Approaching this from a different angle. Hopefully this amounts to something . . .
Does this even matter? Seriously, does it matter at all whether or not I think D&D is "racist" or not? If you're playing the game, having fun as a group, and are not actively harming someone physically or emotionally, why should you care about this at all? So many of you old school players are getting riled up and trying to make a panic about the new kids that are playing the game and that are trying to make it something that they like. Who cares?!?! You have 5+ editions of D&D that you have played and enjoyed up until this point with no problem, besides other people being jerks and taking away/burning your D&D books 30ish years ago. That has stopped, and it won't happen again. If people try to take away your books and burn them, tell them to go away and report them to the respective authorities for harassing you. Whether or not orcs are evil at your table is no one's business except for your table and you. If they're being ******** and telling you that you're racist/sexist/bigoted, ignore them and return to your table playing the game that all of us know and love. Seriously. There's no problem. If people are trying to convince you that you're playing the game wrong and being rude about it, that's just a pesky distraction that can be solved through the click of a button.
Furthermore, why does it matter if D&D officially changes to be more inclusive? You probably have older editions and groups of players already, you likely know the mechanics of multiple editions of the game, and a place to play any edition of D&D that you want. Why not sit back, take it easy, and let the newer people take the wheel for a bit? A lot of people want this change (no one will ever convince me that some Twitter mob is making a second Satanic Panic, that is plain BS, as many, many people on this forum, ENWorld's, Reddit's, and many others truly and honestly want this change), so let them have it. You're not losing anything, can go about freely playing D&D in the style that you like, and the other side gets a win. Our win does not equal your loss. We're evening out the field and letting people who want this style of D&D to play it easily and officially (and, yes, officiality does matter. It matters for D&D Beyond, Roll20 and other VTTs, Adventurer's League, and other tables/platforms that are strictly RAW).
And, finally, if we trust WotC's most recent UA, your opinion doesn't matter. Wizards of the Coast has already made up their mind. Races are now lineages, and thus will no longer have racially assigned ASIs, alignment suggestions, and cultural mechanics. They have made up their minds and stated that they want D&D to be inclusive. They have changed Vistani in Curse of Strahd (even if it was just a few small changes), have published TCoE's Customize your Origin feature, and will likely be officializing the Gothic Lineages in the soon-to-be-announced D&D book.
No one is calling you bigoted/racist/sexist/transphobic/anything-ist for disliking/not-incorporating these changes, no one is forcing you to use these rules and options, and no one is burning your prized D&D books. Stop painting us as crazed, deranged idiots that don't understand the game and have no interest in it. It's not polite, and is likely one of the major reasons why this ongoing debate will not end.
P.S. If you do find people who are calling you bigoted or otherwise harassing you for any opinion you have on this matter, feel free to tell me about it, and I will happily call them out. I am more than willing to criticize people on "my side" when they are being jerks and spouting BS. If they are doing that, they aren't on my side and don't represent me or my opinion.
Got it?
Although I said I'm out, I will point out that this thread has nothing to do with the lineages or pretty much anything you wrote here. It's about someone who, I think, wants to publish a brand new game system and had asked for feedback on it. They specifically asked for this not to become another discussion of the lineage/race changes in D&D.
"Stereotype is a word with strong negative connotations, especially racial stereotype. They are not the same as generalisation or categorisation." Neurology and ontology disagree, and so do the psych & social justice folks. Either way, say what you want, that's how it's being done.
One of the basic tenets of Ethics is that "You can't get an 'ought' from an 'is.'" Neurology & psychology will never tell you what is right and wrong. That's not what they do.
Also, as for the social justice and ontology/epistemological worlds, they are large, varied, and certainly not in agreement on this. My background in feminist epistemology directly contradicts your claims of this view of stereotype being the accepted norm.
Either way, my biggest issues with this are the more foundational aspects that seem to be non-negotiable. So good luck with it!
"Stereotype is a word with strong negative connotations, especially racial stereotype. They are not the same as generalisation or categorisation." Neurology and ontology disagree, and so do the psych & social justice folks. Either way, say what you want, that's how it's being done.
One of the basic tenets of Ethics is that "You can't get an 'ought' from an 'is.'" Neurology & psychology will never tell you what is right and wrong.
That's not what anyone's trying to do, though. Psychology can absolutely tell you whether a term has negative connotations, because the way you determine whether a word has negative connotations is by observing whether or not people react negatively to it (it's also in the 'duh' category of studies; there's enough evidence just from this thread that people react negatively to the term).
It is occasionally possible to reclaim a word that has acquired negative connotations, but you'd have to do so on a far larger scale than an RPG product, and in any case there's not much point to doing so unless it's a word you can't abandon for some reason. There's simply no good reason to use stereotype when alternate terms exist that get across the desired concept without the same baggage.
Please stay on-topic of offering feedback to the homebrew text. If one wishes to discuss the nature of races, definitions, or D&D, new threads may be created in their appropriate boards. Any and all personal argument needs to be taken to Private Messages.
Please stay on-topic of offering feedback to the homebrew text. If one wishes to discuss the nature of races, definitions, or D&D, new threads may be created in their appropriate boards. Any and all personal argument needs to be taken to Private Messages.
Thank you,
Sedge
This thread is explicitly about race and racial identity and the OP wants feedback on their use of language. Considering your comment, I'm confused as to what we are actually allowed to discuss in this thread.
Please stay on-topic of offering feedback to the homebrew text. If one wishes to discuss the nature of races, definitions, or D&D, new threads may be created in their appropriate boards. Any and all personal argument needs to be taken to Private Messages.
Thank you,
Sedge
This thread is explicitly about race and racial identity and the OP wants feedback on their use of language. Considering your comment, I'm confused as to what we are actually allowed to discuss in this thread.
I must agree: The OP wants feedback on his homebrew text. While the comments from several on here about the TCoE lineages and the recent UA etc are completely off topic, for the rest we need to discuss definitions and the nature of race to discuss the OPs 2 text blocks. It's fundamental to what they are asking for. Without that, it is barely possible to give any feedback at all, and you may as well lock the thread if you are going to stop anyone discussing that.
However, this isn't what you want to hear, and you're going to use the word anyway. I wish you luck: I think you are going to need a lot of it. However, given that you won't listen to what pretty much everyone is telling you... I'm out.
I'm closed to arguing about what I can't change. You've continued to argue about things I've told you I agree with you about. That's not constructive.
Maybe whipping out the OED definition, which prefers to directly reference and prefer definitions having specifically to do with the stereotype machine, and compare it to something like the quick build suggestions in the PHB, or copy-pasted soldiers in a CGI battle might work as an illustrative model? (if not for the publication, at least for in the forums?) Emphasizing stereotype = template (like, maybe in that last phrase use template instead of stereotype - stereotype is still in the sentence, but you're reinforcing how you're using the word in its neutral meaning as part of the conclusion of the section). I'm grasping at straws, though, the word has just built up such a negative connotation.
You lost me thereon the point about 'machine'. The text does use stereotype as a template. And once again, I have no say in the use of the word stereotype.
"Stereotype is a word with strong negative connotations, especially racial stereotype. They are not the same as generalisation or categorisation." Neurology and ontology disagree, and so do the psych & social justice folks. Either way, say what you want, that's how it's being done.
One of the basic tenets of Ethics is that "You can't get an 'ought' from an 'is.'" Neurology & psychology will never tell you what is right and wrong. That's not what they do.
Also, as for the social justice and ontology/epistemological worlds, they are large, varied, and certainly not in agreement on this. My background in feminist epistemology directly contradicts your claims of this view of stereotype being the accepted norm
I teach Ethics, and yes, the is/ought distinction is important, but that's not the point I am making. I'm talking about a consensus in the direction things need to go, from the perspective of the North American social justice movements, not a broader philosophical tradition, or a specific academic discipline. Could you be more specific as to what claims you see as contradicting? I've spent 25 years involved with social justice movements, and if I take you as what it sounds like you're saying, that contradicts 25 years of context.
I'm closed to arguing about what I can't change. You've continued to argue about things I've told you I agree with you about. That's not constructive.
I'm not sure what you have agreed with me about. Pretty much the only thing I have argued is that using the phrase "Racial Stereotype" was offensive, and that what you are doing encourages said offensive use of racial stereotyping. If you agree with that but are still continuing with the project, I withdraw my previous offer of good luck. If you disagree with that, in spite of all the people who have said they find it offensive in this thread alone, you need even more luck than I originally thought.
This thread is explicitly about race and racial identity and the OP wants feedback on their use of language. Considering your comment, I'm confused as to what we are actually allowed to discuss in this thread.
Unfortunately I diverged off my own topic as well, which couldn't help the focus. But, yes, I would prefer that we keep it to the feedback of the text. My initial impression was that it needed heavy modification, followed by thinking that it needed less, since many of the suggestions are addressed elsewhere in the text. Following a meeting this morning, where we discussed playtest feedback, I'm much less worried. None of the other playtest groups, which had copies of most of the content, voiced any concern over the content being offensive. I have to admit none of mine did either. Their questionairs did include a question on the use of the term 'stererotype'.
I agree with most of Yurei's first post if you intend on keeping it (e.g. changing to Archetypes). Reading further it seems the primary purpose is for grant money so catering to Sociologists before gamers is the path you wish to take (correct this if the interpretation is wrong). Hence the particular word choice.
As a gamer (even though I'm not the primary target or purpose), I wouldn't use this personally. It's more text that is probably glossed over, nor does it greatly enhance gameplay. Things that are glossed over are probably non-offensive, but that doesn't conclude they were helpful or even necessary. As someone who deals with manufacturing the additional words will add to cost providing little value outside of the Sociologists or those that want to critically analyze that topic (but making it an e-book and not print is an option). Over analyzing can often break immersion during gameplay so I'd advise against it if your target audience was gamers first. Which is why I think the easiest modification is changing the term to Archetypes as Yurei suggested. It should be noted I don't have full context of what you're writing so their could be better word choices if more than this snippet was available.
I agree with most of Yurei's first post if you intend on keeping it (e.g. changing to Archetypes). Reading further it seems the primary purpose is for grant money so catering to Sociologists before gamers is the path you wish to take (correct this if the interpretation is wrong). Hence the particular word choice.
It's not so much wishing to as needing to. This isn't a hobby for me, I have a family to support. And, again, I have no say in the grant requirements, so there is no point in advising me to change it. I do not have the authority to do so. My whole point in mentioning that it's a grant requirement was so as to not waste time on that point. Working for non-profits always carries this issue.
It isn't just the university's sociologists that are funding us btw. Autism Speaks and the ABA are as well. Don't ask me why the ABA is involved.
I agree with most of Yurei's first post if you intend on keeping it (e.g. changing to Archetypes). Reading further it seems the primary purpose is for grant money so catering to Sociologists before gamers is the path you wish to take (correct this if the interpretation is wrong). Hence the particular word choice.
It's not so much wishing to as needing to. This isn't a hobby for me, I have a family to support. And, again, I have no say in the grant requirements, so there is no point in advising me to change it. I do not have the authority to do so. My whole point in mentioning that it's a grant requirement was so as to not waste time on that point. Working for non-profits always carries this issue.
It isn't just the university's sociologists that are funding us btw. Autism Speaks and the ABA are as well. Don't ask me why the ABA is involved.
Now I'm just confused. The poll asks "Does this need to be changed?" but you say your hands are tied when it comes to modifying it. Why bring this up in the forums at all? I understand that it was originally in a different sub-section of the forums, but that fact is not relevant if changes can't be made due to grant requirements. Maybe a non-poll topic would have helped instead?
"Stereotype is a word with strong negative connotations, especially racial stereotype. They are not the same as generalisation or categorisation." Neurology and ontology disagree, and so do the psych & social justice folks. Either way, say what you want, that's how it's being done.
One of the basic tenets of Ethics is that "You can't get an 'ought' from an 'is.'" Neurology & psychology will never tell you what is right and wrong. That's not what they do.
Also, as for the social justice and ontology/epistemological worlds, they are large, varied, and certainly not in agreement on this. My background in feminist epistemology directly contradicts your claims of this view of stereotype being the accepted norm
I teach Ethics, and yes, the is/ought distinction is important, but that's not the point I am making. I'm talking about a consensus in the direction things need to go, from the perspective of the North American social justice movements, not a broader philosophical tradition, or a specific academic discipline. Could you be more specific as to what claims you see as contradicting? I've spent 25 years involved with social justice movements, and if I take you as what it sounds like you're saying, that contradicts 25 years of context.
Just keep in mind that there is no unified North American social justice movement, just many, many, MANY separate groups and movements with a variety of views. For example, the fact that you are working with Autism Speaks would be a great sign to some autism activists, but an absolute Hard NO red flag for others. *shrug* Both groups are just as dedicated to making things better. There is no single consensus on any of these issues.
So all I'm saying is don't forget that there are many, many people working for social justice as passionately and as long as you who do not share these views of the social justice circles you work in. But arguing for epistemic humility is getting off on a tangent. ;) Still I wish you luck with it!
None of the other playtest groups, which had copies of most of the content, voiced any concern over the content being offensive. I have to admit none of mine did either. Their questionairs did include a question on the use of the term 'stererotype'.
"Nobody else said that, so all of you in this thread must be wrong".... Thanks! That's a great way to treat people who had given up their free time to try to be helpful.
None of the other playtest groups, which had copies of most of the content, voiced any concern over the content being offensive. I have to admit none of mine did either. Their questionairs did include a question on the use of the term 'stererotype'.
"Nobody else said that, so all of you in this thread must be wrong".... Thanks! That's a great way to treat people who had given up their free time to try to be helpful.
Please understand that I mean this as constructive criticism; You're getting too defensive, which is causing you to miss content. I mentioned that the playtest groups had access to the rest of the book. I'm talking about the fact that it seems my taking one section out of the book is an issue.
Please understand that I mean this as constructive criticism; You're getting too defensive, which is causing you to miss content. I mentioned that the playtest groups had access to the rest of the book. I'm talking about the fact that it seems my taking one section out of the book is an issue.
Do note that there is bound to be a lot of defensiveness on these forums, because of a repeated trend of flamewar threads full of jerks, about this general topic.
You don't owe an answer to this, of course, but can you say if the book is meant to be an academic work, or a commercial one funded in part by academia? (or something else...)
...
FWIW, I actually have more problem with the word "archetype" than "stereotype" --- not that I think "stereotype" is necessarily ideal. "Archetype" implies a bunch of jungian nonsense to me, and has a pretty big essentialist connotation ("what, do we need to worry about the platonic halfling, now?"), which appears to be the opposite of what this book is about.
Also, while I'd love to see the academic context for "stereotype" with a non-negative connotation, I also think the idea that "reclaiming the word" is comparable to "reclaiming the swastika", or a racial slur, to be ridiculous. Like, yeah, most people think of stereotype as a negative word, but not like that. Words can have multiple contexts, especially in academia.
You don't owe an answer to this, of course, but can you say if the book is meant to be an academic work, or a commercial one funded in part by academia? (or something else...)
...
FWIW, I actually have more problem with the word "archetype" than "stereotype" --- not that I think "stereotype" is necessarily ideal. "Archetype" implies a bunch of jungian nonsense to me, and has a pretty big essentialist connotation ("what, do we need to worry about the platonic halfling, now?"), which appears to be the opposite of what this book is about.
Also, while I'd love to see the academic context for "stereotype" with a non-negative connotation, I also think the idea that "reclaiming the word" is comparable to "reclaiming the swastika", or a racial slur, to be ridiculous. Like, yeah, most people think of stereotype as a negative word, but not like that. Words can have multiple contexts, especially in academia.
Well, it's not really stamped as an academic book or a commercial one explicitly. The 401(c) that's putting it out is focused on social justice issues in the media.
I know, for me, archetype has some baggage, but not prohibitively so. Incidentally we're not calling them halflings.
Every subject ends up with it's own terminology, academic or not. Even the term 'race', in D&D, is a jargon term, because it's not like it means the same thing in common usage.
Although I said I'm out, I will point out that this thread has nothing to do with the lineages or pretty much anything you wrote here. It's about someone who, I think, wants to publish a brand new game system and had asked for feedback on it. They specifically asked for this not to become another discussion of the lineage/race changes in D&D.
One of the basic tenets of Ethics is that "You can't get an 'ought' from an 'is.'" Neurology & psychology will never tell you what is right and wrong. That's not what they do.
Also, as for the social justice and ontology/epistemological worlds, they are large, varied, and certainly not in agreement on this. My background in feminist epistemology directly contradicts your claims of this view of stereotype being the accepted norm.
Either way, my biggest issues with this are the more foundational aspects that seem to be non-negotiable. So good luck with it!
It's kinda refreshing to see a thread on this topic where the biggest argument is a semantic dispute about the connotations of the word "stereotype."
That's not what anyone's trying to do, though. Psychology can absolutely tell you whether a term has negative connotations, because the way you determine whether a word has negative connotations is by observing whether or not people react negatively to it (it's also in the 'duh' category of studies; there's enough evidence just from this thread that people react negatively to the term).
It is occasionally possible to reclaim a word that has acquired negative connotations, but you'd have to do so on a far larger scale than an RPG product, and in any case there's not much point to doing so unless it's a word you can't abandon for some reason. There's simply no good reason to use stereotype when alternate terms exist that get across the desired concept without the same baggage.
Hi everyone!
Please stay on-topic of offering feedback to the homebrew text. If one wishes to discuss the nature of races, definitions, or D&D, new threads may be created in their appropriate boards. Any and all personal argument needs to be taken to Private Messages.
Thank you,
Sedge
This thread is explicitly about race and racial identity and the OP wants feedback on their use of language. Considering your comment, I'm confused as to what we are actually allowed to discuss in this thread.
I must agree: The OP wants feedback on his homebrew text. While the comments from several on here about the TCoE lineages and the recent UA etc are completely off topic, for the rest we need to discuss definitions and the nature of race to discuss the OPs 2 text blocks. It's fundamental to what they are asking for. Without that, it is barely possible to give any feedback at all, and you may as well lock the thread if you are going to stop anyone discussing that.
I'm closed to arguing about what I can't change. You've continued to argue about things I've told you I agree with you about. That's not constructive.
You lost me thereon the point about 'machine'. The text does use stereotype as a template. And once again, I have no say in the use of the word stereotype.
I teach Ethics, and yes, the is/ought distinction is important, but that's not the point I am making. I'm talking about a consensus in the direction things need to go, from the perspective of the North American social justice movements, not a broader philosophical tradition, or a specific academic discipline. Could you be more specific as to what claims you see as contradicting? I've spent 25 years involved with social justice movements, and if I take you as what it sounds like you're saying, that contradicts 25 years of context.
I'm not sure what you have agreed with me about. Pretty much the only thing I have argued is that using the phrase "Racial Stereotype" was offensive, and that what you are doing encourages said offensive use of racial stereotyping. If you agree with that but are still continuing with the project, I withdraw my previous offer of good luck. If you disagree with that, in spite of all the people who have said they find it offensive in this thread alone, you need even more luck than I originally thought.
Unfortunately I diverged off my own topic as well, which couldn't help the focus. But, yes, I would prefer that we keep it to the feedback of the text. My initial impression was that it needed heavy modification, followed by thinking that it needed less, since many of the suggestions are addressed elsewhere in the text. Following a meeting this morning, where we discussed playtest feedback, I'm much less worried. None of the other playtest groups, which had copies of most of the content, voiced any concern over the content being offensive. I have to admit none of mine did either. Their questionairs did include a question on the use of the term 'stererotype'.
I agree with most of Yurei's first post if you intend on keeping it (e.g. changing to Archetypes). Reading further it seems the primary purpose is for grant money so catering to Sociologists before gamers is the path you wish to take (correct this if the interpretation is wrong). Hence the particular word choice.
As a gamer (even though I'm not the primary target or purpose), I wouldn't use this personally. It's more text that is probably glossed over, nor does it greatly enhance gameplay. Things that are glossed over are probably non-offensive, but that doesn't conclude they were helpful or even necessary. As someone who deals with manufacturing the additional words will add to cost providing little value outside of the Sociologists or those that want to critically analyze that topic (but making it an e-book and not print is an option). Over analyzing can often break immersion during gameplay so I'd advise against it if your target audience was gamers first. Which is why I think the easiest modification is changing the term to Archetypes as Yurei suggested. It should be noted I don't have full context of what you're writing so their could be better word choices if more than this snippet was available.
It's not so much wishing to as needing to. This isn't a hobby for me, I have a family to support. And, again, I have no say in the grant requirements, so there is no point in advising me to change it. I do not have the authority to do so. My whole point in mentioning that it's a grant requirement was so as to not waste time on that point. Working for non-profits always carries this issue.
It isn't just the university's sociologists that are funding us btw. Autism Speaks and the ABA are as well. Don't ask me why the ABA is involved.
Now I'm just confused. The poll asks "Does this need to be changed?" but you say your hands are tied when it comes to modifying it. Why bring this up in the forums at all? I understand that it was originally in a different sub-section of the forums, but that fact is not relevant if changes can't be made due to grant requirements. Maybe a non-poll topic would have helped instead?
Just keep in mind that there is no unified North American social justice movement, just many, many, MANY separate groups and movements with a variety of views. For example, the fact that you are working with Autism Speaks would be a great sign to some autism activists, but an absolute Hard NO red flag for others. *shrug* Both groups are just as dedicated to making things better. There is no single consensus on any of these issues.
So all I'm saying is don't forget that there are many, many people working for social justice as passionately and as long as you who do not share these views of the social justice circles you work in. But arguing for epistemic humility is getting off on a tangent. ;) Still I wish you luck with it!
"Nobody else said that, so all of you in this thread must be wrong".... Thanks! That's a great way to treat people who had given up their free time to try to be helpful.
Please understand that I mean this as constructive criticism; You're getting too defensive, which is causing you to miss content. I mentioned that the playtest groups had access to the rest of the book. I'm talking about the fact that it seems my taking one section out of the book is an issue.
Do note that there is bound to be a lot of defensiveness on these forums, because of a repeated trend of flamewar threads full of jerks, about this general topic.
You don't owe an answer to this, of course, but can you say if the book is meant to be an academic work, or a commercial one funded in part by academia? (or something else...)
...
FWIW, I actually have more problem with the word "archetype" than "stereotype" --- not that I think "stereotype" is necessarily ideal. "Archetype" implies a bunch of jungian nonsense to me, and has a pretty big essentialist connotation ("what, do we need to worry about the platonic halfling, now?"), which appears to be the opposite of what this book is about.
Also, while I'd love to see the academic context for "stereotype" with a non-negative connotation, I also think the idea that "reclaiming the word" is comparable to "reclaiming the swastika", or a racial slur, to be ridiculous. Like, yeah, most people think of stereotype as a negative word, but not like that. Words can have multiple contexts, especially in academia.
Well, it's not really stamped as an academic book or a commercial one explicitly. The 401(c) that's putting it out is focused on social justice issues in the media.
I know, for me, archetype has some baggage, but not prohibitively so. Incidentally we're not calling them halflings.
Every subject ends up with it's own terminology, academic or not. Even the term 'race', in D&D, is a jargon term, because it's not like it means the same thing in common usage.