been told to go back where he came from on more than one occasion - one time even being verbally assaulted by a stranger in the street. It has nothing to do with anything other than he's from another country and can situationally spark someone's generalized xenophobia.
> 
> But here's the real issue - constantly pandering to these kinds of ideas as a justification for double standards is ironically the best way to _keep people trapped in the past _rather than allowing us to move together into a more egalitarian future. And it isn't unique to them - all kinds of people have faced oppression throughout history.



I've limited my previous engagement with this thread to one post as I don't want to get caught up in any of the arguments flying around and that is still my intention but I have to point out a couple of things with those examples and the underlying assumptions that I feel are incorrect.

Native Americans being US citizens andbeing allowed to leave the reservations (_if they can afford it_) and get an education (_if they can afford it_) seems a very low bar as an example of racial inequality being so far in the past it isn't relevant to today's society.
The fact your example is based on most native americans still living on reservations, which were basically unwanted wasteland holding pens to put the remnants of the native tribes after they were ethnically cleansed off their valuable traditional land kind of gives away that there are ongoing and unresolved issues here. The huge income disparities directly related to their previous treatment and dispossetion also directly influence their abities to do the things you say. Hence my italicised additions.
People of african descent getting comments about their hair is so a real thing.
We had a global zoom meeting at work last year where things like microagressions and biases and how to remove them from the workplace were discussed.
I was shocked by how many people of african descent had examples of comments about their natural hair "we have a client coming in later you aren't going to leave it like that are you?" kind of thing. Seriously before that I would have asumed you were right.

I'll leave the religious minorities issue alone as it must vary enormously and I don't have the direct experience to comment accurately.

The western women privilege comment strikes me as a bit of a weird addition as the thread has been about minorities and representation or peoples reactions to it and that doesn't seem to follow on from the prievious topics in the thread.
All I'll say is put yourself in the position where women feel you are sympathetic and willing to hear and you'll be shocked how many women you know will have had experiences of being groped, had in appropriate sexual comments aimed at them in public or been put in situations where they feel they actively have to get out of there or something bad will happen to them. 

In terms of people being trapped in the past - if some guy stiffed you for a grand and after few years of trying to get your money back someone else decided for you that you were trapped in the past and the slate should be wiped clean you wouldn't like it. Great for the guy who took your money but sucks to be you.

If the playing field is uneven, wiping out the past as if nothing is wrong can just freeze the inequality in place.

Also it is interesting to note that in one of the rare cases where white Britons and Americans were genuine victims - in the Japanese camps in world war II. The survivours persued legal campaigns for compensation for decades afterwards wanting a sense of justice or reparation in the same way that other groups that have suffered historical wrongs. This isn't an Aha! Gotcha thing just people mostly want the same things its the circumstances they are in that more affects how they act. 

I don't particularly go in for heros, I didn't have any posters of football players I wanted to be on my walls (possibly some of actresses in sexy outfits but if pressed I'll deny everything) but to my mind one of the greatest people I've shared time on this planet with was the sadly recently passed Desmond Tutu and the most important thing he did was arguably run the Truth and Reconciliation commision in South Africa after the fall of apartheid. He didn't shy away from the complexities and made sure the same rules applied fairly  to all but was uncompromising in insisting the way to move on way to face up to the past and acknowledge what had happened an nothing should get swept beneath the carpet just because it made some people feel awkward, if they ever wanted to move on and achieve that egalitarian future it was a vital need.



Einlanzer0 said:


> I mostly agree with this, but there's a signficant caveat. Feelings and emotions are a result of biases shaped from years of being taught how to think moreso than they are a result of just baseline experience. It's not only important to challenge facts, but also to challenge (respectually) the biases that are at play in shaping peoples' subjectve interpretation of reality. This is something we have societally lost touch with over the past couple of decades.
> 
> When someone claims offense to something, it's worth fully unpacking that and not just pandering to it. As humans, we should respect one another enough to challenge each other as adults, and that includes pointing out biases that might be at play in how they interpret situations they encounter.
> 
> A really good example of this dilemma is the "scope creep" on blackface. It actually refers to something very specific, but more and more things are lumped under the idea of blackface in ways that make zero sense. Here's a newsflash - darkening your complexion slightly to dress as Prince for halloween isn't even remotly the same thing as performing a blackface minstrel show where you exaggerate features to mock an entire race. Why do we act like they are? It's completely irrational and a sign of how we've grown carried away pandering to victimhood.



While I agree with a lot of the basic sentiment of the first two paragraphs the last one I feel is way out I'm afraid.

A simile to hopefully explain my view.

Imagine at someones retirement party they asked his friend he had worked with to do a roast (the speech full of insulting jokes not a beef join kind).
Great bit rude but no harm done.

Now imagine the same guy was bullied in his early years at the company and they asked his old boss who was the main instigator back in the day. And he comes up with the same speech word for word as the first example.
Now we have a guy having his bully that made his life a misery years ago insulting him again while people laugh along.

You do not have two identical situations here even if on face value two identical actions. You cannot arbitrarily discount the past and look at the action removed of all context to decide if it is good or bad.
Repeating actions that have intentionally caused harm in the past even if the intention isn't to cause harm this time can still cause harm.
In the world we live in where blackface - mocking black people generally - part of a wider putting down and demeaning of a section of the population was itself in part, part of a feedback loop that ecouraged and justified policies that helped keep black people as de facto second class citizens. It carried on on TV into the 60s at least in the UK so was aceptable within living memory.
Any kind of mimicing the same concept even if the motivations are different is saying the previous harm doesn't count or the hurt and damage it caused don't count.
Not blacking your skin shows an understanding that lines were crossed and the effects of that are still with us, damage was done and repairs need to be made. And to be fair not blacking up is a pretty easy standard to maintain its not a huge sacrifice to make. 

The history isn't dead and seperate: it's preamble, it's set up, it's session zero, it's the bleedin Hobbit to Lord of the Rings. 

Putting a hand over one eye and saying I see nothing wrong cuts off the bit of the equation that makes it wrong so obviously it looks like there isn't a problem but it is still there. Just out of frame. 

OA has racial prejudice issues despite the best efforts of it's writer and checkers as it repeated some tropes that had been used to present an inacurate often negative version of asian people previously.
 And it downplayed histories/cultures/ historical animosities and transposed different people and cultures in a kind of pan east Asian blob that had an implicit we don't really care if its wrong its what we want them to be attitude, that was insulting to many people related to the cultures that got "stiffed" or overwritten if not to all evenly. Again repeating historical attitudes to a lack of care when portraying other peoples. Comparing this to the treatment of cultures with different histories to decide if it's racist or not isn't going to be a fair comparison.

PS It sucks for your Serbian friend, my wife gets the same thing here in the UK. Xenophobia is wrong in all forms we can only hope to improve ourselves I just don't think we'll get there by forgetting it ever happened.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 6, 2022)

MGibster said:


> ...that his work (Lovecraft's) shouldn't appear in any game's bibliography...



As the one who generated this particular idea, let me just say that this has never, to my knowledge, been suggested. 

What was suggested that in a list of inspirational reading   Lovecraft's name should be left off.  No one has ever remotely suggested that in a scholarly treatise, where a bibliography would be found, that Lovecraft should be left out.  But, unfortunately, my particular suggestion has been warped to mean what you are claiming here.  That was never the claim. 

And I do stand by the notion that Lovecraft's name should not appear on a list of inspiration reading for the game.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 6, 2022)

Hussar said:


> What was suggested that in a list of inspirational reading  Lovecraft's name should be left off. No one has ever remotely suggested that in a scholarly treatise, where a bibliography would be found, that Lovecraft should be left out. But, unfortunately, my particular suggestion has been warped to mean what you are claiming here. That was never the claim.



I call a list of inspirational reading a bibliography.  The word can be used outside of a scholarly context.


----------



## Random Task (Feb 6, 2022)

Hussar said:


> As the one who generated this particular idea, let me just say that this has never, to my knowledge, been suggested.
> 
> What was suggested that in a list of inspirational reading   Lovecraft's name should be left off.  No one has ever remotely suggested that in a scholarly treatise, where a bibliography would be found, that Lovecraft should be left out.  But, unfortunately, my particular suggestion has been warped to mean what you are claiming here.  That was never the claim.
> 
> And I do stand by the notion that Lovecraft's name should not appear on a list of inspiration reading for the game.



So, what are the criteria for striking someone's work off the reading list for imperfect morals?  Would you teach Lovecraft in a class on 20th century speculative fiction or fantastic literature?


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 6, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> As an aside, I know we can't discuss "politics", but right now, this very minute, the US has a _huge problem_ with people attempting to prevent discussion of certain issues, and actively trying pull books from libraries and schools (kinda funny given the internet exists, I know), and even to burn those books in some cases. And it's pretty much the same people as MADD, and they're absolutely utilizing governmental/hierarchical power (rather than voting with their feet or their dollars), in this case local governmental and school boards and stuff to do this. If they weren't it wouldn't be an issue. And it's rather different to what people seem so worried about here.



This bothers me.  I fully agree it's an important discussion to have but it's not one we can have here.  I can't comment on your comment.  I can't share my views on it.  Doing so would be political and I would inevitably get modded for it.

Do you know what it's like to watch while someone can share a viewpoint you disagree with and you can say nothing about it?


----------



## MGibster (Feb 6, 2022)

Random Task said:


> So, what are the criteria for striking someone's work off the reading list for imperfect morals? Would you teach Lovecraft in a class on 20th century speculative fiction or fantastic literature?



It seems pretty clear that Hussar is not opposed to the inclusion of Lovecraft in an academic context.  I didn't major in literature, so I don't know how often Lovecraft comes up but I don't imagine it's as frequently as other authors.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 6, 2022)

Hussar said:


> As the one who generated this particular idea, let me just say that this has never, to my knowledge, been suggested.
> 
> What was suggested that in a list of inspirational reading   Lovecraft's name should be left off.  No one has ever remotely suggested that in a scholarly treatise, where a bibliography would be found, that Lovecraft should be left out.  But, unfortunately, my particular suggestion has been warped to mean what you are claiming here.  That was never the claim.
> 
> And I do stand by the notion that Lovecraft's name should not appear on a list of inspiration reading for the game.



So you say the author is racist - 'we can look past his moral failings and focus on his work'
So you say his work is racist - 'we can look past it's racism and focus on the good/interesting from it'

I don't understand the reasoning that's turning people away from the principle that even extremely bad men sometimes have a good idea.  That we don't have to approve of their badness to be inspired by something good/interesting they did/said/wrote.


----------



## Random Task (Feb 6, 2022)

MGibster said:


> It seems pretty clear that Hussar is not opposed to the inclusion of Lovecraft in an academic context.






Hussar said:


> No one has ever remotely suggested that in a scholarly treatise, where a bibliography would be found, that Lovecraft should be left out.




The statement seems to imply that Lovecraft should be used if needed in a reference work, not taught in a class.


MGibster said:


> I didn't major in literature, so I don't know how often Lovecraft comes up but I don't imagine it's as frequently as other authors.




There are plenty of other major authors with problematic elements whose work is still being actively read, taught, produced for theater and adapted for other media.

For instance, the Merchant of Venice.


----------



## Irlo (Feb 6, 2022)

Random Task said:


> So, what are the criteria for striking someone's work off the reading list for imperfect morals?



I’d say that if you believe that the work stands a good chance of alienating the players you’re trying to inspire, you should probably not include it on an inspirational reading list. Seems like a solid criteria for me.


----------



## Mordhau (Feb 6, 2022)

Just put a warning next to his name in the reading list and people can use their own judgement rather than being treated like fragile porcelain.

It would be wrong to leave Lovecraft off an inspirational reading list because he's an important part of the history of the game.  If we're going to play a fifty year old game then we should be willing to acknowledge that history warts and all.

It's not that we have to.  We could all be playing a game written this decade.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 6, 2022)

Mordhau said:


> Just put a warning next to his name in the reading list and people can use their own judgement rather than being treated like fragile porcelain.
> 
> It would be wrong to leave Lovecraft off an inspirational reading list because he's an important part of the history of the game.  If we're going to play a fifty year old game then we should be willing to acknowledge that history warts and all.
> 
> It's not that we have to.  We could all be playing a game written this decade.




And having an open discussion about it might result in people being more alert to similar issues appearing in a more subtle form elsewhere.

Still I'm torn.  It's not a an easy or clear cut issue.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 6, 2022)

MGibster said:


> I call a list of inspirational reading a bibliography.  The word can be used outside of a scholarly context.



It could be I suppose. It's being used incorrectly, but, sure.  So long as you realize that a bibliography is a specific thing and does have a pretty specific meaning, as well as a very specific format that isn't used in an inspirational reading list.



Random Task said:


> So, what are the criteria for striking someone's work off the reading list for imperfect morals?  Would you teach Lovecraft in a class on 20th century speculative fiction or fantastic literature?



Of course it would be used in a class.  Again, leaving it off of a list of inspirational reading - the thing that you are recommending to people that they read for enjoyment and get INSPIRED by - is held to a very, very different standard than a classroom.  I have no idea where you are getting the idea that I would even begin to think differently.  

@Irlo hits the nail on the head.  If your list of "things you should read to inspire you to play this game" is alienating your audience, then perhaps it shouldn't be on that list.

Or, do you think that I should suggest to my 14 year old half-Japanese daughter that her inspirational reading for D&D should be Shadows Over Innsmouth?  "Hey, honey, this is what Daddy uses to inspire his game.  Yeah, sure, it clearly states that you are an abomination of nature and should be killed, but, it's just fiction right?  No harm no foul" 

On the list of things I would recommend to inspire people to play D&D, Lovecraft doesn't even crack the top 100.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 6, 2022)

Hussar said:


> On the list of things I would recommend to inspire people to play D&D, Lovecraft doesn't even crack the top 100.



Me either, honestly.  While there are some creatures inspired by Lovecraft's work, the vibe of D&D is just so different.  Now _Call of Cthulhu _on the other hand...


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 6, 2022)

Haiku Elvis said:


> Native Americans being US citizens and being allowed to leave the reservations (_if they can afford it_) and get an education (_if they can afford it_) seems a very low bar as an example of racial inequality being so far in the past it isn't relevant to today's society.



Given that, in 1988, when I started college, my university had a book of student funding opportunities, 1 per page.
Being white, male, Catholic, and not a "qualifying-veteran," there were fewer than 5 I'd qualify for, of about 150 some pages, and due to lack of access to parental financial disclosure, couldn't apply for four of those. The 5th was a work study grant, which I got. And only because NO ONE ELSE APPLIED.

Meanwhile, there were over 100 for natives, most of which were neither gender nor tribe restricted. And, according to a friend working in the financial aid office, less than half of those got awarded, simply for lack of applicants.
2/3 of the book was specifically for Natives.

The hard ask seems to be "Ask for the help that's available." Almost no one gets a scholarship without asking. 

So, if any North American Indigenous Persons see this and want to go to college... call the financial aid offices first, and see what scholarships are available....


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 6, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> So you say the author is racist - 'we can look past his moral failings and focus on his work'
> So you say his work is racist - 'we can look past it's racism and focus on the good/interesting from it'
> 
> I don't understand the reasoning that's turning people away from the principle that even extremely bad men sometimes have a good idea.  That we don't have to approve of their badness to be inspired by something good/interesting they did/said/wrote.



Well, I can talk about the ideas of Dr Richard Feynman, and not talk up the man, given that he was a huge flaming misogynist. I mean, he had some pretty important contributions, in several respects, but I can talk about THOSE and not (as is commonly done) glorify the man himself. Likewise, I could talk about HPL in terms of the place he holds in the Weird/Cosmic Horror genre. To do so meaningfully I probably WOULD have to talk about his beliefs, though. Still, I can do so without glorifying the man in any way. On a list of inspirational writers in the genre however, I could just mention William Hope Hodgson, maybe Lord Dunsany, etc. I mean, sure, HPL made an interesting contribution to the field, and created a specific 'brand' of story, but there are TONS of other material out there that he had nothing to do with at all and which is equally important (and I would argue that Hodgson's The Night Land, and The Boats of the Glenn Carrig are both better than most anything Lovecraft wrote).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 6, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Me either, honestly.  While there are some creatures inspired by Lovecraft's work, the vibe of D&D is just so different.  Now _Call of Cthulhu _on the other hand...



I agree totally. While HPL clearly is referenced in terms of a few creatures and whatnot, he's hardly a major influence on D&D, which is a rather rotten game for doing cosmic horror anyway. I never really saw him as relevant to the game, though maybe more so to RPG in general, but still in a minor way.


----------



## Mordhau (Feb 6, 2022)

I think the influence of Lovecraft on D&D is pretty big.  Not so much on the core game at all, but frequently on the kind of monsters that show up and aspects of the way pulp monsters are used in the game.  Obviously there's material like the Illithiads, Aboleth, the Far Realm etc. , but there's also all sorts of world design elements that owe a lot to pulp writers like Clark Ashton Smith and Lovecraft.  Kobold's Presses Midgard Setting is really just the latest in a long line of settings that show that influence.

Furthermore, reading Lovecraft and Howard and other pulp writers and understanding their influence helps understand certain aspects of why D&D is the way it is, that often strike people used to fantasy from other sources as odd.  It helps explain why it has a cosmology that doesn't feel at all mythological, and why so many of it's elements don't sit easily with Tolkienesque high fantasy.

So it depends what you mean by inspirational reading.  Reading Lovecraft won't exactly help you run your next game session, but is that really the purpose of the list?  Right back to Appendix N it's really been more of a list to say "this is where we were coming from" and for that purpose I think Lovecraft is probably pretty essential.


----------



## Haiku Elvis (Feb 6, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> Given that, in 1988, when I started college, my university had a book of student funding opportunities, 1 per page.
> Being white, male, Catholic, and not a "qualifying-veteran," there were fewer than 5 I'd qualify for, of about 150 some pages, and due to lack of access to parental financial disclosure, couldn't apply for four of those. The 5th was a work study grant, which I got. And only because NO ONE ELSE APPLIED.
> 
> Meanwhile, there were over 100 for natives, most of which were neither gender nor tribe restricted. And, according to a friend working in the financial aid office, less than half of those got awarded, simply for lack of applicants.
> ...



No you're right about that. 
 I was rushing past to get to other topics and completely ignored things like scholarships which as you say do exist often from multiple sources.
I still stand by the fact its not as simple as just saying Native Americans can get an education as if its a simple done deal, that there are extra indirect financial and social pressures that mean it's not always as easy for students from disadvantaged communities to go to and stay in university but If I wasn't going to discuss the topic properly I should have cut it and not smooshed it into a glib statement and moved on.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Feb 6, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> Do you know what it's like to watch while someone can share a viewpoint you disagree with and you can say nothing about it?



Hahahaha yes I most certainly do lol. I'm happy to discuss on DMs if that's of interest but I understand if not.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 6, 2022)

MGibster said:


> I'm not really sure it's all that useful to pinpoint how racist Lovecraft was either.  When I disagree that he was particularly racist for his era it isn't to excuse him, but simply to point out that his era is considered by many historians to be the nadir of race relations following the Civil War.  As vile as Lovecraft's opinions were, he opinions would have been shared by millions of his contemporaries.




The Lovecraft thing emerged out of talking about warning labels. It is very much a side-topic


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 6, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Overall, I think we're still trying to figure out how to come to terms with the problematic nature of the stories that we enjoyed and have continued to influence us.  A few years ago, the common refrain was "It's okay to like something that's problematic just so long as you recognize it's problematic," but it appears as though we're moving in a direction where that's no longer true.  I say "it appears," because on this message board I've seen people mention that Lovecraft doesn't belong in a school's library, that his work shouldn't appear in any game's bibliography, and of course that OA shouldn't even be sold today.  So I guess the purpose of this thread is this:  *How do we come to terms with the problematic nature of past works?  *




In a lot of ways I think the veer into Lovecraft territory was probably not terribly helpful to the point about OA (I think the only utility it really had was to help shed some light on why people have different responses to lovecraft). My view on OA is this: it should be available, and we are going to have to live with the fact that different people will have different responses to OA (some will find it problematic, some won't see an issue with it, some will feel it is a product of its own time----even progressive for its time, and some will find it racist). They have a label on it, people do disagree on how productive that is, but I think most posters are not terribly invested in debating the merits or flaws of the label (I don't think they are especially useful, I have my misgivings, but it isn't like they changed content or removed the book). It is unclear if some people want it to be removed or not to me. To me that is the most concerning issue, the potentially removal of the book from sale or some kind of alteration to the content. But I think the best way to come to terms with past works is let people have conversations about them, but understand people will reach different conclusions about the content. Not everyone is going to find something problematic just because you do, not everyone is going to find something unproblematic just because you see no issue (and of course there are nuanced opinions ranging between those two poles). And even then, if people agree a work has problems, people will disagree on what that means in terms of its importance in the history of the hobby, what ought to be done about it (if anything), etc. 

For me the other big issue of concern isn't OA itself or whether it is morally good, bad or indifferent, but how these conversations have played out negatively in the hobby. I don't want to dislike people just because they reached a different conclusion about how much stuff in OA is a problem than I have. Like I said, there are always going to be jerks on both side of any discussion, but I'd rather not allow them to be what we use to define the opposing viewpoints. I don't think OA is especially bad, and I disagree with many of the conclusions from the podcasts about it (largely because I don't share the same conclusions they do about Said---which I think really shapes how you see this issue), but I don't have to ascribe anything to that difference beyond they have a different set of assumptions than I do and are reacting to the text honestly (if differently from me). By the same token, people taking more charitable readings of OA are just measuring things differently than those who don't (they see the role of its context as different, they put greater priority on intent----as you see I think in the whole discussion about comlinesss). At the end of the day I am totally fine with others not being convinced of my take on OA, of my opinions about free expression. I think when we take the step beyond that, and start ascribing nefarious motives to people who disagree with us, it is like we are losing our ability to appreciate that other people have different beliefs, emotions, thoughts and perspective than we do. Increasingly this is my biggest concern when I have these conversations. 

The fact that people show up to engage in a conversation like this, probably means they are looking for fruitful discussion more than anything. That doesn't mean consensus will be reached, it doesn't mean you will persuade people, but there is at least value is understanding where people are coming from even if their arguments don't convince you.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 6, 2022)

Mordhau said:


> I think the influence of Lovecraft on D&D is pretty big.  Not so much on the core game at all, but frequently on the kind of monsters that show up and aspects of the way pulp monsters are used in the game.  Obviously there's material like the Illithiads, Aboleth, the Far Realm etc. , but there's also all sorts of world design elements that owe a lot to pulp writers like Clark Ashton Smith and Lovecraft.  Kobold's Presses Midgard Setting is really just the latest in a long line of settings that show that influence.




I would tend to agree with this. I don't think we need to keep hashing over Lovecraft, but just to address his influence, I definitely think he's a big one on the game. He also continued to be a well people drew from in later settings and books. The Realm of Terror Boxed set for instance makes extensive use of HP Lovecraft quotations in its horror advice section (and it doesn't just do it in the 'here is a flavorful quote vaguely connected to what I am going to say' kind of way, but the quotes themselves are pretty substantive for the book laying out a philosophy of how to do horror in an RPG).


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 6, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I get what you're saying, but I don't really agree that it's true, except in the sense that it's usually more the _threat_ of government action than actual legislation. That's never not been true though.
> 
> Apart from MADD, which was largely unsuccessful in its goals, despite pretences by both MADD and D&D players that they were successful, everything I'm aware of only actually started to get any real traction once the government got involved. Music is a good example - when it was just ageing moaners complaining about "That Heavy Metal!", there was no actual impact in most places (and where there was, it was linked to the culture of the area and not something that could be legislated in either direction). Whereas when the explicit lyrics warnings and so on came in, that very much down to the government getting involved, and the RIAA deciding they'd better do something before the government did. Of course that too was a hilarious backfire (if the RIAA even ever intended it to work!) as what label could possibly be more enticing? The logo even looks awesome, and I do not think that was an accident.
> 
> ...




So I'm going to address this in three parts-

First, an observation as to why you are, necessarily, wrong. Your takeaway is that this can't be effective because "people listen to the dollar." Obviously, that's exactly why it's effective. Which is why people keep invoking it. Corporations are necessarily risk-averse, and they will usually sacrifice principles in service of money.

Second, as someone who was more than aware of the multi-front battle being fought, I was also very aware that there were companies and people that could consistently be swayed by invoking principles. One of the more famous (which I already mentioned) is Waldenbooks, but this was a consistent mobilizing force from small retailers to larger ones. I truly think that people have no idea how different the landscape was back then; there was little-to-no representation of many concepts that we take for granted in terms of equality (such as LGBTQ+ rights). Films that wouldn't raise much of an eyebrow today (The Last Temptation of Christ) were lighting rods of criticism; the way that people defended having books about these subjects, movies, and having retailers carry them was by invoking these principles, over and over again. The world that we enjoy in America today was paved by these conflicts, and by people that would agree with the principle and not the subject.

Third, those worries that you have now are so minimal compared to what transpired in the past. What, are you worried about school boards removing books from libraries? Well, in the United States this was so common and became such an issue that it reached the Supreme Court ... in 1982 (the case is Pico, is you're wondering). While I am worried as well, the idea that a middle school would have a _graphic novel about the Holocaust _in the 1980s as part of the curriculum is ... just insane. Partly because it wasn't finished until 1991, but mostly because the world was very different back then. In the 80s, they were still trying to remove _Of Mice and Men_ because it contained profanity.

*So when it comes to D&D* (and for your reference, MADD is Mothers against Drunk Driving, while BADD was Pullman's group focused on D&D), many of us were quite aware of local FLGS and retailers (like Waldenbooks) that chose to carry D&D because they believed in these principles beyond some simplistic XKCD understanding of the First Amendment. And, yes, it did have an impact as well- the creatives have acknowledged that despite their fiery rhetoric, they not only were changing things from the early 80s on (from the 2e changes, to Legends & Lore and so on), but it had a chilling effect on what they were choosing to release- including the choices of art and subject matter.


So yeah, I'm going to disagree with you on this. But perhaps I haven't watched the same documentaries covering things I experienced that you have?


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Feb 6, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> First, an observation as to why you are, necessarily, wrong. Your takeaway is that this can't be effective because "people listen to the dollar." Obviously, that's exactly why it's effective. Which is why people keep invoking it. Corporations are necessarily risk-averse, and they will usually sacrifice principles in service of money.



The problem is that history (AFAICT) just does not support the claim that publicly-traded corporations, especially not in the last three decades or so, actually do things that amount to significant or meaningful censorship, rather than mere caution and frankly laughable gestures like "Parental Warning- Explicit Content" (which was basically marketing, not censorship).

I'd like specific examples of real censorship, not gestures or distractions, that happened because of groups like BADD. With The Last Temptation of Christ, it's extremely hard to get any clear information on who refused to show it, and for how long (and some of the information I've seen is contradictory), and that's despite highly organised protests backed by people who stood to financially benefit from those protests happening. Clearly some significant proportion of US cinemas wouldn't show it, but one suspects had it been a movie there was massive demand to see, rather than Scorsese going quasi-arthouse, things might have been different. 


Snarf Zagyg said:


> Second, as someone who was more than aware of the multi-front battle being fought, I was also very aware that there were companies and people that *could consistently be swayed by invoking principles*. One of the more famous (which I already mentioned) is Waldenbooks, but this was a consistent mobilizing force from small retailers to larger ones.



This is a huge claim particularly re: larger retailers and doubly-so re: publicly-traded ones, and more than anything else in this thread, it's a [CITATION NEEDED] claim.

I see absolutely no evidence that this "invoking principles" point is really true, both within my lifetime and personal experience, and in the historical record. Particularly re: "free speech". Sometimes a company rolls out that as a half-hearted defense, but they do what they were going to do anyway - I don't see the "Oh we were going to ban it but then people said "FREE SPEECH!!!!" to us enough times and we decided not to".

There could be real examples, maybe I'm just not aware of them or I am but I'm not thinking about it correctly so am missing them, so what are actual examples of specific things which were genuinely likely to get banned (or under threat of such) being protected merely by "invoking principles"? I mean one thing that strikes me is that nothing popular even needs to get to that stage - which is point re: the dollar - Harry Potter, for example, stirred absolutely gigantic idiocy up, but was there any chance at all it would be banned or big stores wouldn't carry it, when it was making that kind of money?


Snarf Zagyg said:


> The world that we enjoy in America today was paved by these conflicts, and by people that would agree with the principle and not the subject.



My suggestion (opinion not a claim of fact, to be clear) is that this is largely an illusion, or a belief this not rooted in historical fact but personal experience and desire for something to be the case.

Why?

Because other countries enjoyed more free media without American "principles". That in fact most of what has happened is simply gradual change of values across the generations, and the fact that it's occurred outside the US. Other countries often are both ahead of and behind the US, too, without any strong "1st amendment" or similar. Some are straight-up ahead, despite lacking such a foundational principle. How is that possible if it's all about "invoking principles" and not about gradual change and cash money?


Snarf Zagyg said:


> And, yes, it did have an impact as well- the creatives have acknowledged that despite their fiery rhetoric, they not only were changing things from the early 80s on (from the 2e changes, to Legends & Lore and so on), but it had a chilling effect on what they were choosing to release- including the choices of art and subject matter.



I cannot see any real, negative impact that it had when all the numbers are calculated. If anything, like "Parental Advisory - Content Warning", it might have helped D&D in the longer term. Renaming Demons/Devils/Daemons was just not a big deal in real terms, and actually ended up making TSR be more creative with them. 2E was a little more child-friendly and less "edgy" than 1E, for sure, but did that actually hurt 2E, or did it merely change it?

This point very goes to your repeated use of "chilling effect", which I've questioned before, but you haven't responded on, apparently taking it entirely for granted. The art and subject did become less edgy and less sexist and sexualized. You sometimes see how OSR games try to go very hard on the edginess of 1E (going far past what 1E was actually like, of course, c.f. LotFP and to a lesser extent DCC). But was losing that bad for D&D, or good for it? Was that because of BADD, or was it actually because D&D is a business, and likes to make money, and regardless of whether BADD exists, people's moms are going to see it, and if there's a half-naked chick strapped to an altar on some page, and a table listing prostitutes, maybe they don't need BADD to tell them they're against that?

To be clear, I don't think the "chilling effect" here is much of a problem, if it's even a problem at all, at least for the success and profitability of the game.

I think the fact that D&D has never really "gone back" on any of this supports my point. Yeah, as a token gesture they renamed Demons/Devils back, but ultimately it was meaningless PR stuff that they could as easily done in 1993 (indeed Planescape the next year immediately started with cool and likeable demonic princes and so on, the Graz'zt fans were endless), and was because it was a "selling point" (c.f. the aforementioned dollar). It's not like they brought back 1E's giant pile of juvenile edgelord stuff, or the sexist/sexualized artwork, nor went back towards "edgy" subject matter in general. Why? Because there's more money to be made chasing the mainstream market.


Snarf Zagyg said:


> Partly because it wasn't finished until 1991, but mostly because the world was very different back then. In the 80s, they were still trying to remove _Of Mice and Men_ *because it contained profanity*.



That's _literally the reason given_ for removing _Maus_ (and other works) in most cases. Whether that is a good-faith reason is obviously a separate question and I think we all know the answer to that. So is the world very different?


Snarf Zagyg said:


> many of us were quite aware of local FLGS and retailers (like Waldenbooks) that chose to carry D&D because they believed in these principles beyond some simplistic XKCD understanding of the First Amendment.



Dude, D&D/AD&D was one of main ways any FLGS in the '80s was going to make money. *This is exactly what I'm talking about.* If they pulled D&D, they go under, or at least lose huge amounts of money. You seem to want to completely ignore the obvious massive financial benefit of ignoring people like BADD, and to say this was just solely down to "invoking principles". It was a totally principled stand and the fact that D&D was a massively successful brand that was making huge amounts of money for retailers (I mean, in very relative terms - selling books/games is never that profitable at the best of times!) was absolutely nothing to do with it. Please ignore the dollar bills sticking out of my pockets!

If D&D was some obscure little RPG that was attracting the same level of protest, the same level of hostility, you think FLGSes would have been so protective of it? You think Waldenbooks would have? It's always a calculation. Showing apparent "principle" or "spine" is, outside of non-profits and very unusual businesses (never publicly traded ones), always a calculation - "is it worth it?" and "how can we do this without losing anything"?

I strongly suspect it became very quickly obvious that there was absolutely no negative impact on the bottom line for FLGSes or presumably Waldenbooks, and possibly even a positive impact on sales, because when people try to ban something, that tends to happen (c.f. _Maus_ selling insanely more copies lately).


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 6, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Second, as someone who was more than aware of the multi-front battle being fought, I was also very aware that there were companies and people that could consistently be swayed by invoking principles. One of the more famous (which I already mentioned) is Waldenbooks, but this was a consistent mobilizing force from small retailers to larger ones. I truly think that people have no idea how different the landscape was back then; there was little-to-no representation of many concepts that we take for granted in terms of equality (such as LGBTQ+ rights). Films that wouldn't raise much of an eyebrow today (The Last Temptation of Christ) were lighting rods of criticism; the way that people defended having books about these subjects, movies, and having retailers carry them was by invoking these principles, over and over again. The world that we enjoy in America today was paved by these conflicts, and by people that would agree with the principle and not the subject.



Great Summary.  I think this is why these topics resound with so many.  Rejecting those principles is in large part rejecting the worldview that got us here.  That makes me very uneasy about where we are going.  Maybe if there were some principles to replace those with, but i've not seen any that anyone is willing to have applied to both themselves and those they disagree with equally.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 6, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> The problem is that history (AFAICT) just does not support the claim that publicly-traded corporations, especially not in the last three decades or so, actually do things that amount to significant or meaningful censorship, rather than mere caution and frankly laughable gestures like "Parental Warning- Explicit Content" (which was basically marketing, not censorship).



IMO that's exactly what corporate censorship looks like.  Corporations don't have to actually agree (they aren't even people).  They just have to take action that aligns with the demands of those demanding the censorship.  They can do so from a purely risk management perspective or because their leaders sympathize with the cause, but it doesn't really matter why they do it.  

You asked for some examples of censorship.  I'll provide one as I think examples are likely to quickly get into the politics arena.  "Major League Baseball swiftly moved the All-Star Game to hitter-friendly Coors Field on Tuesday after pulling the Midsummer Classic from Atlanta over objections to extensive changes to Georgia’s voting laws."


----------



## MGibster (Feb 6, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I strongly suspect it became very quickly obvious that there was absolutely no negative impact on the bottom line for FLGSes or presumably Waldenbooks, and possibly even a positive impact on sales, because when people try to ban something, that tends to happen (c.f. _Maus_ selling insanely more copies lately).



It's kind of interesting that role playing games were largely relegated to the boutique stores like FLGS.  In the early 80s, you could find D&D in more diverse places like Kaybee toys or even Sears at the local mall.  At least in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area, by the late 80s and throughout most of the 90s, you weren't going to find D&D in the mall at Waldenbooks, B. Dalton Booksellers, or in any toy store.  I do wonder if the controversy surrounding D&D in the 80s led to many retailers deciding carrying the game just wasn't worth it to them.  Places like Sears, Waldenbooks, and Kaybee saw a lot more foot traffic than any of our FLGS ever did.  Driving sales to boutique outlets likely limited the number of people who would have been exposed to D&D.  If I didn't have friends who played D&D, odds are I never would have run across a D&D product at any of the stores I frequented.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 6, 2022)

The entanglement between free speech principles, objectionable ideas, and profit means you can never be really sure why a business decision is being made. Or, for that matter, why somebody on the Internet is taking a position.

The same is true on the other side: is XYZ Inc. succumbing to the mob, doing the right thing, or just going after their largest market?

You can never know for sure.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 6, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> You can never know for sure.




Actually, one caveat: unless you take off and nuke the site from orbit.  That's the only way to be sure.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 6, 2022)

MGibster said:


> It's kind of interesting that role playing games were largely relegated to the boutique stores like FLGS.  In the early 80s, you could find D&D in more diverse places like Kaybee toys or even Sears at the local mall.  At least in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area, by the late 80s and throughout most of the 90s, you weren't going to find D&D in the mall at Waldenbooks, B. Dalton Booksellers, or in any toy store.  I do wonder if the controversy surrounding D&D in the 80s led to many retailers deciding carrying the game just wasn't worth it to them.  Places like Sears, Waldenbooks, and Kaybee saw a lot more foot traffic than any of our FLGS ever did.  Driving sales to boutique outlets likely limited the number of people who would have been exposed to D&D.  If I didn't have friends who played D&D, odds are I never would have run across a D&D product at any of the stores I frequented.



According to a Jim Ward article on this very site, it had an impact.








						TSR - Jim Ward: Demons & Devils, NOT!
					

In the very early to mid '80s religious nongamer people discovered AD&D had magical spells and demons and devils in its rules. The problems started with Sears and Penny's retail stores. TSR was selling thousands of Player Handbooks and Dungeon Master's Guides every month to both of those...




					www.enworld.org


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 6, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> This point very goes to your repeated use of "chilling effect", which I've questioned before, but you haven't responded on, apparently taking it entirely for granted.




No, I don't take my points for granted. Instead, I would note that you are unable to recite basic facts (such as the correct acronym for Patricia Pullman's group) correctly, that you seem unaware of the actual history of what happened in America ... yet you keep demanding that others provide citations while you are fine continuing to cite to "documentaries" that don't exist, and continue asserting things that are contradicted by the well-known evidence.

For example, not only is the "chilling effect" both incredibly well-known as an academic and legal matter, it was recently discussed in the context of D&D's history with the continued revelations of how TSR was internally adjusting to BADD and other pressures far earlier than was generally known (see, e.g., _Game Wizards_).

But I do not find your assertions very interesting- if you want to continue believing that I know nothing about this, and telling me that your knowledge of what happened in _America_ in the 80s regarding both D&D and free speech (in terms of legal pressure, in terms of private pressure, in terms of the effect on marginalized communities, and in the general history of D&D) supersedes mine despite not living in America, not fighting those battles, not being aware of the legal issues, and not being overly interested in the early history of D&D ... well, more power to you.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 6, 2022)

With the satanic panic it is also worth mentioning this was so much bigger than D&D: it definitely had a large impact on people and their lives (beyond censorship concerns). People went to prison because of the Satanic Panic, for crimes they didn't commit. And it wasn't just about satanism. There was also widespread concern about subliminal messages in music and in D&D's ability as a medium to skew peoples' perception of reality (i.e. Mazes and Monsters).

This is the tale end of it, but you can see some of these things in this old 700 club installment (which was very typical of the kinds of programing we were seeing at the time): 


This old network news installment on the PMRC and rock music also sheds light on what polls showed the level of support were (note the public was largely in support of the warning labels at the time): 


 And musicians like Judas Priest faced civil litigation: 


And you can see the full PMRC hearings of

Frank Zappa here: 

Dee Snyder: 
John Denver: John Denver at PMRC Senate Hearing


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 6, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> Given that, in 1988, when I started college, my university had a book of student funding opportunities, 1 per page.
> Being white, male, Catholic, and not a "qualifying-veteran," there were fewer than 5 I'd qualify for, of about 150 some pages, and due to lack of access to parental financial disclosure, couldn't apply for four of those. The 5th was a work study grant, which I got. And only because NO ONE ELSE APPLIED.
> 
> Meanwhile, there were over 100 for natives, most of which were neither gender nor tribe restricted. And, according to a friend working in the financial aid office, less than half of those got awarded, simply for lack of applicants.
> ...



I may not be following your point here, but . . . are  you really complaining about the opportunities made available for minorities and people of color?

The reason why there are tons of scholarships available for minorities, and less so for white folks, is all about privilege. As a white person in the US, you have a degree of privilege others don't. In short, you don't need all of those extra opportunities. Note that poverty is a disadvantage that works against privilege, but doesn't erase it.

Native Americans face a lot of cultural and systemic issues that are direct hold-overs from the GENOCIDE my white ancestors committed against their peoples. Poverty and disfunction on the reservations is high, and students have a lot of struggles to overcome before they get to the point of thinking about college and applying for scholarships. Yet, when they get to that point, they can very much use a boost that those many scholarship opportunities provide.

I'm white, and when I applied to college (a long, long time ago) I had a similar experience as you did. Lots of scholarships available for folks of color, for women, for other minorities . . . but, while less, there were also plenty of scholarship opportunities for me. I was young, but I understood why there were so many opportunities explicitly for others, and not for me, and I didn't begrudge the situation at all.

When I was older, and got involved with various folks who work at universities . . . I learned what you did, is that a lot of those opportunities for minorities end up not being awarded due to lack of applicants. That speaks to the struggle minorities have before they even manage to graduate high school and contemplate whether college is for them. And there are folks trying to create programs to address that problem, but it is an ongoing struggle.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 6, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> I may not be following your point here, but . . . are  you really complaining about the opportunities made available for minorities and people of color?
> 
> The reason why there are tons of scholarships available for minorities, and less so for white folks, is all about privilege. As a white person in the US, you have a degree of privilege others don't. In short, you don't need all of those extra opportunities. Note that poverty is a disadvantage that works against privilege, but doesn't erase it.
> 
> ...




I thought about writing a response pretty much like this.  But then I figured anybody who doesn't understand this by now, probably won't be persuaded by a forum post.  But I salute you for trying.

/windmills


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 6, 2022)

Mordhau said:


> I think the influence of Lovecraft on D&D is pretty big.  Not so much on the core game at all, but frequently on the kind of monsters that show up and aspects of the way pulp monsters are used in the game.  Obviously there's material like the Illithiads, Aboleth, the Far Realm etc. , but there's also all sorts of world design elements that owe a lot to pulp writers like Clark Ashton Smith and Lovecraft.  Kobold's Presses Midgard Setting is really just the latest in a long line of settings that show that influence.



Well, I'm not so sure about those 'icky monsters', yes I'm sure they can be inspired by Mythos material, but A Merrit, just to mention one of many of Lovecraft's predecessors is perfectly adequate inspiration! Hodgson's Boats of the Glen Carrig, or The Night Land also spring to mind. I think HPL was GOOD at depicting them, and did it bigger, but these aren't things that only sprung out of the mind of one guy.


Mordhau said:


> Furthermore, reading Lovecraft and Howard and other pulp writers and understanding their influence helps understand certain aspects of why D&D is the way it is, that often strike people used to fantasy from other sources as odd.  It helps explain why it has a cosmology that doesn't feel at all mythological, and why so many of it's elements don't sit easily with Tolkienesque high fantasy.



I find it odd that you lump Lovecraft in with pulp writers. I mean, OK, its not that odd in that he associated with some of them and wrote in the same time period, and was published in some of the same venues. OTOH there's very little similarity in writing between REH and HPL, IMHO. I find D&D's influences to be, at core, heavily a mixture of Moorcock and Tolkien, with a good dose of Howard and Burroughs, some Anderson, Delaney, Eddings, Hodgson, etc. Yeah, Lovecraft is down in there someplace, but its a very minor influence.


Mordhau said:


> So it depends what you mean by inspirational reading.  Reading Lovecraft won't exactly help you run your next game session, but is that really the purpose of the list?  Right back to Appendix N it's really been more of a list to say "this is where we were coming from" and for that purpose I think Lovecraft is probably pretty essential.



Meh, we will just differ on that one. I mean I'm obviously a fan of, and have read pretty much 100% of, all sorts of Mythos stuff, and yet I can detect only a very superficial influence on D&D, at best.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 6, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> In a lot of ways I think the veer into Lovecraft territory was probably not terribly helpful to the point about OA (I think the only utility it really had was to help shed some light on why people have different responses to lovecraft). My view on OA is this: it should be available, and we are going to have to live with the fact that different people will have different responses to OA (some will find it problematic, some won't see an issue with it, some will feel it is a product of its own time----even progressive for its time, and some will find it racist). They have a label on it, people do disagree on how productive that is, but I think most posters are not terribly invested in debating the merits or flaws of the label (I don't think they are especially useful, I have my misgivings, but it isn't like they changed content or removed the book). It is unclear if some people want it to be removed or not to me. To me that is the most concerning issue, the potentially removal of the book from sale or some kind of alteration to the content. But I think the best way to come to terms with past works is let people have conversations about them, but understand people will reach different conclusions about the content. Not everyone is going to find something problematic just because you do, not everyone is going to find something unproblematic just because you see no issue (and of course there are nuanced opinions ranging between those two poles). And even then, if people agree a work has problems, people will disagree on what that means in terms of its importance in the history of the hobby, what ought to be done about it (if anything), etc.
> 
> For me the other big issue of concern isn't OA itself or whether it is morally good, bad or indifferent, but how these conversations have played out negatively in the hobby. I don't want to dislike people just because they reached a different conclusion about how much stuff in OA is a problem than I have. Like I said, there are always going to be jerks on both side of any discussion, but I'd rather not allow them to be what we use to define the opposing viewpoints. I don't think OA is especially bad, and I disagree with many of the conclusions from the podcasts about it (largely because I don't share the same conclusions they do about Said---which I think really shapes how you see this issue), but I don't have to ascribe anything to that difference beyond they have a different set of assumptions than I do and are reacting to the text honestly (if differently from me). By the same token, people taking more charitable readings of OA are just measuring things differently than those who don't (they see the role of its context as different, they put greater priority on intent----as you see I think in the whole discussion about comlinesss). At the end of the day I am totally fine with others not being convinced of my take on OA, of my opinions about free expression. I think when we take the step beyond that, and start ascribing nefarious motives to people who disagree with us, it is like we are losing our ability to appreciate that other people have different beliefs, emotions, thoughts and perspective than we do. Increasingly this is my biggest concern when I have these conversations.
> 
> The fact that people show up to engage in a conversation like this, probably means they are looking for fruitful discussion more than anything. That doesn't mean consensus will be reached, it doesn't mean you will persuade people, but there is at least value is understanding where people are coming from even if their arguments don't convince you.



Well, played out negatively for whom? Are we really wanting to side with THAT side in this? I mean, the people I perceive as coming out on the short end of this, they are not people I especially think I should care about, not compared with the people on the OTHER side of it. Sorry, but if I have to pick sides... 

I mean, OK, WotC maybe is put in a very slightly inconvenient place, but is it hurting them? Heck, its actually an OPPORTUNITY for them if you ask me. That is sure how any smart business person will approach it! I'm finding it very hard to believe they will suffer any measurable hurt whatsoever, nor the gaming industry in general as long as the main players are not idiots about it. If anyone is hurting the industry it is the reactionary fools blathering on about how racism is all a figment of our imaginations, or 'not their fault' or 'all fixed now', or whatever foolishness is in vogue today.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 6, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Well, played out negatively for whom? Are we really wanting to side with THAT side in this? I mean, the people I perceive as coming out on the short end of this, they are not people I especially think I should care about, not compared with the people on the OTHER side of it. Sorry, but if I have to pick sides...
> 
> I mean, OK, WotC maybe is put in a very slightly inconvenient place, but is it hurting them? Heck, its actually an OPPORTUNITY for them if you ask me. That is sure how any smart business person will approach it! I'm finding it very hard to believe they will suffer any measurable hurt whatsoever, nor the gaming industry in general as long as the main players are not idiots about it. If anyone is hurting the industry it is the reactionary fools blathering on about how racism is all a figment of our imaginations, or 'not their fault' or 'all fixed now', or whatever foolishness is in vogue today.




I am not sure how this relates to my post. My point was I am interested in not pushing away people I disagree with (which would be posters like yourself, since we have disagreements over these issue); and that the tendency on both sides of the debate to assume the worst possible reasons for people they disagree with to take the positions they are taking (rather than seeing it more reasonably as simply having a different assessment of the same facts, or doing the mental math of different moral priorities differently), just drives a bigger and bigger wedge in the hobby. I don't think that is good for anyone. Neither side of the argument is going away just because we write them off. They remain. And once you've written people off, their viewpoint is only going to harden and get more extreme in whichever direction (unless they are particularly stubborn  ). Clearly there are going to be jerks like I said on either side, because debates like this can bring out the worst in people and can become excuses for being cruel. That is going to happen. But we don't have to assume everyone that disagrees with us has evil motivations.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 6, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I mean, OK, WotC maybe is put in a very slightly inconvenient place, but is it hurting them?




My concern isn't WOTC, they are part of a large corporation with enormous financial resources. My main concern in that post was the antipathy amongst gamers within the hobby around some of these discussions.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 6, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Sorry, but if I have to pick sides...




I am really tired of sides and being asked to pick a side. It is too simplistic I think. Just because someone agrees with me about X and Y, it doesn't mean I am on their side or that I ought to have some kind of team loyalty to them. But the same token, just because someone disagrees with me about X and Y, it doesn't  mean I need to view them as outside my tribe. I'd much rather assume that person is coming from a good place and just reached a different conclusion than me. And if they take a position I strongly disagree with, I'd rather do my best to persuade them. But at the end of the day, people are ultimately going to go what direction they decide to go.


----------



## beancounter (Feb 6, 2022)

I have to ask. In the current political environment, is borrowing themes from any culture other than Caucasian European taboo?


----------



## Irlo (Feb 6, 2022)

beancounter said:


> I have to ask. In the current political environment, is borrowing themes from any culture other than Caucasian European taboo?



No.

[EDIT: interesting choice of words, BTW.]


----------



## beancounter (Feb 6, 2022)

Irlo said:


> No.
> 
> [EDIT: interesting choice of words, BTW.]




Which words were "choice"?


----------



## Irlo (Feb 6, 2022)

beancounter said:


> Which words were "choice"?



_Taboo_. I was trying to be funny, since taboo is a prominent example of a common word borrowed from a non-caucasian, non-European source.


----------



## beancounter (Feb 6, 2022)

Irlo said:


> _Taboo_. I was trying to be funny, since taboo is a prominent example of a common word borrowed from a non-Caucasian, non-European source.




So, it was unintentional cultural appropriation?


----------



## Irlo (Feb 6, 2022)

beancounter said:


> So, it was unintentional cultural appropriation?



It was intentional cultural appropriation of a term with religious significance, back in the18th century. Now I think it's just an English word.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 6, 2022)

Irlo said:


> It was intentional cultural appropriation of a term with religious significance, back in the18th century. Now I think it's just an English word.




Well, that's karma for ya.


----------



## beancounter (Feb 6, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Well, that's karma for ya.


----------



## Random Task (Feb 6, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> For example, not only is the "chilling effect" both incredibly well-known as an academic and legal matter, it was recently discussed in the context of D&D's history with the continued revelations of how TSR was internally adjusting to BADD and other pressures far earlier than was generally known (see, e.g., _Game Wizards_).



There's also the Hays Code in film and the Comics Code Authority in comic books as examples of industries trying to head off regulation due to societal moral pressures.  




MGibster said:


> At least in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area, by the late 80s and throughout most of the 90s, you weren't going to find D&D in the mall at Waldenbooks, B. Dalton Booksellers, or in any toy store. I do wonder if the controversy surrounding D&D in the 80s led to many retailers deciding carrying the game just wasn't worth it to them.



They were in B.Daltons and Waldenbooks in the 1990s in the Northeast.  May have been regional.


----------



## Random Task (Feb 6, 2022)

beancounter said:


> I have to ask. In the current political environment, is borrowing themes from any culture other than Caucasian European taboo?




After watching it for the first time, I was a little surprised that* Avatar:The Last Airbender *had such a moment in 2020 seemingly without garnering much criticism at all.

Damon Lindelof creating and lead writing *Watchmen* on HBO  was pretty masterful and also didn't seem to get any blowback.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 6, 2022)

beancounter said:


> I have to ask. In the current political environment, is borrowing themes from any culture other than Caucasian European taboo?



No.

See The Expanse for a perfect example of two white dudes writing stuff that draws VERY heavily from all sorts of cultures.


----------



## beancounter (Feb 6, 2022)

Hussar said:


> No.
> 
> See The Expanse for a perfect example of two white dudes writing stuff that draws VERY heavily from all sorts of cultures.




Well, it's fairly new. Just give it some time, and someone will find something to be offended by.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Feb 6, 2022)

Hussar said:


> It could be I suppose. It's being used incorrectly, but, sure.  So long as you realize that a bibliography is a specific thing and does have a pretty specific meaning, as well as a very specific format that isn't used in an inspirational reading list.




Man, "bibliography" has been used more broadly for decades now.  Attempt to keep it to the more specific form you're talking about is a long-lost battle at this point.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 6, 2022)

Random Task said:


> They were in B.Daltons and Waldenbooks in the 1990s in the Northeast. May have been regional.



It might have been.  I worked at Lonestar Comics for a while and it had multiple locations.  Some products would do well in one location and not another.  My store sold a lot of manga mostly to teenager girls and young women in their 20s but other stores couldn't sell manga for some reason.


----------



## Irlo (Feb 6, 2022)

beancounter said:


> Well, it's fairly new. Just give it some time, and someone will find something to be offended by.



That's insightful and pithy in a way I haven't heard before! Thanks for your contribution to the conversation.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 6, 2022)

beancounter said:


> Well, it's fairly new. Just give it some time, and someone will find something to be offended by.



I'm going to take this somewhat seriously.  This is the truth but that's perfectly okay.  As the decades pass, social mores change and what was once acceptable isn't today.  Movies that came out when I was a kid like _Revenge of the Nerds, Sixteen Candles, _and _The Breakfast Club_ all contain material that most of us were cool with back then but many of us would balk at now.  Last year, I was listening to a podcast where the hosts were talking about _The Venture Bros., _a cartoon for adults that aired on Cartoon Network starting in 2005, and they noted that the transphobic jokes revolving around Dr. Girlfriend were unfortunate.  Sometimes change happens fairly rapidly.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 6, 2022)

Irlo said:


> That's insightful and pithy in a way I haven't heard before! Thanks for your contribution to the conversation.



Come on Irlo . . . won't you think of the white artists who can't make a living anymore? /s

More seriously, you can certainly create art and content based on cultures you don't have direct experience with or aren't directly connected to . . . . it's just that today you have to do a little more work than just blind, thoughtless appropriation. You have to do your research, do your best to get the details right, and make damn sure you aren't stepping into negative and harmful stereotypes when creating characters, cultures, and regions for your fantasy/sci-fi stories.

And, not surprisingly, plenty of creators manage to do just that. The problem with Oriental Adventures isn't that TSR dared to create an Asian supplement for D&D without anyone at TSR being of Asian descent, it's that they unintentionally perpetuated systemically racist stereotypes in doing so. That folks can't see the difference still blows my mind.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 7, 2022)

MGibster said:


> _The Venture Bros., _a cartoon for adults that aired on Cartoon Network starting in 2005, and they noted that the transphobic jokes revolving around Dr. Girlfriend were unfortunate.  Sometimes change happens fairly rapidly.




I haven't seen this show so not commenting on that specifically but I do think people forget these things are not a steady upward trajectory towards purity. The edgy shows in the 2000s that often ironically weilded a lot of charged language and jokes, were a backlash to the political correctness that had come before it (I think the debut of SouthPark is probably the starting point of this trend, but that is just going by memory). Some of the jokes that became commonplace in the 2000s, would have been unthinkable in the early to mid 90s. And a lot of the tightening around these things in the 80s was a backlash to the openness and gritty violence of media in the 70s. I think you tend to get more of a thesis, antithesis movement over time with media.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 7, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> Man, "bibliography" has been used more broadly for decades now.  Attempt to keep it to the more specific form you're talking about is a long-lost battle at this point.




Footnotes are better anyways


----------



## MGibster (Feb 7, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Footnotes are better anyways



Chicago Manual of Style for the win!


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 7, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Chicago Manual of Style for the win!




When it is right there on the page, it is so much easier to check (and a handy place for important information as well)


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 7, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> . In short, you don't need all of those extra opportunities. Note that poverty is a disadvantage that works against privilege, but doesn't erase it.




Not weighing in on college admissions or privilege, but I have seen a lot of comments in these discussions that seem to downplay poverty in the US, and it really is probably the single biggest disadvantage a person can have in this country. It isn't a minor inconvenience. It is a matter of putting food on the table, keeping a roof over your head and being able to control your own life.


----------



## Mordhau (Feb 7, 2022)

I think it's inevitable that people are going to be reluctant to explore other cultures in the current climate.  It's not just the need to do research and be resepectful, but the mere fact that one's identity can immediately make one's attempts to explore cultures not one's own suspect.

Yes one should do one's research and be respectful, but critics aren't always very well informed and often come from a place of poor understanding of good critique, and abundant confirmation bias, themselves.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 7, 2022)

Mordhau said:


> I think it's inevitable that people are going to be reluctant to explore other cultures in the current climate.  It's not just the need to do research and be resepectful, but the mere fact that one's identity can immediately make one's attempts to explore cultures not one's own suspect.
> 
> Yes one should do one's research and be respectful, but critics aren't always very well informed and often come from a place of poor understanding of good critique and abundant confirmation bias themselves.



Eh. Ignorant and unfair criticism of art is something all artists must face, regardless of where they are taking their inspiration from.

If and when you are criticized, as a creator, how you react to the criticism speak volumes. Think hard on the criticism and ask yourself, "Is it really unfair?" It could be, or it could be spot on. And apologize for any harm, do your best to make amends and do better. It's not that hard.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Feb 7, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> Eh. Ignorant and unfair criticism of art is something all artists must face, regardless of where they are taking their inspiration from.
> 
> If and when you are criticized, as a creator, how you react to the criticism speak volumes. Think hard on the criticism and ask yourself, "Is it really unfair?" It could be, or it could be spot on. And apologize for any harm, do your best to make amends and do better. It's not that hard.




It can be if you don't think you did harm but get brigaded anyway.  Sometimes its justified; sometimes its not (Requires Hate anyone?).  But you're still setting yourself up for it when you swing into this area at all.

(And even apologizing is no assurance other people will consider it sufficient; nonpologies are a thing, but where people draw the line there varies considerably).


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 7, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> Eh. Ignorant and unfair criticism of art is something all artists must face, regardless of where they are taking their inspiration from.
> 
> If and when you are criticized, as a creator, how you react to the criticism speak volumes. Think hard on the criticism and ask yourself, "Is it really unfair?" It could be, or it could be spot on. And apologize for any harm, do your best to make amends and do better. It's not that hard.



I’ve seen too many examples of that not working.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 7, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> The problem is that history (AFAICT) just does not support the claim that publicly-traded corporations, especially not in the last three decades or so, actually do things that amount to significant or meaningful censorship, rather than mere caution and frankly laughable gestures like "Parental Warning- Explicit Content" (which was basically marketing, not censorship).
> 
> I'd like specific examples of real censorship, not gestures or distractions, that happened because of groups like BADD. With The Last Temptation of Christ, it's extremely hard to get any clear information on who refused to show it, and for how long (and some of the information I've seen is contradictory), and that's despite highly organised protests backed by people who stood to financially benefit from those protests happening. Clearly some significant proportion of US cinemas wouldn't show it, but one suspects had it been a movie there was massive demand to see, rather than Scorsese going quasi-arthouse, things might have been different.
> 
> ...



So true. Honestly, the fact of the matter is that BADD and the whole 'Satanic Panic' thing was so preposterous, and so limited to a certain lunatic fringe that it was a total joke. As you say, TSR was likely much more motivated to tone certain things down (and it wasn't by much) by a more general perception that they had little to lose by doing so (I think they lost exactly zero game sales because devils were called 'baatezu', nobody used those names anyway, they were silly). 

In the case of a Waldenbooks, the equation may have been a bit more strategic. They also knew that BADD represented about 1 500,000th of their possible customer base, but if they had caved on a D&D book, then the arsehats would have been back a week later with another list of things that they demanded be censored, and it would NEVER END. So, hey, why not just draw the line in the sand right at the start with something that was not ACTUALLY all that controversial. It was actually a pretty clever move on their part, as it cast all the book banning idiots into basically the worst light possible.

I was pretty good friends with a couple guys that ran an FLGS. It was a bit before the 'panic' reared its clownish head, but there were always 'concerned parents', and sure enough when they told off Bill now and then he just shrugged and kept selling his bread and butter, D&D stuff. Actually it was often OTHER things they objected to anyway, there are endless numbers of "I have to be annoyed at something else in the world besides my own bad parenting" people, lol. I'm sure Bill continued with the same policy throughout the 80's. Heck, I heard the poor guy got sick and that did for him, but for all I know that store is still selling D&D books, lol.


----------



## zenfr0g (Feb 7, 2022)

Compared to modern games like Tenra Bansho Zero, OA deserves some praise. Any complaint about OA, TBZ is like, "Hold my beer." And the thing that is most hilarious is that TBZ was written by Japanese writers.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 7, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> So true. Honestly, the fact of the matter is that BADD and the whole 'Satanic Panic' thing was so preposterous, and so limited to a certain lunatic fringe that it was a total joke. As you say, TSR was likely much more motivated to tone certain things down (and it wasn't by much) by a more general perception that they had little to lose by doing so (I think they lost exactly zero game sales because devils were called 'baatezu', nobody used those names anyway, they were silly).




I think it is fair to debate what the impact of the satanic panic was in terms of bottom line for D&D, but the satanic panic itself wasn't a joke and it wasn't limited to fringe. It was playing out regularly on the news, it was part of an overall panic in the country and led to a lot of very bad things for many people. It wasn't started by a fear of satanic imagery in stuff like D&D, it started over a panic about ritual satanic abuse (and things like D&D and heavy metal easily got folded into that panic). America is a very religious county, and at the time was even more religious, so it wasn't like this was only affecting a small portion of the population. Now obviously geography and local culture mattered too. But if you were in the orbit of a religious community there was a good chance you experienced some direct contact with it, and even if you weren't the fear extended beyond belief in the supernatural (because you don't have to believe in Satan or God, or magic, to believe there are people engaging in ritual satanic abuse; and you see this kind of thinking was playing out in other related areas: concern over the impact of media on people psychologically, concerns about subliminal messages, worries that people who played RPGs would have breaks from reality----it was a new medium and a lot of people didn't know what to make of it). What I found was, in the north east, it was a lot less prevalent. But I lived on both coasts at the time and out west its impact was palpable.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 7, 2022)

MGibster said:


> It's kind of interesting that role playing games were largely relegated to the boutique stores like FLGS.  In the early 80s, you could find D&D in more diverse places like Kaybee toys or even Sears at the local mall.  At least in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area, by the late 80s and throughout most of the 90s, you weren't going to find D&D in the mall at Waldenbooks, B. Dalton Booksellers, or in any toy store.  I do wonder if the controversy surrounding D&D in the 80s led to many retailers deciding carrying the game just wasn't worth it to them.  Places like Sears, Waldenbooks, and Kaybee saw a lot more foot traffic than any of our FLGS ever did.  Driving sales to boutique outlets likely limited the number of people who would have been exposed to D&D.  If I didn't have friends who played D&D, odds are I never would have run across a D&D product at any of the stores I frequented.



I suspect it had a LOT more to do with the fact that many of these stores were stuck with large excess inventories of things like Red Box, which you could find on aging product displays in many places for a number of years after its release. It was pretty plain to see, after the initial rush, that they'd all drastically overstocked. Certainly in the period from 1981 through the mid 80's you could find these Red Boxes ALL OVER THE PLACE, along with some other products that I presume were probably a sort of package deal you got with the whole display stand. Nor did all these stores ditch TSR products entirely, as I recall seeing many copies of things like OA, DSG, WSG, and various 2e books (those softcover brown and green supplements in particular) sitting in various corners of many stores for years. I was in Vermont all through the 80s, basically, so I guess maybe things were different elsewhere, but I'd say it was definitely still possible to buy D&D stuff in B&N or the Mall into the 90's there. In fact I remember picking up various other RPGs in the discount box at B&N. Space 1999 being the one that instantly springs to mind, but several others as well. Obviously it didn't sell super well, lol, but equally obviously buyers were still willing to try stocking a few RPG products. Now, I recall that I started playing M:tG when that came out, and I'd say by around that time you MOSTLY had to go to the FLGS to get both D&D and Magic cards in one place, though the Kaybee in the mall in South Burlington, VT still carried some TSR titles at that time, as well as M:tG.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 7, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> It can be if you don't think you did harm but get brigaded anyway.  Sometimes its justified; sometimes its not (Requires Hate anyone?).  But you're still setting yourself up for it when you swing into this area at all.
> 
> (And even apologizing is no assurance other people will consider it sufficient; nonpologies are a thing, but where people draw the line there varies considerably).





FrogReaver said:


> I’ve seen too many examples of that not working.



Sure, there are people out there who will go onto the attack with little basis in fact or fairness. But what you are complaining about is "cancel culture" . . . . which exists, but not to the extent some folks seem to think.

So, in all honesty and curiosity . . . . give me some examples. Give me some examples of an RPG creator creating a truly non-problematic product, getting "brigaded", reacting in a positive manner to the criticism, and that apology having no effect. They are canceled.

Please try to avoid examples where the RPG creator actually did put out a problematic product. Or reacted negatively to the criticism. Or, while receiving some negative criticism from some corners, are doing just fine and have not been "canceled".


----------



## Blue Orange (Feb 7, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I suspect it had a LOT more to do with the fact that many of these stores were stuck with large excess inventories of things like Red Box, which you could find on aging product displays in many places for a number of years after its release. It was pretty plain to see, after the initial rush, that they'd all drastically overstocked. Certainly in the period from 1981 through the mid 80's you could find these Red Boxes ALL OVER THE PLACE, along with some other products that I presume were probably a sort of package deal you got with the whole display stand. Nor did all these stores ditch TSR products entirely, as I recall seeing many copies of things like OA, DSG, WSG, and various 2e books (those softcover brown and green supplements in particular) sitting in various corners of many stores for years. I was in Vermont all through the 80s, basically, so I guess maybe things were different elsewhere, but I'd say it was definitely still possible to buy D&D stuff in B&N or the Mall into the 90's there. In fact I remember picking up various other RPGs in the discount box at B&N. Space 1999 being the one that instantly springs to mind, but several others as well. Obviously it didn't sell super well, lol, but equally obviously buyers were still willing to try stocking a few RPG products. Now, I recall that I started playing M:tG when that came out, and I'd say by around that time you MOSTLY had to go to the FLGS to get both D&D and Magic cards in one place, though the Kaybee in the mall in South Burlington, VT still carried some TSR titles at that time, as well as M:tG.




Bit offtopic but given the location it may be a useful datapoint: Manhattan Barnes and Nobles and Borders were stocking RPG books into the 1990s. Used to be one of my favorite things to sit with a coffee and keep up with the edition changes to White Wolf and D&D. (Yes, I bought them afterwards!)


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 7, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not sure how this relates to my post. My point was I am interested in not pushing away people I disagree with (which would be posters like yourself, since we have disagreements over these issue); and that the tendency on both sides of the debate to assume the worst possible reasons for people they disagree with to take the positions they are taking (rather than seeing it more reasonably as simply having a different assessment of the same facts, or doing the mental math of different moral priorities differently), just drives a bigger and bigger wedge in the hobby. I don't think that is good for anyone. Neither side of the argument is going away just because we write them off. They remain. And once you've written people off, their viewpoint is only going to harden and get more extreme in whichever direction (unless they are particularly stubborn  ). Clearly there are going to be jerks like I said on either side, because debates like this can bring out the worst in people and can become excuses for being cruel. That is going to happen. But we don't have to assume everyone that disagrees with us has evil motivations.



Honestly, I don't think you have particularly problematic attitudes, and we're mostly saying pretty much the same things. I was more just pointing out that people who are on the boot in the arse end of the various ongoing debates about what should go into RPGs are mostly people NONE OF US wants to side with, so that was all I was pointing out in terms of the 'short end of the stick'. So, one possible point of disagreement we may have is in terms of the "everyone on all sides is good folks" sort of thinking. Yeah, there are obviously people who accidentally step in it and really have no desire to get into a controversy. I don't think there's a big issue with them, unless they become super defensive and start trying to justify ignorance as some kind of right. That happens now and then, but VASTLY more often you see people who have always behaved unacceptably out there trying to argue that they are within their rights, that their bigotry is a right, or "doesn't hurt anyone" etc. I am not going to ever give that crowd a break, they are unwelcome, period. I can be called stubborn, but I will just say that stubbornness in a good cause is no vice.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 7, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Not weighing in on college admissions or privilege, but I have seen a lot of comments in these discussions that seem to downplay poverty in the US, and it really is probably the single biggest disadvantage a person can have in this country. It isn't a minor inconvenience. It is a matter of putting food on the table, keeping a roof over your head and being able to control your own life.




Wrong. Dark skin is the single biggest disadvantage.

Unless you want to count dark skin _and_ poor.

My heart tells me that disagreement with that reality, or disbelief in it, is the foundation upon which so many of these other disagreements are built.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 7, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Wrong. Dark skin is the single biggest disadvantage.




I think a lot of people are not comprehending how difficult it is to be poor (and what it means for your quality of life). I am sorry but I just don't see how you can honestly believe this is the case in the US. I can see arguments for there being disadvantages to being dark-skinned, but someone with dark skin and a good income is far, far, far better off, and taken far, far, far more seriously than someone who is whatever skin color and poor. Your job, the car you drive, your zip code are much more important. And if you are poor enough that you are struggling to put food on the table: there is no question that is the single biggest disadvantage you can have. You can pile other disadvantages onto that for sure, and some would certainly compound the situation (for example someone who is disabled, especially in the US with its healthcare system and its lack social programs) is going to have a much harder time than most others getting out of poverty.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 7, 2022)

Mordhau said:


> I think it's inevitable that people are going to be reluctant to explore other cultures in the current climate.  It's not just the need to do research and be resepectful, but the mere fact that one's identity can immediately make one's attempts to explore cultures not one's own suspect.
> 
> Yes one should do one's research and be respectful, but critics aren't always very well informed and often come from a place of poor understanding of good critique, and abundant confirmation bias, themselves.



Instead of declarations of what is 'inevitable' or 'must be so', it is vastly better if someone actually crunches some numbers. Is the rate of publication of such material decreasing? Even as a percentage of RPG material? Basically I work on the basis of data, that's kind of built into the sort of work I do. Opinions and 'gut feelings' are basically worthless, they have proven time and time again across all sorts of fields to be basically less than useless. Is it really happening?


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 7, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Not weighing in on college admissions or privilege, but I have seen a lot of comments in these discussions that seem to downplay poverty in the US, and it really is probably the single biggest disadvantage a person can have in this country. It isn't a minor inconvenience. It is a matter of putting food on the table, keeping a roof over your head and being able to control your own life.





Bedrockgames said:


> I think a lot of people are not comprehending how difficult it is to be poor (and what it means for your quality of life). I am sorry but I just don't see how you can honestly believe this is the case in the US. I can see arguments for there being disadvantages to being dark-skinned, but someone with dark skin and a good income is far, far, far better off, and taken far, far, far more seriously than someone who is whatever skin color and poor. Your job, the car you drive, your zip code are much more important. And if you are poor enough that you are struggling to put food on the table: there is no question that is the single biggest disadvantage you can have. You can pile other disadvantages onto that for sure, and some would certainly compound the situation (for example someone who is disabled, especially in the US with its healthcare system and its lack social programs) is going to have a much harder time than most others getting out of poverty.



Poverty sucks, there is no doubt. I work as a teacher, and I see the effects of poverty first hand on my students every day. Still doesn't erase white privilege. I'd rather be white and poor than black and poor.

Perhaps it is our respective lenses in which we are viewing conversations on ENWorld, but I don't see a lot of folks downplaying the impacts of poverty. Certainly not in this thread. I certainly didn't.

I think it could be a good, _if off-topic_, discussion about which is worse, being poor or being an ethnic minority. Both have severe challenges, and for many, they go hand-in-hand.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 7, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> In fact I remember picking up various other RPGs in the discount box at B&N.



We got our first B&N around 1996 or 1997 and I was surprised to see that they carried D&D.  And, oh my, God, what a magical place B&N seemed at the time.  I was also surprised to learn a few years later that Starbucks was an independent coffee chain rather than the name of B&N's coffee shop.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 7, 2022)

Mordhau said:


> I think it's inevitable that people are going to be reluctant to explore other cultures in the current climate.  It's not just the need to do research and be resepectful, but the mere fact that one's identity can immediately make one's attempts to explore cultures not one's own suspect.
> 
> Yes one should do one's research and be respectful, but critics aren't always very well informed and often come from a place of poor understanding of good critique, and abundant confirmation bias, themselves.



Again, where is the evidence for this?

We've had twenty years of people talking about these issues.  Heck, if you want to include women's issues here, we've had a lot longer.  

Yet, MORE genre material is being published, year on year, every single year.  The number of SF and Fantasy novels printed since 2000 absolutely dwarfs everything printed in the previous century.  

So, where is the evidence that "staying in your lane" is a thing?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 7, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think it is fair to debate what the impact of the satanic panic was in terms of bottom line for D&D, but the satanic panic itself wasn't a joke and it wasn't limited to fringe. It was playing out regularly on the news, it was part of an overall panic in the country and led to a lot of very bad things for many people. It wasn't started by a fear of satanic imagery in stuff like D&D, it started over a panic about ritual satanic abuse (and things like D&D and heavy metal easily got folded into that panic). America is a very religious county, and at the time was even more religious, so it wasn't like this was only affecting a small portion of the population. Now obviously geography and local culture mattered too. But if you were in the orbit of a religious community there was a good chance you experienced some direct contact with it, and even if you weren't the fear extended beyond belief in the supernatural (because you don't have to believe in Satan or God, or magic, to believe there are people engaging in ritual satanic abuse; and you see this kind of thinking was playing out in other related areas: concern over the impact of media on people psychologically, concerns about subliminal messages, worries that people who played RPGs would have breaks from reality----it was a new medium and a lot of people didn't know what to make of it). What I found was, in the north east, it was a lot less prevalent. But I lived on both coasts at the time and out west its impact was palpable.



In Vermont it was basically non-existent, you'd have been laughed out of ever showing your face again, even amongst the more religious fraction of the population (they may be a bit less prevalent there, but as you say, its a religious country). I also attended college in rural Missouri for 4 years from 82 through 85. I heard some talk. It was mentioned as a thing. Never encountered anyone who was in any sense really affected by it. I think the closest was I had one friend who eloped with a girl from ORU and apparently this was like the LAST STRAW with them, but these were some seriously crazed people. The girl just told them to pound sand, and I'm pretty sure it would have gone 100% the same regardless of him being a gamer or not. There were a few other things like that. I recall some discussion I had with the President of the College, he was also the Physics Professor and a very devout and conservative man. It was regarding the kid that ran off into the steam tunnels etc. Even he could only shake his head about the whole thing. I actually showed him some D&D books, and explained how we played and that monsters like devils were just 'bad guys' you fought. I think he'd have preferred a more Christian themed game perhaps, but he certainly voiced the opinion that nobody in their right mind would think it was hurting anyone. 

Not to say that the crazies didn't exist, but overall my impression of things was there were some politicians and businesses who decided that they better give their clientele some satisfaction, regardless of insanity. There were also a few here and there, mostly local, that thought they could ride it, but that seems to have proven to have been a rather vain hope. After a couple years people were all basically back to bickering about taxes and defense spending, and the appalling level of corruption in the Reagan Administration (another set of idiots) and that was that.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 7, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> Poverty sucks, there is no doubt. I work as a teacher, and I see the effects of poverty first hand on my students every day. Still doesn't erase white privilege. I'd rather be white and poor than black and poor.
> 
> Perhaps it is our respective lenses in which we are viewing conversations on ENWorld, but I don't see a lot of folks downplaying the impacts of poverty. Certainly not in this thread. I certainly didn't.
> 
> I think it could be a good, _if off-topic_, discussion about which is worse, being poor or being an ethnic minority. Both have severe challenges, and for many, they go hand-in-hand.




I honestly have trouble not reading this as downplaying. Poverty doesn’t just suck. It can be a matter of life and death. It can be the threat of becoming homeless in the near future). It can mean having to choose between food and heat. It can mean struggling with things like mental illness. It can mean closer proximity to crime. It can mean tremendous difficulty receiving much needed medication and healthcare. Struggling to get by in this country is everything. It puts you at 0. I am not saying there aren’t other disadvantages, and that those disadvantages can’t feed into poverty but in the US I don’t think anything cones close (except perhaps a terminal illness or homelessness—which has a strong correlation with poverty anyways) to the disadvantage poverty imposed on a person. It really can be a struggle to survive if you are impoverished in the US.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 7, 2022)

Blue Orange said:


> Bit offtopic but given the location it may be a useful datapoint: Manhattan Barnes and Nobles and Borders were stocking RPG books into the 1990s. Used to be one of my favorite things to sit with a coffee and keep up with the edition changes to White Wolf and D&D. (Yes, I bought them afterwards!)



Yeah, I know in 2008, right after 4e came out, I went into the local B&N, and they had a ton of 3e stuff, 4e stuff, and a couple dozen other RPGs and many of their supplements (I remember there was Mongoose Traveller, which I bought a copy of, and a bunch of the newer WW stuff, etc.). They kept up a pretty good stock of stuff too, at least for the next 3-4 years because I patronized that store quite a bit and they were always getting in new RPGs. Given the amount of 3e stuff that was there for a couple years after 4e came out my assumption is they had been stocking at least D&D for quite a while. Honestly, I am pretty sure they never stopped once they started carrying stuff back in the 80's.


----------



## Cadence (Feb 7, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think a lot of people are not comprehending how difficult it is to be poor (and what it means for your quality of life). I am sorry but I just don't see how you can honestly believe this is the case in the US. I can see arguments for there being disadvantages to being dark-skinned, but someone with dark skin and a good income is far, far, far better off, and taken far, far, far more seriously than someone who is whatever skin color and poor. Your job, the car you drive, your zip code are much more important. And if you are poor enough that you are struggling to put food on the table: there is no question that is the single biggest disadvantage you can have. You can pile other disadvantages onto that for sure, and some would certainly compound the situation (for example someone who is disabled, especially in the US with its healthcare system and its lack social programs) is going to have a much harder time than most others getting out of poverty.




Figure out what percentile different incomes are for being white or for being black in America.  And I'm guessing being in the lowest 5% of black is a lot worse off than the lowest 5% for being white.   Which doesn't mean that anyone in the lower levels of wealth isn't having an awful time!

I always thought it would be interesting to have a sci-fi TV series where everyone woke up one morning to have three numbers holographically appear on their foreheads.  Part of it is figuring out that they're percentiles showing where they started as a kid, how lucky they were since then, and how hard they worked since then in percentiles, and part of it is what it makes folks realize about themselves.   (I'm guessing my 1st number is middle to high, my 2nd number is pretty darn high and my third number is embarrassingly low).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 7, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think a lot of people are not comprehending how difficult it is to be poor (and what it means for your quality of life). I am sorry but I just don't see how you can honestly believe this is the case in the US. I can see arguments for there being disadvantages to being dark-skinned, but someone with dark skin and a good income is far, far, far better off, and taken far, far, far more seriously than someone who is whatever skin color and poor. Your job, the car you drive, your zip code are much more important. And if you are poor enough that you are struggling to put food on the table: there is no question that is the single biggest disadvantage you can have. You can pile other disadvantages onto that for sure, and some would certainly compound the situation (for example someone who is disabled, especially in the US with its healthcare system and its lack social programs) is going to have a much harder time than most others getting out of poverty.



Ehhhhh, I think it is more complicated than that. My first wife is QUITE black, and not even African American, she's just plain straight up an African girl. So, she comes over here, busts her arse, gets trained in a lucrative field, and starts working as a professional. EVERY SINGLE DAY she could tell me about the people who threw her racial appearance in her face. It was often not exactly vicious, but it was all pretty cruel and hurtful. Now, she was obviously not poor. She is also just incredibly good at what she does and super capable, found the very best people in the world to train her, etc. She is a person whom NOTHING will really hold back, and AFAIK she's done quite well. OTOH she did NOT grow up in the 'you are trash' culture of the US, and to her 'poor' would mean 'lives in a mud hut' etc. However I had quite a few black friends in college, and man did they usually get short shrift, poor or not. I agree, being poor is no picnic, it holds a lot of people back in various ways, but I'd MUCH rather be poor than be a minority, as its actually pretty easy for competent people to fix their wealth problems. Heck, I've been dead broke a couple of times. It was annoying, for sure, but then I didn't grow up that way either. Both are bad, anyway.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 7, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> Perhaps it is our respective lenses in which we are viewing conversations on ENWorld, but I don't see a lot of folks downplaying the impacts of poverty. Certainly not in this thread. I certainly didn't.
> 
> I




I see it a lot. Especially when it bumps up against identity issues. For example when someone is told they have privilege and their response, perhaps because their very poor, is to mention their economic struggles. Rather than respond to that with the same degree of empathy I see people in that camp have when it is an issue of identity, so often, when it is economic the response is always something like “well you may have trouble paying the Bills but you aren’t X” (or variations on this sentiment.). And I think that sentiment really underestimated the mammoth effect poverty has on the quality of a persons life.  It also underestimated what it means to struggle to pay bills. There is a vast gulf in the US between someone who is poor and someone who is doing just fine or well off (in significant, material ways that amount to more than mere ‘challenges’). And it is very hard to get out of poverty once you are there


----------



## Hussar (Feb 7, 2022)

Heh, regarding the Satanic panic stuff.  I have to admit, I never encountered it.  One of my very first DM's was an ordained minister.  My best friend in high school, who gamed with me, was Mennonite and his dad was a minister.  The whole Panic thing just completely passed me by.


----------



## beancounter (Feb 7, 2022)

Hussar said:


> Heh, regarding the Satanic panic stuff.  I have to admit, I never encountered it.  One of my very first DM's was an ordained minister.  My best friend in high school, who gamed with me, was Mennonite and his dad was a minister.  The whole Panic thing just completely passed me by.




Yea, the Satanic panic must have been isolated to certain parts of the country, because neither my parents or any of my friends parents forbad us from playing.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 7, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Ehhhhh, I think it is more complicated than that. My first wife is QUITE black, and not even African American, she's just plain straight up an African girl. So, she comes over here, busts her arse, gets trained in a lucrative field, and starts working as a professional. EVERY SINGLE DAY she could tell me about the people who threw her racial appearance in her face. It was often not exactly vicious, but it was all pretty cruel and hurtful. Now, she was obviously not poor. She is also just incredibly good at what she does and super capable, found the very best people in the world to train her, etc. She is a person whom NOTHING will really hold back, and AFAIK she's done quite well. OTOH she did NOT grow up in the 'you are trash' culture of the US, and to her 'poor' would mean 'lives in a mud hut' etc. However I had quite a few black friends in college, and man did they usually get short shrift, poor or not. I agree, being poor is no picnic, it holds a lot of people back in various ways, but I'd MUCH rather be poor than be a minority, as its actually pretty easy for competent people to fix their wealth problems. Heck, I've been dead broke a couple of times. It was annoying, for sure, but then I didn't grow up that way either. Both are bad, anyway.



This was the point I made WAAAY upthread.  The whole thing about asking people to stop using these sorts of stereotypes and whatnot isn't aimed at punishing or blaming.  It's that after people have stepped on your toes a hundred times, it doesn't matter to you if the 101st person meant to or not.  The only thing you want is for people to stop stepping on your toes.

When you are a minority, that's the way it is.  Someone is constantly stepping on your toes, deliberately or unintentionally, maliciously or innocently.  After a while, when you're on the receiving end of that, intent stops mattering.  You just want it to stop.  Because it hurts and it sucks and "Oh, well, I didn't really mean it" doesn't matter anymore. 

That's why things like disclaimers are important.  It's a clear recognition of a problem.  The thing is, when you compare the music disclaimers to the disclaimers by WotC, you have to remember that the people asking for these disclaimers are coming from very, very different places.  Disclaimer or not, those opposing Heavy Metal music or Rap Music, or whatever, were never fans of the music.  They had no interest in becoming fans of the music.  They were never going to be part of the community around that music.  They just wanted to tell other people what to do.

The difference for WotC is that gamers, people who are in the community, people who would like to be in the community and be a part of the community are standing up and saying, "Hey, we LIKE this community.  We are PART of this community.  But, this bit of the community - whether it's chainmail bikinis or things like Orcs of Thar or Oriental Adventures - makes us feel unwelcome.  Could you at least recognize that it makes us uncomfortable and spread the word that this sort of stuff isn't really what the community is about?" 

Comparisons to the Satanic Panic of the 80's really miss that fundamental point  MADD and whatnot were never interested in becoming a part of the community.  Those that are bringing up things like Oriental Adventures DO want to be part of the community.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 7, 2022)

Hussar said:


> Heh, regarding the Satanic panic stuff.  I have to admit, I never encountered it.  One of my very first DM's was an ordained minister.  My best friend in high school, who gamed with me, was Mennonite and his dad was a minister.  The whole Panic thing just completely passed me by.



I was born in the late 80's so didn't directly experience most of it.  But I did I encounter remnants of it in the early 2000's from friends with parents that sincerely believed most of what gets referred to here as 'satanic panic'.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 7, 2022)

beancounter said:


> Yea, the Satanic panic must have been isolated to certain parts of the country, because neither my parents or any of my friends parents forbad us from playing.



Maybe.  Or maybe it was your part of the country that was isolated from it moreso than the other way around.  I don't know the answer here - just posing the question.


----------



## Cadence (Feb 7, 2022)

Hussar said:


> Heh, regarding the Satanic panic stuff.  I have to admit, I never encountered it.  One of my very first DM's was an ordained minister.  My best friend in high school, who gamed with me, was Mennonite and his dad was a minister.  The whole Panic thing just completely passed me by.




Northern  Illinois, and I don't remember it hitting us at all in the early or mid-80s - either at the two local FLGSs, the book stores, or with my friends.

I think one of the LGSs was owned by Jeff Perren of Chainmail fame, and the owner of the other was playing at all the conventions and hangouts that the Lake Geneva folks were in the early days.  Maybe they learned some spells to protect them from all the hubbub...


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 7, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I honestly have trouble not reading this as downplaying.



Okay. I don't.



> Poverty doesn’t just suck. It can be a matter of life and death. It can be the threat of becoming homeless in the near future). It can mean having to choose between food and heat. It can mean struggling with things like mental illness. It can mean closer proximity to crime. It can mean tremendous difficulty receiving much needed medication and healthcare. Struggling to get by in this country is everything. It puts you at 0. I am not saying there aren’t other disadvantages, and that those disadvantages can’t feed into poverty but in the US I don’t think anything cones close (except perhaps a terminal illness or homelessness—which has a strong correlation with poverty anyways) to the disadvantage poverty imposed on a person. It really can be a struggle to survive if you are impoverished in the US.



I agree with all of this. Not sure how any of my posts, or any other posts in this thread, are downplaying the grim realities of poverty.

I'm also not sure how it's relevant to the main discussion at hand.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 7, 2022)

Cadence said:


> Figure out what percentile different incomes are for being white or for being black in America.  And I'm guessing being in the lowest 5% of black is a lot worse off than the lowest 5% for being white.   Which doesn't mean that anyone in the lower levels of wealth isn't having an awful time!




But here you are talking about averages and if a group is disproportionally poor. What I am saying is being poor is the single biggest disadvantage you can have. If a person is making under 13,000* dollars a year, and very unsure what their future months are going to be like, it is little comfort to them if you bring up that 5% thing. People aren't averages, they are individuals. My point is, when someone says in this sort of discussion to you that they are an exception to the averages you are talking about, the response: well it sucks to be poor but at least you are not X, is rather infuriating I think. 

Poverty rates are affected by what group you belong to, and that is a problem. In my state I think something like 6.5 % of white people are below the poverty line, while 17.5 % of black people are below the poverty line (pretty sure native americans and latinos are the highest percentage in poverty here). So obviously that is something that is worthy trying to fix. But my point is that is a struggle for all of them. Being that poor, is a struggle a person who isn't poor really can't appreciate. If you are saying to someone, white people have advantages, and they are saying to you, but I am not in that upper 93.5% of white people, I am in the bottom 6.5%; can you see how downplaying the impact poverty has on them might drive them away from your point of view? Sure you can quibble over whether they have other advantages but I think the end result is it looks like you are losing sight of how big a problem poverty is for people in a country like the US


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 7, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> . . . its actually pretty easy for competent people to fix their wealth problems.



I'll push back on this one. It's certainly possible. But for many, it is far from easy.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 7, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> I agree with all of this. Not sure how any of my posts, or any other posts in this thread, are downplaying the grim realities of poverty.
> 
> I'm also not sure how it's relevant to the main discussion at hand.




I may be reading into your posts, things I have gotten from other peoples posts in the past (just posts where people have said the sorts of things I am talking about, and it was clear to me they didn't appreciate the full gravity of being poor). 

It isn't particularly relevant. It is a side point (I made it in response to one thing you had stated, and I brought it up because it is something that annoys me in some of these conversations). But it is probably not worthy derailing the thread further into that territory


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 7, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I see it a lot. Especially when it bumps up against identity issues. For example when someone is told they have privilege and their response, perhaps because their very poor, is to mention their economic struggles. Rather than respond to that with the same degree of empathy I see people in that camp have when it is an issue of identity, so often, when it is economic the response is always something like “well you may have trouble paying the Bills but you aren’t X” (or variations on this sentiment.). And I think that sentiment really underestimated the mammoth effect poverty has on the quality of a persons life.  It also underestimated what it means to struggle to pay bills. There is a vast gulf in the US between someone who is poor and someone who is doing just fine or well off (in significant, material ways that amount to more than mere ‘challenges’). And it is very hard to get out of poverty once you are there



When the discussion involves white privilege, and somebody responds with their experience with poverty . . . . sorry, but poverty doesn't erase white privilege. Being poor does truly suck (_sorry-not-sorry if that word isn't strong enough for you_), but even the poorest white person in the US enjoys a degree of privilege his minority brothers and sisters do not. That doesn't take away from the challenges of poverty, but poverty also doesn't erase white privilege.

However . . . and I'm as much to blame here . . . I'm pretty sure we've crossed the line from the thread topic into the no-politics rule here on ENWorld. So I'm out of this side discussion.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 7, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I agree, being poor is no picnic, it holds a lot of people back in various ways, but I'd MUCH rather be poor than be a minority, as its actually pretty easy for competent people to fix their wealth problems. Heck, I've been dead broke a couple of times. It was annoying, for sure, but then I didn't grow up that way either. Both are bad, anyway.




Again, being briefly dead broke, which does suck, is different from extended periods of poverty. The health impacts are massive, the possibility of ending up on the streets is very real, your exposure to crime is so much higher, and sometimes you go hungry or don't have medicine you need. If you add to that, you are trying to raise children, or you have a serious medical condition that makes pursuing work even harder, it can really be crushing, even a death sentence. And while some people escape poverty, a lot don't. And I think especially in the US with our lack of real serious social programs, it is hard. It is very easy to blame people for being poor or homeless, but I think most people who are those things, would prefer not to be. Again, if it is so easy for you to understand all the disadvantages you perceive about someone being a minority, why should it be so difficult to understand how big a disadvantage it is to be impoverished (that is about as substantive and material as disadvantage can get).


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 7, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> When the discussion involves white privilege, and somebody responds with their experience with poverty . . . . sorry, but poverty doesn't erase white privilege. Being poor does truly suck (_sorry-not-sorry if that word isn't strong enough for you_), but even the poorest white person in the US enjoys a degree of privilege his minority brothers and sisters do not. That doesn't take away from the challenges of poverty, but poverty also doesn't erase white privilege.
> 
> However . . . and I'm as much to blame here . . . I'm pretty sure we've crossed the line from the thread topic into the no-politics rule here on ENWorld. So I'm out of this side discussion.



I am not going to derail any further, but I just don't agree with this at all.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 7, 2022)

Hussar said:


> Heh, regarding the Satanic panic stuff.  I have to admit, I never encountered it.  One of my very first DM's was an ordained minister.  My best friend in high school, who gamed with me, was Mennonite and his dad was a minister.  The whole Panic thing just completely passed me by.



I don’t know if this could formally be considered “satanic panic” (1982?) but hearing about this game that religious people wanted to ban made me want to know more about it. I probably would have eventually found D&D anyway, but it’s what pulled me in at the time.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 7, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not going to derail any further, but I just don't agree with this at all.



Yeah, like I was saying, I think that fundamental disagreement underlies a lot of these higher-order disagreements.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 7, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> I don’t know if this could formally be considered “satanic panic” (1982?) but hearing about this game that religious people wanted to ban made me want to know more about it. I probably would have eventually found D&D anyway, but it’s what pulled me in at the time.




I think it technically began in 1980


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 7, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> When the discussion involves white privilege, and somebody responds with their experience with poverty . . . .



Just an example.  In Harlan KY 30.7% of white people live in poverty.  Some I know of were in such bad shape they didn't have running water.

Or maybe read up about Remote Area Medical and the work it had done in southwest Viriginia and why it even went to southwest VA and other places in the US to begin with.  People with no money and health insurance would start lining up at midnight for a weekend health and dental event because it was first come first serve.  Some of the stories are truly amazing.  The pictures will probably be reminiscent of the conditions you might see in a third world country instead of America.

I really don't think most of America has a clue what poverty for white people in some of the poorest areas of the country really looks like.  I don't know how anyone with any experience or knowledge of these places and things could even begin to talk to these people about their white privlege.


----------



## Gradine (Feb 7, 2022)

A month or two ago the BBC quoted as a source an individual who had been openly advocating for the genocide of trans women. 

There is nothing less worse our time and energy playing the "who has it worse" game, because no matter who you are or what your identity is there's someone who has it worse. There are no oppression power rankings. Because no form of racism, sexism, transmisogyny, etc, no matter how seemingly minor, is acceptable, and it must not be allowed to be.

The question of this thread is, therefore,  a question wrongly asked. "Is OA racist?" Indisputably the answer is yes, of course, you don't even need to get to the second word of the title to get to that conclusion. "How racist is it really?" is a distraction, akin to an attempt to measure the volume of a poison deadly at any dosage. "Was it racist for its time?" is also a distraction. We are not in "its time" currently, so the question is irrelevant. 

There can be (and, to my understanding, have been) modern attempts to translate the tropes of various East Asian stories in a way that is respectful to the cultures being attributed. OA has long past relevancy. So has the endless relitigating of its measure of racism


----------



## MGibster (Feb 7, 2022)

Cadence said:


> Northern Illinois, and I don't remember it hitting us at all in the early or mid-80s - either at the two local FLGSs, the book stores, or with my friends.



I never directly experienced it myself either and I'm guessing it's partly because I didn't start gaming until the moral panic starting dying down.  I imagine a lot of it heavily depended on both your geographic location as well as who you socialized with on the regular.  About the only time I encountered any negativity was from a teacher who saw that I had _Keep on the Borderlands_ and said something like "I don't think you're supposed to have that here," but she didn't do anything about it and I didn't hear anything further.  While we tend to focus on the negative attention RPGs got during this time, D&D was really a very small part of the moral panic.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 7, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> Just an example.  In Harlan KY 30.7% of white people live in poverty.  Some I know of were in such bad shape they didn't have running water.
> 
> Or maybe read up about Remote Area Medical and the work it had done in southwest Viriginia.  People with no money and health insurance would start lining up at midnight for a weekend health and dental event because it was first come first serve.  Some of the stories are truly amazing.  The pictures will probably be reminiscent of the conditions you might see in a third world country instead of America.
> 
> I really don't think most of America has a clue what poverty for white people in the poorest areas of the country really looks like.  I don't know how anyone with any experience could know about these places and things and talk to these people about white privlege.




I don't think anybody is arguing that being poor "isn't that bad".  (Are they?)

It's just that if we are comparing obstacles to success, as bad as poverty is, being black is still a greater obstacle.

And if you're black you're more likely to be poor in the first place.

And, if we're talking about scholarships, the United States doesn't have a centuries-long history of trying to prevent poor people...in general...from improving their lives.  In fact, many of the programs that were intended to help poor people, specifically excluded blacks.  Even as late as the post-War years.

Here's some info on the ongoing effects of that:
The massive new study on race and economic mobility in America, explained​So if you're arguing that poverty is pretty stinking rough, then it should stand to reason that the group of people who a) are more likely to be poor, and b) have a harder time becoming _un_-poor, have a pretty raw deal.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 7, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> I don't think anybody is arguing that being poor "isn't that bad".  (Are they?)
> 
> It's just that if we are comparing obstacles to success, as bad as poverty is, being black is still a greater obstacle.



The poverty level for blacks in the U.S. in 2019 was 21.2%.  The poverty levels for whites in Harlan KY was 30.7%.  Is being white from Harlan KY worse than being black in the U.S.  When it comes to poverty the statistics suggest yes.



Bill Zebub said:


> And if you're black you're more likely to be poor in the first place.



Statistically being black in the U.S. makes you less likely to be in poverty than if you are white and from Harlan KY.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Feb 7, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> Sure, there are people out there who will go onto the attack with little basis in fact or fairness. But what you are complaining about is "cancel culture" . . . . which exists, but not to the extent some folks seem to think.




I'm sure that's a great consolation to those who've been a victim of the more malignant parts of it, and comforting to people who never can be sure they won't be.  All it needs is one person on a crusade who has a following, and we're off to the races.



Dire Bare said:


> So, in all honesty and curiosity . . . . give me some examples. Give me some examples of an RPG creator creating a truly non-problematic product, getting "brigaded", reacting in a positive manner to the criticism, and that apology having no effect. They are canceled.




Again, are we going to ignore Requires Hate's victims because most (but not all)  of them were in fiction rather than the RPG field?  Most of them didn't even have anything particularly obvious to apologize for.

Its not like people in the field haven't weaponized group followings to go to war at each other before.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 7, 2022)

Gradine said:


> The question of this thread is, therefore,  a question wrongly asked. "Is OA racist?" Indisputably the answer is yes, of course, you don't even need to get to the second word of the title to get to that conclusion. "How racist is it really?" is a distraction, akin to an attempt to measure the volume of a poison deadly at any dosage. "Was it racist for its time?" is also a distraction. We are not in "its time" currently, so the question is irrelevant.
> 
> There can be (and, to my understanding, have been) modern attempts to translate the tropes of various East Asian stories in a way that is respectful to the cultures being attributed. OA has long past relevancy. So has the endless relitigating of its measure of racism




Again this is just too absolutist in my opinion. You clearly see a range of views on OA, even among people who say it has problems. Not everyone agrees it is racist. Not everyone even agrees if it is problematic. Some people are going to look at OA and say, it has issues, but they reflect  the times, and it doesn't rise to racism. Some will say it does rise to racism. Some will leave it at problematic. Some will say there is a difference between stereotypical tropes and racism. Some people are going to give more weight to intent than others (most people here seem to feel Zeb Cook's intentions were good). You are going to have different opinions about this because we are all different, and we all are taking slightly different lenses to it. Disagreeing on our analysis of OA, doesn't mean people disagree on whether real world racism towards asian people is bad, it means we have different sensibilities on media. And hashing out these things does matter people people are talking both about what ought to be done about OA, and what ought to be done/ought to be permissible, for creators going forward. If we get to a point where everyone must always agree with conclusion X....I don't know that seems like a bad place to be to me.


----------



## Justice and Rule (Feb 7, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> The poverty level for blacks in the U.S. in 2019 was 21.2%.  The poverty levels for whites in Harlan KY was 30.7%.  Is being white from Harlan KY worse than being black in the U.S.  When it comes to poverty the statistics suggest yes.




Uh, the poverty levels for blacks in Flint, Michigan, is 43.8%. The poverty rate for blacks in Benton Harbor, Michigan, is 50.7%. The poverty rate for blacks in Detroit, Michigan, is 37.7%. Why would you use a specific poverty rate for one and then reference the national poverty rate?

You compare like to like. For example, the national white poverty rate is 9.1% in 2019. Notice the difference?



FrogReaver said:


> Statistically being black in the U.S. makes you less likely to be in poverty than if you are white and from Harlan KY.




I mean, statistically speaking being black and in a city makes you way more likely to be in poverty compared to Harlan, Kentucky.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 7, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> I'm sure that's a great consolation to those who've been a victim of the more malignant parts of it, and comforting to people who never can be sure they won't be.  All it needs is one person on a crusade who has a following, and we're off to the races.





> Dire Bare said:
> So, in all honesty and curiosity . . . . give me some examples. Give me some examples of an RPG creator creating a truly non-problematic product, getting "brigaded", reacting in a positive manner to the criticism, and that apology having no effect. They are canceled.





Thomas Shey said:


> Again, are we going to ignore Requires Hate's victims because most (but not all)  of them were in fiction rather than the RPG field?  Most of them didn't even have anything particularly obvious to apologize for.
> 
> Its not like people in the field haven't weaponized group followings to go to war at each other before.




This is really a whole other topic I think (quite a few of those in this thread). But I think with cancel culture, it also doesn't have to be conclusive to be a canceling. Most people are not going to be completely eradicated from an industry, social media space or a fandom. But they will be ostracized, have their reputation damaged, be lied about, their reach reduced, have their offenses exaggerated, be psychologically impacted, and potentially have their professional life in other industries impacted. Most game designers are not doing this full time, so they can likely weather a cancelation attempt unless they get removed from a major platform. But once your name has been dragged through the mud by a cancelation attempt, that is the sort of thing people search for when they hire people.


----------



## Gradine (Feb 7, 2022)

The first word of the title is both racist and problematic. Are you going to deny even that?

I think the conversation of what pitfalls to avoid in the future (like not including what is basically a slur in your frakking title, for example) is worthy of discussion. Relitigating the original book (or even frankly its 3.0 counterpart) is completely irrelevant. It has been done time and time again. You can either recognize the plethora of problematic components within it, or you can be wrong. Either way _it doesn't matter. _

What matters are the lessons learned to be applied to current or future products, at least something that hasn't been relevant for decades.


----------



## Mordhau (Feb 7, 2022)

Was 'Oriental' considered racist when the book was written?


----------



## Cadence (Feb 7, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> This is really a whole other topic I think (quite a few of those in this thread). But I think with cancel culture, it also doesn't have to be conclusive to be a canceling. Most people are not going to be completely eradicated from an industry, social media space or a fandom. But they will be ostracized, have their reputation damaged, be lied about, their reach reduced, have their offenses exaggerated, be psychologically impacted, and potentially have their professional life in other industries impacted. Most game designers are not doing this full time, so they can likely weather a cancelation attempt unless they get removed from a major platform. But once your name has been dragged through the mud by a cancelation attempt, that is the sort of thing people search for when they hire people.



So, OA may or may not be problematic.  But complaining about things like it is?


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 7, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> The poverty level for blacks in the U.S. in 2019 was 21.2%.  The poverty levels for whites in Harlan KY was 30.7%.  Is being white from Harlan KY worse than being black in the U.S.  When it comes to poverty the statistics suggest yes.
> 
> 
> Statistically being black in the U.S. makes you less likely to be in poverty than if you are white and from Harlan KY.




I just...I....I gotta admit you have left me dumbfounded with this one.  I literally do not know how to even begin to respond.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 7, 2022)

Gradine said:


> The first word of the title is both racist and problematic. Are you going to deny even that?



I do think the title is an issue. I don't think it was as much of an issue when it was written (but I am going by memory in terms of when I realized that term was considered a pejorative). I don't think the intention was bad when the book came out, and that is different than if it came out today with the same title (where the publisher would clearly know how it might be received). Personally I think they should have changed the title for 3E for example. 



Gradine said:


> You can either recognize the plethora of problematic components within it, or you can be wrong. Either way _it doesn't matter. _




But this is so narrow minded. You are basically saying "You either agree with me, or you are wrong", as if reasonable people can't all look at this book, and come away with different conclusions about its handling of asian culture.


----------



## Gradine (Feb 7, 2022)

Mordhau said:


> Was 'Oriental' considered racist when the book was written?



Again, this isn't really a thing. Anything that we would consider racist now was racist back whenever. It was never okay, and how deeply embedded that idea was in the historical period of time is irrelevant. 

I think something being lost here is that no one is saying the people who wrote the book were or are racist. Intent isn't the point; impact is.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 7, 2022)

Gradine said:


> The first word of the title is both racist and problematic. Are you going to deny even that?



It's a long thread, but someone did post an article about the divide between young and older Asians regarding the use of the word Oriental.  The younger generation tends to favor Asian feeling Oriental is negative while many in the older generation prefer Oriental.  I'm not Asian, and I'll admit that I would feel uncomfortable referring to someone as Oriental.  Is the title problematic?  Yes.  Is it racist?  I don't think so.


----------



## Mordhau (Feb 7, 2022)

Gradine said:


> Again, this isn't really a thing. Anything that we would consider racist now was racist back whenever. It was never okay, and how deeply embedded that idea was in the historical period of time is irrelevant.
> 
> I think something being lost here is that no one is saying the people who wrote the book were or are racist. Intent isn't the point; impact is.



No.  In many cases that is correct.  But the meaning of words in context absolutely matters.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 7, 2022)

Cadence said:


> So, OA may or may not be problematic.  But complaining about things like it is?




I have said throughout the thread, discussions and engagement are good and healthy. If someone wants to have a podcast talking about how they think OA is problematic, I am totally cool with that. Where I have an issue, is when people go after others on social media, ostracize them, or drag them through the mud, for having different opinions than they do on these topics. So not a problem if you want to discuss or debate this. But brigading someone because they think OA isn't a problem, I think is more of an issue. I am not saying that is happening, but I am just trying to explain the stance I was taking on cancel culture. There is a big difference between debating an idea, and demonizing a person.


----------



## Gradine (Feb 7, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> But this is so narrow minded. You are basically saying "You either agree with me, or you are wrong", as if reasonable people can't all look at this book, and come away with different conclusions about its handling of asian culture.



This isn't about reasonableness. It's about listening. There are probably a ton of things out there that I would never consider racist myself, and would be surprised to learn they are. But rather than continue to argue my uninformed opinion, I listen to the people who are affected by it, and that is how we learn.


----------



## Cadence (Feb 7, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I have said throughout the thread, discussions and engagement are good and healthy. If someone wants to have a podcast talking about how they think OA is problematic, I am totally cool with that. Where I have an issue, is when people go after others on social media, ostracize them, or drag them through the mud, for having different opinions than they do on these topics. So not a problem if you want to discuss or debate this. But brigading someone because they think OA isn't a problem, I think is more of an issue. I am not saying that is happening, but I am just trying to explain the stance I was taking on cancel culture. There is a big difference between debating an idea, and demonizing a person.




Is there anything offensive enough for someone to deserve to be deplatformed ever?


----------



## Justice and Rule (Feb 7, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Again this is just too absolutist in my opinion. You clearly see a range of views on OA, even among people who say it has problems. Not everyone agrees it is racist. Not everyone even agrees if it is problematic. Some people are going to look at OA and say, it has issues, but they reflect  the times, and it doesn't rise to racism. Some will say it does rise to racism. Some will leave it at problematic. Some will say there is a difference between stereotypical tropes and racism. Some people are going to give more weight to intent than others (most people here seem to feel Zeb Cook's intentions were good). You are going to have different opinions about this because we are all different, and we all are taking slightly different lenses to it. Disagreeing on our analysis of OA, doesn't mean people disagree on whether real world racism towards asian people is bad, it means we have different sensibilities on media. And hashing out these things does matter people people are talking both about what ought to be done about OA, and what ought to be done/ought to be permissible, for creators going forward. If we get to a point where everyone must always agree with conclusion X....I don't know that seems like a bad place to be to me.




And this is just too wishy-washy in my opinion. At a certain point you can just come down and say "Yeah, this was racist". Obviously not everyone will agree with it, but it seems there is a fairly wide consensus on the matter. Constantly harping on how "We can't just say this because we all don't agree" misses that there can come to a common agreement at some level on these, and I'm not sure how we haven't reached that level with OA yet.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 7, 2022)

Gradine said:


> Again, this isn't really a thing. Anything that we would consider racist now was racist back whenever. It was never okay, and how deeply embedded that idea was in the historical period of time is irrelevant.




This,is the most incorrect thing I have read in this thread.

Context matters. This is such a simple point I can’t believe I have to say it. But a person from a group can use a slur and have it be empowering (reclaim it) or a word can have different meanings depending on time and location (UK as opposed to American English for instance).

I see a lot of demand to listen, but precious little actual discussion.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 7, 2022)

Justice and Rule said:


> And this is just too wishy-washy in my opinion. At a certain point you can just come down and say "Yeah, this was racist". Obviously not everyone will agree with it, but it seems there is a fairly wide consensus on the matter. Constantly harping on how "We can't just say this because we all don't agree" misses that there can come to a common agreement at some level on these, and I'm not sure how we haven't reached that level with OA yet.




I don't think there is wide consensus. I think there is a lot of disagreement over how much of a problem it is. You can call it wishy washy, but it isn't like OA is some kind of racist manifesto. People are going to have different responses to how the tropes are handled. And again, even among the people who are saying it has problems there is clearly a difference between those labeling problematic, stereotypical and racist.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 7, 2022)

Cadence said:


> Is there anything offensive enough for someone to deserve to be deplatformed ever?




Probably. But as it gets used in todays climate? No. I am not a fan of how deplatforming and cancel culture tend to get applied (which is usually to exaggerate a person's offense, pressure a platform to remove them, and tar anyone who even likes, agrees, or defends them with the same). I don't support social ostracization, and I don't support taking away a person's livelihood (especially given how dangerous it can be for a person in a country with a weak social safety net). I am not going to say never because I can imagine scenarios where someone is using a platform to stalk someone, or engineer violence against a person. But as I've seen it used in the hobby, on twitter, etc? I think it brings out the worst in us, makes us more tribal and weakens our ability to engage one another.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Feb 7, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> This is really a whole other topic I think (quite a few of those in this thread). But I think with cancel culture, it also doesn't have to be conclusive to be a canceling. Most people are not going to be completely eradicated from an industry, social media space or a fandom. But they will be ostracized, have their reputation damaged, be lied about, their reach reduced, have their offenses exaggerated, be psychologically impacted, and potentially have their professional life in other industries impacted. Most game designers are not doing this full time, so they can likely weather a cancelation attempt unless they get removed from a major platform. But once your name has been dragged through the mud by a cancelation attempt, that is the sort of thing people search for when they hire people.




"Cancel culture" is a term that's gotten so weaponized I don't think its a useful term; the term is applied when other people do it, ignored when people you agree with do.

The issue is, however, that brigading is _absolutely_ a thing, and it isn't limited to one particular political philosophy or position.  And once it gets rolling, it can be enough of a problem that if you're in a position it can get aimed at you, you, again, absolutely have a reason to be concerned because there are too many people out there who, once they decide you're on the wrong side of things, won't show a lot of restraint on what they'll go do.  It doesn't take a whole lot of cases of doxing or other harassment before some serious chilling effect sets in.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 7, 2022)

Gradine said:


> This isn't about reasonableness. It's about listening. There are probably a ton of things out there that I would never consider racist myself, and would be surprised to learn they are. But rather than continue to argue my uninformed opinion, I listen to the people who are affected by it, and that is how we learn.




I am not against listening. I listen to lots of people, and lots of points of view. But you seem to be suggesting if someone listens, that means they must just automatically agree with what they are hearing, or if they listen, they must reach the same exact conclusion you have about the issue. Life and art are way more complicated than that.


----------



## Gradine (Feb 7, 2022)

Mordhau said:


> No.  In many cases that is correct.  But the meaning of words in context absolutely matters.





Snarf Zagyg said:


> This,is the most incorrect thing I have read in this thread.
> 
> Context matters. This is such a simple point I can’t believe I have to say it. But a person from a group can use a slur and have it be empowering (reclaim it) or a word can have different meanings depending on time and location (UK as opposed to American, for instance).



Context world matter if we were litigating the _authors_ of the work, because it would speak to their personal intent and therefore character. I don't think anyone is impugning the character of the authors.

An object, like a book, does not have intent. It can simply only have impact, and that is what we're talking about. This is what I mean when I say questions or comments about "the time" are irrelevant. We're not in "the time" now so why should anyone care?

The question is not whether "OA" should've been written at all or not, but how we should treat and approach it today. Because today is all that actually relevant to us now. 

My answer, if I had not made it clear enough, is "don't".


----------



## Gradine (Feb 7, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not against listening. I listen to lots of people, and lots of points of view. But you seem to be suggesting if someone listens, that means they must just automatically agree with what they are hearing, or if they listen, they must reach the same exact conclusion you have about the issue. Life and art are way more complicated than that.



If I accidentally step on someone's toes and they tell me it hurts, is it my place to argue whether their injury is real or not?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 7, 2022)

Gradine said:


> Context world matter if we were litigating the _authors_ of the work, because it would speak to their personal intent and therefore character. I don't think anyone is impugning the character of the authors.
> 
> An object, like a book, does not have intent. It can simply only have impact, and that is what we're talking about. This is what I mean when I say questions or comments about "the time" are irrelevant. We're not in "the time" now so why should anyone care?
> 
> ...




That‘s insane. 

Seriously - we have to get rid of Uncle Tom’s Cabin? The Invisible Man? Anything that isn’t up to your standards?

Your eternal now is not the arbiter of what others think is relevant


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 7, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> "Cancel culture" is a term that's gotten so weaponized I don't think its a useful term; the term is applied when other people do it, ignored when people you agree with do.
> 
> The issue is, however, that brigading is _absolutely_ a thing, and it isn't limited to one particular political philosophy or position.  And once it gets rolling, it can be enough of a problem that if you're in a position it can get aimed at you, you, again, absolutely have a reason to be concerned because there are too many people out there who, once they decide you're on the wrong side of things, won't show a lot of restraint on what they'll go do.  It doesn't take a whole lot of cases of doxing or other harassment before some serious chilling effect sets in.




I do think cancel culture is useful as a term but I understand your point. But either way, whether we are talking about brigading or deplatforming, I am against it no matter what side we are talking about. Again I don't want to take food out of anyone's mouth (whatever their opinion about RPGs or politics). And I don't take pleasure in seeing someone reaping what they sow either. Stuff like doxxing, I don't think is ever acceptable. I think it is very easy when you think the other side is so wrong, to justify to yourself any behavior against them.


----------



## Justice and Rule (Feb 7, 2022)

Gradine said:


> This isn't about reasonableness. It's about listening. There are probably a ton of things out there that I would never consider racist myself, and would be surprised to learn they are. But rather than continue to argue my uninformed opinion, I listen to the people who are affected by it, and that is how we learn.




Yeah, I listened to the Asians React series on L5R and found it somewhat useful in getting a different perspective. It's easy to miss stuff when you don't live it every day.



Cadence said:


> Is there anything offensive enough for someone to deserve to be deplatformed ever?




I mean, there's plenty. Platforming isn't a right, after all.



Snarf Zagyg said:


> This,is the more incorrect thing I have read in this thread.
> 
> Context matters. This is such a simple point I can’t believe I have to say it. But a person from a group can use a slur and have it be empowering (reclaim it) or a word can have different meanings depending on time and location (UK as opposed to American, for instance).
> 
> I see a lot of demand to listen, but precious little actual discussion.




I mean, this is a really bad-faith take on what they were saying. They're talking about the historical context, and how something being acceptable at the time doesn't negate the fact that it was and still is racist. Talking about term reclamation doesn't really touch on this.



Bedrockgames said:


> I don't think there is wide consensus. I think there is a lot of disagreement over how much of a problem it is. You can call it wishy washy, but it isn't like OA is some kind of racist manifesto. People are going to have different responses to how the tropes are handled. And again, even among the people who are saying it has problems there is clearly a difference between those labeling problematic, stereotypical and racist.




There's wide enough consensus that even you have conceded the problems with the _title. _Just because there is disagreement about specifics doesn't mean that we can't form a general consensus that the book is problematic at the least. 



Thomas Shey said:


> "Cancel culture" is a term that's gotten so weaponized I don't think its a useful term; the term is applied when other people do it, ignored when people you agree with do.
> 
> The issue is, however, that brigading is _absolutely_ a thing, and it isn't limited to one particular political philosophy or position.  And once it gets rolling, it can be enough of a problem that if you're in a position it can get aimed at you, you, again, absolutely have a reason to be concerned because there are too many people out there who, once they decide you're on the wrong side of things, won't show a lot of restraint on what they'll go do.  It doesn't take a whole lot of cases of doxing or other harassment before some serious chilling effect sets in.




"Cancel culture" is indeed useless, largely because it's often used when people are simply expressing disapproval with what someone has done. Approval isn't a right, and when you do stupid things people can call you out on that stuff.

Stuff like brigading is generally different, and most often its with more powerful people using their platform to harm people who can't fight back. It's punching down using one's fanbase and clout against someone who lacks it. That's... generally not applicable to what we are talking about.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 7, 2022)

Mordhau said:


> Was 'Oriental' considered racist when the book was written?



Yes.

Certainly, words change meanings and connotations. Including the word "oriental". But back in 1988? Yes. Awareness of that wasn't as widespread as it is today, and it's not on the same level as some other slurs. But again, do we need to determine the relative offensiveness of the term to agree it is offensive?

However, I'm more concerned with today. It doesn't matter if the word "oriental" was considered racist back in 1988 (_although again, it was_) . . . no one is advocating to jump into a time machine and take out baby Zeb Cook before he can write Oriental Adventures. No one is even calling for Zeb Cook and the late 1980s TSR team to be "canceled" or any such nonsense.

We are discussing the problems with Oriental Adventures because many of those problems still exist in D&D today. And we need to know what those problems are, so that we can continue to improve D&D and do better.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 7, 2022)

Gradine said:


> If I accidentally step on someone's toes and they tell me it hurts, is it my place to argue whether their injury is real or not?



If they sue you and you think they are faking: yes. But I think this is a bad example because you the premise is you stepped on their toes, presumably you did hurt them. I do think you always have a responsibility to push back if you feel a person's response is either out of proportion to what you've done, or if you feel they misunderstand what you are doing. If you step on someone's toes and they punch you in the face, I think you can tell them to chill, for example.


----------



## Gradine (Feb 7, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> That‘s insane.
> 
> Seriously - we have to get rid of Uncle Tom’s Cabin? The Invisible Man? Anything that isn’t up to your standards?



Where... where did I say any of that? Works have merit, especially literary works such as these (though I did write a thesis on "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and dear lord is the writing saccharine and melodramatic). I have never once advocated for "getting rid of" anything, not even OA.

It's just that OA is so far beyond relevant at this point that relitigating it (one way OR THE OTHER) is a waste of everyone's time and effort.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 7, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> Again, are we going to ignore Requires Hate's victims because most (but not all)  of them were in fiction rather than the RPG field?  Most of them didn't even have anything particularly obvious to apologize for.



Again? What? I have no idea what you are talking about here, so give me a moment to google . . . . .

Okay, so this is hardly a cut-and-dried example of fantasy/sci-fi "brigading" . . . . "Requires Hate" (Benjanun Sriduangkaew) is a Thai fantasy/sci-fi author who created the anonymous online persona, "Requires Hate" and began a series of critiques of other fantasy/sci-fi works for their racist and sexist themes (_from her point of view, of course_) using insulting . . . and to some, threatening . . . language. From my brief research, her behavior was awful and rightfully condemned. And also, her critiques arguably had merit, if you remove the insulting/threatening language they were delivered in. And I haven't found any evidence she was successful at "canceling" anyone . . . . but I just did a light dive into the controversy surrounding this author.

One person, posting awful stuff about other people on the internet isn't "brigading" or "canceling". It's also hardly "chilling" to creators who'd like to include cultural themes in their works they don't have a direct connection too. Unless there's more to the story of "Requires Hate" you can enlighten us on . . . .


----------



## Thomas Shey (Feb 7, 2022)

Justice and Rule said:


> Stuff like brigading is generally different, and most often its with more powerful people using their platform to harm people who can't fight back. It's punching down using one's fanbase and clout against someone who lacks it. That's... generally not applicable to what we are talking about.




I don't see why not; I've given an example of someone who used it to strike at writers twice now.  And that's what I've been talking about, how chilling this can become and how it can end up easily instead of just stopping racist or appropriational material, it ends up creating a climate where people will simply steer clear of the topics entirely.  People have dismissed that when it comes up, and I think they're being way too blithe.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 7, 2022)

Justice and Rule said:


> Uh, the poverty levels for blacks in Flint, Michigan, is 43.8%. The poverty rate for blacks in Benton Harbor, Michigan, is 50.7%. The poverty rate for blacks in Detroit, Michigan, is 37.7%.



Yes.



Justice and Rule said:


> Why would you use a specific poverty rate for one and then reference the national poverty rate?



Why wouldn't I?  The comparison clearly shows that whites from high poverty areas in the country experience more poverty than blacks from low poverty areas.  That seems a pretty important point if we are going to talk white privilege.



Justice and Rule said:


> You compare like to like. For example, the national white poverty rate is 9.1% in 2019. Notice the difference?



Sure, and there's important information to be gleaned from that comparison as well.  But that's not the only valid comparison.



Justice and Rule said:


> I mean, statistically speaking being black and in a city makes you way more likely to be in poverty compared to Harlan, Kentucky.



See, you get how this works   

A better point for you is that 46.8% of blacks in Harlan KY are in poverty.  Which is quite a bit higher than that of the white population of Harlan KY.  

I think we can acknowledge both points - that blacks on average experience higher poverty when compared to whites from the same locations and that whites in some locations experience much higher poverty than blacks from other locations.  Do you agree with this?  If so what does that mean to you in relation to white privelege?


----------



## Gradine (Feb 7, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> If they sue you and you think they are faking: yes. But I think this is a bad example because you the premise is you stepped on their toes, presumably you did hurt them. I do think you always have a responsibility to push back if you feel a person's response is either out of proportion to what you've done, or if you feel they misunderstand what you are doing. If you step on someone's toes and they punch you in the face, I think you can tell them to chill, for example.



I find this a cynical way of approaching the world and other people. I do think, if your intent is misconstrued or misinterpreted in a given situation, there's a natural impulse to attempt to explain. But again, intent is hardly relevant; whatever I intended, if I hurt someone I ought to apologize and maybe learn to be more careful about such things. 

But to approach every person's declaration of pain with skepticism at whether they are "faking it" or not is absolutely bleak to me, and unfair to humanity writ large


----------



## Thomas Shey (Feb 7, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> Again? What? I have no idea what you are talking about here, so give me a moment to google . . . . .
> 
> Okay, so this is hardly a cut-and-dried example of fantasy/sci-fi "brigading" . . . . "Requires Hate" (Benjanun Sriduangkaew) is a Thai fantasy/sci-fi author who created the anonymous online persona, "Requires Hate" and began a series of critiques of other fantasy/sci-fi works for their racist and sexist themes (_from her point of view, of course_) using insulting . . . and to some, threatening . . . language. From my brief research, her behavior was awful and rightfully condemned. And also, her critiques arguably had merit, if you remove the insulting/threatening language they were delivered in. And I haven't found any evidence she was successful at "canceling" anyone . . . . but I just did a light dive into the controversy surrounding this author.




There have been people who outright bailed out of writing because of her.  And it should be noted most of her targets were women, POC, trans or some combination of the three.  So even being within the cultures at hand was no protection.  She's almost the poster child for misuse of her own status to go after people who's work she disliked for one reason or another.  And she didn't do it alone; she had a following and they were effectively her internet posse in many cases.  Its just easier to isolate the attacks she made in one of her various identities but that's always true with a brigading situation.




Dire Bare said:


> One person, posting awful stuff about other people on the internet isn't "brigading" or "canceling". It's also hardly "chilling" to creators who'd like to include cultural themes in their works they don't have a direct connection too. Unless there's more to the story of "Requires Hate" you can enlighten us on . . . .




It didn't stop with Requires Hate.  She had a following that she sicc'd on people.  It absoltuely _was_ brigading, and as noted it was often directed at other subaltern groups.  So, yeah, I'd do more research on the history there before you shrug it off.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 7, 2022)

Gradine said:


> Where... where did I say any of that? Works have merit, especially literary works such as these (though I did write a thesis on "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and dear lord is the writing saccharine and melodramatic). I have never once advocated for "getting rid of" anything, not even OA.
> 
> It's just that OA is so far beyond relevant at this point that relitigating it (one way OR THE OTHER) is a waste of everyone's time and effort.




That‘s the exact point- you don’t get to determine what is relevant.

Uncle Tom’s Cabin is cruddy as literature, but if someone read it without understanding it’s historical context, they would be offended. Should we just listen to the offense and the harm, or … does context matter?

OA is important in a lot of ways to the evolution of D&D~ especially because  it has some of the ideas that Cook would later expand on in 2e, as well as having the first credited Asian contributors to a TSR product. I think it’s relevant, and I think that while it’s fine to critique issues in it, it’s really annoying that people assume it’s not relevant.

If you don’t want to re-litigate it, that’s fine by me.  Stop telling me what I have to think and I won’t keep litigating.


----------



## Scars Unseen (Feb 7, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Probably. But as it gets used in todays climate? No. I am not a fan of how deplatforming and cancel culture tend to get applied (which is usually to exaggerate a person's offense, pressure a platform to remove them, and tar anyone who even likes, agrees, or defends them with the same). I don't support social ostracization, and I don't support taking away a person's livelihood (especially given how dangerous it can be for a person in a country with a weak social safety net). I am not going to say never because I can imagine scenarios where someone is using a platform to stalk someone, or engineer violence against a person. But as I've seen it used in the hobby, on twitter, etc? I think it brings out the worst in us, makes us more tribal and weakens our ability to engage one another.




Agreed.  I've posted this video before, but Lindsay Ellis' harassment is a good example of how our tendency to jump to judgement of not only content, but the people making said content can be substantially harmful.  It's worth noting that while she says she's fine in that video, after 6 more months of constant harassment, she quit, going so far as to say she regretted ever making anything at all.  

Making purchasing, reading and viewing decisions based on your own standards and sense of ethics or morals is something we all can and should do on a daily basis where possible.  But we should be cautious of joining a mob, be it physical or online, because the mob is neither ethical, nor moral.  The mob is momentum, and once it gets going, it often hurts those vulnerable to being hurt more than it does people deserving of censure.  And when those people get hurt, everyone who played a part in building that momentum earns at least a small part of the blame.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 7, 2022)

Gradine said:


> I find this a cynical way of approaching the world and other people. I do think, if your intent is misconstrued or misinterpreted in a given situation, there's a natural impulse to attempt to explain. But again, intent is hardly relevant; whatever I intended, if I hurt someone I ought to apologize and maybe learn to be more careful about such things.
> 
> But to approach every person's declaration of pain with skepticism at whether they are "faking it" or not is absolutely bleak to me, and unfair to humanity writ large




I didn't say approach every declaration of hurt or pain with skepticism. In fact, I think if you've paid close attention to my words, I am have emphasized being empathic and caring about peoples pain. But if you do have to use your judgement in the world. People can lie, people can be wrong, people can misread things, they can be overly sensitive,  people can exaggerate things, people can offer up an easy answer sometimes. When you disagree with someone's assessment of media, which is what we are doing here (even if that assessment is they think it is hurtful) then you should disagree if that is your honest opinion. 

And in the toe example, I was saying if they over react (like by punching you in the face) you should be able to say something. Or if they were to try to seek damages (and you genuinely thought they were lying) you ought to challenge it. If you stepped on someone's toe and they are clearly in pain, off course, you ought to apologize. 

But this isn't about stepping on someone's toe. It is about a piece of media and there is a lot of subjective judgment in evaluating it for the kinds of problems people are talking about.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 7, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> The poverty level for blacks in the U.S. in 2019 was 21.2%.  The poverty levels for whites in Harlan KY was 30.7%.  Is being white from Harlan KY worse than being black in the U.S.  When it comes to poverty the statistics suggest yes.
> 
> 
> Statistically being black in the U.S. makes you less likely to be in poverty than if you are white and from Harlan KY.



Umm, the population of Harlan KY is just shy of 1500 people.  There are just shy of 42 million African American people in the US.  Perhaps your statistics don't really say what you think they say.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 7, 2022)

Hussar said:


> Umm, the population of Harlan KY is just shy of 1500 people.  There are just shy of 42 million African American people in the US.  Perhaps your statistics don't really say what you think they say.



Harlan KY, the county has over 25,000 people.


----------



## Justice and Rule (Feb 7, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> I don't see why not; I've given an example of someone who used it to strike at writers twice now.  And that's what I've been talking about, how chilling this can become and how it can end up easily instead of just stopping racist or appropriational material, it ends up creating a climate where people will simply steer clear of the topics entirely.  People have dismissed that when it comes up, and I think they're being way too blithe.




Yeah, and how is that happening with WOTC? Like, part of the brigading situation is that the individual is being attacked by a mass. I don't see that happening to WOTC here.



FrogReaver said:


> Yes.
> 
> Why wouldn't I?  The comparison clearly shows that whites from high poverty areas in the country experience more poverty than blacks from low poverty areas.  That seems a pretty important point if we are going to talk white privilege.




No, it doesn't. The point of "white privilege" is that you don't have to deal with certain things that other people have to do regardless of their poverty level. You've completely sailed past the point of the phrase in your attempt to concern-troll.



FrogReaver said:


> Sure, and there's important information to be gleaned from that comparison as well.  But that's not the only valid comparison.




I mean, I would disagree because in not comparing statistics on the same scale you completely distort the actual meaning of the numbers.



FrogReaver said:


> See, you get how this works
> 
> A better point for you is that 46.8% of blacks in Harlan KY are in poverty.  Which is quite a bit higher than that of the white population of Harlan KY.
> 
> I think we can acknowledge both points - that blacks on average experience higher poverty when compared to whites from the same locations and that whites in some locations experience much higher poverty than blacks from other locations.  Do you agree with this?  If so what does that mean to you in relation to white privelege?




I think we can acknowledge that comparing poverty rates misses that there are problems and hurdles that minorities have to deal with that white people of all stations generally don't, which is why it's called "white privilege", though to your point it's pretty clear that, like @Bill Zebub said, that "white privilege" obviously has economic effects as well.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 7, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> Harlan KY, the county has over 25,000 people.



Really, really doesn't change the point.  In fact, you've now completely derailed your own point by providing information that people IN THE SAME AREA are more disadvantaged due to race.  

I'm really, really not sure what you're trying to prove here.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 7, 2022)

You know . . . I think I'm done with this thread. As seems to be the case each time these types of discussions come up, a handful of folks go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to try and lessen the harm of the sexist and racist elements of D&D's development, history, and current form.

_Is Oriental Adventures racist?_ Yes. It wasn't intended to be, and it's not the worst thing out there . . . but, yes.

_Is Oriental Adventures relevant anymore?_ Situationally, yes. Not as a supplement to a game anyone is playing anymore (AD&D 1E), but as a springboard into discussing the continuing problems D&D has with race and culture.

_Is there a mob out there brigading or canceling those involved with publishing Oriental Adventures back in 1988? Or even later products in the line (2001's Oriental Adventures 3E)?_ No. Nada. Zilch.

_Are the complaints about Oriental Adventures from Asian-gamer voices "chilling" non-Asian authors who want to include Asian cultural content in their products?_ Nope. Nada. Zilch.

_Are Asian-gamer voices, and their non-Asian allies, simply asking for awareness and for us to do better as a community?_ _Both at our tables and in new products?_ Yes.

_Do the Asian-gamer panelists of the podcast Asians Represent, well, represent all Asian voices on this subject?_ No, not that anyone was claiming it to be so. But we should listen to their voices, and those of other Asian-gamers.

_Does it matter than the Comeliness score was first introduced to AD&D in Unearthed Arcana, a few months before appearing in Oriental Adventures?_ _Do the Asian-gamers who see this as problematic make a mistake? _No. Also doesn't matter than other games include "honor" systems as well.

_If you purchased Oriental Adventures back in the day, used it in your games, and truly enjoyed the book and what it brought to your game table . . . are you a terrible racist person who should feel guilt over this?_ Of course not. But hopefully you'll listen to the voices of Asian-descent gamers in our community and try to do better at your tables than we did back in 1988.


----------



## Justice and Rule (Feb 7, 2022)

Scars Unseen said:


> Agreed.  I've posted this video before, but Lindsay Ellis' harassment is a good example of how our tendency to jump to judgement of not only content, but the people making said content can be substantially harmful.  It's worth noting that while she says she's fine in that video, after 6 more months of constant harassment, she quit, going so far as to say she regretted ever making anything at all.




I'd like to make note that with Lindsey that she had plenty of enemies and that her harassment was beyond just a "cancelling" and largely everyone who had sharpened knives for her coming out at that moment because they could. I know you brought this up before and I do agree it's a good example... but it's also got a whole lot of things going on and is more complicated, which is why it ended up being such a firestorm and so "successful".



Dire Bare said:


> You know . . . I think I'm done with this thread. As seems to be the case each time these types of discussions come up, a handful of folks go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to try and lessen the harm of the sexist and racist elements of D&D's development, history, and current form.




Some people are more interested in trying to question the questions rather than looking at answers. That's how it is.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 7, 2022)

Hussar said:


> Really, really doesn't change the point.



Hussar, the size of the total population of either group doesn't impact a statistical discussion on liklihoods based on being a member in either group.



Hussar said:


> In fact, you've now completely derailed your own point by providing information that people IN THE SAME AREA are more disadvantaged due to race.



Not at all.  My point never depended on that.  Which is part of why you see me freely acknowledging it.  My point was that certain groups of white people are worse off than certain groups of black people.  This fact is relevant in the discussion of white privilege.  Why?  Because it shows that many blacks are substantially more privileged (at least economically) than certain geographical groups of whites.  Being in severe poverty affects pretty much everything in your life and is one of the hardest obstacles to overcome - as has been stated by others.



Hussar said:


> I'm really, really not sure what you're trying to prove here.



That might have been a good thing to lead with


----------



## Scars Unseen (Feb 7, 2022)

Justice and Rule said:


> I'd like to make note that with Lindsey that she had plenty of enemies and that her harassment was beyond just a "cancelling" and largely everyone who had sharpened knives for her coming out at that moment because they could. I know you brought this up before and I do agree it's a good example... but it's also got a whole lot of things going on and is more complicated, which is why it ended up being such a firestorm and so "successful".




True, but I also don't think that's a unique situation.  Most people that put themselves out there are going to have their detractors (putting it _very_ mildly) looking for an opportunity, and of many of those who do, it's often going to be because of who they are rather than what they do.  The same kind of people who drove Near (the author of the Higan emulator) to suicide will gladly latch onto other online mobs who have found a mutually "acceptable" target even if it's for completely opposite reasons.  It's why I'm generally averse to joining my voice to any discussion that has a person as its target, even if the ostensible reason behind it is benign or in line with my own opinions.  Too many opportunities for it to turn ugly.

Which, admittedly, isn't really the thing going on with this specific topic, so I guess treat that like the tangent it is.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 7, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> Why wouldn't I?  The comparison clearly shows that whites from high poverty areas in the country experience more poverty than blacks from low poverty areas.  That seems a pretty important point if we are going to talk white privilege.




This reminds me of the time I got stopped in what I thought was a drunk driving roadblock, but was actually a seatbelt check roadblock, and I wasn't wearing my seatbelt.  Since he asked why I wasn't wearing it, I explained that I lived about 150 yards away, and I was about to get on the highway on-ramp in another 50 yards, and that I habitually buckle up while going down the ramp.  He said, "90% of all accidents happen within a mile of the home."  I responded, "Ok, but what overall percentage of driving happens within a mile of the home?"   He looked puzzled, so I said, "The first statistic is not relevant without the second statistic."

Actually, that anecdote is relevant to this conversation in two ways.  One, because this is what happens when we don't teach statistics in schools.  Two, after I basically insulted the cop's intelligence, he gave me a ticket and let me go.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 7, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> You know . . . I think I'm done with this thread. As seems to be the case each time these types of discussions come up, a handful of folks go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to try and lessen the harm of the sexist and racist elements of D&D's development, history, and current form.




Yup, I'm getting there myself.

If the goal of all this sophistry is to avoid having to address problems, then we're just feeding it by trying to engage.


----------



## Justice and Rule (Feb 7, 2022)

Scars Unseen said:


> True, but I also don't think that's a unique situation.  Most people that put themselves out there are going to have their detractors (putting it _very_ mildly) looking for an opportunity, and of many of those who do, it's often going to be because of who they are rather than what they do.  The same kind of people who drove Near (the author of the Higan emulator) to suicide will gladly latch onto other online mobs who have found a mutually "acceptable" target even if it's for completely opposite reasons.  It's why I'm generally averse to joining my voice to any discussion that has a person as its target, even if the ostensible reason behind it is benign or in line with my own opinions.  Too many opportunities for it to turn ugly.
> 
> Which, admittedly, isn't really the thing going on with this specific topic, so I guess treat that like the tangent it is.




Sure, but I think when we talk about RPGs and this sort of thing, we need to be more specific.

With Lindsey she had a big following, was in the middle of several messy situations between former colleagues and was hated by the right and certain parts of the left. When her whole moment happened, it was not about the moment itself but more that so many people were just waiting to pounce. I'm not sure that's really applicable to anything that's been discussed on this board. Similarly with Near, they were driven to suicide by concerted and constant online harassment... which, again, I don't think is comparable here (nor do I really count as cancelling here). But you basically admit that, so good on you.

I think my problem is that we should be pretty specific when we talk about "cancelling" and harassment in this regard. Like, I remember some people not liking the recent Critical Role opening and I'll say that I didn't see much harassment of Critical Role, but I did see a whole bunch of it happening to the people who brought it up. It's just way more common in my experience to see fans instinctively attack criticism (especially from a social justice bent) than creators.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 7, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> This reminds me of the time I got stopped in what I thought was a drunk driving roadblock, but was actually a seatbelt check roadblock, and I wasn't wearing my seatbelt.  Since he asked why I wasn't wearing it, I explained that I lived about 150 yards away, and I was about to get on the highway on-ramp in another 50 yards, and that I habitually buckle up while going down the ramp.  He said, "90% of all accidents happen within a mile of the home."  I responded, "Ok, but what overall percentage of driving happens within a mile of the home?"   He looked puzzled, so I said, "The first statistic is not relevant without the second statistic."
> 
> Actually, that anecdote is relevant to this conversation in two ways.  One, because this is what happens when we don't teach statistics in schools.  Two, after I basically insulted the cop's intelligence, he gave me a ticket and let me go.



Now that you are done implying that my statistics are somehow wrong - maybe you should think about stating where they are wrong?


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 7, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Yup, I'm getting there myself.
> 
> If the goal of all this sophistry is to avoid having to address problems, then we're just feeding it by trying to engage.



Please stop implying bad faith.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 7, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> If the goal of all this sophistry is to avoid having to address problems, then we're just feeding it by trying to engage.



Here's the thing, there's near universal agreement in this thread that OA is problematic.  The majority of this thread's participants would not want a new version of OA published that did not address the issues from 1985.  If all you want to do is make sure the same mistakes aren't repeated, well, great, I think almost everyone here is onboard with that starting with the name of the product itself.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 7, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Actually, that anecdote is relevant to this conversation in two ways. One, because this is what happens when we don't teach statistics in schools. Two, after I basically insulted the cop's intelligence, he gave me a ticket and let me go.



As a married man, I learned that this is called winning the argument but losing the fight.


----------



## Justice and Rule (Feb 7, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> Now that you are done implying that my statistics are somehow wrong - maybe you should think about stating where they are wrong?




Uh, they never implied that your statistics are wrong. They're just saying what I and others said: that your use of them is misleading because they obscure actual comparable things. That's the point of him saying "The first isn't relevant without the second".



MGibster said:


> Here's the thing, there's near universal agreement in this thread that OA is problematic.  The majority of this thread's participants would not want a new version of OA published that did not address the issues from 1985.  If all you want to do is make sure the same mistakes aren't repeated, well, great, I think almost everyone here is onboard with that starting with the name of the product itself.




While I would like your premise to be true, there are people within the last two pages who have literally disputed it, which is why we're talking about sophistry.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 7, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> Now that you are done implying that my statistics are somehow wrong - maybe you should think about stating where they are wrong?




Not wrong in the sense that your one number is wrong (I don't know what the number is, but I have no reason to not believe you.)

Wrong in the sense that it's not saying anything relevant to this discussion.  I almost wrote, "not what you think it's saying" but realized you may not be trying to say what I think you're trying to say.  But even if you're trying to say something else, your single datum has no useful relevance.  It is totally not surprising that if you take increasingly small samples of demographic data eventually you will find anomalous clusters.  

In fact, this is exactly what led to the "powerlines cause cancer" scare of the....70's?   If you look long enough, you'll find clusters of cancer cases that happen to be near high tension power lines.  You'll also find clusters of cancer cases near fishing ponds.  Or near gaming stores!   Or near just about anything else you care to search for.

_It doesn't mean anything._


----------



## MGibster (Feb 7, 2022)

Justice and Rule said:


> While I would like your premise to be true, there are people within the last two page who have literally disputed it, which is why we're talking about sophistry.



Near universal doesn't mean universal.  Look, I'm an apologist for OA because I think it has a place in the history of the game and there's value in keeping it available for those who are interested in buying it, but even I wouldn't want to see WotC remake it without addressing the many valid criticisms that have been brought up in this and previous threads.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Feb 7, 2022)

Justice and Rule said:


> Yeah, and how is that happening with WOTC? Like, part of the brigading situation is that the individual is being attacked by a mass. I don't see that happening to WOTC here.




I never said it had.  I think you've missed the context I brought it up in.  It was a side issue that relates to the topic at hand, but is not about it.


----------



## Justice and Rule (Feb 7, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> I never said it had.  I think you've missed the context I brought it up in.  It was a side issue that relates to the topic at hand, but is not about it.




Eh, maybe I did. In general I think we shouldn't bring up talk about canceling and brigading in these sorts of threads unless it's actually happening from the situation because it tends to occupy an outsized part of the discussion and ends up as a massive distraction.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 7, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Not wrong in the sense that your one number is wrong (I don't know what the number is, but I have no reason to not believe you.)



Right.  I get that.  I didn't think that's what you meant.



Bill Zebub said:


> Wrong in the sense that it's not saying anything relevant to this discussion.  I almost wrote, "not what you think it's saying" but realized you may not be trying to say what I think you're trying to say.  But even if you're trying to say something else, your single datum has no useful relevance.  It is totally not surprising that if you take increasingly small samples of demographic data eventually you will find anomalous clusters.



Now that's an actual criticism I would be happy to discuss.

I don't think I've ever heard the term anamolous cluster in relation to statistics.  So I'll try to answer without being 100% certain of your intent.  I'd suggest that the result I got was expected - some groups of whites will have greater poverty than some groups of blacks.  It's not unusual, or an anomoly.  It's a 100% expected result for a non-uniform distribution.  I'd suggest the unusual anamoly would occur if the data didn't result in this.  

In short calling it anamolous cluster seems to me more like a way to uncritically dismiss the data point.  Ultimately though, no matter what you call it or whether you agree with the above answer - what matters is 'what does this fact mean, especially in regards to privilege?'  



Bill Zebub said:


> In fact, this is exactly what led to the "powerlines cause cancer" scare of the....70's?   If you look long enough, you'll find clusters of cancer cases that happen to be near high tension power lines.  You'll also find clusters of cancer cases near fishing ponds.  Or near gaming stores!   Or near just about anything else you care to search for.
> 
> _It doesn't mean anything._



That sounds like a correlation vs causation issue and one that seems on the surface to have a fairly plausible explanation.  People live around power lines.  There's more powerlines around higher population areas.  So all it's ultimately measuring would what areas have higher population.  That is this is coorelation instead of causation.  I'm not particularly sure how what i did falls into the coorelation vs causation issue.  Maybe you can explain?


----------



## Hussar (Feb 7, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> Because it shows that many blacks are substantially more privileged (at least economically) than certain geographical groups of whites. Being in severe poverty affects pretty much everything in your life and is one of the hardest obstacles to overcome - as has been stated by others.



Define "many". Define "substantial". 

Yeah, this is pointless.  These questions are ridiculous.  

@Dire Bare has the right of this.  Continuing to engage is not going to go anywhere.  This has to be one of the most bizarre bits of mental gymnastics I've seen in a while and that's saying something.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 7, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Near universal doesn't mean universal.  Look, I'm an apologist for OA because I think it has a place in the history of the game and there's value in keeping it available for those who are interested in buying it, but even I wouldn't want to see WotC remake it without addressing the many valid criticisms that have been brought up in this and previous threads.



One problem with these discussions in general is that the things we disagree with are what gets brought up and discussed.  I've seen very little mention of valid criticisms here.  One did recently get brought up on another thread which was that the Japaneese named classes seemed to be the 'normal' ones while chineese named classes seemed to be the more unusual (like monk / barbarian if I remember correctly).  I think that's a pretty clear problem.  And I agree it's one I wouldn't want to see repeated in a new OA if that ever occured.


----------



## Voadam (Feb 7, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> Not at all. My point never depended on that. Which is part of why you see me freely acknowledging it. My point was that certain groups of white people are worse off than certain groups of black people. This fact is relevant in the discussion of white privilege. Why? Because it shows that many blacks are substantially more privileged (at least economically) than certain geographical groups of whites. Being in severe poverty affects pretty much everything in your life and is one of the hardest obstacles to overcome - as has been stated by others.



I think you have a misunderstanding of what white privilege is.

White privilege is not that White people are better off economically.

White privilege is the advantages of being White. A lot of that is White people not having to deal with the add on problems of not being White. It includes White being defined as normal and non-White as different from the normal or alien or threatening or other. It includes representation and identity issues. It includes an advantage of not dealing with the specific systemic disadvantages for Non-Whites.

This is separate from say male privilege which is men not having to deal with the issues that women do and having certain advantages just from their sex.

Non-White men have male privilege.

There is privilege economically from being rich or even from just not being poor.

There is privilege with health.

There is privilege about being a not minority religion.

There is privilege and lack of privilege in many, many dimensions.

The vast majority of people are a varying mix of privilege and not privilege.

Poor white people have white privilege by definition. That is not a consolation for being poor that makes being poor any better or a reason to dismiss their problems, but their white privilege does not go away because of other problems.


----------



## Mordhau (Feb 7, 2022)

I'm confused about why people think Oriental Adventures is particularly relevant to ongoing issues for D&D to do better?

It was written by writers who no longer work for a company that no longer exists, over a generation ago.

That doesn't mean that problems it may have no longer exist, but it does mean we can't assume they currently exist.  The place to go to look at any continuing issues would be more recent works.  Discussing 30 year old books, is if anything a distraction.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 7, 2022)

Hussar said:


> Define "many". Define "substantial".
> 
> Yeah, this is pointless.  These questions are ridiculous.
> 
> @Dire Bare has the right of this.  Continuing to engage is not going to go anywhere.  This has to be one of the most bizarre bits of mental gymnastics I've seen in a while and that's saying something.



I've been kind and cordial to you this whole time.  I've went out of my way to overlook the kinds of comments you constantly level toward me to foster discussion and maybe some understanding instead of the alternatives.  I don't appreciate the tone or the insults.  Though I doubt I've been perfect on that front either.  So thank you for at least giving me a voice for this long.  It's been much more pleasant than in times past.  Feel free to exit now or rengage in the discussion at any point.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 7, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> Right.  I get that.  I didn't think that's what you meant.
> 
> 
> Now that's an actual criticism I would be happy to discuss.
> ...




Um....ok.  I assumed you meant there was something significant or meaningful about that conclusion.  But if that's it, if you're really stopping there, then I take it back: you were right, you have demonstrated that some groups of whites will have greater poverty that some groups of blacks.

But OF COURSE THAT'S TRUE.  I mean, wtf?  Do you think it's _surprising_ there's an overlap in the two distributions?  Like, in order for systemic racism to be real, the richest blacks would have to be worse off than the poorest whites? 



FrogReaver said:


> That sounds like a correlation vs causation issue and one that seems on the surface to have a fairly plausible explanation.  People live around power lines.  There's more powerlines around higher population areas.  So all it's ultimately measuring would what areas have higher population.  That is this is coorelation instead of causation.  I'm not particularly sure how what i did falls into the coorelation vs causation issue.  Maybe you can explain?




First of all, it has nothing to do with higher population areas, so I think you're missing the point.  Cancer may not be actually random, but we can treat it as quasi-random.  So pretend you are throwing darts at a map on the wall, and each hole is a cancer case.  Although the dots are random, they aren't distributed evenly: some areas have more dots, some have fewer.  

Now, what you want to "prove" (because you are a sleazy pseudo-journalist) is that high-tension powerlines cause cancer.  So you mark all your high tension powerline towers on your map, and then you look for the ones that happen to end up inside your random clusters of dart holes.  And some of them will be.  Boom: there's your "evidence" that EM causes cancer.  So you go to the town where that cluster is, and demonstrate that the cancer rate within 1/4 mile of that tower is 5.7 TIMES THE NATIONAL AVERAGE and the newspapers go nuts.  (This is basically what happened in Long Island in the 80's.)

But, of course, there's no correlation OR causation.  It's just that random distributions are not smoothly distributed.  They are clumpy.

The same is true for any other demographic data.  Such as poverty rates.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 7, 2022)

Voadam said:


> I think you have a misunderstanding of what white privilege is.
> 
> White privilege is not that White people are better off economically.




Yes.  In my attempts to bring statistical enlightenment I have wanted to write, "By the way, we are _just_ talking about income/net worth here, and ignoring all the challenges that blacks face in dealing with police, teachers, employers, real estate agents, etc. etc. etc."

But one thing at a time.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 7, 2022)

Voadam said:


> I think you have a misunderstanding of what white privilege is.
> 
> White privilege is not that White people are better off economically.
> 
> ...



That's fair.  I may have a misunderstanding there.  Let's say I accept your definition.  How insulting is it to the white people in poverty to tell them they have privilege in relation to Lebron James, when any bit of white privilege they have is miniscule in comparison to his 500 million dollar net worth privilege.  I mean it's obvious that they technically have white privilege by your definition but still incredibly insulting.  IMO.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 7, 2022)

By the way, for anybody who truly interested in some perspective on race, Isabel Wilkerson's book "Caste" is amazing.

Her basic thesis is that it's not just pointless but counterproductive to try to identify and shame bad apple racists.  They aren't the problem.  The problem is that our society has long-held, deeply-seated beliefs that are both reflected and propagated by our social systems.  I couldn't put the book down, and honestly I don't spend much time reading about social issues.

She doesn't use this particular analogy, but one way of thinking about it is that a lot of the problems with police violence toward black men isn't because the individual cops are "racist" in the traditional sense, but that our society has instilled in them an idea that black men are dangerous.  They don't _intend_ to resort to violence more readily with black men, but they are primed to more quickly interpret danger signals.  Thus, the solution isn't to root out the blatant racists from our police departments, but to address the sources/causes of this fear.  That biased fear _is_ racism, but not the sort that is usually invoked by that word.  (Which is why Wilkerson's use of the word "caste" in place of "racism" can be helpful.)


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 7, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> That's fair.  I may have a misunderstanding there.  Let's say I accept your definition.  *How insulting is it to the white people in poverty to tell them they have privilege in relation to Lebron James.*  Any bit of white privilege they have is miniscule in comparison to his 500 million dollar net worth privilege.  I mean it's obvious that they technically have white privilege by your definition but still incredibly insulting.  IMO.




Once again you have left me speechless.


----------



## Voadam (Feb 7, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> One problem with these discussions in general is that the things we disagree with are what gets brought up and discussed.  I've seen very little mention of valid criticisms here.  One did recently get brought up on another thread which was that the Japaneese named classes seemed to be the 'normal' ones while chineese named classes seemed to be the more unusual (like monk / barbarian if I remember correctly).  I think that's a pretty clear problem.  And I agree it's one I wouldn't want to see repeated in a new OA if that ever occured.



Close.

Most every class is Japanese and the Japanese ones fit in with the feudal Japanese society portrayed in OA.

Exceptions are the Chinese Monks and Wu Jen and the Barbarians who are Mongols for the steppe barbarians and I am not sure for the cold forest and jungle barbarians (possibly a bunch of more South Asian ethnicities).

The Chinese monks are outside of the feudal Japanese honor system entirely and Wu-Jen are said to rarely be found living with the rest of human society. For barbarians it says: 

Barbarians are automatically considered outsiders and thus occupy the lowest levels of the caste system. Barbarian characters never roll on Table 38: Character Birth. When dealing with people from the settled lands, the birth of the barbarian has little importance. The military and financial power of the barbarian is a far more important factor. The barbarian's clan is very important to him and other barbarians, and all barbarians must belong to a particular clan.

So the non-Japanese ones are all fairly outside of the society of OA.

This can work for a specific fantasy feudal Japanese centered setting but can get to be a bad fit quick if taking any other perspective on an Asian setting.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 7, 2022)

Voadam said:


> I think you have a misunderstanding of what white privilege is.
> 
> White privilege is not that White people are better off economically.
> 
> ...



And the thing is, it's not surprising that people misunderstand this. There's a lot of nuance in the topic and people tend to not be very good at nuance. People hear they have <various, but particularly white> privilege, they look at their crappy lives, high bills, and stress, and return with "I don't *feel* privileged" and reflexively get defensive on it.

And it's easy for politicians, particularly of the populist but not very subtle variety, to rally people around that defensiveness. It's a lot harder to effectively communicate nuanced ideas.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 7, 2022)

Voadam said:


> Close.
> 
> Most every class is Japanese and the Japanese ones fit in with the feudal Japanese society portrayed in OA.
> 
> ...



Thanks and apologies as well.  You say here what I was trying to say without messing up the race/nationality of classes in question.


----------



## Deset Gled (Feb 7, 2022)

Mordhau said:


> Was 'Oriental' considered racist when the book was written?





Dire Bare said:


> Yes.
> 
> Certainly, words change meanings and connotations. Including the word "oriental". But back in 1988? Yes. Awareness of that wasn't as widespread as it is today, and it's not on the same level as some other slurs. But again, do we need to determine the relative offensiveness of the term to agree it is offensive?




No.

Oriental Adventures was first published in 1985.  At that time "Oriental" was not considered a racist term by default.  Many universities still had "Oriental Studies" as a field of study into the 90s.  University of Pennsylvania changed their department name to remove "Oriental" in 1991, University of Arizona in 1990, and that's just what I could find with a quick google search.  TSR may not have been on the cutting edge of terminology, but you can't fault them for their usage of it at the time.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 7, 2022)

Mordhau said:


> I'm confused about why people think Oriental Adventures is particularly relevant to ongoing issues for D&D to do better?
> 
> It was written by writers who no longer work for a company that no longer exists, over a generation ago.
> 
> That doesn't mean that problems it may have no longer exist, but it does mean we can't assume they currently exist.  The place to go to look at any continuing issues would be more recent works.  Discussing 30 year old books, is if anything a distraction.



IMO, it's a bit of a microcosm.


----------



## Mordhau (Feb 7, 2022)

Voadam said:


> Close.
> 
> Most every class is Japanese and the Japanese ones fit in with the feudal Japanese society portrayed in OA.
> 
> ...



From memory there's some very odd design there.  IIRC just about all of the non-human races are also outside of society.

Which means the average party would not fit into the society at all.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 7, 2022)

Mordhau said:


> From memory there's some very odd design there.  IIRC just about all of the non-human races are also outside of society.
> 
> Which means the average party would not fit into the society at all.



lol, that's just D&D for ya


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 7, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Once again you have left me speechless.



Why?


----------



## Mordhau (Feb 7, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> lol, that's just D&D for ya



Well yes.  But it does make you wonder what they thought they were trying to do.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 7, 2022)

Mordhau said:


> Well yes.  But it does make you wonder what they thought they were trying to do.



Make Japanese themed themed D&D?  I feel like I'm missing something here.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 7, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> That's fair.  I may have a misunderstanding there.  Let's say I accept your definition.  How insulting is it to the white people in poverty to tell them they have privilege in relation to Lebron James, when any bit of white privilege they have is miniscule in comparison to his 500 million dollar net worth privilege.  I mean it's obvious that they technically have white privilege by your definition but still incredibly insulting.  IMO.




I mean...JFC...the implication here that the only way these 'white people in poverty' will accept the notion of white privilege is if there are literally no successful blacks in America for them to compare themselves to.  That as long as some, or even one, black person achieves great success, white privilege must be a myth.

Which is just so f'ed up I'm kind of dazed.

Which actually makes me think of Isabel Wilkerson again, who points out in "Caste" that often the staunchest defenders of a caste system are those on the lower, but not very bottom, rungs.  That people _near_ the bottom want to be able to point to a group even more reviled than themselves, and say, "At least I ain't one of them!"


----------



## Scars Unseen (Feb 7, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> That's fair. I may have a misunderstanding there. Let's say I accept your definition. How insulting is it to the white people in poverty to tell them they have privilege in relation to Lebron James, when any bit of white privilege they have is miniscule in comparison to his 500 million dollar net worth privilege. I mean it's obvious that they technically have white privilege by your definition but still incredibly insulting. IMO.



I think the first thing to take into account there is that having privilege doesn't mean you are automatically better off than anyone lacking your privilege.  Even in the post you quoted, that should be evident simply because of the existence of multiple types of privilege.  But fame or no, wealth or no, Lebron James could still find himself in situations where, due to the color of his skin, he could face significantly higher risk of harassment or physical harm than if he were white.  More so even than a poor person who was white.  All it takes is being in the wrong place, wrong time where his wealth doesn't apply and his fame isn't noticed.  Then he's just another black guy living in a society where figures of authority often make harsher judgement calls against black people than white.  And that's just _one_ area where PoC are disadvantaged against white people.

If people know that and still feel insulted?  That's on them.


----------



## Mordhau (Feb 7, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> Make Japanese themed themed D&D?  I feel like I'm missing something here.



There's a whole lot of rules and elements that seem to assume that PCs will slot into society and the caste system and that doing so is one of the things that makes playing OA unique...

...but then they exclude a huge chunk of the character options from that.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 7, 2022)

Deset Gled said:


> Oriental Adventures was first published in 1985.  At that time "Oriental" was not considered a racist term by default.  Many universities still had "Oriental Studies" as a field of study into the 90s.  University of Pennsylvania changed their department name to remove "Oriental" in 1991, University of Arizona in 1990, and that's just what I could find with a quick google search.  TSR may not have been on the cutting edge of terminology, but you can't fault them for their usage of it at the time.




The mistake you are making here is to assume that because a term is socially acceptable it doesn't carry negative connotations.  Often it just means that nobody bothers to ask the people it's describing.  Or doesn't care what they are saying.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 7, 2022)

Scars Unseen said:


> I think the first thing to take into account there is that having privilege doesn't mean you are automatically better off than anyone lacking your privilege.  Even in the post you quoted, that should be evident simply because of the existence of multiple types of privilege.  But fame or no, wealth or no, Lebron James could still find himself in situations where, due to the color of his skin, he could face significantly higher risk of harassment or physical harm than if he were white.  More so even than a poor person who was white.  All it takes is being in the wrong place, wrong time where his wealth doesn't apply and his fame isn't noticed.  Then he's just another black guy living in a society where figures of authority often make harsher judgement calls against black people than white.  And that's just _one_ area where PoC are disadvantaged against white people.
> 
> If people know that and still feel insulted?  That's on them.




And I want to reiterate that dealing with police is just _one_ facet of privilege.  Whites are more likely to get called in to interviews.  To get favorable terms on bank loans, or to get the loans at all.  To have mistakes (especially as kids) be forgiven and forgotten.  To get help from strangers.  Etc. etc. etc.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 7, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> I mean...JFC...the implication here that the only way these 'white people in poverty' will accept the notion of white privilege is if there are literally no successful blacks in America for them to compare themselves to.  That as long as some, or even one, black person achieves great success, white privilege must be a myth.



I don't think that's anyone's position.  I think it's more contextual than that.  It's not so much that they won't accept the notion of white privilege.  It's much more that they don't accept the importance that's being placed on it especially since no other kind of privilege is ever mentioned in society at large (possibly in academic discourse).  



Bill Zebub said:


> Which is just so f'ed up I'm kind of dazed.
> 
> Which actually makes me think of Isabel Wilkerson again, who points out in "Caste" that often the staunchest defenders of a caste system are those on the lower, but not very bottom, rungs.  That people _near_ the bottom want to be able to point to a group even worse off than themselves, and say, "At least I ain't one of them!"



To me that seems like a very childlike way of viewing the world.  People are around to ask their thoughts for why they take a particular position.  Why does no one do that, instead of just blindly speculating about why they do something?


----------



## Deset Gled (Feb 7, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> The mistake you are making here is to assume that because a term is socially acceptable it doesn't carry negative connotations.  Often it just means that nobody bothers to ask the people it's describing.  Or doesn't care what they are saying.




That's an interesting philosophical point, but not relevant to the question I was answering.  I'm specifically talking about the social acceptability of the term (at a particular time), which is a highly relevant thing to understand when considering historical works.


----------



## Voadam (Feb 7, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> That's fair.  I may have a misunderstanding there.  Let's say I accept your definition.  How insulting is it to the white people in poverty to tell them they have privilege in relation to Lebron James, when any bit of white privilege they have is miniscule in comparison to his 500 million dollar net worth privilege.  I mean it's obvious that they technically have white privilege by your definition but still incredibly insulting.  IMO.



If it is framed in the definitional context and not conflated with overall total benefits and juxtaposed with an individual rare economic outlier I would not call it insulting. 

White privilege is generally framed as a matter generally applicable to White people as compared to Non-White people, and as a framework for evaluating systemic racial specific issues. Not as individuals or a specifically disadvantaged group versus Lebron James' net worth.

Oprah Winfrey existing and being successful and rich does not turn the concept of male privilege insulting.

People can choose to feel insulted by being described as having any privilege at all when they have a serious dimension of disadvantage (or even if they don't) but that is a choice.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 7, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> The mistake you are making here is to assume that because a term is socially acceptable it doesn't carry negative connotations.  Often it just means that nobody bothers to ask the people it's describing.  Or doesn't care what they are saying.



I don't discount that what you say here could be true.  But someone offered evidence that the term was used in academic circles for many years after which is fairly persuasive evidence.  Yet all you are offering is speculation that maybe those groups were offended by it at the time.  Unless otherwise demonstrated I'd take the demonstrated academic use as the term being accepted for that particular use and maybe even preferred for it.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 7, 2022)

Voadam said:


> If it is framed in the definitional context and not conflated with overall total benefits and juxtaposed with an individual rare economic outlier I would not call it insulting.
> 
> White privilege is generally framed as a matter generally applicable to White people as compared to Non-White people, and as a framework for evaluating systemic racial specific issues. Not as individuals or a specifically disadvantaged group versus Lebron James' net worth.
> 
> ...



Maybe that's how it should be used but I've seen it quite often being directed at the individual and when it is directed at the individual it does come across very insulting especially if they are very underprivileged in another area.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Feb 7, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> I don't think that's anyone's position.  I think it's more contextual than that.  It's not so much that they won't accept the notion of white privilege.  It's much more that they don't accept the importance that's being placed on it especially since no other kind of privilege is ever mentioned in society at large (possibly in academic discourse).



You do realize “not accepting the importance” of it, or talking about “other kinds of privilege” is basically the same as saying it’s a myth, right? If there are lots of kinds of privilege floating around, and they are all more or less equal, then the implication is that they kind of cancel out. One guy’s white privilege is equal to (or less than!) another guy’s affirmative action, so we’re good, right?

No. Just, no.

But I’m realizing my ability to detect windmills is failing me, so I shall bow out.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 7, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> You do realize “not accepting the importance” of it, or talking about “other kinds of privilege” is basically the same as saying it’s a myth, right?



Fully Disagree.  That's not the same thing at all.



Bill Zebub said:


> But I’m realizing my ability to detect windmills is failing me, so I shall bow out.



Please don't insinuate bad faith.  But by all means bow out if you wish.  Nothing to hold against you there.  Feel free to reengage at any time.  No hard feelings on my side.


----------



## Voadam (Feb 7, 2022)

Deset Gled said:


> That's an interesting philosophical point, but not relevant to the question I was answering.  I'm specifically talking about the social acceptability of the term (at a particular time), which is a highly relevant thing to understand when considering historical works.



The East Asian Studies class I took in the 80s (in New England) discussed issues about it. The takeway then from the class was that Oriental was considered a term for things: "Oriental rugs" "The Orient" but that there were people who considered it insultingly objectifying to be called "Orientals" instead of Asians.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 7, 2022)

Voadam said:


> The East Asian Studies class I took in the 80s (in New England) discussed issues about it. The takeway then from the class was that Oriental was considered a term for things: "Oriental rugs" "The Orient" but that there were people who considered it insultingly objectifying to be called "Orientals" instead of Asians.



Out of curiousity, Do you remember why they found it insultingly objectifying?


----------



## Voadam (Feb 7, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> Maybe that's how it should be used but I've seen it quite often being directed at the individual and when it is directed at the individual it does come across very insulting especially if they are very underprivileged in another area.



I should probably amend that. Discussions of privilege are also used to encourage individuals to think about their own privilege. Either in isolation on one dimension, or to think about multiple dimensions and which ways they have privilege and which ways they do not. Usually to encourage empathy for those without privilege and an appreciation for the privileges that people have.

Privilege can also be used rhetorically as a cudgel or as a way to denigrate someone's lack of privilege in another dimension. This is generally antagonistically divisive. This can go both ways.

"You are White so I don't have to care about the problems of poverty you face."
"You are not poor so I don't have to care about the problems of racism you face."

That is more the specific rhetorical use than the concept though.


----------



## Voadam (Feb 7, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> Out of curiousity, Do you remember why they found it insultingly objectifying?



Because they were people and not objects and there was a bit of a linguistic split along those lines on how Asian versus Oriental was used.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 7, 2022)

Voadam said:


> I should probably amend that. Discussions of privilege are also used to encourage individuals to think about their own privilege. Either in isolation on one dimension, or to think about multiple dimensions and which ways they have privilege and which ways they do not. Usually to encourage empathy for those without privilege and an appreciation for the privileges that people have.
> 
> Privilege can also be used rhetorically as a cudgel or as a way to denigrate someone's lack of privilege in another dimension. This is generally antagonistically divisive. This can go both ways.
> 
> ...



I've also often seen it used to dismiss other points of view.  'You couldn't understand because of your privilege'


----------



## Cadence (Feb 7, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> I've also often seen it used to dismiss other points of view.  'You couldn't understand because of your privilege'




"I realize African Americans have been subject to red lining and segregation and hiring and health care discrimination legally within the lives of many posters here, and continue to be discriminated against illegally in some ways. And how those affects and the affects of the centuries of being shat on before that didn't vanish overnight with the passing of the civil rights acts, and leave a collective mountain of familial wealth disparity.  But what really hurts is that once in a while folks on the internet tell me I can't understand something because I'm white."

Repeat for Asian Americans with laws making it illegal for them to immigrate or become citizens,  and Hispanic Americans and differences in treatment for immigration and language assimilation compared to groups immigrating from Europe who also ran churches and businesses in their native languages for decades, and Native Americans who were repeatedly shoved off their land by faux treaties. And how it's mean when they tell folks who aren't a racial or ethnic minority how they just can't understand

Repeat for women who couldn't have their own credit cards and could be legally raped by their husbands  until many of our lifetimes and a plethora of previous and ongoing things... And that it's awful how some women hurt men once in a while by saying they can't understand.

And repeat for folks who identify as LGBTQ+ for whom it was illegal to have sex in some states during the lifetime of almost everyone posting on here and where several major presidential candidates have publicly gone to events with folks supporting the murder of LGBTQ+ folks in other countries in the last decade. And how the important thing is to remember how painful it is for cis-het folks to sometimes be told they just can't understand.

And repeat for folks with various disabilities who still have to go to court to get the ADA enforced and who still can't get places to give accessible web content and have trouble with schools having the staff  follow 504 plans.  And how mean it is when someone with a disability exasperatedly tell folks without disabilities how they just can't understand.

And repeat for those suffering intergenerational poverty who are shat on like they always are in terms of quality of schools and healthcare and numerous other things.  And how the real problem is impoverished folks telling those with more money that they just can't understand.

Won't someone think of the folks being told they can't understand!

Won't everyone else stop talking about their pain and let me talk about mine right now!

I wish we could just make it all get better. :-(


----------



## AnotherGuy (Feb 7, 2022)

Cadence said:


> "I realize African Americans have been subject to red lining and segregation and hiring and health care discrimination legally within the lives of many posters here, and continue to be discriminated against illegally in some ways. And how those affects and the affects of the centuries of being shat on before that didn't vanish overnight with the passing of the civil rights acts, and leave a collective mountain of familial wealth disparity.  But what really hurts is that once in a while folks on the internet tell me I can't understand something because I'm white."
> 
> Repeat for Asian Americans with laws making it illegal for them to immigrate or become citizens,  and Hispanic Americans and differences in treatment for immigration and language assimilation compared to groups immigrating from Europe who also ran churches and businesses in their native languages for decades, and Native Americans who were repeatedly shoved off their land by faux treaties. And how it's mean when they tell folks who aren't a racial or ethnic minority how they just can't understand
> 
> ...




Whether you believe an _outsider_ can or cannot understand, the comment has proven not to be helpful in a dialogue which requires more than one person talking. There are ways we can build on past mistakes, perceived or otherwise, and ways we can further isolate from each other.

For many roleplayers the book brought them x hours of joy and perhaps a kinship with their brothers and sisters in the East. Along with the bad, the book did a lot of good. I think that is something that does get glossed over from time to time.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Feb 7, 2022)

Voadam said:


> The East Asian Studies class I took in the 80s (in New England) discussed issues about it. The takeway then from the class was that Oriental was considered a term for things: "Oriental rugs" "The Orient" but that there were people who considered it insultingly objectifying to be called "Orientals" instead of Asians.



Yeah, this is how I've always understood the term 'oriental.'


----------



## Cadence (Feb 7, 2022)

AnotherGuy said:


> Whether you believe an _outsider_ can or cannot understand, the comment has proven not to be helpful in a dialogue which requires more than one person talking. There are ways we can build on past mistakes, perceived or otherwise, and ways we can further isolate from each other.




When someone is expressing their pain about something that needs fixing,  someone else jumping in and saying how they have pain too doesn't seem like it necessarily helps the conversation. Sometimes it can be an expression of empathy, sometimes a start at collaboration towards helping, and sometimes just a whataboutist dismissal.  It's ok to let people express pain, and then wait for a different time to discuss ones own pain or possible solutions.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Feb 7, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> In the case of a Waldenbooks, the equation may have been a bit more strategic. They also knew that BADD represented about 1 500,000th of their possible customer base, but if they had caved on a D&D book, then the arsehats would have been back a week later with another list of things that they demanded be censored, and it would NEVER END. So, hey, why not just draw the line in the sand right at the start with something that was not ACTUALLY all that controversial. It was actually a pretty clever move on their part, as it cast all the book banning idiots into basically the worst light possible.



There's truth in this and I think people are confusing smart strategy with commitment to principle. It absolutely makes sense to hold your ground, especially on something not-actually-very-controversial and fairly profitable, in order to not have to keep doing it in future. That doesn't mean you're "committed to free speech", it means you've got basic business acumen and an understanding of how people work.


Bedrockgames said:


> I think it is fair to debate what the impact of the satanic panic was in terms of bottom line for D&D, but the satanic panic itself wasn't a joke and it wasn't limited to fringe.



I would agree that it wasn't a joke in two areas:

1) Law enforcement.

2) Child services or whatever you call it in the US - "social workers" we'd say in the UK.

Outside of those two areas, it pretty much was a joke.


Bedrockgames said:


> America is a very religious county, and at the time was even more religious, so it wasn't like this was only affecting a small portion of the population.



The issue here is that the vast majority of religious people in the US did not believe in SRA, and absolutely were not part of the panic or concerned about it on a day to day basis. And quite a number of the people who were at the forefront in pushing/promoting SRA were quite... alternative... in their takes on religion, often veering more towards what might be called mysticism and in some cases actually claiming organised religion (particularly Catholicism) was part of SRA. I'm not sure you'd even find much of a correlation between religiosity and believing in SRA.

So I'm not sure that tracks.

But the reason it was a problem was because they SRA people intentionally infiltrated and lied to the police and the social workers, blasting them with propaganda, books full of absolutely fictional "studies", training videos on how to spot SRA (which were nothing more than modern-day equivalents of 1600s/1700s manuals on finding witches), and similar nonsense. Generally the more senior the person involved, the less likely they were to be taken in, but an awful lot of police forces and social worker organisations were very thoroughly infiltrated/propagandized at the lower levels. Which then lead to people being accused of truly ludicrous crimes (and sometimes even convicted, those juries should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves), kids being taken away for no reason, and so on.


Bedrockgames said:


> I honestly have trouble not reading this as downplaying. Poverty doesn’t just suck. It can be a matter of life and death. It can be the threat of becoming homeless in the near future).



I think this is true but perhaps what you're not looking at is that it's far more common for non-white groups in the US to endure severe poverty, especially over multiple generations, and because of complex structural racism (as well as old-fashioned individual racism), it tends to be a lot harder for non-white people to find a way out of poverty, and far easier for them to find their way into poverty (for all sorts of reasons). It's a complex issue.

I do think there is sometimes a real failure of imagination among middle-class Americans about just how poor some Americans are, and how profoundly weak America's support mechanisms are for individuals or families in poverty (esp. compared to much of Europe, which is itself far from perfect here), but poverty and race are so intertwined in the US (esp. as noted, it being easier to get into poverty, and harder to get out if non-white, as well as generational poverty being vastly more common) that separating them cleanly isn't easy.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 7, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Outside of those two areas, it pretty much was a joke.
> 
> The issue here is that the vast majority of religious people in the US did not believe in SRA, and absolutely were not part of the panic or concerned about it on a day to day basis. And quite a number of the people who were at the forefront in pushing/promoting SRA were quite... alternative... in their takes on religion, often veering more towards what might be called mysticism and in some cases actually claiming organised religion (particularly Catholicism) was part of SRA. I'm not sure you'd even find much of a correlation between religiosity and believing in SRA.




I would be very interested where you are getting our data from because it really doesn't match what I saw living through the satanic panic. The satanic panic started out as concern about SRA, and that continued and was a driving factor, but it was a mix of many things and there were secular concerns that got caught up in that storm. And the fact that it doesn't necessarily correlate to religiosity is the point: it became a very mainstream concern. But I don't know what the break down was in terms of how many religious people bought into it, I think I do have a better appreciation of the impact among religious people in the US than you do though (and I don't mean that in an insulting way, so I hope the tone is coming out right). Again, as far as I know, i don't think Catholicism got all that swept up in it (at least in my experience, it may have varied a bit). But among evangelicals and other protestant groups, including the Episcopalian church my family was attending (which is generally not regarded as particularly close to the evangelical movement), it seemed rather a prevalent idea. And out of that was a growing concern in general about the impact of things like Heavy Metal and D&D. A show like the 700 club wasn't that far outside the mainstream of the evangelical movement (and in the 80s the evangelical movement was quite large). And it wasn't just he 700 club, you saw it on lots of televangelist programming at the time. You also saw it on the nightly news. I cannot understate this. It was so mainstream a concern, it was taken seriously by news broadcasts and by talkshows. And again, it wasn't just about SRA. It become a much broader moral backlash against media content, leading up to things like the PMRC. The PMRC wasn't concerned about SRA, but it arose in an environment where people were concerned about satanic imagery and messages in music, subliminal messages, etc.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 7, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> But the reason it was a problem was because they SRA people intentionally infiltrated and lied to the police and the social workers, blasting them with propaganda, books full of absolutely fictional "studies", training videos on how to spot SRA (which were nothing more than modern-day equivalents of 1600s/1700s manuals on finding witches), and similar nonsense. Generally the more senior the person involved, the less likely they were to be taken in, but an awful lot of police forces and social worker organisations were very thoroughly infiltrated/propagandized at the lower levels. Which then lead to people being accused of truly ludicrous crimes (and sometimes even convicted, those juries should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves), kids being taken away for no reason, and so on.




But this required the existence of a pretty widespread cultural panic in order to even take hold. And it wasnt' limited to low ranking people in police department, the media coverage of these accusations was very unfavorable to the defendants because the media bought into the SRA claims. It was years before there was skeptical push back.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 7, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I think this is true but perhaps what you're not looking at is that it's far more common for non-white groups in the US to endure severe poverty, especially over multiple generations, and because of complex structural racism (as well as old-fashioned individual racism), it tends to be a lot harder for non-white people to find a way out of poverty, and far easier for them to find their way into poverty (for all sorts of reasons). It's a complex issue.




I said in my posts that poverty disproportional affected different groups (and gave many of the numbers in my own state where among black people it is something like 17.5 % and among whites 6.5%; with Latinos and Native Americans being the highest poverty). And I said that is an issue in need of fixing. I also said there can be disadvantages associated with belonging to one of these groups. I don't think the term structural racism is an accurate one (I think it obscures what you are fighting, because it often isn't racism itself), but I do think it points to genuine disparities and disadvantages. And I think the term privilege, while it may also point to some real issues, becomes too simple an explanation for things, gets easily exaggerated, and isn't a particularly useful way to understand what drives a lot of the disapariities. So I would quibble over language and solutions. But I don't disagree on the broader point that if someone is black, in general they are going to face more challenges in the US. My point was simply that people often minimize the issue of poverty in these discussions and prioritize identity, and that is a problem when you have people are exceptions to the general rules. Yes where I live, you are far less likely to be poor if you are white, but if you are in that 6.5 %, and especially if you are on the lower end of it, if you are looking down homelessness, or if you are experiencing generational poverty, it is incredibly frustrating for such a person to be told "well you may have trouble paying the bills but you are still priviliged". That betrays a real misunderstanding of how crippling poverty is (and how many other disadvantages poverty imposes on a person's life). One of the reasons I dislike the term privilege is, it assumes a lot about a person's experience based on their identity. It causes us not to see people as individuals I think. And it is almost like this invisible attribute people treat as an unchanging number floating over a person's head. And that is all people seem to see someones. A person who is extremely poor, and in bad health, is not going to feel like that number is anything but zero. And it is just obvious from these conversations people seem to have a harder time feeling empathy towards anyone they think of as having some kind of privileged status.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 7, 2022)

*Mod NOte:*
And, I come in this morning to about a dozen reports, and a thread that has gone a great distance from actually discussing gaming.  You know, that topic the entire site is about?  We allow some leeway, but folks are just way off in left field now, so I'll just close this.


----------

