Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
We seem to be stepping a “keep on truckin,” stride’s length beyond a discussion of perceived lore changes..
I mean, I think Tom Hanks is cool too… but Mazes and Monsters is irl lore… heh.
I am not invalidating other peoples feelings. I acknowledge that there are people who genuinely feel the way they do. The reason why I spoke up again is because it seemed like there were a few people making blanket/broad brush statements about the influence of fantasy on others.
Why not?
Provide reasoning. Provide science, since you seem fond of it. Provide a reason beyond "that just doesn't seem likely". Because 'that just doesn't seem likely' is nothing but an intuitive gut-feeling argument, and it's a your-word-versus-mine sort of argument that holds no water.
The argument - backed by real science, real scientific testing and analysis - is that media implicitly/tacitly condoning certain forms of behavior such as "this entire kind of people can be written off as Lesser and safely treated as poorly as you like and people will not only never bother to care but even value you more highly because of it" can steer someone towards that behavior in reality. The effect is not pronounced, it is not engineering-level consistent, and it is not guaranteed, but it's absolutely real. "I killed three orcs in the game so I'm going to go murder the N'giris tomorrow" is extremely unlikely, yes. Many years of engaging deeply and heavily with media that portrays it as okey - heroic, even! - to treat any humanoid that is not of your particular, specific species as a lesser being unworthy of empathy or respect has the capacity to amplify endemic biases present in any random person and make it more likely for that person to engage in toxic, harmful behavior. Often, without ever realizing that their behavior is toxic or harmful in the first place.
That is the entire definition of systemic exclusionism - that the system itself encourages and perpetuates these ideals through a fundamentally biased structure designed and developed by people with a poor awareness of exclusionist issues. Furthermore, you are indeed pushing for literal "Systemic Exclusionism" in D&D by demanding that exclusionism be written into the system, i.e. "all orcs are always evil forever unless the DM decides to go out of their way to make non-evil orcs for whatever dumb reason someone might want non-evil orcs." How is that okay, again? You can protest "they're not people so they don't matter!" all you like, and we'll keep telling you.
Those are the exact same words people have been using for hundreds and hundreds of years to justify things history calls "atrocities" today. Do you really want to go there?
Please do not contact or message me.
A lot of people have been using personal testimony as if it were a universal truth, so why can't I? Statistically valid surveys and academic studies are superior to personal testimony, but people tossing links to each other usually just results in people critiquing the source rather than discussing the issue at hand. However, when someone claims "countless studies", it's not unreasonable to ask for a link.
But orcs aren't people and they derive from mythology, demon gods of hell, and cannibal and baby eater and violent brutes from fables, and if you change it you erase the culture that they represent, and that's bad.
I posted a longer post explaining everything but for some reason didn't work so I have to redo everything from beginning
Unfortunately most of the current research is locked behind paywalls. That said, a simple google search was able to come up with a number of studies that were not locked behind a paywall--if you actually wanted to educate yourself, I am sure you could find the same with relative ease.
That said, I generally assume that people are willing to change their minds if confronted with conflicting information, but they generally are unwilling to seek out that information that might disrupt their closely held worldview, even if that information is just a few keystrokes away. Here are some quotes from articles--you will have to pardon me for being too lazy to properly Blue Book the citations.
Relating to how removing stereotypes and characters that do not conform to those stereotypes might influence children's view on marginalized groups: "Results showed that extended exposure to a multi-chapter story about a counter-stereotypical protagonist could reduce children’s endorsement of gender stereotypes; this effect was particularly strong in male children exposed to an atypical male protagonist. These findings support the importance of children’s literature about protagonists who move beyond stereotypes." Examining the impact of fiction literature on children’s gender stereotypes, Ellen E. Kneeskern & Patricia A. Reeder, Current Psychology (2020).
Noting that individuals tend to internalize negative stereotypes and act on that internalization, even if they know the stereotype is fictitious: "men were equally harsh in the wake of a stereotypic female portrayal regardless of whether they believed it to be factual or fictitious." The Impact of Factual Versus Fictional Media Portrayals on Cultural Stereotypes, SHEILA T. MURPHY, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (1998).
NPR did a recent article about how the Matrix films, made by two transgendered women, is important to the trans community not only because they have representation in the directors, but because the themes of the stories resonate with them and make them feel like their life story is being understood.
Here is an article that shows how majority groups seem to benefit from watching media infused with stereotyping, while minority groups have lower self-esteem.
"Researchers have found that prolonged television exposure predicts a decrease in self-esteem for all girls and for black boys, but an increase in self-esteem for white boys. These differences correlate with the racial and gender practices in Hollywood, which predominantly casts white men as heroes, while erasing or subordinating other groups as villains, sidekicks, and sexual objects. Studies also show how media images of Native American mascots lower the self-esteem and affect the moods of Native American adolescents and young adults (who suffer from high suicide rates)."
I could go on, but that provides a decent start. As I said, there is a LOT of research on this topic, all which points in the same direction.
Thank you for the links!
1) I disagree with your use of the word "behavior." Playing a game is absolutely a behavior and your arguing that it isn't really just sounds like you're arguing for the sake of arguing, or trolling.
2) I'm not talking about people roleplaying one way and acting differently away from the gaming table, I'm talking about racially insensitive language in the game constituting the author being a jerk to the players and thus removing or changing the language is what a responsible author does. And that people who use harmful language in their gaming are literally being jerks to their fellow players, which is the behavior I'm talking about.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
This was already discussed in-depth a few pages back, so I will not repeat everything, but the simple reality is that this belief is a common misconception, not a reality.
Orcs in the sense we think of them were created by Tolkien in the 20th Century. The word Orc seemed to have been a generic catch-all with forms used in various sources like Beowulf and Spencer, but not describing anything specific until Tolkien gave them their particular shape. Tolkien's orcs were created for a very specific purpose--they were there to represent the corruption of the youth (the eternally young elves with their culture and love of the land) into something horrific and dedicated to the industry and war. They were basically an allegory for an entire generation's experience with World War I.
Gygax took the general framework, deleted out the allegory, and filled in the gaps with stereotypes about tribal societies.
There was next-to-nothing of "mythology" when Tolkien got a hold of them--really just etymology--and Gygax took that "next to nothing" and reduced that even further, diluting any traces of Tolkien with his stereotyping. As such, there is no "culture" being "erased" with these changes--just a perception of culture by people who do not actually know the historical roots of the D&D race.
Alduy, C. (2010) ‘Engaging Reality Through Fiction’, Arcade, May 15. Available at: https://arcade.stanford.edu/blogs/engaging-reality-through-fiction
Castañeda∗ H. (2002) ‘Fiction and reality: Their fundamental connections: An essay on the ontology of total experience’, Science Direct, July 4. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0304422X79900147
Gerrig, R. J. & Rapp, D. N. (2004). Psychological Processes Underlying Literary Impact. Poetics Today, 25(2):265-281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/03335372-25-2-265
Gilbert, D. T. (1991). How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 46, 107-119.
Gilbert, D. T., Tafarodi, R. W., & Malone, P. S. (1993). You can’t not believe everything you read. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 221-233.
Gow, K. (2012) 'How Fiction Impacts Fact: The Social Impact Of Books', Fast Company, July 12. Available at: https://www.fastcompany.com/1842370/how-fiction-impacts-fact-social-impact-books
Prentice, D. A., Gerrig, R. J., & Bailis, D. S. (1997). What readers bring to the processing of fictional texts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 416-420.
Prentice, D. A., & Gerrig, R. J. (1999). Exploring the boundary between fiction and reality. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 529–546). The Guilford Press.
Roth, D. (2015) ‘Social Change in Fiction and Reality’, A. Daniel Roth - All These Days, September 8. Available at: https://www.allthesedays.org/writing/-social-change-in-fiction-and-reality
Staff, (2017) ‘The fine line between fiction and reality’, tiff, September 7. Available at: https://www.tiff.net/the-review/between-fiction-and-reality
TED-ed. (2012). ‘How fiction can change reality - Jessica Wise’, August 23. Available at: https://ed.ted.com/lessons/jessica-wise-how-fiction-can-change-reality
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
1. I'm not trolling. That is the definition of behavior.
2. Fair enough. I think most of that is unintentional, and can usually be resolved by talking with the DM (or other players) and expressing you feelings.
Thank you!
Just to check: what is the purpose of this link? What opinion are you using it to support?
On a brief check-over, it's an article seeking to debunk the scientific process in general by picking at statistical error and the issue of spurious false positives in experimentation. I presume, then, that you're accusing every single one of Erriku's provided library of studies of being suprious, unfounded, or otherwise simply false?
Do you have evidence to support this claim? Or are you simply seeking to seed doubt and sour the arguments of other posters so as to continue to defend systemic exclusionism in D&D 5e and continue supporting the marginalization and exclusion of non-white non-male people from the hobby?
What really gets me is that the article closes out by stating that only constant vigilance and awareness of the sorts of statistical pitfalls and human-error mantraps the article lays out can combat the damaging effects of such aberrations in the process over the long term and aid in weeding out Bad Science from Good Science. Which is, note, the exact same argument people make of measures such as Wizards' recent errata - only constant vigilance and awareness of the sorts of systemic biases and institutional exclusionism that pervade much of modern society can combat the damaging effects of such aberrations in society over the long term and aid in weeding out Bad Opinions from Good Opinions.
Using a scientific article to try and instill doubt in other scientific articles to continue defending systemic exclusionism is really just kind of a wowzers.
Please do not contact or message me.
(prior quotes omitted).
This is veering a bit into off-topic, but I think it hits at the ultimate issue of the thread--specifically whether players should or should not be upset over the changes and whether the changes are good for the game. A lot of Wizards' decision is based in the research on sociology and mental health, and the numerous studies suggesting racial stereotyping in fiction can be harmful, particularly to marginalized groups. As such, I think discussing the scientific research and the methodology therefor is relevant and constructive to the underlying thread, since it is clearly informing Wizards' motivations in making the changes.
One of my undergraduate degrees was in sociology--the very field this article dismisses. Speaking as someone who has spent a lot of time in the field, both conducting independent research and reading the research of others, I can confirm--the entire field is kind of BS. Your article is right--a lot of the results are hard to replicate and are susceptible to flaws in methodology.
Everyone in the field knows this and that is the exact reason we have peer reviewed studies, multiple studies on the same topic, and constant re-evaluating of the data and methods used in prior research. That is also why just so much work has been done in the particular field of stereotyping, including stereotyping in fiction--it is too important a topic to base on a few, potentially flawed experiments.
The simple reality is that there are not one or two or three studies that show "stereotypes in fiction both reinforce held negative stereotypes and cause issues for those marginalized by the stereotypes"--there are dozens upon dozens upon dozens. A few studies could be the result of a fluke or the general flaws inherent in a field that studies something we can never truly see--the inside human's minds--but the volume of studies all pointing in the same direction, even with dozens of different factors accounted and normalized for, indicate that there IS an actual relationship between the stereotyping in fiction and negative outcomes.
Your article misses the point. Experiments being disproven is not evidence that the system does not work--it is evidence that the system is working exactly as intended, verifying or disproving results with future research.
I'm not sure what you mean by that?
I didn't check yet, I was busy trying to see if this forum has a limit of characters you can post and looking at the mythology of orcs and their cannibalistic and evil tendencies, and I was looking at other stuff too that involved those.
Anyway besides that, I think you said before that exclusionism towards orcs was good if they were chaotic evil, and I think some other people in the forum skipped the middle part from animal intelligence to human level intelligence, and discounted psycopathy and other things, like the origin of the orcs and their habits.
Going to keep it really simple; yes, they are. In D&D at any rate. They're sentient beings with a civilization and culture of their own. They are a playable race. They're people.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I am pleasantly surprised by this post, and I see quite a lot of merit in it. Allow me to try and engage, as an experiment if nothing else.
1.) I would argue that an individual gets to decide, for them and their table. My firm belief is that the goal of the base books, in this case, should be neutrality, and where neutrality is not possible the books should strive to avoid common, proven pitfalls. That is the goal of sensitivity readers and consultants - who, despite common beliefs otherwise, do also keep in mind the viewpoints and needs of majority peoples. It's their job to reduce friction, and pandering to minorities at the direct, needless expense of the majority does not accomplish this.
I don't know if this is an appropriate answer as I'm not entirely certain of the intent of the question, but it's a good thought experiment regardless. I can only answer for myself of course, and if clarifications to the question are offered I'll do my best to address them, but the intent of the tools in this case ("the tools" being the books) should generally be to make them as neutral and accessible as is reasonably feasible. The word "reasonably" is there quite deliberately, and what is reasonable will vary wildly from table to table, but it's something to keep in mind.
2.) I do not believe so, no. My patience has been sorely tested in this thread and I've come off as quite harsh more than once, but no. Someone who believes accommodation is unnecessary - or, more commonly, believes that sufficient accomodation has already been made and further accommodation would needlessly erode the spirit of the game for margnial-at-best benefit - is not intrinsically insensitive or unsympathetic. Such individuals do have a tendency to dig in their heels and make themselves quite difficult to sympathize with in turn, as ever it has thus been when conservative-minded folk push back against efforts to change, alter, or dispense with Tradition. This can lead to severe friction and frustration, and often has the unfortunate effect of lessening sensivitity and empathy on both sides. I know I am done with explaining to people how certain stereotypical traditions of D&D closely map to modern-day exclusionism and why that's harmful, just as I imagine they're equally done with trying to explain why pretend monsters in their make-believe game of imaginary elves and fictitious flying lizards should not have any bearing on what happens outside Game Night.
It's an issue of fundamental difference in premises; Side A's logic and arguments make perfect sense if you believe Premise Set 1, but Side B looks at Premise Set 1 and wonders what, exactly, Side A has been smoking. They're either baffled by Premise Set 1 or vehemently disagree with it, and in many cases are outright hostile to Premise Set 1. When two sides of an argument cannot agree on even the most basic premises of that argument, the argument is doomed to failure and becomes a drain on the mental and emotional resources of everyone involved...but we're all so invested in our positions that we can't help but have that argument anyways.
3.) This is a pretty fantastic place to speak on something I've been meaning to find a way to talk about on these forums forever. There's a lot of folks slinging terms like "woke", "leftthink", and similarly perjorative terms around, with the clear and obvious insinuation that they do not believe those they sling the terms at have any merit. In short, crude summation: they do not believe in people's feelings or the idea that one can offer offense unintentionally and without rancor. "You'll ******* know when I offend you" is a common rejoinder elsewhere on the Internet, as is "offense is never given, it's taken". This shows a deep lack of understanding of what "woke" actually means and the methodology behind consideration.
My answer, and my proposal for any table - and indeed, anyone who has to navigate people's emotions in real life - is to understand that it is impossible to avoid giving offense. You just can't do it. You WILL step on someone else's feelings and cause pain at times, it's as unavoidable as accidentally running into other people in a crowded market. When it happens? You're not a bad person. You did nothing evil. Rather than getting defensive and try to persist, all you do is acknowledge that you touched on a sore spot you didn't know was there, back up, and promise to do better in the future. The person who got stepped on should, in turn, acknowledge that it was an innocent mistake with no malice behind it, accept the apology graciously, and move on. Someone who gets hissy and spitty and snarls at folks on a first offense is being a jerk, just the same way that somebody who deliberately keeps stomping on sore spots they bloody well know are there is being a jerk. Nevertheless. Learning how to properly handle accidental offense and how to respect boundaries and others' personal experiences is a critical life skill in the modern era that will also greatly ease your time playing at the table.
4.) I don't really know as there's any dangers beyond what we're already seeing, re:tribalism and Us vs. Them-ing. If the playerbase continues to split, there's not much Wizards can really do - the more drastic people get in their differences the harder it becomes to thread the needle, and the company is NOT very responsive. They can only move so quickly, and that speed is so much slower than the customer base they're trying to keep up with. If they stray too far one way, then there's the obvious danger of 4e-ing themselves again and having an edition fail. That's the big one, really - if they go too far one way or the other, they can fall off the line entirely and disillusion the entire fanbase.
That's a drastic result though, and I'm not sure I can really overstate how much of a game-changer modern streaming shows are. Critical Role is the big one, but there are hundreds of others, and they're such an enormous multiplier on the game's reach that Wizards has been struggling to keep up. The main route to Getting Into D&D(C) has always been "somebody at the table invites you to watch, you get interested, and you end up playing." Well, now people can invite millions of other people to the table to watch, all at once, and it's giving the hobby reach like it's never had before. That's going to come with shifts in the aggregate Will Of The Playerbase; you don't get to explode the way 5e has without changes along the way. The dangers of not picking a side could be leaving millions of potential customers frozen out of your product. I don't think that's at all likely - but a fifty year old property that has historically been highly resistant to change doesn't really get to suddenly attract an enormous new audience of primarily younger, modern fans with modern sensibilities in the space of maybe half a decade and still strenuously resist any and all efforts to modernize. there are certainly dangers in Too Far, Too Fast...but there's also dangers in Not Far Enough.
Anyways. Thank you for the interesting hypothetical, and hopefully your words end up seen by more than just the small handful of diehards clinging to this thread.
Please do not contact or message me.
This thread has veered wildly off topic and into a lot of subjects and discussions that violate site rules. As such, it will be locked.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here