Dungeons & Dragons Has an Antisemitism Problem
https://www.heyalma.com/dungeons-dragons-has-an-antisemitism-problem/?utm_content=bufferb853b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=mjlfacebook&utm_campaign=buffer&fbclid=IwAR0cELquS6e0pje_F5BVuI0c5WOLAmG9UArkR_LGw49-dTWjEAFz9O_Gtx0
I have no comment...
Quote from: GameDaddy on February 02, 2021, 10:37:48 PM
Dungeons & Dragons Has an Antisemitism Problem
https://www.heyalma.com/dungeons-dragons-has-an-antisemitism-problem/?utm_content=bufferb853b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=mjlfacebook&utm_campaign=buffer&fbclid=IwAR0cELquS6e0pje_F5BVuI0c5WOLAmG9UArkR_LGw49-dTWjEAFz9O_Gtx0
I have no comment...
I do. Once you bend the knee, they will kick you in the ass for not kneeling hard enough.
If Dwarves are supposed to be Jewish* then how come they always speak with a Scottish accent?
Check and mate.
If you are looking for Jewish caricatures then the best I have seen are the Goblin Money Changers from the Harry Potter franchise which is famously not a DnD world.
Quote from: Shasarak on February 04, 2021, 09:57:44 PM
If Dwarves are supposed to be Jewish* then how come they always speak with a Scottish accent?
They might have Scottish accents in adaptations, but the Jewish parallel was confirmed by Tolkien himself.
QuoteIn a BBC radio interview with Dennis Gueroult, recorded in 1964 and broadcast the next year, Tolkien made a statement connecting his Dwarves with the Jewish people. What he said was: 'The Dwarves of course are quite obviously – wouldn't you say that in many ways they remind you of the Jews? Their words are Semitic obviously, constructed to be Semitic.' Also in 1964, he wrote to W.R. Matthews: 'The language of the Dwarves [...] is Semitic in cast, leaning phonetically to Hebrew (as suits the Dwarvish character).'
...
Tolkien had added a remark about 'a tremendous love of the artefact, and of course the immense warlike capacity of the Jews, which we tend to forget nowadays.'
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265759803_Jewish_Dwarves_Tolkien_and_Anti-Semitic_Stereotyping
Though he also had a distaste of nazis and other anti-semitism of his time.
QuoteIn a letter to Stanley Unwin regarding this affair, dated 25 July 1938, an outraged Tolkien called the racist Nazi laws 'lunatic', adding 'I do not regard the (probable) absence of all Jewish blood as necessarily honourable; and I have many Jewish friends, and should regret giving any colour to the notion that I subscribed to the wholly pernicious and unscientific race-doctrine'
Source: same
EDITED TO ADD: Which is to say, Tolkien did base his dwarves partly on Jews - though that doesn't inherently make them anti-semitic. He certainly wasn't anti-semitic in the nazi sense, but I could see people saying that his image was helping to stereotype Jews. The point about the lich and the golem are more of a stretch. D&D does butcher the Jewish mythology of the golem, but it does the same to most other mythologies.
Quote from: jhkim on February 04, 2021, 10:27:28 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on February 04, 2021, 09:57:44 PM
If Dwarves are supposed to be Jewish* then how come they always speak with a Scottish accent?
They might have Scottish accents in adaptations, but the Jewish parallel was confirmed by Tolkien himself.
Then why do they ride War Pigs when Jews are famously War Pig Fobic?
Now thats just not kosher.
Does this mean I have to stop telling my Jewish players that if they bitch about the rest of us ordering Hawaiian pizza they're going in the oven?
BTW, we need MANY more articles like this one. The most exciting way forward for WotC to receive its much deserved total collapse is for nobody other than SJW freakjobs to consider playing their games because WHO THE FUCK would want to hang out with anyone like the fucknuts who write these articles and Twatter garbage who support it?
If
that is the "antisemitism" that has him lathered up enough to write an article about then I think he is suffering from a first world problem...which is confirmed by the fact he is still playing that awful D&D game.
Quote from: jhkim on February 04, 2021, 10:27:28 PM
EDITED TO ADD: Which is to say, Tolkien did base his dwarves partly on Jews - though that doesn't inherently make them anti-semitic. He certainly wasn't anti-semitic in the nazi sense, but I could see people saying that his image was helping to stereotype Jews. The point about the lich and the golem are more of a stretch. D&D does butcher the Jewish mythology of the golem, but it does the same to most other mythologies.
yeah...I think the golem and phylactery complaints are a non-starter considering some of the other 'abused' mythology in D&D.
...but in order to help the author out
Let me think for a sec...
Dwarves are harder than hell to kill off and their two favorite pastime activities are drinking and fighting?
...I'm claiming them as Scots-Irish. :P
He can go find some other D&D race to 'represent' him. I am proud of my Dwarven heritage!
Quote from: Spinachcat on February 04, 2021, 10:45:12 PM
Does this mean I have to stop telling my Jewish players that if they bitch about the rest of us ordering Hawaiian pizza they're going in the oven?
BTW, we need MANY more articles like this one. The most exciting way forward for WotC to receive its much deserved total collapse is for nobody other than SJW freakjobs to consider playing their games because WHO THE FUCK would want to hang out with anyone like the fucknuts who write these articles and Twatter garbage who support it?
Greetings!
Exactly, brother! WOTC can choke on all of this stupidity.
Tolkien made his Dwarves with a nod towards being similar to the Jews? Fucking good! Jews should rejoice, and be proud. Tolkien's Dwarves are widely and deeply beloved by millions of fans world wide.
Clannish, grumpy, pragmatic, passionate Jewish Dwarves are fucking awesome! YES! The stereotypes, such as they have been alluded to, are fucking great. Who cares? Lots of them have aspects that have always been true. Any honest Jew will tell you the same. Everyone has stereotypes, and many of them remain accurate. Again, so what? Stereotypes are part of what makes life fun and interesting. Most Jews I know have a good sense of humour--and appreciate very much--and celebrate--their many cultural stereotypes. Just like Germans, Italians, Irish, Mexicans, Russians, Filippinos, Japanese, Greeks, and fucking everyone. Oh my god! Some book uses someone's stereotypes! Oh geesus. Fuck off and die in a fire.
Oh, and much of those alluded to Jewish stereotypes for Tolkien's Dwarves are also very true for Scottish and Irish people, too! Clannish, proud, passionate, stubborn to a fault, pig-headed, moody, vengeful, being violent, and loving to drink alcohol, and smoke pipe tobacco? HELLO? Irish and Scottish stereotypes!!! I'm so fucking offended! God these jackasses need to choke!
And, as an aside, when the fuck did any inclusion, alliteration, borrowing, or otherwise inspiration of the Jews become such a whine fest? All of the SJW's, and all of the anti-Semite, anti-Jewish racists and fucking morons can go circle jerk themselves into a crying fit of sobbing hysteria.
Western civilization is *hugely* influenced by the Jews--by Hebrews, Israel, and also Judaism, especially through the many aspects of Judeo-Christian culture, mythology, iconography, and religion.
And you know what else? LOTS of the swarmy, snot-nosed, cock-sucking SJW's are HUGELY ANTI-SEMITIC! They *hate* Israel. They don't want to talk about how they would love for the Muslims to plough-fuck every Jew into oblivion. These cock-sucking frauds and racists only like to pretend to "defend Jews"--especially when it is socially convenient, financially profitable, or otherwise burnishes their virtue-signaling badges.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: jhkim on February 04, 2021, 10:27:28 PM
EDITED TO ADD: Which is to say, Tolkien did base his dwarves partly on Jews - though that doesn't inherently make them anti-semitic. He certainly wasn't anti-semitic in the nazi sense, but I could see people saying that his image was helping to stereotype Jews. The point about the lich and the golem are more of a stretch. D&D does butcher the Jewish mythology of the golem, but it does the same to most other mythologies.
Exactly. The leap from Tolkien basing some aspects of Dwarves on Jews to antisemitism is the whole point of the article, and it doesn't bear any scrutiny, and gets downright silly in places.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 05, 2021, 12:48:59 AM
Quote from: jhkim on February 04, 2021, 10:27:28 PM
EDITED TO ADD: Which is to say, Tolkien did base his dwarves partly on Jews - though that doesn't inherently make them anti-semitic. He certainly wasn't anti-semitic in the nazi sense, but I could see people saying that his image was helping to stereotype Jews. The point about the lich and the golem are more of a stretch. D&D does butcher the Jewish mythology of the golem, but it does the same to most other mythologies.
Exactly. The leap from Tolkien basing some aspects of Dwarves on Jews to antisemitism is the whole point of the article, and it doesn't bear any scrutiny, and gets downright silly in places.
Same way that Aunt Jemima and that Native American woman on the butter were also racist. They were there, so they had to be removed, because reasons, checkmate.
I saw this earlier. There is evidently a reason the articles don't have a comment section, because we'd tell him it's fucking retarded.
As the Hebrew Hammer said: shabbat shalom, motherfucker.
"If I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people." -Tolkien
Anti-Semitic? More like pro-Semitic.
It's an interesting question to me -- when did the stereotype of dwarves having a Scottish accent start? I'm guessing it predates the LotR movies, but I don't know what an earlier source would be.
Quote from: Aglondir on February 05, 2021, 01:51:45 PM
"If I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people." -Tolkien
Anti-Semitic? More like pro-Semitic.
While it might be misleading to call it "anti-semitism", many people are justifiably annoyed even at supposedly positive stereotypes -- like saying "Jews are great with money" or "blacks are great at sports and great dancers" or "Asians are good at math and martial arts". One of the problems of terminology around this is that these sorts of stereotypes are often lumped into the same category as nazis or the KKK, but that doesn't mean one can't complain about them.
This is what happens when a generation does not get told at school (or outside school) that "No. You are full of shit, and your opinions are also shit."
Many such cases!
Quote from: moonsweeper on February 05, 2021, 12:27:56 AM
If that is the "antisemitism" that has him lathered up enough to write an article about then I think he is suffering from a first world problem...which is confirmed by the fact he is still playing that awful D&D game.
Quote from: jhkim on February 04, 2021, 10:27:28 PM
EDITED TO ADD: Which is to say, Tolkien did base his dwarves partly on Jews - though that doesn't inherently make them anti-semitic. He certainly wasn't anti-semitic in the nazi sense, but I could see people saying that his image was helping to stereotype Jews. The point about the lich and the golem are more of a stretch. D&D does butcher the Jewish mythology of the golem, but it does the same to most other mythologies.
yeah...I think the golem and phylactery complaints are a non-starter considering some of the other 'abused' mythology in D&D.
...but in order to help the author out
Let me think for a sec...
Dwarves are harder than hell to kill off and their two favorite pastime activities are drinking and fighting?
...I'm claiming them as Scots-Irish. :P
He can go find some other D&D race to 'represent' him. I am proud of my Dwarven heritage!
It's interesting how he bangs on about phylactery, when in fact the term is from the ancient greek, meaning amulet or to guard. How in the world does that translate to anti-semitism? It's use predates using it to describe the amulet that orthodox Jews wear, and in fact, wouldn't it be cultural appropriation to describe this Jewish talisman with Greek words? While it is used to describe that object, it in no way is using it as a perjorative or slight. It's preposterous from the get go.
Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2021, 02:11:07 PM
It's an interesting question to me -- when did the stereotype of dwarves having a Scottish accent start? I'm guessing it predates the LotR movies, but I don't know what an earlier source would be.
I'm gonna guess Warcraft, especially World of Warcraft.
QuoteWhile it might be misleading to call it "anti-semitism", many people are justifiably annoyed even at supposedly positive stereotypes -- like saying "Jews are great with money" or "blacks are great at sports and great dancers" or "Asians are good at math and martial arts". One of the problems of terminology around this is that these sorts of stereotypes are often lumped into the same category as nazis or the KKK, but that doesn't mean one can't complain about them.
Anti-semitism isn't as common anymore. But it's part of the woke post-modern trend of redefining any kind of portrayal as "ist" or "phobe", and then redefine white supremacy as being an "ist" or "phobe".
Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 05, 2021, 03:20:23 PM
Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2021, 02:11:07 PM
It's an interesting question to me -- when did the stereotype of dwarves having a Scottish accent start? I'm guessing it predates the LotR movies, but I don't know what an earlier source would be.
I'm gonna guess Warcraft, especially World of Warcraft.
QuoteWhile it might be misleading to call it "anti-semitism", many people are justifiably annoyed even at supposedly positive stereotypes -- like saying "Jews are great with money" or "blacks are great at sports and great dancers" or "Asians are good at math and martial arts". One of the problems of terminology around this is that these sorts of stereotypes are often lumped into the same category as nazis or the KKK, but that doesn't mean one can't complain about them.
Anti-semitism isn't as common anymore. But it's part of the woke post-modern trend of redefining any kind of portrayal as "ist" or "phobe", and then redefine white supremacy as being an "ist" or "phobe".
Didn't Gotrek from the Warhammer Series of Books have a Scottish accent? Warhammer might be a source...
Nothing new here. The Wizards deserve all the shit that can be heaped on them for not showing a backbone and telling mutts like this guy to fuck right off. If you don't like game, don't spend money on it and play something else. Problem solved.
Quote from: Trond on February 05, 2021, 01:22:46 AMSame way that Aunt Jemima and that Native American woman on the butter were also racist. They were there, so they had to be removed, because reasons, checkmate.
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/840/919/51e.jpg)
Warhammer is probably the "Dwarves as Scots" via the red hair and tankards of ale. Although, I wonder if there is earlier media.
This reddit thread says the 19953 Poul Anderson story "Three Hearts and Three Lions" included a dwarf character with a Scottish accent - can anyone confirm?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/comments/1yn4xb/when_did_dwarves_become_scottish/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/comments/1yn4xb/when_did_dwarves_become_scottish/)
I never understood how Blizzard wasn't sued for WarCraft and StarCraft being such blatant GW ripoffs, and doubly weird considering GW was an equal size company at the time those video games came out. Note that WarCraft 2 is from 1995 so the ripoff was happening long before WoW showed up.
Quote from: Spinachcat on February 05, 2021, 06:38:13 PM
Warhammer is probably the "Dwarves as Scots" via the red hair and tankards of ale. Although, I wonder if there is earlier media.
This reddit thread says the 19953 Poul Anderson story "Three Hearts and Three Lions" included a dwarf character with a Scottish accent - can anyone confirm?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/comments/1yn4xb/when_did_dwarves_become_scottish/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/comments/1yn4xb/when_did_dwarves_become_scottish/)
I never understood how Blizzard wasn't sued for WarCraft and StarCraft being such blatant GW ripoffs, and doubly weird considering GW was an equal size company at the time those video games came out. Note that WarCraft 2 is from 1995 so the ripoff was happening long before WoW showed up.
Yes, I can confirm. Been a long while since I read it but I do remember Hugi.
Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2021, 02:11:07 PM
It's an interesting question to me -- when did the stereotype of dwarves having a Scottish accent start? I'm guessing it predates the LotR movies, but I don't know what an earlier source would be.
Quote from: Aglondir on February 05, 2021, 01:51:45 PM
"If I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people." -Tolkien
Anti-Semitic? More like pro-Semitic.
While it might be misleading to call it "anti-semitism", many people are justifiably annoyed even at supposedly positive stereotypes -- like saying "Jews are great with money" or "blacks are great at sports and great dancers" or "Asians are good at math and martial arts". One of the problems of terminology around this is that these sorts of stereotypes are often lumped into the same category as nazis or the KKK, but that doesn't mean one can't complain about them.
Just curious. Does it matter if it is demonstrably true?
Quote from: jhkim
While it might be misleading to call it "anti-semitism", many people are justifiably annoyed even at supposedly positive stereotypes -- like saying "Jews are great with money" or "blacks are great at sports and great dancers" or "Asians are good at math and martial arts". One of the problems of terminology around this is that these sorts of stereotypes are often lumped into the same category as nazis or the KKK, but that doesn't mean one can't complain about them.
I think we agree on this point.
Quote from: Trond on February 06, 2021, 12:20:50 AM
Just curious. Does it matter if it is demonstrably true?
"We choose truth over facts!"
-Joe Biden
I wouldn't mind using more mythologically accurate names for everything, not just stuff lifted from Jewish folklore. E.g. soul jar, automaton, etc.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 06, 2021, 05:05:24 PM
I wouldn't mind using more mythologically accurate names for everything, not just stuff lifted from Jewish folklore. E.g. soul jar, automaton, etc.
Accurate names in their original languages, or "close enough" English translations?
Quote from: HappyDaze on February 06, 2021, 10:30:35 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 06, 2021, 05:05:24 PM
I wouldn't mind using more mythologically accurate names for everything, not just stuff lifted from Jewish folklore. E.g. soul jar, automaton, etc.
Accurate names in their original languages, or "close enough" English translations?
The more the merrier
I am Jewish, grandson of holocaust escapees, 98% Cohanim on both sides of the family according to Ancestry.com.
Reading this article literally sapped some IQ points from me, it was that stupid. This might be the dumbest thing I've read in a year. Someone needs to slap the stupid out of this author. This whiny shit sounds like "All the other minorities find something to bitch about, and I want attention too!" to me.
Mistwell, let's take him out with our Jewish space lasers! Much more fun than California forests.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on February 08, 2021, 12:12:55 AM
Mistwell, let's take him out with our Jewish space lasers! Much more fun than California forests.
Jewish space lasers? ???
...should I ask or just remain blissfully unaware?
Be aware!
https://www.newsweek.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-jewish-space-laser-mockery-1565325
I think she's awesome, I would vote for her. They're normally a dull bunch, someone in parliament has to provide the comedy.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on February 08, 2021, 02:26:35 AM
Be aware!
https://www.newsweek.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-jewish-space-laser-mockery-1565325
I think she's awesome, I would vote for her. They're normally a dull bunch, someone in parliament has to provide the comedy.
Aw! I heard about the Jewish Space Laser Lady, but after reading the original tweet, it's a lot less crazy than I was led to believe.
I mean, it's still crazy, but I was expecting orbiting death lasers with the Star of David on them, not a take on orbiting energy transmission sattelites.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 08, 2021, 03:50:33 AMI was expecting orbiting death lasers with the Star of David on them, not a take on orbiting energy transmission sattelites.
Hey, we had to start somewhere! It's just a prototype. The next version will be better, I promise.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on February 08, 2021, 03:56:56 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 08, 2021, 03:50:33 AMI was expecting orbiting death lasers with the Star of David on them, not a take on orbiting energy transmission sattelites.
Hey, we had to start somewhere! It's just a prototype. The next version will be better, I promise.
Now to find a forest moon to base it for construction purposes.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 08, 2021, 03:50:33 AM
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on February 08, 2021, 02:26:35 AM
Be aware!
https://www.newsweek.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-jewish-space-laser-mockery-1565325
I think she's awesome, I would vote for her. They're normally a dull bunch, someone in parliament has to provide the comedy.
Aw! I heard about the Jewish Space Laser Lady, but after reading the original tweet, it's a lot less crazy than I was led to believe.
I mean, it's still crazy, but I was expecting orbiting death lasers with the Star of David on them, not a take on orbiting energy transmission sattelites.
Yeah, I was a bit disappointed as well.
It seemed pretty bland for a conspiracy theory considering how the article was touting it.
They weren't even real orbital lances and the whole Jewish part was a stretch.
All she did was mention Rothschild, Inc a couple of times, but she didn't have the 5 or 6 antisemitic 'nudges' in the post. Normally, the antisemitic ones always have to insert a few references to 'certain people' that have all the subtlety of a second grader trying to hide something from their parents.
If I laugh at that article, am I an anti-semite?
Wait don't answer that - I was banned from TBP for loving Oriental Adventures as an Asian. So it's probably true.
If you wrote fantasy where Judaism is a religion that humans, dwarves, goblins, etc can be part of, then would that be antisemitic?
Quote from: moonsweeper on February 08, 2021, 07:10:36 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 08, 2021, 03:50:33 AM
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on February 08, 2021, 02:26:35 AM
Be aware!
https://www.newsweek.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-jewish-space-laser-mockery-1565325
I think she's awesome, I would vote for her. They're normally a dull bunch, someone in parliament has to provide the comedy.
Aw! I heard about the Jewish Space Laser Lady, but after reading the original tweet, it's a lot less crazy than I was led to believe.
I mean, it's still crazy, but I was expecting orbiting death lasers with the Star of David on them, not a take on orbiting energy transmission sattelites.
Yeah, I was a bit disappointed as well.
It seemed pretty bland for a conspiracy theory considering how the article was touting it.
They weren't even real orbital lances and the whole Jewish part was a stretch.
All she did was mention Rothschild, Inc a couple of times, but she didn't have the 5 or 6 antisemitic 'nudges' in the post. Normally, the antisemitic ones always have to insert a few references to 'certain people' that have all the subtlety of a second grader trying to hide something from their parents.
She didn't suck the cock of every scion of the Rothschilds when she used their name in the post therefore she's an Antisemite. Any vaguely negative mention of our "betters" by anyone right of Mao or lighter in shade than caramel is not to be tolerated.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on February 08, 2021, 03:56:56 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 08, 2021, 03:50:33 AMI was expecting orbiting death lasers with the Star of David on them, not a take on orbiting energy transmission sattelites.
Hey, we had to start somewhere! It's just a prototype. The next version will be better, I promise.
Apparently she watched
History Of The World Part 1 and thought it was real:
Quote from: SHARK on February 05, 2021, 12:40:32 AM
Quote from: Spinachcat on February 04, 2021, 10:45:12 PM
Does this mean I have to stop telling my Jewish players that if they bitch about the rest of us ordering Hawaiian pizza they're going in the oven?
BTW, we need MANY more articles like this one. The most exciting way forward for WotC to receive its much deserved total collapse is for nobody other than SJW freakjobs to consider playing their games because WHO THE FUCK would want to hang out with anyone like the fucknuts who write these articles and Twatter garbage who support it?
Greetings!
Exactly, brother! WOTC can choke on all of this stupidity.
Tolkien made his Dwarves with a nod towards being similar to the Jews? Fucking good! Jews should rejoice, and be proud. Tolkien's Dwarves are widely and deeply beloved by millions of fans world wide.
Clannish, grumpy, pragmatic, passionate Jewish Dwarves are fucking awesome! YES! The stereotypes, such as they have been alluded to, are fucking great. Who cares? Lots of them have aspects that have always been true. Any honest Jew will tell you the same. Everyone has stereotypes, and many of them remain accurate. Again, so what? Stereotypes are part of what makes life fun and interesting. Most Jews I know have a good sense of humour--and appreciate very much--and celebrate--their many cultural stereotypes. Just like Germans, Italians, Irish, Mexicans, Russians, Filippinos, Japanese, Greeks, and fucking everyone. Oh my god! Some book uses someone's stereotypes! Oh geesus. Fuck off and die in a fire. [...]
Shark, my friend, I love your wisdom and witty remarks. This. A thousand times this.
The problem with the type of people that write articles like this is a simple one: they've been raised with a nihilistic, post-modernistic worldview and mindset.
They are incapable to appreciate, admire or even
understand myth, symbolism, metaphors and religious thought (which is not the same of being a religious person). Personally I think they cannot even appreciate beauty itself (as defined by Dostoyevsky).
Finding offense with everything is just a symptom of this.
Quote from: Elfdart on February 08, 2021, 02:07:03 PM
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on February 08, 2021, 03:56:56 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 08, 2021, 03:50:33 AMI was expecting orbiting death lasers with the Star of David on them, not a take on orbiting energy transmission sattelites.
Hey, we had to start somewhere! It's just a prototype. The next version will be better, I promise.
Apparently she watched History Of The World Part 1 and thought it was real:
(https://i.imgur.com/GCHZwq7.png)
Man, Mel Brooks would be skinned alive if he tried that shit today.
That is the problem with Jewish space lasers, they always have to keep it secret.
You know that if there was a Scottish space laser then Glasgow would be in ashes right now.
Quote from: Greywolf76 on February 08, 2021, 03:59:36 PM
Quote from: SHARK on February 05, 2021, 12:40:32 AM
Quote from: Spinachcat on February 04, 2021, 10:45:12 PM
Does this mean I have to stop telling my Jewish players that if they bitch about the rest of us ordering Hawaiian pizza they're going in the oven?
BTW, we need MANY more articles like this one. The most exciting way forward for WotC to receive its much deserved total collapse is for nobody other than SJW freakjobs to consider playing their games because WHO THE FUCK would want to hang out with anyone like the fucknuts who write these articles and Twatter garbage who support it?
Greetings!
Exactly, brother! WOTC can choke on all of this stupidity.
Tolkien made his Dwarves with a nod towards being similar to the Jews? Fucking good! Jews should rejoice, and be proud. Tolkien's Dwarves are widely and deeply beloved by millions of fans world wide.
Clannish, grumpy, pragmatic, passionate Jewish Dwarves are fucking awesome! YES! The stereotypes, such as they have been alluded to, are fucking great. Who cares? Lots of them have aspects that have always been true. Any honest Jew will tell you the same. Everyone has stereotypes, and many of them remain accurate. Again, so what? Stereotypes are part of what makes life fun and interesting. Most Jews I know have a good sense of humour--and appreciate very much--and celebrate--their many cultural stereotypes. Just like Germans, Italians, Irish, Mexicans, Russians, Filippinos, Japanese, Greeks, and fucking everyone. Oh my god! Some book uses someone's stereotypes! Oh geesus. Fuck off and die in a fire. [...]
Shark, my friend, I love your wisdom and witty remarks. This. A thousand times this.
The problem with the type of people that write articles like this is a simple one: they've been raised with a nihilistic, post-modernistic worldview and mindset.
They are incapable to appreciate, admire or even understand myth, symbolism, metaphors and religious thought (which is not the same of being a religious person). Personally I think they cannot even appreciate beauty itself (as defined by Dostoyevsky).
Finding offense with everything is just a symptom of this.
Isn't the problem with racism that it treats people as
inferior? The dwarves are coded as Jewish, but they're
never portrayed as villains to my knowledge. You could even argue that
The Hobbit is promoting Zionism. (https://www.reddit.com/r/tolkienfans/comments/14w6w6/themes_of_zionism_in_the_hobbit/)
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 08, 2021, 04:32:48 PM
Quote from: Greywolf76 on February 08, 2021, 03:59:36 PM
Quote from: SHARK on February 05, 2021, 12:40:32 AM
Quote from: Spinachcat on February 04, 2021, 10:45:12 PM
Does this mean I have to stop telling my Jewish players that if they bitch about the rest of us ordering Hawaiian pizza they're going in the oven?
BTW, we need MANY more articles like this one. The most exciting way forward for WotC to receive its much deserved total collapse is for nobody other than SJW freakjobs to consider playing their games because WHO THE FUCK would want to hang out with anyone like the fucknuts who write these articles and Twatter garbage who support it?
Greetings!
Exactly, brother! WOTC can choke on all of this stupidity.
Tolkien made his Dwarves with a nod towards being similar to the Jews? Fucking good! Jews should rejoice, and be proud. Tolkien's Dwarves are widely and deeply beloved by millions of fans world wide.
Clannish, grumpy, pragmatic, passionate Jewish Dwarves are fucking awesome! YES! The stereotypes, such as they have been alluded to, are fucking great. Who cares? Lots of them have aspects that have always been true. Any honest Jew will tell you the same. Everyone has stereotypes, and many of them remain accurate. Again, so what? Stereotypes are part of what makes life fun and interesting. Most Jews I know have a good sense of humour--and appreciate very much--and celebrate--their many cultural stereotypes. Just like Germans, Italians, Irish, Mexicans, Russians, Filippinos, Japanese, Greeks, and fucking everyone. Oh my god! Some book uses someone's stereotypes! Oh geesus. Fuck off and die in a fire. [...]
Shark, my friend, I love your wisdom and witty remarks. This. A thousand times this.
The problem with the type of people that write articles like this is a simple one: they've been raised with a nihilistic, post-modernistic worldview and mindset.
They are incapable to appreciate, admire or even understand myth, symbolism, metaphors and religious thought (which is not the same of being a religious person). Personally I think they cannot even appreciate beauty itself (as defined by Dostoyevsky).
Finding offense with everything is just a symptom of this.
Isn't the problem with racism that it treats people as inferior? The dwarves are coded as Jewish, but they're never portrayed as villains to my knowledge. You could even argue that The Hobbit is promoting Zionism. (https://www.reddit.com/r/tolkienfans/comments/14w6w6/themes_of_zionism_in_the_hobbit/)
That's a very good point! And you're absolutely right. Tolkien's dwarves are always portrayed are very brave, honest, loyal, hard-working, and resilient. They never give up, no matter the odds. And they still survive despite having lost most of their strongholds and cities under the mountains to dragons and worse.
Anyway, it reminds my of the recent wave of hysteria of "orcs are a racist depiction of [insert real world ethinicity here]". I've been playing many different systems since the early 90s and literally no one ever made this correlation between orcs and ethnic minorities. Never. Not surprisingly, it started with racist people projecting their own biases and prejudices into the game.
Quote from: Greywolf76 on February 08, 2021, 04:55:21 PM
Anyway, it reminds my of the recent wave of hysteria of "orcs are a racist depiction of [insert real world ethinicity here]". I've been playing many different systems since the early 90s and literally no one ever made this correlation between orcs and ethnic minorities. Never. Not surprisingly, it started with racist people projecting their own biases and prejudices into the game.
And even back in the 90s you had people arguing over whether it was moral for paladins to kill baby orcs/goblins/whatever.
Nowadays orcs are a hugely generic trope. Sometimes they're evil, sometimes they're good, sometimes they're misunderstood, sometimes they're soccer hooligans.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 08, 2021, 05:14:45 PM
And even back in the 90s you had people arguing over whether it was moral for paladins to kill baby orcs/goblins/whatever.
"Your character dies of shame from his actions. Roll up another, 3d6 down the line. Remember the minimum attributes for a paladin."
Oh look, no more paladins. No more arguments about it!
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on February 08, 2021, 07:08:13 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 08, 2021, 05:14:45 PM
And even back in the 90s you had people arguing over whether it was moral for paladins to kill baby orcs/goblins/whatever.
"Your character dies of shame from his actions. Roll up another, 3d6 down the line. Remember the minimum attributes for a paladin."
Oh look, no more paladins. No more arguments about it!
If only saying no more arguments resulted in there being no more arguments.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on February 08, 2021, 07:08:13 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 08, 2021, 05:14:45 PM
And even back in the 90s you had people arguing over whether it was moral for paladins to kill baby orcs/goblins/whatever.
"Your character dies of shame from his actions. Roll up another, 3d6 down the line. Remember the minimum attributes for a paladin."
Oh look, no more paladins. No more arguments about it!
I don't understand what your point is.
My point was that SJWs think they're the first to question the assumptions of the game design, when in fact players and designers have been questioning assumptions as long as the game has existed.
Quote from: tenbones on February 08, 2021, 08:44:21 AMI was banned from TBP for loving Oriental Adventures as an Asian. So it's probably true.
Good grief. At what point am I, a Caucasian, going to be explicitly forbidden from reading and enjoying Tekumel products/stories?
Quote from: Greywolf76 on February 08, 2021, 04:55:21 PMTolkien's dwarves are always portrayed are very brave, honest, loyal, hard-working, and resilient. They never give up, no matter the odds. And they still survive despite having lost most of their strongholds and cities under the mountains to dragons and worse.
All true, but there are also a few flaws pretty universal to the portrayals of the race, in terms of tropes: they are nearly always characterized as being at minimum strongly devoted to, and quite frequently destructively obsessed with, material wealth and gain, and are often shown as characterizing those tragedies in terms mostly of the loss of that wealth and security, rather than in the loss of lives, wives and children, lore, art or other cultural resources. They are also typically presented as secretive enough not even to let outsiders get to meet, see or know those wives or children, which only magnifies their cultural aloofness. And Dwarven resilience and stubbornness often manifests in pettiness and vindictiveness, sometimes being willing to take an insult to one Dwarf as an insult to all Dwarves everywhere, as well as an occasionally self-disadvantageous refusal to compromise or adapt to circumstances. Even Tolkien himself writes at one point in
The Hobbit that "Dwarves are not heroes, but a calculating folk with a great idea of the value of money," and the best he can say of Thorin and his fellows is that they are "decent enough people... if you don't expect too much."
Unfortunately these tropes play pretty directly into the stereotypical condemnations of Jewish people throughout history: they're persistently accused of being obsessed with money, secretive, suspicious and untrustworthy, unwilling to adapt to the ways of others no matter the time and place, and prone to putting the welfare of their own ahead of even their most-liked non-Jewish neighbours. That an expelled diasporan people trying desperately to preserve its own culture in the face of a great deal of religiously-motivated hostility, and taking advantage of the few ways allowed them to thrive and prosper, may have reasons for the behaviour underlying these stereotypes is irrelevant; any use at all of those tropes is assumed to be not just an evocation, but a justification, of the prejudice in question.
This arises from a fundamental principle of SJ criticism: it is universally assumed that
to depict is to endorse -- that anything an audience sees enough of in media, even if it's superficially criticized or condemned in each individual story, will eventually get "normalized" in the audience's subconscious and thus leak into their behaviour. This is why SJ critics are so obsessed with "positive representation"; they are literally trying to socially engineer a mass shift in cultural attitude and perspective -- and they've lost the ability to interpret art from any other perspective. Portray Dwarves as possessing in their reality, even in part or rarely, the flaws attributed by anti-Semitic prejudice to Jews, and the SJ critic immediately assumes you
must be covertly implying that the prejudice is justified as well in real life. (This is also partly why the "Women in Refrigerators" trope is so loathed; it's assumed that the trope's overuse actually teaches audiences to see women as disposable in fact, even if the only reason it's used at all is dependent upon evoking precisely the opposite reaction, i.e. shock and horror, to gain any power.)
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on February 08, 2021, 09:02:55 PM
This arises from a fundamental principle of SJ criticism: it is universally assumed that to depict is to endorse -- that anything an audience sees enough of in media, even if it's superficially criticized or condemned in each individual story, will eventually get "normalized" in the audience's subconscious and thus leak into their behaviour. This is why SJ critics are so obsessed with "positive representation"; they are literally trying to socially engineer a mass shift in cultural attitude and perspective -- and they've lost the ability to interpret art from any other perspective. Portray Dwarves as possessing in their reality, even in part or rarely, the flaws attributed by anti-Semitic prejudice to Jews, and the SJ critic immediately assumes you must be covertly implying that the prejudice is justified as well in real life. (This is also partly why the "Women in Refrigerators" trope is so loathed; it's assumed that the trope's overuse actually teaches audiences to see women as disposable in fact, even if the only reason it's used at all is dependent upon evoking precisely the opposite reaction, i.e. shock and horror, to gain any power.)
Well put.
I read the article in the OP and it was such a colossal pile of horseshit that were it not written so poorly, I'd swear the little wokescold retard who scribbled it was trying to copy some of my old shtick from two decades ago:
Years ago, Harry Knowles used to have a website called Ain't It Cool News. It tried to pass itself off as a website of behind-the-scenes scoops about upcoming movies, but it became clear that Knowles and his site were on the payroll of New Line Cinema. This started to get downright obnoxious when the 2002 Oscars came along and the fact that (a) New Line's LOTR only won some of the awards and not all of them and (b) black actors Denzel Washington won the Oscor for Best Actor for his performance in Training Day, and Halle Berry won the Best Actress award for having absolutely perfect breasts in Monster's Ball. Ass-hurt LOTR fans somehow thought the two actors only won because they were black and started whining that FOTR was being cheated in a racist plot. I signed in under the handle of "Pud!" and proceeded to attack LOTR as racist, homophobic, anti-Italian, anti-midget and pro-Bin Laden (I kept referring to the sequel as The Twin Towers). Thus was a legend born.
Not to blow my own horn but some of my trolling of LOTR fanboys on that site was as epic as some of Phil Hendrie's old bits. A few highglights (or lowlights):
* Hobbits are based on black lawn jockeys because the grass in their yards is so neatly trimmed -and therefore they're racist. The fact that hobbits are not only short and gay, but really annoying is what led to the murder of Matthew Shepherd. So they're homophobic too.
* Elves are a caricature of straight people who act gay, so they're double secret homophobic. And they're fantasy Nazis for being blond supermen who ran off to hide in the woods just like Eichmann ran to the jungles of South America.
* Not only would Conan kick the shit out of the entire Fellowship, but unlike that fruitcake Aragorn, he would have FUCKED Arwen and that other elf-chick Legal-ass.
* Orcs are based on Italians: they're brutes, they live in caves and have hairy backs -JUST LIKE REAL ITALIANS!
* Anyone who disputes these facts is a dedicated white supremacist who is angry at Halle Berry and Charlize Theron for proving that they can show their tits just as well as white actresses.
It was unreal how many of those retards -including Fat Harry himself- thought I was serious. Now this schmuck is doing it for real.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 08, 2021, 07:23:48 PM
I don't understand what your point is.
The point is that out-of-game disputes which occur at the game table should be resolved within the game. This takes the personal animosity out of it, and directs it towards the DM. It is better that a player should hate the DM for killing his stupid fucking ponce of a paladin than that a player should be arguing with another player.
As always, the DM must wear the Viking Hat, and stop the players from their constant efforts to not have fun.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on February 08, 2021, 09:02:55 PM
Quote from: Greywolf76 on February 08, 2021, 04:55:21 PMTolkien's dwarves are always portrayed are very brave, honest, loyal, hard-working, and resilient. They never give up, no matter the odds. And they still survive despite having lost most of their strongholds and cities under the mountains to dragons and worse.
All true, but there are also a few flaws pretty universal to the portrayals of the race, in terms of tropes: they are nearly always characterized as being at minimum strongly devoted to, and quite frequently destructively obsessed with, material wealth and gain, and are often shown as characterizing those tragedies in terms mostly of the loss of that wealth and security, rather than in the loss of lives, wives and children, lore, art or other cultural resources. They are also typically presented as secretive enough not even to let outsiders get to meet, see or know those wives or children, which only magnifies their cultural aloofness. And Dwarven resilience and stubbornness often manifests in pettiness and vindictiveness, sometimes being willing to take an insult to one Dwarf as an insult to all Dwarves everywhere, as well as an occasionally self-disadvantageous refusal to compromise or adapt to circumstances. Even Tolkien himself writes at one point in The Hobbit that "Dwarves are not heroes, but a calculating folk with a great idea of the value of money," and the best he can say of Thorin and his fellows is that they are "decent enough people... if you don't expect too much."
Unfortunately these tropes play pretty directly into the stereotypical condemnations of Jewish people throughout history: they're persistently accused of being obsessed with money, secretive, suspicious and untrustworthy, unwilling to adapt to the ways of others no matter the time and place, and prone to putting the welfare of their own ahead of even their most-liked non-Jewish neighbours. That an expelled diasporan people trying desperately to preserve its own culture in the face of a great deal of religiously-motivated hostility, and taking advantage of the few ways allowed them to thrive and prosper, may have reasons for the behaviour underlying these stereotypes is irrelevant; any use at all of those tropes is assumed to be not just an evocation, but a justification, of the prejudice in question.
This arises from a fundamental principle of SJ criticism: it is universally assumed that to depict is to endorse -- that anything an audience sees enough of in media, even if it's superficially criticized or condemned in each individual story, will eventually get "normalized" in the audience's subconscious and thus leak into their behaviour. This is why SJ critics are so obsessed with "positive representation"; they are literally trying to socially engineer a mass shift in cultural attitude and perspective -- and they've lost the ability to interpret art from any other perspective. Portray Dwarves as possessing in their reality, even in part or rarely, the flaws attributed by anti-Semitic prejudice to Jews, and the SJ critic immediately assumes you must be covertly implying that the prejudice is justified as well in real life. (This is also partly why the "Women in Refrigerators" trope is so loathed; it's assumed that the trope's overuse actually teaches audiences to see women as disposable in fact, even if the only reason it's used at all is dependent upon evoking precisely the opposite reaction, i.e. shock and horror, to gain any power.)
Is there any evidence that media affects the audience's view of reality? Or at least desensitization to the constant repetition of the same tired tropes?
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 09, 2021, 07:55:24 AM
Is there any evidence that media affects the audience's view of reality? Or at least desensitization to the constant repetition of the same tired tropes?
Media definitely affects audience views of reality; look at the propaganda components of every major event of political violence, or the change in the West's sexual mores following the liberalization of pornography, especially post-Internet.
Whether it can do so to reliable and dangerous degrees with only these kind of "subliminal" implications or associations is a considerably dodgier proposition, I think. The whole point of calling something a "code" is that the only people who can read it are the ones for whom it's intended; as the old political gag goes, "If you claim you can hear the dog whistle, you're saying you're the dog."
I think part of the problem is that our culture is spoiled for media volume, choice and speed in a way no other generation has ever been in history. We can get influenced faster and more subtly, but we can also get much more jaded much more quickly, to the point where it's difficult to track negative behaviour back to any one set of messages.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on February 09, 2021, 09:44:21 AM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 09, 2021, 07:55:24 AM
Is there any evidence that media affects the audience's view of reality? Or at least desensitization to the constant repetition of the same tired tropes?
Media definitely affects audience views of reality; look at the propaganda components of every major event of political violence, or the change in the West's sexual mores following the liberalization of pornography, especially post-Internet.
Whether it can do so to reliable and dangerous degrees with only these kind of "subliminal" implications or associations is a considerably dodgier proposition, I think. The whole point of calling something a "code" is that the only people who can read it are the ones for whom it's intended; as the old political gag goes, "If you claim you can hear the dog whistle, you're saying you're the dog."
I think part of the problem is that our culture is spoiled for media volume, choice and speed in a way no other generation has ever been in history. We can get influenced faster and more subtly, but we can also get much more jaded much more quickly, to the point where it's difficult to track negative behaviour back to any one set of messages.
There's an argument to be made that entertainment shifts the "Overton window" of acceptable content, and that a society jaded to certain topics is an unhealthy one.
The problem is, who judges what content is acceptable? And what measures are to be used to censor it?
We got ludicrious stuff like 80's cartoons forced to have educational value to balance out the sanitized, bloodless violence. And currently, we have wokescolds telling everyone that D&D is "problematic" for it's depiction of
jews dwarves and orcs
black people.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 09, 2021, 02:06:32 PM
There's an argument to be made that entertainment shifts the "Overton window" of acceptable content, and that a society jaded to certain topics is an unhealthy one.
The problem is, who judges what content is acceptable? And what measures are to be used to censor it?
We got ludicrious stuff like 80's cartoons forced to have educational value to balance out the sanitized, bloodless violence. And currently, we have wokescolds telling everyone that D&D is "problematic" for it's depiction of jews dwarves and orcs black people.
We also have had lots of people complaining about woke material in Hollywood movies and television -- and with how races are depicted in newer editions of D&D, as diversity including not just Tolkien races but also dragonborn and tieflings is normalized.
People will naturally complain when media doesn't match their politics and taste. What's acceptable is always relative. Nothing should censor it - but media can be controlled by public complaint and the free market.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on February 08, 2021, 09:02:55 PM
This arises from a fundamental principle of SJ criticism: it is universally assumed that to depict is to endorse -- that anything an audience sees enough of in media, even if it's superficially criticized or condemned in each individual story, will eventually get "normalized" in the audience's subconscious and thus leak into their behaviour. This is why SJ critics are so obsessed with "positive representation"; they are literally trying to socially engineer a mass shift in cultural attitude and perspective -- and they've lost the ability to interpret art from any other perspective.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 09, 2021, 07:55:24 AM
Is there any evidence that media affects the audience's view of reality? Or at least desensitization to the constant repetition of the same tired tropes?
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on February 09, 2021, 09:44:21 AM
Media definitely affects audience views of reality; look at the propaganda components of every major event of political violence, or the change in the West's sexual mores following the liberalization of pornography, especially post-Internet.
Whether it can do so to reliable and dangerous degrees with only these kind of "subliminal" implications or associations is a considerably dodgier proposition, I think.
It sounds like you're arguing against yourself here to a degree. You're implying that desensitization does have an effect, such as in the liberalization of pornography.
I don't have a strong position, because I think it is a very difficult thing to prove either way. Psychology is always murky, and there are no controlled conditions to compare particularly with media exposure. I've argued against violence in the media automatically encouraging violence, as a non-violent person who still enjoys violent media.
Quote from: jhkim on February 09, 2021, 04:32:14 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 09, 2021, 02:06:32 PM
There's an argument to be made that entertainment shifts the "Overton window" of acceptable content, and that a society jaded to certain topics is an unhealthy one.
The problem is, who judges what content is acceptable? And what measures are to be used to censor it?
We got ludicrious stuff like 80's cartoons forced to have educational value to balance out the sanitized, bloodless violence. And currently, we have wokescolds telling everyone that D&D is "problematic" for it's depiction of jews dwarves and orcs black people.
We also have had lots of people complaining about woke material in Hollywood movies and television -- and with how races are depicted in newer editions of D&D, as diversity including not just Tolkien races but also dragonborn and tieflings is normalized.
People will naturally complain when media doesn't match their politics and taste. What's acceptable is always relative. Nothing should censor it - but media can be controlled by public complaint and the free market.
So what? I know you know the difference between complaining about how much entertainment is PC nowadays, and someone claiming Dwarves are anti-semitic.
It doesn't excuse the behavior, and we can play the 'whatabout' game until our fingers are numb from typing.
Quote from: jhkim on February 09, 2021, 04:32:14 PMIt sounds like you're arguing against yourself here to a degree. You're implying that desensitization does have an effect, such as in the liberalization of pornography.
More that I'm trying to find the useful truth-content in both sides of the argument, as much as I can.
I think it's possible for sustained media saturation to influence popular attitudes
en masse, for better or worse (depending on who defines what that is, of course), but I think that for most people it generally takes much more saturation over a longer period of time to produce significant change, and that the supposed "subliminal" aspects of such messaging are far less influential than the people paranoid about them think. Propaganda usually works best when it's blatant.
Political correctness is essentially the psychological equivalent of the Temperance/Prohibition movement: it presumes that people can't handle dangerous ideas safely and thus seeks to remove the temptation to engage them, by forbidding them from the mental marketplace. There should be room to disagree with this approach without denying that some ideas are dangerous and that some people are uniquely vulnerable to them.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on February 09, 2021, 06:35:53 PM
Political correctness is essentially the psychological equivalent of the Temperance/Prohibition movement: it presumes that people can't handle dangerous ideas safely and thus seeks to remove the temptation to engage them, by forbidding them from the mental marketplace. There should be room to disagree with this approach without denying that some ideas are dangerous and that some people are uniquely vulnerable to them.
The problem for the PC/SJW crowd is that if they accept that idea, then they themselves no longer serve any purpose because people can actually determine what might be dangerous or bad on their own.
Therefore they can never admit that other people are capable of thinking for themselves. They will attack anyone bringing it up because it forces them to face that inadequacy in themselves. This is why they fight it like a cornered rat.
Quote from: moonsweeper on February 09, 2021, 07:50:46 PMTherefore they can never admit that other people are capable of thinking for themselves. They will attack anyone bringing it up because it forces them to face that inadequacy in themselves.
That's one explanation, and it may well be true for some among the movement. I do think that there are those who have lost their trust in other people's judgement through legitimate and bitter personal experience, however (though not as many as I would once have credited).
I myself spent much of my twenties quite sympathetic to the ideas of restricting hate speech, for example, because I was subjected to a lot of verbal bullying and humiliation as a child and teenager, so the notion of "you shouldn't
get to say things that make others feel inferior, helpless and worthless, just because it amuses you to do so!" resonated very powerfully for me, as did the idea that speech could be a form of violence. It took time and distance from those experiences before I could get a more balanced perspective on the issue, and ask myself questions like "but who would you trust to enforce that?" and "is everything that hurts others' feelings necessarily false or said solely for that end?", and so on. (It helped that I have a virtually-Aspergian addiction to logic and consistency, and couldn't help noticing that the people who most agreed with me that words could do real emotional damage still seemed perfectly happy using damaging speech themselves on the right targets.)
That's not to say there aren't those who are lying to themselves or others about the sincerity of their motivations. But I find that calling this out is seldom a productive tactic unless it's done for very specific people for whom it can be as close to proven as possible; otherwise, it's basically Bulverism -- implying that the only real reason anybody could disagree with me is their own personal weakness or stake in the issue, which I consider something of a rhetorical cheat because it's unfalsifiable.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on February 09, 2021, 08:48:44 PM
Quote from: moonsweeper on February 09, 2021, 07:50:46 PMTherefore they can never admit that other people are capable of thinking for themselves. They will attack anyone bringing it up because it forces them to face that inadequacy in themselves.
That's one explanation, and it may well be true for some among the movement. I do think that there are those who have lost their trust in other people's judgement through legitimate and bitter personal experience, however (though not as many as I would once have credited).
I myself spent much of my twenties quite sympathetic to the ideas of restricting hate speech, for example, because I was subjected to a lot of verbal bullying and humiliation as a child and teenager, so the notion of "you shouldn't get to say things that make others feel inferior, helpless and worthless, just because it amuses you to do so!" resonated very powerfully for me, as did the idea that speech could be a form of violence. It took time and distance from those experiences before I could get a more balanced perspective on the issue, and ask myself questions like "but who would you trust to enforce that?" and "is everything that hurts others' feelings necessarily false or said solely for that end?", and so on. (It helped that I have a virtually-Aspergian addiction to logic and consistency, and couldn't help noticing that the people who most agreed with me that words could do real emotional damage still seemed perfectly happy using damaging speech themselves on the right targets.)
That's not to say there aren't those who are lying to themselves or others about the sincerity of their motivations. But I find that calling this out is seldom a productive tactic unless it's done for very specific people for whom it can be as close to proven as possible; otherwise, it's basically Bulverism -- implying that the only real reason anybody could disagree with me is their own personal weakness or stake in the issue, which I consider something of a rhetorical cheat because it's unfalsifiable.
I can understand that...
...for me that mindset got burnt out early and replaced by the 'who would I trust to police this' very quickly because (a)I always had a very 'free to do what you want mindset as long as you allow others to do the same' and (b) I saw someone's life get destroyed by what today would be similar to cancel culture for something they didn't do. (It was basically a greed/power-trip thing for the person doing it.)
Quote from: Greywolf76 on February 08, 2021, 03:59:36 PM
Quote from: SHARK on February 05, 2021, 12:40:32 AM
Quote from: Spinachcat on February 04, 2021, 10:45:12 PM
Does this mean I have to stop telling my Jewish players that if they bitch about the rest of us ordering Hawaiian pizza they're going in the oven?
BTW, we need MANY more articles like this one. The most exciting way forward for WotC to receive its much deserved total collapse is for nobody other than SJW freakjobs to consider playing their games because WHO THE FUCK would want to hang out with anyone like the fucknuts who write these articles and Twatter garbage who support it?
Greetings!
Exactly, brother! WOTC can choke on all of this stupidity.
Tolkien made his Dwarves with a nod towards being similar to the Jews? Fucking good! Jews should rejoice, and be proud. Tolkien's Dwarves are widely and deeply beloved by millions of fans world wide.
Clannish, grumpy, pragmatic, passionate Jewish Dwarves are fucking awesome! YES! The stereotypes, such as they have been alluded to, are fucking great. Who cares? Lots of them have aspects that have always been true. Any honest Jew will tell you the same. Everyone has stereotypes, and many of them remain accurate. Again, so what? Stereotypes are part of what makes life fun and interesting. Most Jews I know have a good sense of humour--and appreciate very much--and celebrate--their many cultural stereotypes. Just like Germans, Italians, Irish, Mexicans, Russians, Filippinos, Japanese, Greeks, and fucking everyone. Oh my god! Some book uses someone's stereotypes! Oh geesus. Fuck off and die in a fire. [...]
Shark, my friend, I love your wisdom and witty remarks. This. A thousand times this.
The problem with the type of people that write articles like this is a simple one: they've been raised with a nihilistic, post-modernistic worldview and mindset.
They are incapable to appreciate, admire or even understand myth, symbolism, metaphors and religious thought (which is not the same of being a religious person). Personally I think they cannot even appreciate beauty itself (as defined by Dostoyevsky).
Finding offense with everything is just a symptom of this.
Greetings!
Hey there, Greywolf! Outstanding, my friend! So very true, sadly. So many of these kinds of people that write articles such as this are mind-bogglingly uneducated, and yet, they so often embrace such a smug and self-righteous demeanor. Talking to them or listening to them is often shocking in all the basic concepts, virtues, and legacies from thousands of years of Western Civilization they are not merely ignorant of, but sneeringly dismissive of. Then they bloviate about their theories concerning modern day dynamics. I always feel like I have lost IQ points whenever encountering them. It's like they are angry, bitter, hate-filled 12-year olds trapped in an adult body. ;D Nihilist barbarians!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
The thing about bullying-with-words, is the recipient must learn through it that both the opinion of word-bullies specifically, and the seeking of others' validation generally, are illusions and false gods respectively.
Is the process pleasant for those who present as targets while young? No. And I don't put a false virtue on to the bullies either. But the alternative we've lived for several decades now does not convince me that sheltering people from that painful stimuli is a net positive.
I don't pretend childhood assholes don't leave real cost in their wake. There are/were some people who break from mean words they can't seem to negotiate away; who remain convinced into adulthood that the favor of others is critical and worth chasing; that the mean words of the word-bully are too painful to disbelieve. But sheltering them seems to produce adults who go through life completely attuned to external forces instead of developing the center that can both tell others to buzz off and mind their own business, tuning out others' meaningless insults; and also mind their own business in turn. There's also the matter of the impact of a shrinking population of those who did make that leap and can mentor their children through it.
None of this is a commentary on physical bullying, and anyone who insists on conflating the two in response is a spaz.
Quote from: moonsweeper on February 09, 2021, 07:50:46 PM
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on February 09, 2021, 06:35:53 PM
Political correctness is essentially the psychological equivalent of the Temperance/Prohibition movement: it presumes that people can't handle dangerous ideas safely and thus seeks to remove the temptation to engage them, by forbidding them from the mental marketplace. There should be room to disagree with this approach without denying that some ideas are dangerous and that some people are uniquely vulnerable to them.
The problem for the PC/SJW crowd is that if they accept that idea, then they themselves no longer serve any purpose because people can actually determine what might be dangerous or bad on their own.
Therefore they can never admit that other people are capable of thinking for themselves. They will attack anyone bringing it up because it forces them to face that inadequacy in themselves. This is why they fight it like a cornered rat.
The same people who decry the Prohibition of Alcohol, though, often insist that (for example) marijuana is evil and needs to be forbidden to people, rather than allowing people to decide for themselves. Within games, the equivalent is those who decry liberal outcry against old-edition D&D, but themselves give outcry over any liberal-themed game that is published.
If the position is, "people can think for themselves and decide" -- then there should be both liberal-themed games and conservative-themed games (and any other type), and there doesn't need to be outrage over what is published. But outrage fires people up, and gets them posting.
Quote from: jhkim on February 10, 2021, 12:22:39 PM
Quote from: moonsweeper on February 09, 2021, 07:50:46 PM
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on February 09, 2021, 06:35:53 PM
Political correctness is essentially the psychological equivalent of the Temperance/Prohibition movement: it presumes that people can't handle dangerous ideas safely and thus seeks to remove the temptation to engage them, by forbidding them from the mental marketplace. There should be room to disagree with this approach without denying that some ideas are dangerous and that some people are uniquely vulnerable to them.
The problem for the PC/SJW crowd is that if they accept that idea, then they themselves no longer serve any purpose because people can actually determine what might be dangerous or bad on their own.
Therefore they can never admit that other people are capable of thinking for themselves. They will attack anyone bringing it up because it forces them to face that inadequacy in themselves. This is why they fight it like a cornered rat.
The same people who decry the Prohibition of Alcohol, though, often insist that (for example) marijuana is evil and needs to be forbidden to people, rather than allowing people to decide for themselves. Within games, the equivalent is those who decry liberal outcry against old-edition D&D, but themselves give outcry over any liberal-themed game that is published.
If the position is, "people can think for themselves and decide" -- then there should be both liberal-themed games and conservative-themed games (and any other type), and there doesn't need to be outrage over what is published. But outrage fires people up, and gets them posting.
uuhhh...yeah...what did you think I meant.
Problem is, if you believe that then you actually have to support the idea that
no object is evil in and of itself. That means drugs, food, guns, porn, etc...The only issue that occurs is that you need to accept the consequences of your actions.
Unfortunately, on one side of the argument there are too many moral busybodies (SJW or otherwise) who want to tell others how they have to live...on the other there are all the people who don't want people to have to deal with the consequences of their actions.
What's absolutely hilarious is how often either of those groups flip their attitude based on the situation. I have no problem with people who make games that are liberal or conservative...I have a problem when those people tell me what I can or can't play...
Quote from: jhkim on February 10, 2021, 12:22:39 PMBut outrage fires people up, and gets them posting.
And games which get posted about are likelier to find purchasers.
Which touches on a general change in entertainment markets overall that I've been seeing, and that others have written about: It used to be that most entertainment products and entertainers would generally try to take a bland, middle-of-the-road approach so as to maintain the widest possible audience base. But as Western culture in general has gotten more and more politically polarized over the past 20 years or so, more and more entertainers have shifted their approach from "trying to win the largest possible audience base" to "trying to solidify and sustain the loyalty of the polarized base they want". Most North American late-night comedy shows, for example, have blatantly taken sides in the political divisions of the day and have accepted a smaller audience share in return for a more loyal one.
Ironically, it occurs to me as I write this that RPGs may not be able to manage the same tactic, because our hobby is already so small that a fractured base of any type may well be an economically unsustainable one. (But then again, if only a tiny minority of game designers make their primary living off their games anyway, this may be less of a concern.)
Honestly, the "game industry" was already dying before they got on the woke train, because the goods they were offering were not useful in actually helping play/run a game. It was a cynical racket run by people who didn't game, employing badly paid people who didn't game, to write elfie-welfie for people who largely didn't game. Then their business model died, and good riddance.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on February 10, 2021, 01:34:55 PM
Quote from: jhkim on February 10, 2021, 12:22:39 PMBut outrage fires people up, and gets them posting.
And games which get posted about are likelier to find purchasers.
Which touches on a general change in entertainment markets overall that I've been seeing, and that others have written about: It used to be that most entertainment products and entertainers would generally try to take a bland, middle-of-the-road approach so as to maintain the widest possible audience base. But as Western culture in general has gotten more and more politically polarized over the past 20 years or so, more and more entertainers have shifted their approach from "trying to win the largest possible audience base" to "trying to solidify and sustain the loyalty of the polarized base they want". Most North American late-night comedy shows, for example, have blatantly taken sides in the political divisions of the day and have accepted a smaller audience share in return for a more loyal one.
I don't have stats to show it, but I suspect this is more about numbers than loyalty. In these more charged partisan times, a comedian might pull in a lot of additional audience by having political humor of their chosen side, and that more than makes up for the lost audience of the other side. i.e. A modern middle-of-the-road comedian may get only a small number of liberals and a small number of conservatives, while a politically-charged comedian gets more than double the audience but only from one side. Outrage sells a lot.
I think it's mostly a few big industries that are forced to straddle the middle, because they can't double their potential audience on a given side. For example, I feel a lot of blockbuster movies have tried to straddle the middle. They'll throw in some token inclusion of some minorities as side characters, but the core action is still traditional.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on February 10, 2021, 01:34:55 PM
Ironically, it occurs to me as I write this that RPGs may not be able to manage the same tactic, because our hobby is already so small that a fractured base of any type may well be an economically unsustainable one. (But then again, if only a tiny minority of game designers make their primary living off their games anyway, this may be less of a concern.)
I think almost any non-D&D small-press RPG can potentially use the same tactic of selling better to a single side. The OSR selling to conservatives, for example, while hippy story games selling to liberals. Currently, I think D&D is mostly still trying to straddle the middle - because it can't double its potential audience.
Quote from: Melan on February 10, 2021, 02:13:48 PM
Honestly, the "game industry" was already dying before they got on the woke train, because the goods they were offering were not useful in actually helping play/run a game. It was a cynical racket run by people who didn't game, employing badly paid people who didn't game, to write elfie-welfie for people who largely didn't game. Then their business model died, and good riddance.
From everything that I hear, D&D is at one of its peaks of popularity right now -- with top sales, and a lot of media coverage and wide popularity. Kickstarters are regularly pulling in tens of thousands of dollars - or even hundreds of thousands. I'd say the reports of the industry's death are greatly exaggerated.
https://icv2.com/articles/news/view/47547/2020-was-record-year-magic-d-d
Quote from: jhkim on February 10, 2021, 04:49:56 PM
Quote from: Melan on February 10, 2021, 02:13:48 PM
Honestly, the "game industry" was already dying before they got on the woke train, because the goods they were offering were not useful in actually helping play/run a game. It was a cynical racket run by people who didn't game, employing badly paid people who didn't game, to write elfie-welfie for people who largely didn't game. Then their business model died, and good riddance.
From everything that I hear, D&D is at one of its peaks of popularity right now -- with top sales, and a lot of media coverage and wide popularity. Kickstarters are regularly pulling in tens of thousands of dollars - or even hundreds of thousands. I'd say the reports of the industry's death are greatly exaggerated.
https://icv2.com/articles/news/view/47547/2020-was-record-year-magic-d-d
They usually are. I remember when computer games were supposed to "kill" TTRPGing. And then it was MMORPGs that were supposed to "kill" TTRPGing. Wasn't Magic supposed to "kill" TTRPGing?
Etc...
Quote from: jhkim on February 10, 2021, 04:49:56 PM
Quote from: Melan on February 10, 2021, 02:13:48 PM
Honestly, the "game industry" was already dying before they got on the woke train, because the goods they were offering were not useful in actually helping play/run a game. It was a cynical racket run by people who didn't game, employing badly paid people who didn't game, to write elfie-welfie for people who largely didn't game. Then their business model died, and good riddance.
From everything that I hear, D&D is at one of its peaks of popularity right now -- with top sales, and a lot of media coverage and wide popularity. Kickstarters are regularly pulling in tens of thousands of dollars - or even hundreds of thousands. I'd say the reports of the industry's death are greatly exaggerated.
https://icv2.com/articles/news/view/47547/2020-was-record-year-magic-d-d
In the 1990s, the "game industry" sustained a stratum of specialty stores, distributors, and several mid-range publishers publishing splats in volumes inconceivable for anyone today - perhaps even WotC. Today, it supports a much more distributed ecosystem of small publishers largely publishing games as personal projects, often as a side job or even a hobby. That's nice; I like it much better than the old model. But this cloud-shaped thing seems much smaller than what used to be "the industry". This has been documented extensively by people like James Mishler, and other people in trade organisations. James described them as "extinction-level events", and that was several years ago.
To call something even a cottage industry - a real business - the question to ask as Joe Schmoe is
"If I am moderately successful, can going full time support an American family of four?" And as an entrepreneur,
"Can I grow a business as strong as Palladium Games in its heyday?" Yes, I see well-managed mini-companies like Sine Nomine. But let's say, something like Palladium was a powerhouse for 15-20 years while being run in a way that could be rightfully called incompetent. Directly and indirectly, Palladium employed dozens of people. WotC now has barely any people in its RPG design department - I bet Palladium used to have more full-timers.
Where are the Palladiums now? How many jobs does a modern game company create? What kind of jobs are they? Just consider what kind of position was IPR - the main indie RPG distribution firm! - offering just a month or two ago. Poverty row conditions in a trailer park on the edge of the desert, that's what.
This is not specific to RPGs. The entire "creative economy" is a racket, and the masses of people who have been promised they will make a living in it are living increasingly marginal existences across the developed world. There are successful niches, but they are very small, and don't make for an "industry".
There goes Melan using facts again!
The "game industry" is much like the self-publishing fiction industry. Mostly vanity press, some people making beer money, a few paying cheap rent and a handful making 6 six figures year upon year.
Quote from: jhkim on February 04, 2021, 10:27:28 PMThey might have Scottish accents in adaptations, but the Jewish parallel was confirmed by Tolkien himself.
QuoteIn a BBC radio interview with Dennis Gueroult, recorded in 1964 and broadcast the next year, Tolkien made a statement connecting his Dwarves with the Jewish people. What he said was: 'The Dwarves of course are quite obviously – wouldn't you say that in many ways they remind you of the Jews? Their words are Semitic obviously, constructed to be Semitic.' Also in 1964, he wrote to W.R. Matthews: 'The language of the Dwarves [...] is Semitic in cast, leaning phonetically to Hebrew (as suits the Dwarvish character).'
...
Tolkien had added a remark about 'a tremendous love of the artefact, and of course the immense warlike capacity of the Jews, which we tend to forget nowadays.'
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265759803_Jewish_Dwarves_Tolkien_and_Anti-Semitic_Stereotyping
Though he also had a distaste of nazis and other anti-semitism of his time.
QuoteIn a letter to Stanley Unwin regarding this affair, dated 25 July 1938, an outraged Tolkien called the racist Nazi laws 'lunatic', adding 'I do not regard the (probable) absence of all Jewish blood as necessarily honourable; and I have many Jewish friends, and should regret giving any colour to the notion that I subscribed to the wholly pernicious and unscientific race-doctrine'
Source: same
EDITED TO ADD: Which is to say, Tolkien did base his dwarves partly on Jews - though that doesn't inherently make them anti-semitic. He certainly wasn't anti-semitic in the nazi sense, but I could see people saying that his image was helping to stereotype Jews. The point about the lich and the golem are more of a stretch. D&D does butcher the Jewish mythology of the golem, but it does the same to most other mythologies.
Since we're talking about D&D dwarves, I think a word from Gary Gygax (https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=236770#p236770) might be relevant:
QuoteI have recounted this experience before, but I'll do so again: When I was part of a large con panel on the East Coast, one young twit of an editor for a major publisher also a panelist asked me before the audience why I had stolen dwarves from Tolkien. I responded in august tones: "I beg your pardon, Young Lady," but I stole my dwarves from the same source the Good Professor did, Norse Mythology."
She was pretty much silent for the rest of the session.
If any of the D&D books had a
+2 dwarven warhammer of Christ-killing listed among the magic items, the dumb schmuck who wrote this article might have had a point. But apparently Gygax & Co did such a good job of hiding their Jew-hatred that only the silly fumbledick who wrote the article noticed.
Quote from: jhkim on February 10, 2021, 12:22:39 PM
If the position is, "people can think for themselves and decide" -- then there should be both liberal-themed games and conservative-themed games (and any other type), and there doesn't need to be outrage over what is published. But outrage fires people up, and gets them posting.
I don't get outraged by political themes, only by bad game writing. Well, that and diceless. Fucking abomination.
Quote from: Elfdart on February 10, 2021, 07:51:20 PM
Since we're talking about D&D dwarves, I think a word from Gary Gygax (https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=236770#p236770) might be relevant:
QuoteI have recounted this experience before, but I'll do so again: When I was part of a large con panel on the East Coast, one young twit of an editor for a major publisher also a panelist asked me before the audience why I had stolen dwarves from Tolkien. I responded in august tones: "I beg your pardon, Young Lady," but I stole my dwarves from the same source the Good Professor did, Norse Mythology."
She was pretty much silent for the rest of the session.
If any of the D&D books had a +2 dwarven warhammer of Christ-killing listed among the magic items, the dumb schmuck who wrote this article might have had a point. But apparently Gygax & Co did such a good job of hiding their Jew-hatred that only the silly fumbledick who wrote the article noticed.
Gary stole his Dwarves from the same place as Tolkien indeed: The Hobbit
Quote from: Spinachcat on February 10, 2021, 07:51:12 PM
There goes Melan using facts again!
The "game industry" is much like the self-publishing fiction industry. Mostly vanity press, some people making beer money, a few paying cheap rent and a handful making 6 six figures year upon year.
Yes, but isn't that roughly how it has always been? Back in the 1990s, I knew some people who published some GURPS books and such. No one had any illusions that going into RPG writing full-time was a workable career move -- particularly as TSR faltered. Some people got that illusion during the D20 boom, but it was pretty clear that was a bubble that would burst, as it did.
It just used to be that different people were making what little money there was to be made. Now with the Internet and print-on-demand, lots of people have minor freelance work, and even fewer people have full-time jobs in RPGs.
Quote from: Melan on February 10, 2021, 05:53:49 PM
This is not specific to RPGs. The entire "creative economy" is a racket, and the masses of people who have been promised they will make a living in it are living increasingly marginal existences across the developed world. There are successful niches, but they are very small, and don't make for an "industry".
That's better, it makes for more creativity. We can see the way companies like google or facebook reach a certain size and stop innovating, all they can do is buy other innovative companies and crush them or absorb their creative work - usually, crush them.
Roleplaying games are a social creative hobby. So if they're smaller and more creative, that's a good thing.
Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2021, 02:11:07 PM
It's an interesting question to me -- when did the stereotype of dwarves having a Scottish accent start? I'm guessing it predates the LotR movies, but I don't know what an earlier source would be.
I thought it was with
The Witcher...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7fZK05xikM
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on February 10, 2021, 10:46:10 PM
Quote from: Melan on February 10, 2021, 05:53:49 PM
This is not specific to RPGs. The entire "creative economy" is a racket, and the masses of people who have been promised they will make a living in it are living increasingly marginal existences across the developed world. There are successful niches, but they are very small, and don't make for an "industry".
That's better, it makes for more creativity. We can see the way companies like google or facebook reach a certain size and stop innovating, all they can do is buy other innovative companies and crush them or absorb their creative work - usually, crush them.
Roleplaying games are a social creative hobby. So if they're smaller and more creative, that's a good thing.
As noted, I like it that way (and I have the same suspicions you have about large companies). But man's gotta live - and what makes an industry an industry is that it provides employment and livelihood for a substantial number of people. Call centres are an industry (although they are services), vegetable oil production is an industry (well, industrial agriculture), and power grid construction/operation/maintenance is an industry. RPGs? Uhhhhh. Let me get my magnifying glass.
Calling RPGs a social creative hobby sits well with me; referring to it as an industry? We are deluding ourselves if we call it that way. What's worse, we are giving dangerous illusions to starry-eyed young people and turning them into bitter wrecks when they realise their job doesn't pay for a car, groceries, and clothes for the kids.
Quote from: moonsweeper on February 10, 2021, 12:44:11 PM
Problem is, if you believe that then you actually have to support the idea that no object is evil in and of itself. That means drugs, food, guns, porn, etc...The only issue that occurs is that you need to accept the consequences of your actions.
Unfortunately, on one side of the argument there are too many moral busybodies (SJW or otherwise) who want to tell others how they have to live...on the other there are all the people who don't want people to have to deal with the consequences of their actions.
What's absolutely hilarious is how often either of those groups flip their attitude based on the situation. I have no problem with people who make games that are liberal or conservative...I have a problem when those people tell me what I can or can't play...
I agree, but you're making a crucial error here. You're assuming the moral busybodies and the ones who decry personal responsibility are on opposite sides of the argument. They are not, sir.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on February 11, 2021, 08:31:00 AM
Quote from: moonsweeper on February 10, 2021, 12:44:11 PM
Problem is, if you believe that then you actually have to support the idea that no object is evil in and of itself. That means drugs, food, guns, porn, etc...The only issue that occurs is that you need to accept the consequences of your actions.
Unfortunately, on one side of the argument there are too many moral busybodies (SJW or otherwise) who want to tell others how they have to live...on the other there are all the people who don't want people to have to deal with the consequences of their actions.
What's absolutely hilarious is how often either of those groups flip their attitude based on the situation. I have no problem with people who make games that are liberal or conservative...I have a problem when those people tell me what I can or can't play...
I agree, but you're making a crucial error here. You're assuming the moral busybodies and the ones who decry personal responsibility are on opposite sides of the argument. They are not, sir.
Sorry, I didn't mean opposites quite that way...I should have stated it as the two 'facets' of the problem.
Facet one is the people who believe that they have to control access* to whatever they label as 'bad' things be it speech, drugs, whatever in order to 'protect' people.
Facet two is the people who think there should be access to these 'bad' things but that you should not suffer the consequences that might result from your actions.
...and yes in many cases the same people can occupy both groups at the same time. They just want to apply it to their 'pet' item. They don't grasp the concept that Freedom is Power, the power to do what you want...and that means the Peter Parker principle applies...With great power (freedom) comes great responsibility (for your actions)
*just look at how many people say it is ok for one person to do something but as soon as someone else does something similar it is wrong...or how someone might say marijuana is ok but guns are evil.
Quote from: Shasarak on February 10, 2021, 08:49:31 PM
Quote from: Elfdart on February 10, 2021, 07:51:20 PM
Since we're talking about D&D dwarves, I think a word from Gary Gygax (https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=236770#p236770) might be relevant:
QuoteI have recounted this experience before, but I'll do so again: When I was part of a large con panel on the East Coast, one young twit of an editor for a major publisher also a panelist asked me before the audience why I had stolen dwarves from Tolkien. I responded in august tones: "I beg your pardon, Young Lady," but I stole my dwarves from the same source the Good Professor did, Norse Mythology."
She was pretty much silent for the rest of the session.
If any of the D&D books had a +2 dwarven warhammer of Christ-killing listed among the magic items, the dumb schmuck who wrote this article might have had a point. But apparently Gygax & Co did such a good job of hiding their Jew-hatred that only the silly fumbledick who wrote the article noticed.
Gary stole his Dwarves from the same place as Tolkien indeed: The Hobbit
D&D dwarves are lifted directly from Tolkien. You can tell because they don't incorporate anything from Norse myth that Tolkien didn't, like the ability to forge abstract concepts into magic items, turning into stone under sunlight, or being sapient maggots.
Gygax lifted vastly more from fantasy fiction than he did from the original myths and folklore that informed that fiction.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 11, 2021, 02:02:12 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on February 10, 2021, 08:49:31 PM
Quote from: Elfdart on February 10, 2021, 07:51:20 PM
Since we're talking about D&D dwarves, I think a word from Gary Gygax (https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=236770#p236770) might be relevant:
QuoteI have recounted this experience before, but I'll do so again: When I was part of a large con panel on the East Coast, one young twit of an editor for a major publisher also a panelist asked me before the audience why I had stolen dwarves from Tolkien. I responded in august tones: "I beg your pardon, Young Lady," but I stole my dwarves from the same source the Good Professor did, Norse Mythology."
She was pretty much silent for the rest of the session.
If any of the D&D books had a +2 dwarven warhammer of Christ-killing listed among the magic items, the dumb schmuck who wrote this article might have had a point. But apparently Gygax & Co did such a good job of hiding their Jew-hatred that only the silly fumbledick who wrote the article noticed.
Gary stole his Dwarves from the same place as Tolkien indeed: The Hobbit
D&D dwarves are lifted directly from Tolkien. You can tell because they don't incorporate anything from Norse myth that Tolkien didn't, like the ability to forge abstract concepts into magic items, turning into stone under sunlight, or being sapient maggots.
Gygax lifted vastly more from fantasy fiction than he did from the original myths and folklore that informed that fiction.
Yep, and he even put in Appendix N so people could find his sources of inspiration. It's not like it's a dark secret.
But he wasn't tied to them. Dwarves that turned into stone in sunlight would be annoying to play in a co-operative game, for example.
Tolkien created the modern fantasy archetypes out of existing mythology, and D&D ran with some of the ideas, but didn't limit itself to just Tolkien. There's actual Lord of the Rings RPGs for that.
Oh God. I'm a halfie myself but this is ridiculous.
(1) The dwarves were a good race, for starters, so I don't find it particularly offensive. People love to make Scottish and German dwarves, probably because it fits the existing dwarven stereotypes; I was aware of the 'Jewish' origins of Tolkien's dwarves but it didn't seem to carry over to D&D, where other stereotypes like drinking and fighting (not typical Jewish stereotypes) were a bigger deal.
(2) I kind of thought D&D's gnomes (as of about 2e) might be a little Jewish, what with the bonus to INT, the big noses, and the love of money and jokes, but then again, they were good guys; I'd be much more upset about drow or orcs.
(3) Gygax swiped the golem and the phylactery from Judaism...just like he swiped the rakshasa from India, gold dragons from China, Tiamat from Babylonia, griffins from Iran and Egypt, and lots of other stuff. This was way before people were worried about cultural appropriation, mercifully.
(4) The author has ignored all the clerical spells clearly taken from the Bible...Sticks to Snakes, Lower Water, Part Water, Insect Plague come to mind. Gygax was a Christian and when writing the cleric class these would have been natural examples to come to mind.
What's going on, IMHO, is all the lefty social-justice Jews are realizing they don't have enough 'intersectionality' points and are going to get discriminated against with the other white people...not to mention saying you're oppressed gets you victim points and gets other lefties to defend you. Forget about inventing relativity, the atom bomb, the polio vaccine, and just about every major comic book character, you get points by being picked on these days.
Maybe it was in the Players Handbook that had the "real" spells in it. I never got that one. ;)
Quote from: David Johansen on February 12, 2021, 10:55:16 PM
Maybe it was in the Players Handbook that had the "real" spells in it. I never got that one. ;)
You missed out on that, chicks really dig a dude with access to the real spells.
Quote from: Shasarak on February 13, 2021, 02:11:34 AM
Quote from: David Johansen on February 12, 2021, 10:55:16 PM
Maybe it was in the Players Handbook that had the "real" spells in it. I never got that one. ;)
You missed out on that, chicks really dig a dude with access to the real spells.
I'm gonna call BS on that one...
Everybody knows that gamers were misogynists who never let chicks anywhere near them until recently. :)
Quote from: Null42 on February 11, 2021, 09:43:22 PM
(3) Gygax swiped the golem and the phylactery from Judaism...just like he swiped the rakshasa from India, gold dragons from China, Tiamat from Babylonia, griffins from Iran and Egypt, and lots of other stuff. This was way before people were worried about cultural appropriation, mercifully.
And often stripped away what made them interesting in the first place. There's cultural
appreciation, and then there's creatively bankrupt.
For example, the mythological griffin could detect deposits of precious metals (which they hoarded like magpies), laid agate eggs, its feathers could cure blindness, a drinking horn made from a griffon talon would change color in the presence of poison, etc. There were also a bunch of different varieties like axex, keythong, alce, etc.
The D&D griffon is just a living taxidermy that sometimes you can use as a mount.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 13, 2021, 05:00:07 PM
Quote from: Null42 on February 11, 2021, 09:43:22 PM
(3) Gygax swiped the golem and the phylactery from Judaism...just like he swiped the rakshasa from India, gold dragons from China, Tiamat from Babylonia, griffins from Iran and Egypt, and lots of other stuff. This was way before people were worried about cultural appropriation, mercifully.
And often stripped away what made them interesting in the first place. There's cultural appreciation, and then there's creatively bankrupt.
For example, the mythological griffin could detect deposits of precious metals (which they hoarded like magpies), laid agate eggs, its feathers could cure blindness, a drinking horn made from a griffon talon would change color in the presence of poison, etc. There were also a bunch of different varieties like axex, keythong, alce, etc.
The D&D griffon is just a living taxidermy that sometimes you can use as a mount.
So then make it whatever the fuck your want it to be? You allegedly have a brain and some degree of creativity, why not use it?
Quote from: Brad on February 13, 2021, 07:40:14 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 13, 2021, 05:00:07 PM
Quote from: Null42 on February 11, 2021, 09:43:22 PM
(3) Gygax swiped the golem and the phylactery from Judaism...just like he swiped the rakshasa from India, gold dragons from China, Tiamat from Babylonia, griffins from Iran and Egypt, and lots of other stuff. This was way before people were worried about cultural appropriation, mercifully.
And often stripped away what made them interesting in the first place. There's cultural appreciation, and then there's creatively bankrupt.
For example, the mythological griffin could detect deposits of precious metals (which they hoarded like magpies), laid agate eggs, its feathers could cure blindness, a drinking horn made from a griffon talon would change color in the presence of poison, etc. There were also a bunch of different varieties like axex, keythong, alce, etc.
The D&D griffon is just a living taxidermy that sometimes you can use as a mount.
So then make it whatever the fuck your want it to be? You allegedly have a brain and some degree of creativity, why not use it?
Oh right. I do maintain a D&D-themed blog, which includes a post on griffons (https://planesfordummies.blogspot.com/2018/03/ecology-of-griffin.html). I'm worried that I come across as overbearing and arrogant. I just have so much stuff going on inside.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 13, 2021, 08:09:57 PM
Oh right. I do maintain a D&D-themed blog, which includes a post on griffons (https://planesfordummies.blogspot.com/2018/03/ecology-of-griffin.html). I'm worried that I come across as overbearing and arrogant. I just have so much stuff going on inside.
See, there you go. Will read.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 13, 2021, 05:00:07 PM
And often stripped away what made them interesting in the first place. ...For example, the mythological griffin could detect deposits of precious metals (which they hoarded like magpies), laid agate eggs, its feathers could cure blindness, a drinking horn made from a griffon talon would change color in the presence of poison, etc. There were also a bunch of different varieties like axex, keythong, alce, etc.
The D&D griffon is just a living taxidermy that sometimes you can use as a mount.
True, although I have to wonder how much of that is due to game creators' laziness and how much due to a strong tendency of players to focus on the personal advantage / coolness factor. Like the elaborate backstories, histories and even metaphysics of many campaigns, the mythological flourishes of many given creatures are often overlooked in favour of figuring out its most immediately relevant tactical strengths and weaknesses: whether a griffon's feathers can cure blindness is far likelier to be of minimal concern compared to how good a mount it makes in combat.
This in turn, I suspect, ties back to why race-specific PC modifiers are so decried by those paranoid about racist attitudes: they turn membership in a given species into an explicit overall tactical advantage or disadvantage, in relatively inflexible ways, precisely because their nature as elements in a
game directly encourages that approach. But if playing a game is considered anathema due to (supposedly) unacceptably simplifying one's perspective about the real people, or analogues thereof, the game's elements represent, then that particular SJ philosophy is too far gone to connect with anything human, I think.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 13, 2021, 05:00:07 PM
Quote from: Null42 on February 11, 2021, 09:43:22 PM
(3) Gygax swiped the golem and the phylactery from Judaism...just like he swiped the rakshasa from India, gold dragons from China, Tiamat from Babylonia, griffins from Iran and Egypt, and lots of other stuff. This was way before people were worried about cultural appropriation, mercifully.
And often stripped away what made them interesting in the first place. There's cultural appreciation, and then there's creatively bankrupt.
For example, the mythological griffin could detect deposits of precious metals (which they hoarded like magpies), laid agate eggs, its feathers could cure blindness, a drinking horn made from a griffon talon would change color in the presence of poison, etc. There were also a bunch of different varieties like axex, keythong, alce, etc.
The D&D griffon is just a living taxidermy that sometimes you can use as a mount.
Good.
God.
I am two seconds away from making you the second person I've put on my ignore list. You're like the "Achkt-ualy!" meme guy come to life.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 14, 2021, 02:40:54 AM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 13, 2021, 05:00:07 PM
Quote from: Null42 on February 11, 2021, 09:43:22 PM
(3) Gygax swiped the golem and the phylactery from Judaism...just like he swiped the rakshasa from India, gold dragons from China, Tiamat from Babylonia, griffins from Iran and Egypt, and lots of other stuff. This was way before people were worried about cultural appropriation, mercifully.
And often stripped away what made them interesting in the first place. There's cultural appreciation, and then there's creatively bankrupt.
For example, the mythological griffin could detect deposits of precious metals (which they hoarded like magpies), laid agate eggs, its feathers could cure blindness, a drinking horn made from a griffon talon would change color in the presence of poison, etc. There were also a bunch of different varieties like axex, keythong, alce, etc.
The D&D griffon is just a living taxidermy that sometimes you can use as a mount.
Good.
God.
I am two seconds away from making you the second person I've put on my ignore list. You're like the "Achkt-ualy!" meme guy come to life.
Yeah. Sorry about that.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on February 14, 2021, 12:43:38 AM
...SJ philosophy is too far gone to connect with anything human, I think.
All SJ philosophy, not just any particular one.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 13, 2021, 05:00:07 PM
Quote from: Null42 on February 11, 2021, 09:43:22 PM
(3) Gygax swiped the golem and the phylactery from Judaism...just like he swiped the rakshasa from India, gold dragons from China, Tiamat from Babylonia, griffins from Iran and Egypt, and lots of other stuff. This was way before people were worried about cultural appropriation, mercifully.
And often stripped away what made them interesting in the first place. There's cultural appreciation, and then there's creatively bankrupt.
For example, the mythological griffin could detect deposits of precious metals (which they hoarded like magpies), laid agate eggs, its feathers could cure blindness, a drinking horn made from a griffon talon would change color in the presence of poison, etc. There were also a bunch of different varieties like axex, keythong, alce, etc.
The D&D griffon is just a living taxidermy that sometimes you can use as a mount.
Aside from the agate eggs, the rest of the info, while cool, is relatively irrelevant in a game where clerics can detect poison and cure blindness with spells. In our real world, where clerics don't exist, it's a bigger deal...
I think we've found the inspiration for this article: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I7VEx2dviNk
Quote from: Trinculoisdead on February 15, 2021, 10:54:19 AM
I think we've found the inspiration for this article: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I7VEx2dviNk
We may just have found the master key to the modern world.
Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2021, 02:11:07 PM
It's an interesting question to me -- when did the stereotype of dwarves having a Scottish accent start? I'm guessing it predates the LotR movies, but I don't know what an earlier source would be.
it was already a trope by the mid-90s; Sean Patrick Fannon refers to it in his
Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer's Bible, 1st Edition, c. 1994.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on February 14, 2021, 12:43:38 AM
True, although I have to wonder how much of that is due to game creators' laziness and how much due to a strong tendency of players to focus on the personal advantage / coolness factor. Like the elaborate backstories, histories and even metaphysics of many campaigns, the mythological flourishes of many given creatures are often overlooked in favour of figuring out its most immediately relevant tactical strengths and weaknesses: whether a griffon's feathers can cure blindness is far likelier to be of minimal concern compared to how good a mount it makes in combat.
Yeah, those reasons are understandable. Doesn't mean I like them, though. I feel like it just sucks all the wonder out of the fantasy. The point of play is to have fun, and I never understood the appeal of min-maxing outside of video games.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 15, 2021, 10:13:54 AM
Aside from the agate eggs, the rest of the info, while cool, is relatively irrelevant in a game where clerics can detect poison and cure blindness with spells. In our real world, where clerics don't exist, it's a bigger deal...
Yeah, those reasons are understandable. Doesn't mean I like them, though. At the very least, the creatures could play a bigger role in providing spell and magic item components. Maybe clerics need griffin feathers to cure blindness? Seems like an interesting premise for a more historically authentic campaign setting.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 16, 2021, 04:19:32 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 15, 2021, 10:13:54 AM
Aside from the agate eggs, the rest of the info, while cool, is relatively irrelevant in a game where clerics can detect poison and cure blindness with spells. In our real world, where clerics don't exist, it's a bigger deal...
Yeah, those reasons are understandable. Doesn't mean I like them, though. At the very least, the creatures could play a bigger role in providing spell and magic item components. Maybe clerics need griffin feathers to cure blindness? Seems like an interesting premise for a more historically authentic campaign setting.
Clerics using griffin feathers to cure blindness does not sound very historically authentic.
Quote from: Shasarak on February 16, 2021, 07:44:23 PMClerics using griffin feathers to cure blindness does not sound very historically authentic.
No, but alchemists who need them to make healing potions rings a little truer. Which would be one way to bring that mythological element into a game in a way that would engage the players: what if there's a social competition between alchemists and the Church about healing?
The Church's healing might be more effective, but those pesky clerics keep insisting on tasks of penance to help pay for them, and have an annoying habit of refusing to help at all if they don't think much of the petitioners; conversely, alchemists selling healing elixirs have no moral qualms, but tend to charge all the market will bear for potions that are more limited in effect. However, the alchemists are also willing to pay top price for the components they need -- sometimes without asking too many questions. Bring in the local druids, who have
strong objections to griffin-hunting but also don't particularly like the Church, and you have a good few adventures with significant profit chances and fallout risks that even the most pragmatic PC can get excited by.
Quote from: Shasarak on February 16, 2021, 07:44:23 PM
Clerics using griffin feathers to cure blindness does not sound very historically authentic.
Pretty sure the Romans killed all the griffins during their occupation of the Isles, so yeah, no feathers to be found by mid-evil clerics. Also anything related to faeries after St. Patrick is horseshit since he banished them all.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on February 16, 2021, 10:27:54 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on February 16, 2021, 07:44:23 PMClerics using griffin feathers to cure blindness does not sound very historically authentic.
No, but alchemists who need them to make healing potions rings a little truer.
Alchemists needing to use materials from mythical creatures to make mythical healing potions may be truer but still not historically authentic.
I prefer my Alchemists to stick to their historically authentic role of turning gold into less gold.
Quote from: Shasarak on February 16, 2021, 11:17:04 PMI prefer my Alchemists to stick to their historically authentic role of turning gold into less gold.
Sure, but where's the fun in that? :P
The issue with material components gathered from monsters is that it encourages players to think of creatures more as harvestable commodities and less as fantastical creatures. Charaters carting around bloody bags of monster bits like a World of Warcraft player, hoping a Basilisk toenail can cure someone's gout.
Which may or may not be a feature you desire in a game.
I see nothing in Dwarves that could relate to Jews except their fascination with gems, gold, precious metals etc. And that's something that could be applied to just about every other racial or religious group.
Well one other thing maybe. They seem to strongly favor their own in-group. You never see "half-dwarves" in fantasy games or novels. Dwarven societies are mostly homogenous as well. But again that's kind of pushing it looking for something.
Quote from: Staff of Morning Wood +5 on February 17, 2021, 05:01:43 AM
I see nothing in Dwarves that could relate to Jews except their fascination with gems, gold, precious metals etc. And that's something that could be applied to just about every other racial or religious group.
Well one other thing maybe. They seem to strongly favor their own in-group. You never see "half-dwarves" in fantasy games or novels. Dwarven societies are mostly homogenous as well. But again that's kind of pushing it looking for something.
As I commented in (Reply #3) (https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/now-apparently-dungeons-and-dragons-is-loaded-with-anti-semitic-secret-codes/msg1162572/#msg1162572), the parallel between Jews and dwarves was confirmed by Tolkien himself.
QuoteIn a BBC radio interview with Dennis Gueroult, recorded in 1964 and broadcast the next year, Tolkien made a statement connecting his Dwarves with the Jewish people. What he said was: 'The Dwarves of course are quite obviously – wouldn't you say that in many ways they remind you of the Jews? Their words are Semitic obviously, constructed to be Semitic.' Also in 1964, he wrote to W.R. Matthews: 'The language of the Dwarves [...] is Semitic in cast, leaning phonetically to Hebrew (as suits the Dwarvish character).'
...
Tolkien had added a remark about 'a tremendous love of the artefact, and of course the immense warlike capacity of the Jews, which we tend to forget nowadays.'
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265759803_Jewish_Dwarves_Tolkien_and_Anti-Semitic_Stereotyping
Though he also had a distaste of the nazi anti-semitism of his time.
QuoteIn a letter to Stanley Unwin regarding this affair, dated 25 July 1938, an outraged Tolkien called the racist Nazi laws 'lunatic', adding 'I do not regard the (probable) absence of all Jewish blood as necessarily honourable; and I have many Jewish friends, and should regret giving any colour to the notion that I subscribed to the wholly pernicious and unscientific race-doctrine'
Source: same
So Tolkien did base his dwarves partly on Jews - though that doesn't inherently make them anti-semitic. He wasn't anti-semitic in the nazi sense, but stereotypes like love of gold and gems about Jews can still be considered a problem, even if the dwarves are overall are portrayed positively.
As a side note, I think Staff is expressing a common view - that this sort of racial allegory is totally projection on the part of any liberal reader of old fiction. But at the time when the book was written, racial segregation was the norm even in countries opposed to nazism, and lots of different race-doctrines were mainstream.
Quote from: jhkim on February 17, 2021, 12:25:06 PM
Quote from: Staff of Morning Wood +5 on February 17, 2021, 05:01:43 AM
I see nothing in Dwarves that could relate to Jews except their fascination with gems, gold, precious metals etc. And that's something that could be applied to just about every other racial or religious group.
Well one other thing maybe. They seem to strongly favor their own in-group. You never see "half-dwarves" in fantasy games or novels. Dwarven societies are mostly homogenous as well. But again that's kind of pushing it looking for something.
As I commented in (Reply #3) (https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/now-apparently-dungeons-and-dragons-is-loaded-with-anti-semitic-secret-codes/msg1162572/#msg1162572), the parallel between Jews and dwarves was confirmed by Tolkien himself.
QuoteIn a BBC radio interview with Dennis Gueroult, recorded in 1964 and broadcast the next year, Tolkien made a statement connecting his Dwarves with the Jewish people. What he said was: 'The Dwarves of course are quite obviously – wouldn't you say that in many ways they remind you of the Jews? Their words are Semitic obviously, constructed to be Semitic.' Also in 1964, he wrote to W.R. Matthews: 'The language of the Dwarves [...] is Semitic in cast, leaning phonetically to Hebrew (as suits the Dwarvish character).'
...
Tolkien had added a remark about 'a tremendous love of the artefact, and of course the immense warlike capacity of the Jews, which we tend to forget nowadays.'
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265759803_Jewish_Dwarves_Tolkien_and_Anti-Semitic_Stereotyping
Though he also had a distaste of the nazi anti-semitism of his time.
QuoteIn a letter to Stanley Unwin regarding this affair, dated 25 July 1938, an outraged Tolkien called the racist Nazi laws 'lunatic', adding 'I do not regard the (probable) absence of all Jewish blood as necessarily honourable; and I have many Jewish friends, and should regret giving any colour to the notion that I subscribed to the wholly pernicious and unscientific race-doctrine'
Source: same
So Tolkien did base his dwarves partly on Jews - though that doesn't inherently make them anti-semitic. He wasn't anti-semitic in the nazi sense, but stereotypes like love of gold and gems about Jews can still be considered a problem, even if the dwarves are overall are portrayed positively.
By whom? And to what end?
In another time I might agree, but the suffusion of social justice ideology into culture has set an idea illustrated by the article linked in the OP. Identity politics. Everything is offensive, everything is racist, and if you aren't a part of their solution, you're part of the problem.
QuoteAs a side note, I think Staff is expressing a common view - that this sort of racial allegory is totally projection on the part of any liberal reader of old fiction. But at the time when the book was written, racial segregation was the norm even in countries opposed to nazism, and lots of different race-doctrines were mainstream.
And as you pointed out, Tolkien expressly rejected anti-semitism.
I disagree with your assesment that the "common view" is that racial allegory is a
total projection. I think, like Robin DiAngelo, it stems from the guilt generated by the racist thoughts and feelings of so-called "liberals". They have a point, but project their point onto others as a means of coping with their identity as a person who values social justice. [/armchair psychologist]
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on February 17, 2021, 12:12:02 AM
Quote from: Shasarak on February 16, 2021, 11:17:04 PMI prefer my Alchemists to stick to their historically authentic role of turning gold into less gold.
Sure, but where's the fun in that? :P
Where is the fun in historically authentic RPGs?
Quote from: Brad on February 16, 2021, 10:31:25 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on February 16, 2021, 07:44:23 PM
Clerics using griffin feathers to cure blindness does not sound very historically authentic.
Pretty sure the Romans killed all the griffins during their occupation of the Isles, so yeah, no feathers to be found by mid-evil clerics. Also anything related to faeries after St. Patrick is horseshit since he banished them all.
Those accursed Romans!
Anyway, I made a mistake by saying that. I meant to say "medieval authentic" or whatever the advertising blurb is for
Lion & Dragon IIRC. Basically, whatever J.K. Rowling was doing by referencing her library research in her fictional books.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 17, 2021, 12:47:47 AM
The issue with material components gathered from monsters is that it encourages players to think of creatures more as harvestable commodities and less as fantastical creatures. Charaters carting around bloody bags of monster bits like a World of Warcraft player, hoping a Basilisk toenail can cure someone's gout.
Which may or may not be a feature you desire in a game.
Well, players certainly aren't encouraged to think of them as fantastical
now. That was what I was originally complaining about. Players
already think of griffons in terms of whether they're a valuable mount or source of treasure and nothing else. (I find the fantastical vs natural dichotomy nonsensical anyhow. Medieval bestiaries had tons of bizarre ideas about real animals that make them feel more "fantastical" than many D&D monsters.)
Furthermore, medieval bestiaries
did describe creatures as harvestable commodities. That's pretty much a side effect of human beings thinking of the world around them in terms of utility value. That's always been the case around the world and in folklore. For example, descriptions of the manticore state that rich people in "India" would have baby manticores captured, their tails crushed, and kept as pets in choirs because of their pleasing trumpet-like voices.
It's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Humans by nature think of everything around them, including fantastical creatures were they to exist, in terms of utility value. It may destroy the fantasy for you personally, but for me it feels more immersive because that's exactly how humans would perceive fantastical creatures if they existed. By existing in the same world as humans, they're no longer nebulously "fantastical" but concrete creatures that you can use as mounts or sources of medicinal and alchemical and magical components.
IIRC, ACKS has a section where it mentions that the party wizard can open their own dungeon to lure magical creatures in order to harvest for spell components.
Quote from: Shasarak on February 17, 2021, 02:36:23 PMWhere is the fun in historically authentic RPGs?
Well, "Where's the fun in things that emphasize strict accuracy at the expense of playability or entertainment value," more accurately.
I certainly have no disagreement with the idea that straight historical RPG settings can yield loads of fun, but I'd miss my wizards and my dragons, or their genre-trope equivalents. And even the straight historical settings, in practice, tend to play down the "authentic" bits that would really make the imaginary experience un-fun, like death from sepsis or gangrene, or illness from poor sanitation, or strict enforcement of contemporary cultural prejudices.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on February 17, 2021, 03:14:03 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on February 17, 2021, 02:36:23 PMWhere is the fun in historically authentic RPGs?
Well, "Where's the fun in things that emphasize strict accuracy at the expense of playability or entertainment value," more accurately.
I certainly have no disagreement with the idea that straight historical RPG settings can yield loads of fun, but I'd miss my wizards and my dragons, or their genre-trope equivalents. And even the straight historical settings, in practice, tend to play down the "authentic" bits that would really make the imaginary experience un-fun, like death from sepsis or gangrene, or illness from poor sanitation, or strict enforcement of contemporary cultural prejudices.
The complaint is, as I see it, why do we have (for example) Vampires based on the novel of Bram Stoker instead of historically authentic sparkling Vampires based on the novel of Stephenie Meyer.
Quote from: Shasarak on February 17, 2021, 03:25:53 PMThe complaint is, as I see it, why do we have (for example) Vampires based on the novel of Bram Stoker instead of historically authentic sparkling Vampires based on the novel of Stephenie Meyer.
Ah, fair enough. I was confused by the conflation of alchemists, who
did exist (even if they couldn't do what they thought they could do or were doing), with griffins and fantastical creatures which never did.
All fantasy is extrapolation from reality, which is why making the really outlandish extrapolations seem more convincing by intertwining them with relatively mild extrapolations (e.g. imagining how a legendary ability would become a commodity among people who could make use of it) is one of fantasy literature's touchstones. So it's reasonable to point out that complaining about which imaginary thing is
more imaginary than others is pointless. But this whole thread is about the supposed dangers of that extrapolation going the other way, when fantasies inspired by reality but exaggerated for entertainment value are then inferred to be allegorical claims
about reality -- claims which are inferred to have some kind of hostile social or political agenda behind them.
I remain of the opinion I advanced before, which is that propaganda subtle enough people fail to realize it's propaganda is generally rarer than most people think and takes far more time and volume to have any effect than most actual propagandists will settle for.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 17, 2021, 02:43:47 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 17, 2021, 12:47:47 AM
The issue with material components gathered from monsters is that it encourages players to think of creatures more as harvestable commodities and less as fantastical creatures. Charaters carting around bloody bags of monster bits like a World of Warcraft player, hoping a Basilisk toenail can cure someone's gout.
Which may or may not be a feature you desire in a game.
Well, players certainly aren't encouraged to think of them as fantastical now. That was what I was originally complaining about. Players already think of griffons in terms of whether they're a valuable mount or source of treasure and nothing else. (I find the fantastical vs natural dichotomy nonsensical anyhow. Medieval bestiaries had tons of bizarre ideas about real animals that make them feel more "fantastical" than many D&D monsters.)
Furthermore, medieval bestiaries did describe creatures as harvestable commodities. That's pretty much a side effect of human beings thinking of the world around them in terms of utility value. That's always been the case around the world and in folklore. For example, descriptions of the manticore state that rich people in "India" would have baby manticores captured, their tails crushed, and kept as pets in choirs because of their pleasing trumpet-like voices.
It's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Humans by nature think of everything around them, including fantastical creatures were they to exist, in terms of utility value. It may destroy the fantasy for you personally, but for me it feels more immersive because that's exactly how humans would perceive fantastical creatures if they existed. By existing in the same world as humans, they're no longer nebulously "fantastical" but concrete creatures that you can use as mounts or sources of medicinal and alchemical and magical components.
IIRC, ACKS has a section where it mentions that the party wizard can open their own dungeon to lure magical creatures in order to harvest for spell components.
Doubly so in a table top RPG based on a table top wargame. The gods themselves were reduced to stats and values.
(https://waynesbooks.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/deities-demigods-1st-3rd-b.jpg)
Something famously used by groups so they could beat up the gods and take their loot.
I think the depiction of fantastic things relies a lot on how the GM approaches the game. For a "beer and pretzels" game, monsters are wandering bags of loot and xp. On the other end of the spectrum is pure Role Playing, with everyone in character and less focus on metagame concerns. Most games, I think, fall in-between somewhere.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 17, 2021, 02:00:41 PM
Quote from: jhkim on February 17, 2021, 12:25:06 PM
So Tolkien did base his dwarves partly on Jews - though that doesn't inherently make them anti-semitic. He wasn't anti-semitic in the nazi sense, but stereotypes like love of gold and gems about Jews can still be considered a problem, even if the dwarves are overall are portrayed positively.
By whom? And to what end?
In another time I might agree, but the suffusion of social justice ideology into culture has set an idea illustrated by the article linked in the OP. Identity politics. Everything is offensive, everything is racist, and if you aren't a part of their solution, you're part of the problem.
As I see it, hyper-partisanship means that either *everything* is racist or *nothing* is racist. One has to always side on calling out racism, or always side against accusations of racism.
As I see it, racism exists -- and especially lots of racism existed back in the 1930s. Also, there are different forms and degrees of racism. The U.S. Army fought against the Nazis in WWII, but they also had their own forms of racism - including segregating black soldiers to be cooks or serve in all-black units.
On the other hand, not every accusation of racism is going to be correct, and sometimes I'll disagree about a given claim. In the case of the link from the OP, the author was correct that Tolkien's dwarves were modeled after Jews and represent some negative Jewish stereotypes -- but I think other points of his were exaggerated.
Quote from: jhkim on February 17, 2021, 05:02:32 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 17, 2021, 02:00:41 PM
Quote from: jhkim on February 17, 2021, 12:25:06 PM
So Tolkien did base his dwarves partly on Jews - though that doesn't inherently make them anti-semitic. He wasn't anti-semitic in the nazi sense, but stereotypes like love of gold and gems about Jews can still be considered a problem, even if the dwarves are overall are portrayed positively.
By whom? And to what end?
In another time I might agree, but the suffusion of social justice ideology into culture has set an idea illustrated by the article linked in the OP. Identity politics. Everything is offensive, everything is racist, and if you aren't a part of their solution, you're part of the problem.
As I see it, hyper-partisanship means that either *everything* is racist or *nothing* is racist. One has to always side on calling out racism, or always side against accusations of racism.
As I see it, racism exists -- and especially lots of racism existed back in the 1930s. Also, there are different forms and degrees of racism. The U.S. Army fought against the Nazis in WWII, but they also had their own forms of racism - including segregating black soldiers to be cooks or serve in all-black units.
On the other hand, not every accusation of racism is going to be correct, and sometimes I'll disagree about a given claim. In the case of the link from the OP, the author was correct that Tolkien's dwarves were modeled after Jews and represent some negative Jewish stereotypes -- but I think other points of his were exaggerated.
And that's how they get well intentioned people apologizing for their racist ideology. There's usually a glimmer of a point, and then they slide to that hyper-partisan side of the issue.
Quote from: jhkim on February 17, 2021, 05:02:32 PM
On the other hand, not every accusation of racism is going to be correct, and sometimes I'll disagree about a given claim. In the case of the link from the OP, the author was correct that Tolkien's dwarves were modeled after Jews and represent some negative Jewish stereotypes -- but I think other points of his were exaggerated.
Yeah, Tolkien was basically the equivalent of a weaboo except directed toward Jewish culture. The dwarves of Middle Earth have the most Mary Sue qualities after the elves. For example, they're the only race to resist Sauron's will when given the rings of power.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 17, 2021, 09:32:11 PMThe dwarves of Middle Earth have the most Mary Sue qualities after the elves. For example, they're the only race to resist Sauron's will when given the rings of power.
Well, they aren't utterly transfigured and enslaved by their Rings, the way Men are, but they
are profoundly influenced for the worse; it's noted that the greed and wrath provoked in the Dwarves by their use of the Rings ultimately wound up working to Sauron's benefit anyway, by seeding destructive conflict, paranoia and pride among them.
(Though ironically, you could make a case for the Dwarves as a race being an "in-universe" Mary Sue: they weren't originally planned as part of Arda's Creation, but introduced by a fan and secondary creator the Vala Aule, who thought it would make Arda even cooler to have them in there, and who designed them almost as a self-insert! Only his willingness to respect the wishes of the IP holder earned them a place in the canon.)
I guess the problem with Dwarves being a Mary Sue in regards to Sauron is that they are not in regards to Dragons, Balrogs and Orcs.
Quote from: Shasarak on February 17, 2021, 03:25:53 PM
The complaint is, as I see it, why do we have (for example) Vampires based on the novel of Bram Stoker instead of historically authentic sparkling Vampires based on the novel of Stephenie Meyer.
Or more historically accurate, Anne Rice, who published ACTUAL interviews with REAL vampires.
Quote from: DocJones on February 18, 2021, 09:47:26 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on February 17, 2021, 03:25:53 PM
The complaint is, as I see it, why do we have (for example) Vampires based on the novel of Bram Stoker instead of historically authentic sparkling Vampires based on the novel of Stephenie Meyer.
Or more historically accurate, Anne Rice, who published ACTUAL interviews with REAL vampires.
"Historically accurate" vampires would be nothing like either. They don't appear to have actually existed, but if we use the folklore of the time for reference... One of the most common manifestations in Eastern Europe was an evil corpse than sent out its spirit in astral form to drain the life from its friends and family. Across the world we have various vampiric monsters (https://vampireunderworld.com/vampires-types/) like the asanbosam, yara-ma-yha-who, soucouyant, jararaca, and more.
Out for Blood by Bastion Press (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/2102/Out-for-Blood) provides many vampires based on Eastern European folklore descriptions.
Dont even ask about historically accurate Zombies - you dont want to know. 8)
Quote from: Shasarak on February 18, 2021, 11:24:23 PM
Dont even ask about historically accurate Zombies - you dont want to know. 8)
Yeah, it's a dead topic anyway. ;D
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on February 19, 2021, 12:24:01 AM
Quote from: Shasarak on February 18, 2021, 11:24:23 PM
Dont even ask about historically accurate Zombies - you dont want to know. 8)
Yeah, it's a dead topic anyway. ;D
Falls apart quickly, too.
Aren't D&D zombies ripped mostly right out of voodoo anyway? They fit the dictionary definition to a T: "a corpse said to be revived by witchcraft, especially in certain African and Caribbean religions."
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 19, 2021, 08:53:07 AM
Aren't D&D zombies ripped mostly right out of voodoo anyway? They fit the dictionary definition to a T: "a corpse said to be revived by witchcraft, especially in certain African and Caribbean religions."
To an extent. Night of the Living Dead hit theaters in 1968 and I think that had just as much influence as voodoo zombies on D&D.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 19, 2021, 08:53:07 AM
Aren't D&D zombies ripped mostly right out of voodoo anyway? They fit the dictionary definition to a T: "a corpse said to be revived by witchcraft, especially in certain African and Caribbean religions."
You for one should recognise the differences between a DnD Zombie and a Voodoo Zombie.
Quote from: Shasarak on February 19, 2021, 03:11:57 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 19, 2021, 08:53:07 AM
Aren't D&D zombies ripped mostly right out of voodoo anyway? They fit the dictionary definition to a T: "a corpse said to be revived by witchcraft, especially in certain African and Caribbean religions."
You for one should recognise the differences between a DnD Zombie and a Voodoo Zombie.
It depends on what lore you're working with. The beliefs are not exactly readily shared. Bokors apparently steal the souls of people and place them in jars to create zombies. Salt breaks the spell. Some anthropologists tried to claim that real zombies were created using pufferfish venom, though the veracity of this is disputed.
D&D necromancers appear to be able to animate any corpses they find. Whether this enslaves the soul of the deceased is never explained AFAIK.
It's a square peg in a round hole situation for sure. Zombies having their souls consciously enslaved is definitely a lot more horrifying than the corpses being soulless puppets.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 19, 2021, 07:35:07 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on February 19, 2021, 03:11:57 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 19, 2021, 08:53:07 AM
Aren't D&D zombies ripped mostly right out of voodoo anyway? They fit the dictionary definition to a T: "a corpse said to be revived by witchcraft, especially in certain African and Caribbean religions."
You for one should recognise the differences between a DnD Zombie and a Voodoo Zombie.
It depends on what lore you're working with. The beliefs are not exactly readily shared. Bokors apparently steal the souls of people and place them in jars to create zombies. Salt breaks the spell. Some anthropologists tried to claim that real zombies were created using pufferfish venom, though the veracity of this is disputed.
D&D necromancers appear to be able to animate any corpses they find. Whether this enslaves the soul of the deceased is never explained AFAIK.
It's a square peg in a round hole situation for sure. Zombies having their souls consciously enslaved is definitely a lot more horrifying than the corpses being soulless puppets.
Nope. In the case of a zombie, it's basically flesh puppeted with necromantic energy. A galvanized corpse. The soul has nothing to do with it (and I recall at least one adventure where an annoyed spirit asks an adventuring party to dispose of his shambling corpse so that it won't hurt anyone).
There are undead along the vein of 'enslaved or mutilated souls', typically evil incorporeal undead, as well as some oddities (like the bodak). But zombies? Nope.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on February 19, 2021, 11:02:16 AM
To an extent. Night of the Living Dead hit theaters in 1968 and I think that had just as much influence as voodoo zombies on D&D.
My personal favorite was
Dawn of the Dead released in 1978. I watched it on TBS shock Theater on a Friday night in like 1980.
Following an ever-growing epidemic of zombies that have risen from the dead, two Philadelphia S.W.A.T. team members, a traffic reporter, and his television executive girlfriend seek refuge in a secluded shopping mall.The big draw was taking over and living in the local shopping mall, during the horrific post-apocalypse. I did find the slow zombies kind of unbelievable, and really liked the fast moving runners from
Resident Evil and
World War Z much better!
The Haitian voodoo zombies that would rise in the night from their graves were featured much more in 60's and 70's Hollywood flicks and I enjoyed watching them in the Bond thriller
Live and Let Die, as well as several other early movies including
The Last Man on Earth featuring Vincent Price,
Orgy of the Dead,
The Plague of Zombies,
The Frozen Dead, ...which of course, featured nazi zombies, the
Astro-Zombies with the beach boys style surfing soundtrack which was voted
"the worst picture of all time", and one of my personal favorites
City of the Dead which starred Christopher Lee which I watched on a late-night friday night TBS shock Theater presentation in 1974. One of the finest horror movies from the black & White movie era.
Pretty sure this last one was seen by
Gary Gygax and left quite the impression since he left some notes in the original edition of D&D on angry mobs. It was movies like this, that added the angry villagers rule to D&D!
Dawn of the Deadhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3hRMzYGygI
The Plague of Zombies Trailer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxjH83cVvUg
Astro-Zombieshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_umddRcPBc
City of the Deadhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vF7IB3n3UbU
Vintage Toy Commercials 1950's-1970's
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PWnNuWzZ2Y
The problem with slow, 'Romero' zombies, even if they require headshots, is:
(1) they're still vulnerable to structural damage. Kneecap a zombie and he's gonna be even slower.
(2) they don't duck, or usually wear helmets (zombie soldiers and SWAT members are the exception, obviously).
Romero zombies are also not superhumanly strong. They're just relentless. But relentlessness won't let you punch through brick walls or armor plate.
So yeah. Patiently headshotting them will remove the issue unless you're just completely swarmed under.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on February 19, 2021, 10:27:30 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 19, 2021, 07:35:07 PM
It depends on what lore you're working with. The beliefs are not exactly readily shared. Bokors apparently steal the souls of people and place them in jars to create zombies. Salt breaks the spell. Some anthropologists tried to claim that real zombies were created using pufferfish venom, though the veracity of this is disputed.
Nope. In the case of a zombie, it's basically flesh puppeted with necromantic energy. A galvanized corpse. The soul has nothing to do with it (and I recall at least one adventure where an annoyed spirit asks an adventuring party to dispose of his shambling corpse so that it won't hurt anyone).
BoxCrayonTales is correct about zombies in Vodou. A core of the horror is how the revived person is enslaved by the sorcerer (bokor). This is shown in films like White Zombie (1932) - probably the earliest zombie movie - where the plot revolves around rescuing the woman trapped under the sorcerer's spell. The zombie is still the person they were, with their mind and soul trapped.
That slowly changed in later American zombie movies, leading to the popularization in Night of the Living Dead, where zombies are just mindless puppets.
It also make the morality of zombies more confusing than it should be. In folklore, zombies are enslaved innocents*. Using them is slavery and slavery is evil. In D&D the zombie isn't any more intelligent than a domestic animal (in 5e) or a robot (in 3.x) and are evil in alignment. Why are the zombies evil and why is animating them evil? It feels... arbitrary.
* I recall hearing that sometimes people may actually pay a bokor to turn someone else (usually a person reviled in the family or community) into a zombie, but I don't know the details.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 22, 2021, 07:31:34 PM
It also make the morality of zombies more confusing than it should be. In folklore, zombies are enslaved innocents*. Using them is slavery and slavery is evil. In D&D the zombie isn't any more intelligent than a domestic animal (in 5e) or a robot (in 3.x) and are evil in alignment. Why are the zombies evil and why is animating them evil? It feels... arbitrary.
Why is enslaving a person evil but enslaving a persons body not evil?
Why is one more arbitrary then the other?
Quote from: Shasarak on February 22, 2021, 07:39:11 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 22, 2021, 07:31:34 PM
It also make the morality of zombies more confusing than it should be. In folklore, zombies are enslaved innocents*. Using them is slavery and slavery is evil. In D&D the zombie isn't any more intelligent than a domestic animal (in 5e) or a robot (in 3.x) and are evil in alignment. Why are the zombies evil and why is animating them evil? It feels... arbitrary.
Why is enslaving a person evil but enslaving a persons body not evil?
Why is one more arbitrary then the other?
I'm talking about D&D, not real life. Zombies don't seem to exist in reality, but turning people into zombies is still considered evil because it is slavery.
D&D has entirely arbitrary answers to all those questions. Animating a corpse as an animated object isn't considered evil. Animating it as an undead
is considered evil. Enslaving an elemental to animate a golem isn't considered evil. Enslaving a
person isn't considered evil, whether thru magic mind control or mundane coercion, and there are several good-aligned nations in various settings that rely on slavery.
Do you want to continue this tangent or try to get back on topic?
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 23, 2021, 02:37:15 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on February 22, 2021, 07:39:11 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 22, 2021, 07:31:34 PM
It also make the morality of zombies more confusing than it should be. In folklore, zombies are enslaved innocents*. Using them is slavery and slavery is evil. In D&D the zombie isn't any more intelligent than a domestic animal (in 5e) or a robot (in 3.x) and are evil in alignment. Why are the zombies evil and why is animating them evil? It feels... arbitrary.
Why is enslaving a person evil but enslaving a persons body not evil?
Why is one more arbitrary then the other?
I'm talking about D&D, not real life. Zombies don't seem to exist in reality, but turning people into zombies is still considered evil because it is slavery.
D&D has entirely arbitrary answers to all those questions. Animating a corpse as an animated object isn't considered evil. Animating it as an undead is considered evil. Enslaving an elemental to animate a golem isn't considered evil. Enslaving a person isn't considered evil, whether thru magic mind control or mundane coercion, and there are several good-aligned nations in various settings that rely on slavery.
Do you want to continue this tangent or try to get back on topic?
First you say that Slavery is Evil and then you say that several good aligned nations rely on slavery.
And turning a dead person into a Zombie is supposed to be some kind of Alignment edge case? I honestly dont even know what you are trying to argue for now.
Quote from: Shasarak on February 23, 2021, 06:34:08 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 23, 2021, 02:37:15 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on February 22, 2021, 07:39:11 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 22, 2021, 07:31:34 PM
It also make the morality of zombies more confusing than it should be. In folklore, zombies are enslaved innocents*. Using them is slavery and slavery is evil. In D&D the zombie isn't any more intelligent than a domestic animal (in 5e) or a robot (in 3.x) and are evil in alignment. Why are the zombies evil and why is animating them evil? It feels... arbitrary.
Why is enslaving a person evil but enslaving a persons body not evil?
Why is one more arbitrary then the other?
I'm talking about D&D, not real life. Zombies don't seem to exist in reality, but turning people into zombies is still considered evil because it is slavery.
D&D has entirely arbitrary answers to all those questions. Animating a corpse as an animated object isn't considered evil. Animating it as an undead is considered evil. Enslaving an elemental to animate a golem isn't considered evil. Enslaving a person isn't considered evil, whether thru magic mind control or mundane coercion, and there are several good-aligned nations in various settings that rely on slavery.
Do you want to continue this tangent or try to get back on topic?
First you say that Slavery is Evil and then you say that several good aligned nations rely on slavery.
And turning a dead person into a Zombie is supposed to be some kind of Alignment edge case? I honestly dont even know what you are trying to argue for now.
I'm describing the differences in morality between real life and D&D land as it relates to the cases of slavery and zombies.
In
real life, slavery is bad. I don't believe zombies exist, but people who do believe they exist believe that their creation is evil because it is slavery beyond death.
In D&D land, slavery is
okay. In D&D land, creating zombies is bad even though they're mindless and therefore aren't slaves anymore than domesticated animals or industrial factory robots are slaves.
In
real life, the moral argument of this case is reasonable. Slavery is bad because it is a human rights violation.
In D&D land, the alignment of any given actions is arbitrary, inconsistent, and irrational. Slavery is okay because writer fiat, zombies are bad because writer fiat.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 24, 2021, 02:32:45 PM
I'm describing the differences in morality between real life and D&D land as it relates to the cases of slavery and zombies.
In real life, slavery is bad. I don't believe zombies exist, but people who do believe they exist believe that their creation is evil because it is slavery beyond death.
In D&D land, slavery is okay. In D&D land, creating zombies is bad even though they're mindless and therefore aren't slaves anymore than domesticated animals or industrial factory robots are slaves.
In real life, the moral argument of this case is reasonable. Slavery is bad because it is a human rights violation.
In D&D land, the alignment of any given actions is arbitrary, inconsistent, and irrational. Slavery is okay because writer fiat, zombies are bad because writer fiat.
If Slavery was that bad in real life then we would do something about it but we dont because eh, got to do something with the bad people I dont know just chuck them in a concrete prison cells with the other slaves.
Zombies however are deliberately creating a remorseless killing machine that has no other purpose but destruction. Even Orcs can at least create more Orcs.
Where is the writers fiat? Well it turns out the the writers fiat is all of the mental gymnastics that go into the effort to justify the creation of undead because they could pull a plow or something useful. Uh huh yeah that makes it good thing. ::)
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 22, 2021, 07:31:34 PM
It also make the morality of zombies more confusing than it should be. In folklore, zombies are enslaved innocents*. Using them is slavery and slavery is evil. In D&D the zombie isn't any more intelligent than a domestic animal (in 5e) or a robot (in 3.x) and are evil in alignment. Why are the zombies evil and why is animating them evil? It feels... arbitrary.
* I recall hearing that sometimes people may actually pay a bokor to turn someone else (usually a person reviled in the family or community) into a zombie, but I don't know the details.
Per 1st edition rules, animating the dead pulls negative energy into the prime material plane, and negative energy is inimical to all life. And, if I'm remembering the rules correctly, an undead that is not controlled by its creator (who makes periodic checks to do so) immediately attacks and kills any living creature it encounters, due to the driving force of the negative energy used to create it. So yeah, making them is evil...
Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 24, 2021, 11:07:37 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 22, 2021, 07:31:34 PM
It also make the morality of zombies more confusing than it should be. In folklore, zombies are enslaved innocents*. Using them is slavery and slavery is evil. In D&D the zombie isn't any more intelligent than a domestic animal (in 5e) or a robot (in 3.x) and are evil in alignment. Why are the zombies evil and why is animating them evil? It feels... arbitrary.
* I recall hearing that sometimes people may actually pay a bokor to turn someone else (usually a person reviled in the family or community) into a zombie, but I don't know the details.
Per 1st edition rules, animating the dead pulls negative energy into the prime material plane, and negative energy is inimical to all life. And, if I'm remembering the rules correctly, an undead that is not controlled by its creator (who makes periodic checks to do so) immediately attacks and kills any living creature it encounters, due to the driving force of the negative energy used to create it. So yeah, making them is evil...
Very much so, and the official line on that topic never really moved, at least through 3rd edition. Though there's always been debate about whether necromancy
has to be evil or not. Probably the most notable exploration of that concept was White Wolf's d20 supplement,
Hollowfaust, that detailed a city ruled by necromancers who used zombies and the like for labor. Their citizens were treated well while they were alive, but their bodies belonged to the city when they died. It got a lot of praise, though I thought it was kind of mediocre.
Its even easier to be anti semitic than it is to be racist now a days. So color me shocked.
Quote from: Pat on February 25, 2021, 02:59:27 AM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 24, 2021, 11:07:37 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 22, 2021, 07:31:34 PM
It also make the morality of zombies more confusing than it should be. In folklore, zombies are enslaved innocents*. Using them is slavery and slavery is evil. In D&D the zombie isn't any more intelligent than a domestic animal (in 5e) or a robot (in 3.x) and are evil in alignment. Why are the zombies evil and why is animating them evil? It feels... arbitrary.
* I recall hearing that sometimes people may actually pay a bokor to turn someone else (usually a person reviled in the family or community) into a zombie, but I don't know the details.
Per 1st edition rules, animating the dead pulls negative energy into the prime material plane, and negative energy is inimical to all life. And, if I'm remembering the rules correctly, an undead that is not controlled by its creator (who makes periodic checks to do so) immediately attacks and kills any living creature it encounters, due to the driving force of the negative energy used to create it. So yeah, making them is evil...
Very much so, and the official line on that topic never really moved, at least through 3rd edition. Though there's always been debate about whether necromancy has to be evil or not. Probably the most notable exploration of that concept was White Wolf's d20 supplement, Hollowfaust, that detailed a city ruled by necromancers who used zombies and the like for labor. Their citizens were treated well while they were alive, but their bodies belonged to the city when they died. It got a lot of praise, though I thought it was kind of mediocre.
It's a similar the case in
Planescape: Torment. The Dustmen use zombie and skeleton labor, but nobody considers this evil or anything.
I once wrote a very long post about that (https://planesfordummies.blogspot.com/2018/04/revisiting-morality-of-undeath.html) on my blog. I think that's probably the longest post I ever wrote. Long story short: ask your GM to pick a coherent metaphysic and stick with it.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 27, 2021, 01:27:13 PM
It's a similar the case in Planescape: Torment. The Dustmen use zombie and skeleton labor, but nobody considers this evil or anything.
In Planescape Torment you have honest to Gawd actual Demons and Devils walking around.
The reason they are allowed to is because of the Lady of Pain not because everyone suddenly came to the epiphany that undead were a "good" thing
Quote from: Shasarak on February 27, 2021, 05:04:37 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 27, 2021, 01:27:13 PM
It's a similar the case in Planescape: Torment. The Dustmen use zombie and skeleton labor, but nobody considers this evil or anything.
In Planescape Torment you have honest to Gawd actual Demons and Devils walking around.
The reason they are allowed to is because of the Lady of Pain not because everyone suddenly came to the epiphany that undead were a "good" thing
The zombies clearly aren't evil in the game. They don't have any instincts to hunt the living. You get to visit a secret underground kingdom of them and they're quite nice.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 27, 2021, 05:56:15 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on February 27, 2021, 05:04:37 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 27, 2021, 01:27:13 PM
It's a similar the case in Planescape: Torment. The Dustmen use zombie and skeleton labor, but nobody considers this evil or anything.
In Planescape Torment you have honest to Gawd actual Demons and Devils walking around.
The reason they are allowed to is because of the Lady of Pain not because everyone suddenly came to the epiphany that undead were a "good" thing
The zombies clearly aren't evil in the game. They don't have any instincts to hunt the living. You get to visit a secret underground kingdom of them and they're quite nice.
Did you get a Detect Evil on these "quite nice" Zombies?
Reminds me of the stories about meeting the "quite nice" Michael Myers.
Fictional worlds tend to fall apart if you poke at them too much. I just finished watching Tribes of Europa, which is great fun but makes no sense at all. But it's great fun so who cares?
The Dustmen are also not what you'd call a Good faction. They are a very Lawful faction and those who are reanimated as zombies are the ones who sold their bodies for use after death. You take the coin you can't complain!
Could be a fun story line with a paladin or some other cleric running around Destroying Undead on all the Dustmen zombies.