The committe of public safety was a group of men who were so taken by the idea that they had to protect people from counter-revolutionary ideas that they executed 17,000 people they allegedly wanted to protect. It earned the epitaph: la terreur. Ideas are not harmful. Trying to control information and discourse is despotic. People who are denied the full range of information can't make responsible decisions and trying to deny people their ability to freely decide for themselves is an attempt to enslave them. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Really, did you think policing thoughts to eliminate dangerous ideas was the right side to plant your flag on? Cultivating the thoughts available to someone to condition the desired behaviour might be a very sussinct definition of brainwashing. Besides, I don't think I care to let you or someone like you decide which are "safe" ideas to have and which are "dangerous". As I said, the very division of dangerous and safe thoughts is alien to democratic society.
The committe of public safety was a group of men who were so taken by the idea that they had to protect people from counter-revolutionary ideas that they executed 17,000 people they allegedly wanted to protect. It earned the epitaph: la terreur. Ideas are not harmful. Trying to control information and discourse is despotic. People who are denied the full range of information can't make responsible decisions and trying to deny people their ability to freely decide for themselves is an attempt to enslave them. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Really, did you think policing thoughts to eliminate dangerous ideas was the right side to plant your flag on? Cultivating the thoughts available to someone to condition the desired behaviour might be a very sussinct definition of brainwashing. Besides, I don't think I care to let you or someone like you decide which are "safe" ideas to have and which are "dangerous". As I said, the very division of dangerous and safe thoughts is alien to democratic society.
I was not aware of that piece of history. Thought is important to a democratic and free society, but entertaining certain ideas and the spreading of certain ideas is dangerous. The rest of this post is a Hitler Ate Sugar fallacy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
You keep operating from the premise that as soon as a single person is "offended" by something, anything at all, everyone should respect that person's opinion and cater to them. Sorry, that is not how the world works. Or even if that single person is a group. That group can coalesce and operate in their own cocoon. No one is stopping them. But as soon as they try to impose their values on others, then trouble arises. Tails wagging dogs is a horrible way to run a society, and that is precisely what you are trying to do.
This is so perplexing. I think a general rule of thumb when it comes to respecting other human beings is that yes, if something harms somebody else, you should stop doing that thing. It's not about a conflict of values. It's about common decency. If you're in my kitchen and you don't like pineapple on your pizza, the respectful thing to do is not force you to eat pineapple or kick you out. Nobody is trying to take away your lousy taste in pizza.
Surely, but if we simutaneously entertain the concept that ideas are harmful, then we place ourselves at the mercy of the committee of public safety. The very phrase a dangerous idea only finds a true home in the mouths of dictators and demagogues.
That's not really what anybody's talking about here though. Nobody's saying the notion of mental illness is harmful or dangerous. What's being pointed out is that how they are labeled can be offensive (and quite possibly harmful).
If you calling a label, a word, as capable of inflicting harm on a human being, then I disagree and that is very much what you are discussing.
You keep operating from the premise that as soon as a single person is "offended" by something, anything at all, everyone should respect that person's opinion and cater to them. Sorry, that is not how the world works. Or even if that single person is a group. That group can coalesce and operate in their own cocoon. No one is stopping them. But as soon as they try to impose their values on others, then trouble arises. Tails wagging dogs is a horrible way to run a society, and that is precisely what you are trying to do.
This is so perplexing. I think a general rule of thumb when it comes to respecting other human beings is that yes, if something harms somebody else, you should stop doing that thing. It's not about a conflict of values. It's about common decency. If you're in my kitchen and you don't like pineapple on your pizza, the respectful thing to do is not force you to eat pineapple or kick you out. Nobody is trying to take away your lousy taste in pizza.
Surely, but if we simutaneously entertain the concept that ideas are harmful, then we place ourselves at the mercy of the committee of public safety. The very phrase a dangerous idea only finds a true home in the mouths of dictators and demagogues.
That's not really what anybody's talking about here though. Nobody's saying the notion of mental illness is harmful or dangerous. What's being pointed out is that how they are labeled can be offensive (and quite possibly harmful).
If you calling a label, a word, as capable of inflicting harm on a human being, then I disagree and that is very much what you are discussing.
So, you think that the n-word, the r-word, c-word, and similar derogatory terms are not capable of inflicting harm to the marginalized groups that they have been used on? I disagree with that a fundamental level, especially if you are saying that it's the fault of the people that are getting offended by those words that they're taking offense.
That's just plain wrong.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
You keep operating from the premise that as soon as a single person is "offended" by something, anything at all, everyone should respect that person's opinion and cater to them. Sorry, that is not how the world works. Or even if that single person is a group. That group can coalesce and operate in their own cocoon. No one is stopping them. But as soon as they try to impose their values on others, then trouble arises. Tails wagging dogs is a horrible way to run a society, and that is precisely what you are trying to do.
This is so perplexing. I think a general rule of thumb when it comes to respecting other human beings is that yes, if something harms somebody else, you should stop doing that thing. It's not about a conflict of values. It's about common decency. If you're in my kitchen and you don't like pineapple on your pizza, the respectful thing to do is not force you to eat pineapple or kick you out. Nobody is trying to take away your lousy taste in pizza.
Surely, but if we simutaneously entertain the concept that ideas are harmful, then we place ourselves at the mercy of the committee of public safety. The very phrase a dangerous idea only finds a true home in the mouths of dictators and demagogues.
That's not really what anybody's talking about here though. Nobody's saying the notion of mental illness is harmful or dangerous. What's being pointed out is that how they are labeled can be offensive (and quite possibly harmful).
If you calling a label, a word, as capable of inflicting harm on a human being, then I disagree and that is very much what you are discussing.
How can misrepresenting an illness with an incorrect label not be harmful?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
How can misrepresenting an illness with an incorrect label not be harmful?
How is the label actually incorrect? I mean, it's not the currently favored term, and it could well be insulting (plenty of terms are both accurate and insulting), but it's still referring to the same basic class of effects.
How can misrepresenting an illness with an incorrect label not be harmful?
How is the label actually incorrect? I mean, it's not the currently favored term, and it could well be insulting (plenty of terms are both accurate and insulting), but it's still referring to the same basic class of effects.
Dementia in its many forms is often incorrectly labeled a mental illness and has historically been confused with "madness". Same with autism.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
You keep operating from the premise that as soon as a single person is "offended" by something, anything at all, everyone should respect that person's opinion and cater to them. Sorry, that is not how the world works. Or even if that single person is a group. That group can coalesce and operate in their own cocoon. No one is stopping them. But as soon as they try to impose their values on others, then trouble arises. Tails wagging dogs is a horrible way to run a society, and that is precisely what you are trying to do.
This is so perplexing. I think a general rule of thumb when it comes to respecting other human beings is that yes, if something harms somebody else, you should stop doing that thing. It's not about a conflict of values. It's about common decency. If you're in my kitchen and you don't like pineapple on your pizza, the respectful thing to do is not force you to eat pineapple or kick you out. Nobody is trying to take away your lousy taste in pizza.
Surely, but if we simutaneously entertain the concept that ideas are harmful, then we place ourselves at the mercy of the committee of public safety. The very phrase a dangerous idea only finds a true home in the mouths of dictators and demagogues.
That's not really what anybody's talking about here though. Nobody's saying the notion of mental illness is harmful or dangerous. What's being pointed out is that how they are labeled can be offensive (and quite possibly harmful).
If you calling a label, a word, as capable of inflicting harm on a human being, then I disagree and that is very much what you are discussing.
So, you think that the n-word, the r-word, c-word, and similar derogatory terms are not capable of inflicting harm to the marginalized groups that they have been used on? I disagree with that a fundamental level, especially if you are saying that it's the fault of the people that are getting offended by those words that they're taking offense.
That's just plain wrong.
If I harm someone to a sufficient degree, they will die. Are you saying that I can kill someone if I say any word in a sufficient manner or frequency, because that's objectively wrong. Like observably wrong. Like factually incorrect wrong.
If I harm someone to a sufficient degree, they will die. Are you saying that I can kill someone if I say any word in a sufficient manner or frequency, because that's objectively wrong. Like observably wrong. Like factually incorrect wrong.
You keep operating from the premise that as soon as a single person is "offended" by something, anything at all, everyone should respect that person's opinion and cater to them. Sorry, that is not how the world works. Or even if that single person is a group. That group can coalesce and operate in their own cocoon. No one is stopping them. But as soon as they try to impose their values on others, then trouble arises. Tails wagging dogs is a horrible way to run a society, and that is precisely what you are trying to do.
This is so perplexing. I think a general rule of thumb when it comes to respecting other human beings is that yes, if something harms somebody else, you should stop doing that thing. It's not about a conflict of values. It's about common decency. If you're in my kitchen and you don't like pineapple on your pizza, the respectful thing to do is not force you to eat pineapple or kick you out. Nobody is trying to take away your lousy taste in pizza.
Surely, but if we simutaneously entertain the concept that ideas are harmful, then we place ourselves at the mercy of the committee of public safety. The very phrase a dangerous idea only finds a true home in the mouths of dictators and demagogues.
That's not really what anybody's talking about here though. Nobody's saying the notion of mental illness is harmful or dangerous. What's being pointed out is that how they are labeled can be offensive (and quite possibly harmful).
If you calling a label, a word, as capable of inflicting harm on a human being, then I disagree and that is very much what you are discussing.
How can misrepresenting an illness with an incorrect label not be harmful?
Well, if I call the flu, an illness, "cotton candy", that is an incorrect label and yet does not harm a person. So, in a nearly infinite number of ways mislabelling something is not harmful. Ideas cannot inflict harm. They do not have a physical presence and cannot cause injury.
Offence is not damaging anyone's psyche. If it is, you are talking about someone who is so impossibly mentally frail that they shouldn't be permitted to freely engage with the world in any capacity out of consideration of their own safety. If seeing a concept with the wrong label is going to cause mental or physical damage (the definition of harm) then that person should be locked away for their own safety and, somewhat ironically, in a padded cell. Because such a person does not have the mental resilience to survive in the open world and letting them freely engage with substances that can cause damage is the inciting act to cause harm.
Players should not be exposed to harm, obviously. But that means more you shouldn't have to deal with people eating tubs of peanut butter when you are deathly allergic. You know, things that could injure or kill a person and not... being exposed to ideas that one finds objectionable.
You keep operating from the premise that as soon as a single person is "offended" by something, anything at all, everyone should respect that person's opinion and cater to them. Sorry, that is not how the world works. Or even if that single person is a group. That group can coalesce and operate in their own cocoon. No one is stopping them. But as soon as they try to impose their values on others, then trouble arises. Tails wagging dogs is a horrible way to run a society, and that is precisely what you are trying to do.
This is so perplexing. I think a general rule of thumb when it comes to respecting other human beings is that yes, if something harms somebody else, you should stop doing that thing. It's not about a conflict of values. It's about common decency. If you're in my kitchen and you don't like pineapple on your pizza, the respectful thing to do is not force you to eat pineapple or kick you out. Nobody is trying to take away your lousy taste in pizza.
Surely, but if we simutaneously entertain the concept that ideas are harmful, then we place ourselves at the mercy of the committee of public safety. The very phrase a dangerous idea only finds a true home in the mouths of dictators and demagogues.
That's not really what anybody's talking about here though. Nobody's saying the notion of mental illness is harmful or dangerous. What's being pointed out is that how they are labeled can be offensive (and quite possibly harmful).
If you calling a label, a word, as capable of inflicting harm on a human being, then I disagree and that is very much what you are discussing.
How can misrepresenting an illness with an incorrect label not be harmful?
Well, if I call the flu, an illness, "cotton candy", that is an incorrect label and yet does not harm a person.
If the flu, an illness, is labeled as something else it won't be treated correctly, if at all. Not treating an illness (correctly or at all) can certainly cause harm.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
If I harm someone to a sufficient degree, they will die. Are you saying that I can kill someone if I say any word in a sufficient manner or frequency, because that's objectively wrong. Like observably wrong. Like factually incorrect wrong.
That's not what the word "harm" means, as Heartofjuyomk2 was so kind to point out.
And, yes, any word can be harmful if society makes it harmful. Plenty of words are considered harmful now that weren't a century ago, and vice versa. If the word "it" becomes a derogatory term sometime in the future, "it" can eventually be harmful to people. The same applies to practically any word.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Dementia in its many forms is often incorrectly labeled a mental illness and has historically been confused with "madness". Same with autism.
DSM-V would disagree about those being incorrectly labeled, other than the fact that it doesn't use the term 'mental illness' at all, preferring 'mental disorder'.
Likening a combat sport to combat stress is a bit offensive to many who've had to fight or engage in violence for reasons other than a gym membership that grants bragging rights to having studied in the tradition of Ralph Gracie(tm). But you are right. You shouldn't brag about your training buddies' physical achievements or body and mind mastery on a message board. It reeks of chickenhawkishness or tactical tommydom. Maybe someone in your gym can bring you up to speed on the ethos of the quiet professional. You posit your observation as if it's some sort of judgment, but "I just don't know why it's being entertained" is just a profession of ignorance. Bragging about one's physical prowess and telling people on the internet to get to the gym to be more like you is so ... like rec.martialarts usenet circa 1998?
I mean really, if you really attained the way of the peaceful warrior or whatever, why do you find the internet so bothersome? This, like your recreational sparring, isn't mandatory. But do tell the sparring buddies you respect how you cited their trainings' value in overcoming their personal traumas as a means to diss or put in their place a bunch of folks on the internet, on a Dungeons and Dragons board, many of said folks probably in the juvenile or half your age demographic. I'm sure I'd clap your back and buy you a beer ... and then do that cool thing Statham does in his new movie where he gives the dude the money for the beer and tells him to drink said beer as far away from him as possible.
(you can stop reading here, Rodney, the rest of this is to the topic of the thread)
To the topic at hand, I find this thread interesting, though its initial conceit and some of its responses a bit troubling. The Ravensloft book is coming out which in other threads the OP has dissed as an underwhelming "collection of horror tropes", where the reality from at least some of the promotional writing I've seen it does try to address the psychological dimensions more sensitively than it has in the past with cartoony madness mechanics. That coupled with the investment the TTRPG gaming community has made into mental health awareness, the number of groups, Davyd just touching the tip of the iceberg, who with clinical guidance actually explore TTRPGs as a means to maintain or foster mental health, there just seemed to be a sort of "gotcha" conjecture the OP was going for, their actual investment in the issue questionable or at least not informed.
Kotath's intervention, though perhaps maybe written with a bit more of an edgy point for some tastes based on the responses it received, I think is important. Game play speaking we're basically discussing one manifestation of trauma response (in present RAW or at least rules as suggested) rendered as conditions imposed on PCs when faced with at minimal extreme (i.e. the disorientation of the Underdark in OotA) and more often unrealistic stimulae (i.e. encountering Jubillex and its spawn having a banquet). However, the core of the game is a cartoonish handling of what realistic would be violent trauma performed on the regular and the game doesn't seem as concerned with that. So folks advocating some sort of mandate to redress "madness" in D&D, well, there's an authenticity factor in the greater context of the rather casual use of what would be traumatizing events, ahem, encounters, in the game.
That said, this discussion speaks to the broader issue of what we do and don't hold accountable in our entertainment. Something I don't see being said yet, and the whole point of a Domains of Dread centered book coming out, is when it comes down to it, folks like being scared. Fear in its many manifestations are a form of entertainment. In recent years, we have started talking of "body horror", there's also mind horror, actually probably been around longer. Whether it's the self or an important connection, the entrance of mental illness into a life can be quite frightening ... cultures have dramatized it and represented it both insensitively and sensitively. Some in our community play at those representations. Some sensitively. Some not so much (how many "what if my character had a multiple personality disorder" threads pop up on this forum?). No one can police anyone's table. We can only recommend what we feel are best practices for establishing and maintaining boundaries. Again, another shout out to Monte Cook Games free Consent in Gaming pamphlet and forms. Really some of the concerns aired in this thread if matter to you and you're not familiar with it, read it and use it. It's simple direct and gets you into actually playing the game much faster than some of the Session 0 practices I've seen from well intended but not necessarily well practiced tables. If you think this is all b.s. (slightly raises a hand to own an attitude I outgrew shortly after getting more involved in gaming after taking a backseat to the hobby for a while), read it and do tell me what's wrong with what it asks for.
Yeah, to whoever cranked in with "but there are real horrors in the world." This is true there are real horrible traumas that occur regularly in this world. Nothing wrong with trying to align one's values or see those values reflected in the imaginary monsters our hobbies campaign against. Gaming's a lifestyle choice and its participants can be as aloof or alert to reality in their enjoyment as they wish.
Well, stumbled in here thinking I was in the long thread about skill checks that cascaded out of confusion over Investigation rolls. I'll see myself out.
You keep operating from the premise that as soon as a single person is "offended" by something, anything at all, everyone should respect that person's opinion and cater to them. Sorry, that is not how the world works. Or even if that single person is a group. That group can coalesce and operate in their own cocoon. No one is stopping them. But as soon as they try to impose their values on others, then trouble arises. Tails wagging dogs is a horrible way to run a society, and that is precisely what you are trying to do.
This is so perplexing. I think a general rule of thumb when it comes to respecting other human beings is that yes, if something harms somebody else, you should stop doing that thing. It's not about a conflict of values. It's about common decency. If you're in my kitchen and you don't like pineapple on your pizza, the respectful thing to do is not force you to eat pineapple or kick you out. Nobody is trying to take away your lousy taste in pizza.
Surely, but if we simutaneously entertain the concept that ideas are harmful, then we place ourselves at the mercy of the committee of public safety. The very phrase a dangerous idea only finds a true home in the mouths of dictators and demagogues.
That's not really what anybody's talking about here though. Nobody's saying the notion of mental illness is harmful or dangerous. What's being pointed out is that how they are labeled can be offensive (and quite possibly harmful).
If you calling a label, a word, as capable of inflicting harm on a human being, then I disagree and that is very much what you are discussing.
How can misrepresenting an illness with an incorrect label not be harmful?
Well, if I call the flu, an illness, "cotton candy", that is an incorrect label and yet does not harm a person.
If the flu, an illness, is labeled as something else it won't be treated correctly, if at all. Not treating an illness (correctly or at all) can certainly cause harm.
Yet it is not the label that inflicts the harm. The physician should be trained to make their own diagnosis rather than blindly following the judgement of others. Sapere aude. He has eyes to see and observe the reality, so if someone should call it cotton candy or anything else, that shouldn't stop the reality behind the label from shining through. If I mislable a bottle of poison "milk" and you pour yourself a glass and, seeing that this substance neither looks or smells like milk, you decide to drink a glass of this unidentified liquid, it wasn't the label that did you harm. If I go to the doctor and say "I have cancer" and he blindly puts me on chemotheraphy, then the doctor is an idiot. Yes, I am harmed by this misdiagnosis, but a reasonable physician would investigate my malady rather than taking my word for it.
1a: to inflict with physical pain : woundHe hurt his back while moving some boxes.was seriously hurt in a car accidentYou're hurting my arm!
b: to do substantial or material harm to : damagethe dry summer has hurt the land
2a: to cause emotional pain or anguish to : offendnever meant to hurt yougot her feelings hurt
b: to be detrimental to : hampercharges of graft hurt his chances of being elected
By definition, harm can be physical, mental, reputational, etc. and can mean anything from physical damage to financial losses and violations of rights. I have no idea where you get this idea that harm must be lethal. But at this point you're being obtuse and throwing ad hominem attacks, and so I'm going to ignore you.
If a doctor misdiagnoses then that doctor is at fault, regardless of who else may also be at fault for not noticing contradictory evidence.
Labels do matter. If words did not matter, none of us would be able to communicate at all.
This is why this thread is a slippery slope too.
I am not qualified to talk about the complexities of mental health conditions from a medical standpoint. I am not qualified to talk about the complexities of how it affects those people. I am not qualified to talk to them in a therapeutic since about those issues toward those affected. I would suspect the vast, vast majority of this thread aren't either, at least with regards to points 1 and 3 in this sentence.
but a reasonable physician would investigate my malady rather than taking my word for it.
I generally am not going to trust industrialized medicine to have my best interests at heart. The PERSON might, but the systems don't. The systems only care about the bottom dollar.
I want to address some of the misconceptions, misinformation, and straight up toxic ideas being touted in this thread as there are a lot of bad takes being thrown about. I am once again speaking exclusively from my own experience and the experiences shared with me by those close to me. Trigger warning that I will be going into my experiences with mental illness, I'll try and keep the more sever stuff in spoiler boxes.
Words/thoughts/emotions cannot be harmful This is entirely false, harm exists in many forms and one of those is mental harm. Mental harm can come from within, such as intrusive or obsessive thoughts, or from without in the form of intentional bullying or accidentally problematic language. Trigger warning: traumatic events:
I personally have experienced harm from non-physical triggers and stressors. I have had panic attacks triggered by intrusive thoughts where I have felt like I was dying (which is actually what a panic attack is, your body driving your fight or flight response to 'threat to life' levels). I've struggled with self harm at various points of my life. And I've also dealt continuously with suicidal ideation as well as suicide attempts.
To say that words and thoughts cannot do harm is provably false, and also harmful in of itself. I have been fortunate to be able to receive the help I need at various times in my life, but not everyone is so lucky. To claim those people are not being harmed is to minimise and dismiss their suffering.
If everyone at your table is fine with it, what's the problem This is a truism, but it's not actually relevant to this conversation. The original post was about the use of problematic language in the Dungeon Master's Guide. We're not talking stuff happening at your table or mine, but stuff published in the books we all have access to. This isn't a "keep it at your table"discussion, this is a "what Wizards of the Coast is putting into the world of tabletop gaming" discussion. One of the key points I made earlier was the sadness that WotC was propagating the harmful stereotypes of mental illness that have personally, negatively affected myself and others. But this leads onto the second fallacy with that argument; it's not staying at your table. People are bringing their experiences with what's "okay" at their table into this discussion, into this forum. People are bringing assumptions and attitudes that while fine at their table, are harmful in a public sphere. You can't unread something, so when someone posts "this isn't a real problem, my table is fine with it", that's something that's in your head now. You're left with that 'not a real problem' knocking around in your mind, along with those countless other little thoughts that make you question if this is just something defective about you? That self doubt if you really should talk to someone? When someone puts a harmful or minimising statement out on this forum, it affects people negatively.
If you take everything problematic out of D&D there'll be nothing left Let's start with the obvious response; if that's true, so what? If D&D is so full of harmful ideas and tropes and assumptions that the moment you start looking at it with a critical, seflless, empathic eye, it all falls apart and the bits scurry under the sofa like Oogie Boogie in Nightmare Before Christmas, so what? Why would a game so built on toxic idea and harmful notions deserve not to be torn down? There are other TTRPGs out there, life will go on, people will find something else to play. If the "it's just a game" crowd are correct, then it doesn't matter as after all, it's just a game, right? But that's not the case. People aren't talking about pulling out everything harmful in D&D and even if they were, it wouldn't lead to the destruction of the game. What people are talking about is fixing D&D, making it better, making it the best TTRPG it can be so it can live up to its own hype. I've commented (twice) with how WotC is moving towards more psychologically informed language in the Ravenloft book. They're not removing madness and insanity, they're just removing the parts of it that are crass, vulgar and insensitive and replacing that with language that is considered, informed and empathetic. And you know what? That makes the game better. So no, people aren't talking about tearing down D&D until there's nothing left. Instead, it's a ship of Thesus situation; pulling out each rotten plank and replacing it with a fresh one, free of the rot of years gone by. Different planks, same D&D.
I don't see anyone harmed by this language, so what's the problem? I am, I have been. I've been harmed by this language. I know people who have been. I know people who're no longer with us because of this language. Not because of the Dungeon Master's Guide specifically, no. That's a strawman, to claim "Unless you can show me someone that has been harmed by this exact section of the rules, your argument is invalid". But harm is caused by the ideas and language perpetuated by stuff like the madness and insanity rules in D&D. It's not, and never is, death by a single dagger, it's always a thousand paper cuts, and I'd rather than one of those cuts didn't come from the hobby I love.
You can't prevent everyone from being offended, if you do then no one will do anything The goal isn't to prevent everyone from being offended or hurt, because offence/harm isn't a binary, it's a spectrum. The goal is to identify the causes that do the most harm and minimise them. By this logic, road laws and seat belts shouldn't be a thing because you can't prevent every accident without stopping people from driving. Perfect is the enemy of good; don't try and presume it's a complete solution or no solution. We're in this to make D&D better, not perfect, because it never will be perfect. That's why we're on the fifth edition after all; there'll be a sixth, and maybe a seventh and hopefully an eighth and onwards. I don't care what edition I teach to my daughter, just that people don't try and stagnate D&D so that it dies off as the world changes and moves forwards.
Okay, mod hat back on. That's enough of Davyd the D&D player with baggage, now time for Davyd the moderator.
Respect each other. Respect each others experiences. That's a forum rule; respect and courtesy is expected from everyone towards everyone else. No exceptions.
No one has the right to demand moderators lock threads. It is the remit of the moderation team to decide what threads stay up and which, as a last resort, are locked. Action taken to intentionally get threads locked will not be tolerated. I have chosen to recuse myself from any such decisions regarding this thread due to being personally involved and biased, so it will be the judgement of my fellow moderators who I implicitly trust. It will be no one else's decision to make.
Please take a moment to refresh yourself with the site rules and guidelines, if you wish to avoid incurring warnings. And if in doubt, don't post it.
Thank you so much for sharing your experiences in such an open and honest way. I am well aware that this can be a difficult thing to do, but I think it's been very informative to this discussion.
. . . The idea that people with mental health conditions being crazy and dangerous is a dangerous idea that does real harm. The idea that indigenous people are inferior to white people is a dangerous idea that does real harm. The idea that some people are naturally lesser than any other person is a dangerous idea that does real harm.
Need I go on? Ideas can be dangerous. Some are legitimately dangerous, while others are the type that dictators dislike (that people are equal, lives matter, etc).
The "committee of public safety" in the real world is the whole of society. Society decides what ideas are harmful and what ones aren't. That's why the vast majority society agrees that the *** is bad, people with mental health issues deserve to be treated like people, and that systems that give the people the power are better than those that give specific individuals/families the power.
Anyway, this is getting out of the realm of discussion appropriate to this thread. Basically, society as a whole determines all of this, not individuals. Not me, not you, not Vince, not Heartofjuyomk2, and not any other individual person.
Actually, the real dangers are in generalizing and dismissing.
Some people with mental illness are a danger to others or at least to themselves. Some people with physical illnesses are dangers to others too. This is because the category 'illnesses' contains a wide variety of conditions that are simply not equal. Similarly, some people can be inferior in certain aspects due to certain medical conditions.
While it is important (and vitally important) to continue to recognize everyone, regardless of any conditions they may face, as fellow humans, those dangerous and/or inferior aspects do need to be recognized too. Respecting those with any given affliction means acknowledging them but also ensuring that whatever provisions are practical to help them deal with their symptoms. They need to be treated as people, rather than simply discarded, or worse, destroyed, but they do still need to be treated as people with serious conditions and those conditions addressed.
This is also different from race, in that no one is dangerous or inferior in any way simply because of race.
There are some similarities, but it is still not the same. There should be no stigmas regardless of what branch of medicine is doing the treatment, but that does not mean that the need for treatment where possible and the need for a practical environment for as many as possible should be ignored.
I think everybody is well aware that some people with severe mental disorders can be a danger to themselves and others... In fact, this is kind of the point. Everybody is aware of this because, until recently, this was the stigma attached to all people who admitted mental health problems.
It's also part of the reason, I think, that the terms madness and insanity have fallen out of favour in the modern vernacular to describe real mental health issues. It evokes images of those who are dangerous to themselves or others, of the old stereotypical asylums full of "dangerous lunatics" and the "criminally insane". However, that doesn't mean that it no longer has relevance to those with mental health issues, it means that people have recognised that it does have relevance and, because of the highly negative connotations, should not be used anymore.
Nope. Frankly, if It is my table, the offendees can choose to stay or walk. I will try to replace them, and if not possible, I end the game. If it is someone else's table, then it is up to that DM to decide what they allow at their table. But I have yet to run into a DM that has brought up this particular issue before. Is such a DM out there? Probably. But they must be few and far between.
So, let me throw you a hypothetical:
You are running a game, and you introduce an effect which induces "madness" in one of the party members. It's not really important to the story, but you thought it would be fun for the group. However, one of your players is made uncomfortable, and afterwards comes to you and explains that it brought back painful, traumatic memories of a serious mental issue they or someone they were close to had a few years ago.
If you stick to the rules that you have specified, you are saying that you would tell them (I would hope, at least, in more sympathetic language) that they can either accept the game as is or leave. You would not adjust the game to help one of your players, even though what is making them uncomfortable is not important to the game. They would have the choice of continuing, and being reminded constantly of a traumatic experience in their life, or leave a game they were otherwise enjoying.
Taking this one step further, they raise the issue with the group. The majority of the group, possibly even all of them, say that they would prefer to drop this part of the story and continue with the affected player. If we go by the rules you've said you would follow, you would shut down the game and walk away. You would quit as a DM rather than remove an unimportant plot point which the table had asked you to remove for the sake of a player.
Please correct me if I have misunderstood.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The committe of public safety was a group of men who were so taken by the idea that they had to protect people from counter-revolutionary ideas that they executed 17,000 people they allegedly wanted to protect. It earned the epitaph: la terreur. Ideas are not harmful. Trying to control information and discourse is despotic. People who are denied the full range of information can't make responsible decisions and trying to deny people their ability to freely decide for themselves is an attempt to enslave them. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Really, did you think policing thoughts to eliminate dangerous ideas was the right side to plant your flag on? Cultivating the thoughts available to someone to condition the desired behaviour might be a very sussinct definition of brainwashing. Besides, I don't think I care to let you or someone like you decide which are "safe" ideas to have and which are "dangerous". As I said, the very division of dangerous and safe thoughts is alien to democratic society.
I was not aware of that piece of history. Thought is important to a democratic and free society, but entertaining certain ideas and the spreading of certain ideas is dangerous. The rest of this post is a Hitler Ate Sugar fallacy.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
If you calling a label, a word, as capable of inflicting harm on a human being, then I disagree and that is very much what you are discussing.
So, you think that the n-word, the r-word, c-word, and similar derogatory terms are not capable of inflicting harm to the marginalized groups that they have been used on? I disagree with that a fundamental level, especially if you are saying that it's the fault of the people that are getting offended by those words that they're taking offense.
That's just plain wrong.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
How can misrepresenting an illness with an incorrect label not be harmful?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
How is the label actually incorrect? I mean, it's not the currently favored term, and it could well be insulting (plenty of terms are both accurate and insulting), but it's still referring to the same basic class of effects.
Dementia in its many forms is often incorrectly labeled a mental illness and has historically been confused with "madness". Same with autism.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
If I harm someone to a sufficient degree, they will die. Are you saying that I can kill someone if I say any word in a sufficient manner or frequency, because that's objectively wrong. Like observably wrong. Like factually incorrect wrong.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/harm
If that's your definition of harm, you must not be a fan of... let's say all civil law?
Well, if I call the flu, an illness, "cotton candy", that is an incorrect label and yet does not harm a person. So, in a nearly infinite number of ways mislabelling something is not harmful. Ideas cannot inflict harm. They do not have a physical presence and cannot cause injury.
Offence is not damaging anyone's psyche. If it is, you are talking about someone who is so impossibly mentally frail that they shouldn't be permitted to freely engage with the world in any capacity out of consideration of their own safety. If seeing a concept with the wrong label is going to cause mental or physical damage (the definition of harm) then that person should be locked away for their own safety and, somewhat ironically, in a padded cell. Because such a person does not have the mental resilience to survive in the open world and letting them freely engage with substances that can cause damage is the inciting act to cause harm.
Players should not be exposed to harm, obviously. But that means more you shouldn't have to deal with people eating tubs of peanut butter when you are deathly allergic. You know, things that could injure or kill a person and not... being exposed to ideas that one finds objectionable.
If the flu, an illness, is labeled as something else it won't be treated correctly, if at all. Not treating an illness (correctly or at all) can certainly cause harm.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
That's not what the word "harm" means, as Heartofjuyomk2 was so kind to point out.
And, yes, harming people through words can have physical consequences. Suicide rates (especially amongst young women) have increased as cyberbullying has. Yes, technically the person committing suicide is killing themselves, but they likely wouldn't have if it were not for the words that were harming them.
And, yes, any word can be harmful if society makes it harmful. Plenty of words are considered harmful now that weren't a century ago, and vice versa. If the word "it" becomes a derogatory term sometime in the future, "it" can eventually be harmful to people. The same applies to practically any word.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
DSM-V would disagree about those being incorrectly labeled, other than the fact that it doesn't use the term 'mental illness' at all, preferring 'mental disorder'.
Likening a combat sport to combat stress is a bit offensive to many who've had to fight or engage in violence for reasons other than a gym membership that grants bragging rights to having studied in the tradition of Ralph Gracie(tm). But you are right. You shouldn't brag about your training buddies' physical achievements or body and mind mastery on a message board. It reeks of chickenhawkishness or tactical tommydom. Maybe someone in your gym can bring you up to speed on the ethos of the quiet professional. You posit your observation as if it's some sort of judgment, but "I just don't know why it's being entertained" is just a profession of ignorance. Bragging about one's physical prowess and telling people on the internet to get to the gym to be more like you is so ... like rec.martialarts usenet circa 1998?
I mean really, if you really attained the way of the peaceful warrior or whatever, why do you find the internet so bothersome? This, like your recreational sparring, isn't mandatory. But do tell the sparring buddies you respect how you cited their trainings' value in overcoming their personal traumas as a means to diss or put in their place a bunch of folks on the internet, on a Dungeons and Dragons board, many of said folks probably in the juvenile or half your age demographic. I'm sure I'd clap your back and buy you a beer ... and then do that cool thing Statham does in his new movie where he gives the dude the money for the beer and tells him to drink said beer as far away from him as possible.
(you can stop reading here, Rodney, the rest of this is to the topic of the thread)
To the topic at hand, I find this thread interesting, though its initial conceit and some of its responses a bit troubling. The Ravensloft book is coming out which in other threads the OP has dissed as an underwhelming "collection of horror tropes", where the reality from at least some of the promotional writing I've seen it does try to address the psychological dimensions more sensitively than it has in the past with cartoony madness mechanics. That coupled with the investment the TTRPG gaming community has made into mental health awareness, the number of groups, Davyd just touching the tip of the iceberg, who with clinical guidance actually explore TTRPGs as a means to maintain or foster mental health, there just seemed to be a sort of "gotcha" conjecture the OP was going for, their actual investment in the issue questionable or at least not informed.
Kotath's intervention, though perhaps maybe written with a bit more of an edgy point for some tastes based on the responses it received, I think is important. Game play speaking we're basically discussing one manifestation of trauma response (in present RAW or at least rules as suggested) rendered as conditions imposed on PCs when faced with at minimal extreme (i.e. the disorientation of the Underdark in OotA) and more often unrealistic stimulae (i.e. encountering Jubillex and its spawn having a banquet). However, the core of the game is a cartoonish handling of what realistic would be violent trauma performed on the regular and the game doesn't seem as concerned with that. So folks advocating some sort of mandate to redress "madness" in D&D, well, there's an authenticity factor in the greater context of the rather casual use of what would be traumatizing events, ahem, encounters, in the game.
That said, this discussion speaks to the broader issue of what we do and don't hold accountable in our entertainment. Something I don't see being said yet, and the whole point of a Domains of Dread centered book coming out, is when it comes down to it, folks like being scared. Fear in its many manifestations are a form of entertainment. In recent years, we have started talking of "body horror", there's also mind horror, actually probably been around longer. Whether it's the self or an important connection, the entrance of mental illness into a life can be quite frightening ... cultures have dramatized it and represented it both insensitively and sensitively. Some in our community play at those representations. Some sensitively. Some not so much (how many "what if my character had a multiple personality disorder" threads pop up on this forum?). No one can police anyone's table. We can only recommend what we feel are best practices for establishing and maintaining boundaries. Again, another shout out to Monte Cook Games free Consent in Gaming pamphlet and forms. Really some of the concerns aired in this thread if matter to you and you're not familiar with it, read it and use it. It's simple direct and gets you into actually playing the game much faster than some of the Session 0 practices I've seen from well intended but not necessarily well practiced tables. If you think this is all b.s. (slightly raises a hand to own an attitude I outgrew shortly after getting more involved in gaming after taking a backseat to the hobby for a while), read it and do tell me what's wrong with what it asks for.
Yeah, to whoever cranked in with "but there are real horrors in the world." This is true there are real horrible traumas that occur regularly in this world. Nothing wrong with trying to align one's values or see those values reflected in the imaginary monsters our hobbies campaign against. Gaming's a lifestyle choice and its participants can be as aloof or alert to reality in their enjoyment as they wish.
Well, stumbled in here thinking I was in the long thread about skill checks that cascaded out of confusion over Investigation rolls. I'll see myself out.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Yet it is not the label that inflicts the harm. The physician should be trained to make their own diagnosis rather than blindly following the judgement of others. Sapere aude. He has eyes to see and observe the reality, so if someone should call it cotton candy or anything else, that shouldn't stop the reality behind the label from shining through. If I mislable a bottle of poison "milk" and you pour yourself a glass and, seeing that this substance neither looks or smells like milk, you decide to drink a glass of this unidentified liquid, it wasn't the label that did you harm. If I go to the doctor and say "I have cancer" and he blindly puts me on chemotheraphy, then the doctor is an idiot. Yes, I am harmed by this misdiagnosis, but a reasonable physician would investigate my malady rather than taking my word for it.
harm
nounDefinition of harm
(Entry 1 of 2)
injury
nounhurt
verbDefinition of hurt
(Entry 1 of 2)
transitive verb
By definition, harm can be physical, mental, reputational, etc. and can mean anything from physical damage to financial losses and violations of rights. I have no idea where you get this idea that harm must be lethal. But at this point you're being obtuse and throwing ad hominem attacks, and so I'm going to ignore you.
This is why this thread is a slippery slope too.
I am not qualified to talk about the complexities of mental health conditions from a medical standpoint. I am not qualified to talk about the complexities of how it affects those people. I am not qualified to talk to them in a therapeutic since about those issues toward those affected. I would suspect the vast, vast majority of this thread aren't either, at least with regards to points 1 and 3 in this sentence.
I generally am not going to trust industrialized medicine to have my best interests at heart. The PERSON might, but the systems don't. The systems only care about the bottom dollar.
I want to address some of the misconceptions, misinformation, and straight up toxic ideas being touted in this thread as there are a lot of bad takes being thrown about. I am once again speaking exclusively from my own experience and the experiences shared with me by those close to me. Trigger warning that I will be going into my experiences with mental illness, I'll try and keep the more sever stuff in spoiler boxes.
Words/thoughts/emotions cannot be harmful
This is entirely false, harm exists in many forms and one of those is mental harm. Mental harm can come from within, such as intrusive or obsessive thoughts, or from without in the form of intentional bullying or accidentally problematic language. Trigger warning: traumatic events:
I personally have experienced harm from non-physical triggers and stressors. I have had panic attacks triggered by intrusive thoughts where I have felt like I was dying (which is actually what a panic attack is, your body driving your fight or flight response to 'threat to life' levels). I've struggled with self harm at various points of my life. And I've also dealt continuously with suicidal ideation as well as suicide attempts.
To say that words and thoughts cannot do harm is provably false, and also harmful in of itself. I have been fortunate to be able to receive the help I need at various times in my life, but not everyone is so lucky. To claim those people are not being harmed is to minimise and dismiss their suffering.
If everyone at your table is fine with it, what's the problem
This is a truism, but it's not actually relevant to this conversation. The original post was about the use of problematic language in the Dungeon Master's Guide. We're not talking stuff happening at your table or mine, but stuff published in the books we all have access to. This isn't a "keep it at your table"discussion, this is a "what Wizards of the Coast is putting into the world of tabletop gaming" discussion. One of the key points I made earlier was the sadness that WotC was propagating the harmful stereotypes of mental illness that have personally, negatively affected myself and others.
But this leads onto the second fallacy with that argument; it's not staying at your table. People are bringing their experiences with what's "okay" at their table into this discussion, into this forum. People are bringing assumptions and attitudes that while fine at their table, are harmful in a public sphere. You can't unread something, so when someone posts "this isn't a real problem, my table is fine with it", that's something that's in your head now. You're left with that 'not a real problem' knocking around in your mind, along with those countless other little thoughts that make you question if this is just something defective about you? That self doubt if you really should talk to someone? When someone puts a harmful or minimising statement out on this forum, it affects people negatively.
If you take everything problematic out of D&D there'll be nothing left
Let's start with the obvious response; if that's true, so what? If D&D is so full of harmful ideas and tropes and assumptions that the moment you start looking at it with a critical, seflless, empathic eye, it all falls apart and the bits scurry under the sofa like Oogie Boogie in Nightmare Before Christmas, so what? Why would a game so built on toxic idea and harmful notions deserve not to be torn down? There are other TTRPGs out there, life will go on, people will find something else to play. If the "it's just a game" crowd are correct, then it doesn't matter as after all, it's just a game, right?
But that's not the case. People aren't talking about pulling out everything harmful in D&D and even if they were, it wouldn't lead to the destruction of the game. What people are talking about is fixing D&D, making it better, making it the best TTRPG it can be so it can live up to its own hype. I've commented (twice) with how WotC is moving towards more psychologically informed language in the Ravenloft book. They're not removing madness and insanity, they're just removing the parts of it that are crass, vulgar and insensitive and replacing that with language that is considered, informed and empathetic. And you know what? That makes the game better. So no, people aren't talking about tearing down D&D until there's nothing left. Instead, it's a ship of Thesus situation; pulling out each rotten plank and replacing it with a fresh one, free of the rot of years gone by. Different planks, same D&D.
I don't see anyone harmed by this language, so what's the problem?
I am, I have been. I've been harmed by this language. I know people who have been. I know people who're no longer with us because of this language. Not because of the Dungeon Master's Guide specifically, no. That's a strawman, to claim "Unless you can show me someone that has been harmed by this exact section of the rules, your argument is invalid". But harm is caused by the ideas and language perpetuated by stuff like the madness and insanity rules in D&D. It's not, and never is, death by a single dagger, it's always a thousand paper cuts, and I'd rather than one of those cuts didn't come from the hobby I love.
You can't prevent everyone from being offended, if you do then no one will do anything
The goal isn't to prevent everyone from being offended or hurt, because offence/harm isn't a binary, it's a spectrum. The goal is to identify the causes that do the most harm and minimise them. By this logic, road laws and seat belts shouldn't be a thing because you can't prevent every accident without stopping people from driving. Perfect is the enemy of good; don't try and presume it's a complete solution or no solution. We're in this to make D&D better, not perfect, because it never will be perfect. That's why we're on the fifth edition after all; there'll be a sixth, and maybe a seventh and hopefully an eighth and onwards. I don't care what edition I teach to my daughter, just that people don't try and stagnate D&D so that it dies off as the world changes and moves forwards.
Okay, mod hat back on. That's enough of Davyd the D&D player with baggage, now time for Davyd the moderator.
Respect each other. Respect each others experiences. That's a forum rule; respect and courtesy is expected from everyone towards everyone else. No exceptions.
No one has the right to demand moderators lock threads. It is the remit of the moderation team to decide what threads stay up and which, as a last resort, are locked. Action taken to intentionally get threads locked will not be tolerated. I have chosen to recuse myself from any such decisions regarding this thread due to being personally involved and biased, so it will be the judgement of my fellow moderators who I implicitly trust. It will be no one else's decision to make.
Please take a moment to refresh yourself with the site rules and guidelines, if you wish to avoid incurring warnings. And if in doubt, don't post it.
Don't forget to love each other
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Thank you so much for sharing your experiences in such an open and honest way. I am well aware that this can be a difficult thing to do, but I think it's been very informative to this discussion.
I think everybody is well aware that some people with severe mental disorders can be a danger to themselves and others... In fact, this is kind of the point. Everybody is aware of this because, until recently, this was the stigma attached to all people who admitted mental health problems.
It's also part of the reason, I think, that the terms madness and insanity have fallen out of favour in the modern vernacular to describe real mental health issues. It evokes images of those who are dangerous to themselves or others, of the old stereotypical asylums full of "dangerous lunatics" and the "criminally insane". However, that doesn't mean that it no longer has relevance to those with mental health issues, it means that people have recognised that it does have relevance and, because of the highly negative connotations, should not be used anymore.
So, let me throw you a hypothetical:
You are running a game, and you introduce an effect which induces "madness" in one of the party members. It's not really important to the story, but you thought it would be fun for the group. However, one of your players is made uncomfortable, and afterwards comes to you and explains that it brought back painful, traumatic memories of a serious mental issue they or someone they were close to had a few years ago.
If you stick to the rules that you have specified, you are saying that you would tell them (I would hope, at least, in more sympathetic language) that they can either accept the game as is or leave. You would not adjust the game to help one of your players, even though what is making them uncomfortable is not important to the game. They would have the choice of continuing, and being reminded constantly of a traumatic experience in their life, or leave a game they were otherwise enjoying.
Taking this one step further, they raise the issue with the group. The majority of the group, possibly even all of them, say that they would prefer to drop this part of the story and continue with the affected player. If we go by the rules you've said you would follow, you would shut down the game and walk away. You would quit as a DM rather than remove an unimportant plot point which the table had asked you to remove for the sake of a player.
Please correct me if I have misunderstood.