This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Paizo has, among other things, removed slavery from the Pathfinder campaign setting because some SJWs found it offensive (see the edit at the bottom with Paizo's response). In case anyone was wondering why the rulers of Cheliax who worship Asmodeus (the ruler of Hell with Tyranny as one of his divine domains) have canonically abolished slavery. Whatever else is happening, culture war is as well, and not just as a cover for other motives.
I think this is the wrong way to think about it. "Race" as a term for a group with a shared ancestry predates and has a broader definition than modern biological classifications. D&D used the term race and not "species" because Tolkien and other fantasy authors did, and the reason why they used it is due to writing settings that are descended from premodern myths/fairy-tales and that are meant to evoke a premodern sense of the world. Heck, in 3.x (the edition I'm most familiar with) the apes in the Monster Manual literally have claws, I'm guessing because someone made a deliberate decision to not base them on real-life apes but instead inaccurate medieval bestiaries. So there's no reason to assume D&D crossbreeding follows the rules of modern biology in the first place.
One annoying thing about discussions of D&D racial alignments is how rarely they engage with the actual text. "Always [alignment]" was of course invented by 3rd edition and used for outsiders like demons, some undead like ghouls, and a handful of other creatures like dragons and mind-flayers. Orcs by contrast are "Often chaotic evil". Those terms were defined thusly in the Monster Manual glossary:
If they actually engaged with it I wonder if a lot of SJWs would actually find this more objectionable. "Skewed distributions of traits, not absolute rules" are, after all, the sorts of differences based on race or sex that people tend to believe exist in real life.
Of course, Malediction is still on the book. Personally, I would much rather be worked to death in some Cheliax salt mine and face Pharasma's judgement than be summarily sent to spend even a single eon in the tender cares of Asmodeus.
I think the underlying thing is that for SJ, the topic of slavery is simply sacred, and can only be mentioned in sufficiently pious, orthodox works, and an RPG which lets you play evil characters simply does not qualify. (Of course, half of the sacredness is in the word slavery, if the game had simply called an enslaved person a serf (and perhaps gotten rid of the slave markets), most of the objections would have gone away.)
Personally, I have a strong preference that worldbuilding should include organizations whose attitude to diversity is different from a 2015 tech company. I think that fictional racism/speciecism is fine, and actually a good way to tackle these topics without stepping on the toes real world people (except for the professionally offended). Pratchett did this masterfully in Discworld with the ethnic tensions between trolls and dwarfs. Likewise, slavery and serfdom were unfortunately common in a lot of human societies long before Europeans settled in the Americas.
Nor is including a price range for slaves per se offensive. Most reasons why a DM would require this information are non-malevolent, like "can we afford to simply buy our source and set them free instead of breaking them out". Per default, the adventurer lifestyle does not lend itself to slave ownership.
Now, if the source books had made special accommodations for PCs owning slaves -- like saying and you can get a discreet obedience tattoo for your slave which will force them to obey you, I would consider that in poor taste, just as I would consider an info box on how to use the grappling rules to rape someone. But on priors, I doubt this was what happened here.
Anyhow, I am looking forward to seeing how long it will take for SJ to get universal franchise for all residents of Cheliax.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link