Weis, Hickman sue Wizards of the Coast

[pendell]

Seen on Boing Boing (https://boingboing.net/2020/10/19/margaret-weis-and-tracy-hickman-sue-wizards-of-the-coast-after-it-abandons-new-dragonlance-trilogy.html). Evidently the two authors of the 'Dragonlance' novels had signed a book deal for a new trilogy in 2017. However, Wizards terminated the deal in August of this year. The authors allege there is no contractual basis for the termination, and have therefore filed suit in Seattle district court for $10 million.

The allegations swirling about the affair suggest the new novels were 'problematic' by today's standards. Perhaps, but isn't that what editors are for? To ensure anything that's published meet basic standards before going out the door? It's WOTC's universe; if they want to mandate (for example) that draconians are not inherently evil that is certainly their right.

Maybe , from WOTC's perspective, it's just not worth the money to fix? In which case, no doubt they will settle. We'll never know the end of the story ... but I don't really mind, I stopped paying attention after Legends anyway.

ETA: Also covered at Comic Book.com (https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/dungeons-dragons-dragonlance-margaret-weis-lawsuit/). You can read the filing here (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7245020-Weis.html).

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Mikeavelli]

Were Draconians always evil in the original series? It's been a while, but i thought the Kang's Regiment series went into a lot of detail about how they were became pretty decent when left to their own devices after the dragon armies collapsed.

Raistlin was kind of a creeper, but other than that I can't think of anything particularly bad about the original novels. You could publish them today and no-one would bat an eye.

[pendell]

Were Draconians always evil in the original series? It's been a while, but i thought the Kang's Regiment series went into a lot of detail about how they were became pretty decent when left to their own devices after the dragon armies collapsed.

Raistlin was kind of a creeper, but other than that I can't think of anything particularly bad about the original novels. You could publish them today and no-one would bat an eye.

They were pretty much Always Evil in Chronicles and Legends, though Kang's Regiment decided to revisit and alter the lore. I'm wondering what the problem was that WOTC decided to throw years worth of work in the trash heap without so much as a word of explanation.

I imagine that this won't go to Trial, and WOTC will settle. Weis and Hickman will move to other stories in other universes. It's a pity, but I never really liked Dragons of Summer Flame and the successor works. I felt like they were trying to make Good and Evil little more than different team Jerseys. As if the world was a better place when it was balanced between good and evil.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Yora]

It's entirely within WotCs rights to no longer want the books. But the writers still want to get paid. I believe that's the actual think they sue for.

[Dragonus45]

Yea in general those two are already arguably the best two writers in terms of inclusiveness who are touching anything WotC related, but I imagine that the higher ups were spooked by all the controversy lately and just decided they didn't want to risk trying to resurrect the property in these modern times. I'm particularly interested in seeing what the changes the sensitivity reader got put in though involving character names and the like. The 70 page rewrite mentioned in the suit was apparently philter of love related as well and I would be interested in seeing the uncensored version for comparison to get an idea how nosey the editing was.

As for Draconians, how evil they are was a complicated question. They were literally birthed by an evil ritual fueled by the destruction of good aligned dragon eggs so saying they, as a species, are just inherently evil by design would make sense no matter how much people want to whine about it, but they seemed to have more free will in later books once they got some distance from Tiamat. They even got trilogy they got that I remember being alright about them trying to find a home away from all the bs floating around them. But being "evil" in Dragonlance is itself handled differently from other D&D properties so who knows.


It's entirely within WotCs rights to no longer want the books. But the writers still want to get paid. I believe that's the actual think they sue for.

That was their right. Then they signed that away and made an agreement to publish more.

[pendell]

It's entirely within WotCs rights to no longer want the books. But the writers still want to get paid. I believe that's the actual think they sue for.

Precisely. The authors are suing for the two plus years of labor they put in. If WOTC doesn't want the books, that's fine. Trying to weasel out of the contract and not paying the authors is not okay, and that's what the lawsuit is about.

ETA: Now that I think about, Gully Dwarves as stupid comedy race might be 'problematic' also. Bupu and her antics give me an Amos & Andy blackface comedy vibe, though so far as I know Gully Dwarves were never considered an analog for real-world humans.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Yora]

It's not about whether gutter dwarves were ever intended to stand in for whatever racial minority group of your choice.
The issue would be (as it certainly is for me), that the existence of gutter dwarves makes people familiar with the idea that some ethnicities are genetically predetermined to be retarded and filthy, and that thinking of them that way is harmless fun.
What we see portrayed in fiction imprints patterns of thinking in our brains that we also apply in reality, even if we don't mean to. It makes us see protagonists who are clearly having racist thoughts and acting in racist ways, but we still regard them as likeable heroes, because within their fictional world, their prejudices of people as savage degenerates are actually factually correct. People see that and remember that, and it affects how our brains are wired. (Which might even the whole evolutionary purpose of storytelling. It's meant to teach ways of thinking through fictional examples.)

And you also got kender and tinker gnomes, and probably all kinds of other stuff as well.

Though all that is irrelevant regarding the legality of backing out of the contract.

[Mikeavelli]

Reading through the lawsuit, it's even more than the work already done. Weis and Hickman were able to negotiate an extremely favorable deal where they and Penguin have exclusive license to write Dragonlance books for 10 years. This means they don't just get paid to write the books, they get royalties for book sales, and the right to future works in the universe if this trilogy sparks increased demand for books. Since the Dragonlance brand has proven marketability, this is extremely valuable. The lawsuit is not only for the work already done on the trilogy, but also for lost profits stemming from the de-facto revocation of this license.

The next factor is that Wizards appears to have done this in bad faith. That is, there are no terms of the contract that allow Wizards to just blanket refuse to approve new drafts in perpetuity. Wizards is allowed to exercise some editorial control, but they must do so in a way that allows Weis and Hickman to make changes to their work that will allow the books to be published.

Proving bad faith opens up the door to much larger damages, since the courts take a very dim view of those sorts of shenanigans.

[warty goblin]

My first hope is that Weis & Hickman get their dues, if Wizards teally has whiffed on their contract.

My second hope is that this results in more Dragonlance. What I really don't want to have happen is knowing we were this close more DL, and that the manuscripts exist in nearly finished form, but never getting to read it due to whatever settlement is reached.

[pendell]

My first hope is that Weis & Hickman get their dues, if Wizards teally has whiffed on their contract.

My second hope is that this results in more Dragonlance. What I really don't want to have happen is knowing we were this close more DL, and that the manuscripts exist in nearly finished form, but never getting to read it due to whatever settlement is reached.

We're probably not. WOTC appears to be done with the property. The settlement will probably result in a monetary sum being paid to Weis & Hickman, but unless WOTC gives them the rights to the property as well they won't be able to publish the books themselves.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Dragonus45]

My second hope is that this results in more Dragonlance. What I really don't want to have happen is knowing we were this close more DL, and that the manuscripts exist in nearly finished form, but never getting to read it due to whatever settlement is reached.

That's my biggest fear, and frustration, as well. Even if the finished work gets leaked it will still be incomplete.


We're probably not. WOTC appears to be done with the property. The settlement will probably result in a monetary sum being paid to Weis & Hickman, but unless WOTC gives them the rights to the property as well they won't be able to publish the books themselves.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

WotC may well wind up giving them access to the license as part of a settlement deepening on how negotiations go. It's an outside chance but I'll take what hope I can.

[warty goblin]

We're probably not. WOTC appears to be done with the property. The settlement will probably result in a monetary sum being paid to Weis & Hickman, but unless WOTC gives them the rights to the property as well they won't be able to publish the books themselves.

Respectfully,

Brian P.
After having read the full suit, I'm actually more optimistic that we will get at least the mostly completed trilogy. Publication of said is the first thing that W&H ask the court to allow by way of redress. If the contract really is as they describe, it also doesn't seem like WoTC have much of a leg to stand on, since they in essence already granted W&H and Penguin the publication rights, subject to W&H complying to explicitly called for edits.

What I'm not optimistic for is them getting the rights to a subsequent 10 years of DL stuff. Which I would obviously love for them to get, but I don't think they mention requesting any remedy for that in the suit. Though since they're basically asking that WoTC uphold the contract they already signed, that may be implied.

[Palanan]

I read what I assume is the original trilogy (Dragons of Autumn Twilight, etc.) just a couple years after they first came out, mainly because a gaming friend just about threw them at me. I was much less impressed than he was, and never really took to the series or the world.

That said, I find WotC's attempt to kill the planned revival to be extremely disturbing for its broader implications, although I don't know how far we can discuss that here.

But it really does feel like the near-literal witch hunts of the 80s. Then as now, there was no actual evidence that reading fantasy novels caused anyone to do (or even think) Very Bad Things, as defined by the loud and judgemental minority of the time. I can only hope that Weis and Hickman are able to publish what they've worked on so far. It's sad that their right to do so is in jeopardy.

[pendell]

I read what I assume is the original trilogy (Dragons of Autumn Twilight, etc.) just a couple years after they first came out, mainly because a gaming friend just about threw them at me. I was much less impressed than he was, and never really took to the series or the world.

That said, I find WotC's attempt to kill the planned revival to be extremely disturbing for its broader implications, although I don't know how far we can discuss that here.

But it really does feel like the near-literal witch hunts of the 80s. Then as now, there was no actual evidence that reading fantasy novels caused anyone to do (or even think) Very Bad Things, as defined by the loud and judgemental minority of the time. I can only hope that Weis and Hickman are able to publish what they've worked on so far. It's sad that their right to do so is in jeopardy.

Oh, c'mon. Everyone knows Mazes and Monsters is a far out game (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpcL-fQNPfQ).

I suppose the hobby has to go through this every ten years. Back in the 1980s it was accused of luring kids into witchcraft. In the 2000s Grand Theft Auto was accused of making kids violent. Now I suppose we have another criteria. I expect the hobby will adapt as it did to previous accusations, until in another 10 years it has to shift again to adjust to the changing world around it.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Precure]

https://boundingintocomics.com/2020/06/12/wizards-of-the-coast-removes-several-cards-from-magic-the-gathering-calling-them-racist-or-culturally-offensive/

I wonder what is racist about "Stone-Throwing Devils" card. I also lol'd that Jihad is basIcally Crusade but with better points.

[Palanan]

I'm trying to figure out what exactly is the problem with the Imprison card. The game is, after all, Dungeons & Dragons.

Also, apparently orcs can't be scary anymore. (https://boundingintocomics.com/2020/10/07/wizards-of-the-coast-officially-removes-negative-orc-and-kobold-racial-traits-from-dungeons-dragons/)

[pendell]

I'm trying to figure out what exactly is the problem with the Imprison card. The game is, after all, Dungeons & Dragons.


I think it's the art itself is the problem; the description is neutral and doesn't appear to be especially problematic. But the art looks sort of like a dark-skinned creature being imprisoned. The card could probably be re-released with new art, I think. Same with "Stone-throwing devils". I don't see anything wrong with the rule itself, which simply provides first strike. But the art looks like "barbarous" people throwing rocks. Again, the card could probably be re-released with different artwork, perhaps traditional red-skinned-with-horned devils rather than "savages".

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Forum Explorer]

Were Draconians always evil in the original series? It's been a while, but i thought the Kang's Regiment series went into a lot of detail about how they were became pretty decent when left to their own devices after the dragon armies collapsed.

Raistlin was kind of a creeper, but other than that I can't think of anything particularly bad about the original novels. You could publish them today and no-one would bat an eye.

In the original series they were always evil, or better said, they never encounter any good draconians. Kang's Regiment reveals that the draconians were evil mostly because they were raised by evil people and told to worship an evil goddess who told them to do evil things. Take those away and they were normal.


Yea in general those two are already arguably the best two writers in terms of inclusiveness who are touching anything WotC related, but I imagine that the higher ups were spooked by all the controversy lately and just decided they didn't want to risk trying to resurrect the property in these modern times. I'm particularly interested in seeing what the changes the sensitivity reader got put in though involving character names and the like. The 70 page rewrite mentioned in the suit was apparently philter of love related as well and I would be interested in seeing the uncensored version for comparison to get an idea how nosey the editing was.

As for Draconians, how evil they are was a complicated question. They were literally birthed by an evil ritual fueled by the destruction of good aligned dragon eggs so saying they, as a species, are just inherently evil by design would make sense no matter how much people want to whine about it, but they seemed to have more free will in later books once they got some distance from Tiamat. They even got trilogy they got that I remember being alright about them trying to find a home away from all the bs floating around them. But being "evil" in Dragonlance is itself handled differently from other D&D properties so who knows.



That was their right. Then they signed that away and made an agreement to publish more.

From what I've read of Terry Hickman's beliefs, being evil is always a choice. Or to put it another way, nothing is inherently evil. You might be raised evil, and that will have a massive impact on if you are evil or not, but there is nothing forcing you to be evil.


Precisely. The authors are suing for the two plus years of labor they put in. If WOTC doesn't want the books, that's fine. Trying to weasel out of the contract and not paying the authors is not okay, and that's what the lawsuit is about.

ETA: Now that I think about, Gully Dwarves as stupid comedy race might be 'problematic' also. Bupu and her antics give me an Amos & Andy blackface comedy vibe, though so far as I know Gully Dwarves were never considered an analog for real-world humans.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Did anyone have any problems with the House Elves in Harry Potter? Because Gully Dwarves aren't that much different. Actually, I'd say Gully Dwarves are more respectable considering they actually have the willpower to actively resist those oppressing them, and to actually win in doing so.

It would also be hard to remove them without warping Rasitlin's character arc, as they are one of the few beings that he actually shows sympathy and empathy towards. Because everyone does look down on Gully Dwarves for living in squalor except for him.

[Dragonus45]

https://boundingintocomics.com/2020/06/12/wizards-of-the-coast-removes-several-cards-from-magic-the-gathering-calling-them-racist-or-culturally-offensive/

I wonder what is racist about "Stone-Throwing Devils" card. I also lol'd that Jihad is basIcally Crusade but with better points.

Apparently it is an obscure slur in the middle east, I have not been able to find a lot of details about it though.


I'm trying to figure out what exactly is the problem with the Imprison card. The game is, after all, Dungeons & Dragons.

Also, apparently orcs can't be scary anymore. (https://boundingintocomics.com/2020/10/07/wizards-of-the-coast-officially-removes-negative-orc-and-kobold-racial-traits-from-dungeons-dragons/)

The art mainly. It's just a bit too much for some people I guess.

:Edits:


The funnies thing about the orc change is that Primal Intuition is arguable just as racist as what it replaced. The changes are whatever though I'm mostly just annoyed this being errata means I don't think I have the option not to use it on a digital copy of the book.



From what I've read of Terry Hickman's beliefs, being evil is always a choice. Or to put it another way, nothing is inherently evil. You might be raised evil, and that will have a massive impact on if you are evil or not, but there is nothing forcing you to be evil.

If nothing else that fits with a lot of their other writings as well. Both in the effort they went to to show that people could be Evil and still have decent or honorable qualities to the Rose of the Prophet series eschewing a good-evil conflict entirely for the sake of a Law vs Chaos narrative. Which arguable Dragonlance was as well. The plot seems a lot less goofy if you swap the end of the world to being caused by "The world being unbalanced towards Law" then the weird thing about the world being too Good.

[pendell]

Did anyone have any problems with the House Elves in Harry Potter? Because Gully Dwarves aren't that much different. Actually, I'd say Gully Dwarves are more respectable considering they actually have the willpower to actively resist those oppressing them, and to actually win in doing so.


I had a problem with Hermione's interactions with them. House elves are intelligent creatures specifically created to be slaves, which is abhorrent in my eyes. Hermione attempted to "rescue" them, but went about it the wrong way and made things worse. So far as I can see, there was never a time when she tried to understand house elves or thought about how to make things better. Instead, she did what she thought was right without regard for the people she was "helping", which to my mind was a pretty good expression of Wizard Privilege. Afterwards, she seems to have forgotten all about it. As if her entire effort was less about improving the lot of house elves and more about making herself feel good.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Sholos]

Did anyone have any problems with the House Elves in Harry Potter? Because Gully Dwarves aren't that much different. Actually, I'd say Gully Dwarves are more respectable considering they actually have the willpower to actively resist those oppressing them, and to actually win in doing so.

It would also be hard to remove them without warping Rasitlin's character arc, as they are one of the few beings that he actually shows sympathy and empathy towards. Because everyone does look down on Gully Dwarves for living in squalor except for him.

I always thought the point of the gully dwarves was to not look down on others and think less of them just because you see them as "weak" or "stupid".

[Keltest]

I had a problem with Hermione's interactions with them. House elves are intelligent creatures specifically created to be slaves, which is abhorrent in my eyes. Hermione attempted to "rescue" them, but went about it the wrong way and made things worse. So far as I can see, there was never a time when she tried to understand house elves or thought about how to make things better. Instead, she did what she thought was right without regard for the people she was "helping", which to my mind was a pretty good expression of Wizard Privilege. Afterwards, she seems to have forgotten all about it. As if her entire effort was less about improving the lot of house elves and more about making herself feel good.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I think that was intentional. Her heart was in the right place but her unwillingness to actually ask what the house elves want instead of deciding for them was pretty consistently shown to be wrong of her.

[Forum Explorer]

I had a problem with Hermione's interactions with them. House elves are intelligent creatures specifically created to be slaves, which is abhorrent in my eyes. Hermione attempted to "rescue" them, but went about it the wrong way and made things worse. So far as I can see, there was never a time when she tried to understand house elves or thought about how to make things better. Instead, she did what she thought was right without regard for the people she was "helping", which to my mind was a pretty good expression of Wizard Privilege. Afterwards, she seems to have forgotten all about it. As if her entire effort was less about improving the lot of house elves and more about making herself feel good.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Yeah, but Hermione's flaw was always her self-righteous behavior.

Gully Dwarves are kinda in the same boat as House Elves; in that they live in what we would consider awful conditions, and are incredibly happy with those circumstances. Though Gully Dwarves are also the opposite in the sense that Gully Dwarves are incredibly free and House Elves are basically slaves.

Actually what I think would be a bigger problem is all the implied rape. It's one of the go to signs that someone is evil, is that they are either implied to have raped people in the past, or actively want to rape one of the protagonists. Which makes sense as far as logic goes. If they don't have a problem killing, enslaving, and feeding you to monsters, I can't imagine that rape is off the table for these people. But I imagine a lot of people would be uncomfortable with that dialogue.

But then again, that stuff would be very easy to remove from the story. The evil guys aren't any less evil because you remove just one example of their vileness from the story.

[pendell]

I always thought the point of the gully dwarves was to not look down on others and think less of them just because you see them as "weak" or "stupid".

Quite. Gully Dwarves can be gallant.

The Highgug stared at the approaching army in horrified fascination. Over and over
echoed in his mind Duncan’s last command to him—“You Stay Here.”

Turning around, running back to his troop, that was exactly what the Highgug
intended to do.

Although gully dwarves have a well-deserved reputation for being the most cowardly
race living upon Krynn, they can—when driven into a corner—fight with a ferocity that
generally amazes an enemy.

Most armies, however, use gully dwarves only in support positions, keeping them as
far to the rear as possible since it is almost even odds that a regiment of gully dwarves
will inflict as much damage to its own side as it will ever succeed in doing to an
enemy.

Thus Duncan had posted the only detachment of gully dwarves currently residing in
Pax Tharkas—they were former mine workers—in the center of the courtyard and told
them to stay there, figuring this would be the best way to keep them out of mischief.
He had given them pikes, in the unlikely event that the enemy would crash through the
gates with a cavalry charge.

But that was what was happening. Seeing the Army of Fistandantilus closing in upon
them, knowing that they were trapped and defeated, all the dwarves in Pax Tharkas
were thrown into confusion.

A few kept their heads. The sharpshooters on the battlements were raining arrows
into the advancing foe, slowing them somewhat. Several commanders were gathering
their regiments, preparing to fight as they retreated to the mountains. But most were
just fleeing, running for their lives to the safety of the surrounding hills.

And soon only one group stood in the path of the approaching army—the gully
dwarves.

“This is it,” the Highgug called hastily to his men as he came huffing and puffing
back. His face was white beneath the dirt, but he was calm and composed. He had been
told to Stay Here and, by Reorx’s beard, he was going to Stay Here.

However, seeing that most of his men were starting to edge away, their eyes wide at
the sight of the thundering horses which could now be seen approaching the open
gates, the Highgug decided this called for a little morale boost.

Having drilled them for just such an occasion, the Highgug had also taught his troops
a war chant and was quite proud of it. Unfortunately, they’d never yet got it right.

“Now,” he shouted, “what you give me?”

“Death!” his men all shouted cheerfully with one voice.

The Highgug cringed. “No, no, no!” he yelled in exasperation, stomping on the
ground. His men looked at each other, chagrined.



“I tell you, gulphbludders—it’s—”

“Undying loyalty!” cried one suddenly in triumph.

The others scowled at him, muttering “brown nose.” One jealous neighbor even
poked him in the back with a pike. Fortunately, it was the butt end (he was holding it
upside down) or serious damage might have been incurred.

“That’s it,” said the Highgug, trying not to notice that the sound of hoofbeats was
getting louder and louder behind him. “Now, we try again. What you give me?”

“Un-undy ... dying loy ... loy ... alty.” This was rather straggled-sounding, many
stumbling over the difficult words. It certainly seemed to lack the ring (or the
enthusiasm) of the first.

A hand shot up in the back.

“Well, what is it, Gug Snug?” snarled the Highgug.

“Us got to give ... undying ... loyal ... ty when dead?”

The Highgug glared at him with his one good eye.

“No, you phungerwhoop,” he snapped, gritting his teeth. “Death or undying loyalty.
Whichever come first.”

The gully dwarves grinned, immensely cheered by this.

The Highgug, shaking his head and muttering, turned around to face the enemy. “Set
pikes!” he shouted.

That was a mistake and he knew it as soon as he said it, hearing the vast turmoil and
confusion and swearing (and a few groans of pain) behind him.

But, by that time, it didn’t matter....

The sun set in a blood-red haze, sinking down into the silent forests of Qualinesti.

All was quiet in Pax Tharkas, the mighty, impregnable fortress having fallen shortly
after midday. The afternoon had been spent in skirmishes with pockets of dwarves,
who were retreating, fighting, back into the mountains. Many had escaped, the charge
of the knights having been effectively held up by a small group of pikesmen, who had
stood their ground when the gates were breached, stubbornly refusing to budge.


... few saw the single, black-robed figure entering the open gates of Pax Tharkas.
It rode upon a restive black horse that shied at the smell of blood. Pausing, the figure
spoke a few words to his mount, seeming to soothe the animal. Those that did see the
figure paused for a moment in terror, many having the fevered (or drunken) impression
that it was Death in person, come to collect the unburied.

Then someone muttered, “the wizard,” and they turned away, laughing shakily or
breathing a sigh of relief.

His eyes obscured by the depths of his black hood, yet intently observing all around
him, Raistlin rode forward until he came to the most remarkable sight on the entire
field of battle—the bodies of a hundred or more gully dwarves, lying (for the most
part) in even rows, rank upon rank. Most still held their pikes (many upside down)
clutched tightly in their dead hands. There were also lying among them, though, a few
horses that had been injured (generally accidentally) by the wild stabs and slashings of
the desperate gully dwarves. More than one animal, when hauled off, was noted to
have teeth marks sunk into its forelegs. At the end, the gully dwarves had dropped the
useless pikes to fight as they knew best—with tooth and nail.

“This wasn’t in the histories,” Raistlin murmured to himself, staring down at the
wretched little bodies, his brow furrowed. His eyes flashed. “Perhaps,” he breathed,
“this means time has already been altered?”

For long moments he sat there, pondering. Then suddenly he understood.

None saw Raistlin’s face, hidden as it was by his hood, or they would have noted a
swift, sudden spasm of sorrow and anger pass across it.

“No,” he said to himself bitterly, “the pitiful sacrifice of these poor creatures was left
out of the histories not because it did not happen. It was left out simply because—”

He paused, staring grimly down at the small broken bodies. “No one cared....”



That's actually a pretty good critique of racism; they may have been stupid, but they were honest and loyal and fought to the death while their "betters" were betraying the fortress or running in terror. Their action saved many lives by delaying the pursuit, allowing many to escape who would otherwise have been chased down and killed. Afterwards, they were left out of the history books because no one wanted to remember that gully dwarves were brave when they had been cowardly, and also because no one wanted to challenge their own presumptions of what gully dwarves were like.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by pendell
The card could probably be re-released with new art, I think.

I’m not seeing a problem with the current art, which looks like a nonhuman creature to me. In a fantasy game, I’m not sure why anyone would assume that this illustration depicts a human.


Originally Posted by Sholos
I always thought the point of the gully dwarves was to not look down on others and think less of them just because you see them as "weak" or "stupid".

I barely remember the gully dwarves, but it sounds like some of the noisy critics aren’t bothering to actually read and understand what they’re complaining about.

Meanwhile, out in the real world, no one’s behavior will be changed in the slightest by banning gully dwarves from a fantasy novel—except possibly for even less consideration of what might be an author’s intent with a particular aspect of story or setting.

.

[GloatingSwine]

I'm trying to figure out what exactly is the problem with the Imprison card. The game is, after all, Dungeons & Dragons.

Also, apparently orcs can't be scary anymore. (https://boundingintocomics.com/2020/10/07/wizards-of-the-coast-officially-removes-negative-orc-and-kobold-racial-traits-from-dungeons-dragons/)

*psst* people often use negative racial traits in games as stand-ins for racial traits of real world peoples....

"There's this race of big violent people that are all just genetically stupid and they're all menacing and always evil"

Sounds like something HP Lovecraft might have said, if you know what I mean....



(There's a reason that when Games Workshop was designing its Orcs it lifted them from an unarguably non-racial inspiration, football hooligans, so that this sort of thing would be specifically avoided)

[Dragonus45]

Actually what I think would be a bigger problem is all the implied rape. It's one of the go to signs that someone is evil, is that they are either implied to have raped people in the past, or actively want to rape one of the protagonists. Which makes sense as far as logic goes. If they don't have a problem killing, enslaving, and feeding you to monsters, I can't imagine that rape is off the table for these people. But I imagine a lot of people would be uncomfortable with that dialogue.


It is often a convenient go too for plenty of writers, as culturally it often gets considered its own special kind of evil, but if nothing else it's boring when almost literally every evil person is into it. And unrealistic really. Hardly the kind of think I would imagine shutting a whole book down over though.


*psst* people often use negative racial traits in games as stand-ins for racial traits of real world peoples....

"There's this race of big violent people that are all just genetically stupid and they're all menacing and always evil"

Sounds like something HP Lovecraft might have said, if you know what I mean....

There is a real easy answer to that, just... don't. Don't associate them with a real group of people when you write it. It isn't terribly hard unless someone is looking for a reason to be mad at something and decides to stretch.

[Friv]

So this is sure a thing.

On the one hand, assuming that this filing is true, WotC are being absolute [redacted]s about this, because they're trying to kill the project without triggering the actual termination fees and giving W&H some stuff.

On the other hand, Dragonlance is a wildly difficult property that just overflows with racism (and not just the gully dwarves, although they are abhorrent - also everything around the Plainsmen, a lot of things with the elves, and quite a bit with half-elves and the like), and despite saying that they accommodated all requests for changes, they also admit that there were sensitivity issues about rewrites that they made to fix sensitivity issues. In my experience as an author, if someone asks you to change work, and you change it, and then they say that your changes are running into the same problem that they asked you to change the first time, that is a really bad sign for the continuation of your project.

I'm curious to see how WotC responds.

[warty goblin]

It would also be hard to remove them without warping Rasitlin's character arc, as they are one of the few beings that he actually shows sympathy and empathy towards. Because everyone does look down on Gully Dwarves for living in squalor except for him.

I think you could actually rework gully dwarves pretty easily without a lot of ripple effects, at least for the mainline novels. IIRC they only really appear in a couple places; Xak Tsaroth, the minor character Sestun, as slave labor in Pax Tharkas, in the war dead in a single scene in War of the Twins, and the whole Raistlin/ Bupu relationship.

Basically none of these require all gully dwarves to be congenitally stupid. They do need to be generally mistreated by the other peoples, but this isn't really a reach in DL, and having characters in the novels be racist isn't neccessarily a problem. Having the universe prove the racists right is a problem.

The key attributes of the Xak Tsaroth gully dwarves from a story perspective is that they are kind of cowardly, and double cross the party. They've been isolated for 300 years and so don't really do the whole fighting thing (or the education thing if you want to stick with not being able to count) and have no reason not to double cross the party, who really are just the latest batch of invaders.

If you shift Sestun to not be an idiot, it changes basically nothing. Having him still be intimidated and bullied by Toede and the draconians is fine, he just needs to not be an idiot. With a little work you could contrast him with the Xak Tsaroth gully dwarves, since Sestun presumably didn't grow up in an abandoned ruin.

Same for the gully dwarves in Pax Tharkas. Change like 10 sentences and they're just dwarves enslaved by evil people.

Bupu also is pretty easy. She's from Xak Tsaroth, so her being treated badly by outsiders due to her particular cultural oddities still works. She's still powerless and scorned, so the beats with Raistlin are all basically intact.

Ok, so you would have to ditch the backstory with the Greygem of Gargath, but I have a hard time imagining many tears being shed for that. Its already a retcon, just write it off as another legend and make up something new to explain kander, gnomes, and why nobody likes gully dwarves.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by GloatingSwine
*psst* people often use negative racial traits in games as stand-ins for racial traits of real world peoples....

I've been playing editions of this game since the 80s, and never once saw anything remotely like that at a gaming table.

And I've been reading Tolkien since early grade school, and never once thought of orcs as anything but monsters in a fantasy world.


Originally Posted by Dragonus45
Hardly the kind of think I would imagine shutting a whole book down over though.

The Outlander books could never have been written if that were the case, and that would be a loss. Fortunately the TV adaptation has managed to negotiate the shoals well enough thus far.

.

[GloatingSwine]

There is a real easy answer to that, just... don't. Don't associate them with a real group of people when you write it. It isn't terribly hard unless someone is looking for a reason to be mad at something and decides to stretch.

It's already there in the game design though.

Like this combination of negative properties that people commonly assign to a group in real life is just all together in a group in the design of the game, which are designed to be used as guilt-free opponents that it's OK to kill for XP.

And yes, there's an easy answer. Wizards have changed it so it's not the case any more.

[Friv]

I've been playing editions of this game since the 80s, and never once saw anything remotely like that at a gaming table.

And I've been reading Tolkien since early grade school, and never once thought of orcs as anything but monsters in a fantasy world.

Congratulations on having avoided this so far. There's some great reading you can do on the subject so that you're up to speed. A lot of the reading is political in nature, so can't be shared here, but I have a few articles you'd enjoy.

First, here's a quick essay discussing the racist background of orcs in Tolkien specifically (https://jamesmendezhodes.com/blog/2019/1/13/orcs-britons-and-the-martial-race-myth-part-i-a-species-built-for-racial-terror), from their physical description to their culture and attitudes.

This article from 2014 (https://www.tor.com/2014/08/13/gamings-race-problem-gen-con-and-beyond/) discusses the experience of being a minority in gaming, and the ways that many things that white people don't see as racist are still hurtful to the person being hurt.

And here is a series of resources (https://www.nomoredamselsrpg.org/antiracism-resources) discussing racism in tabletop gaming and how it impacts real people playing at the table, and how to push back.

[Dragonus45]

It's already there in the game design though.

Like this combination of negative properties that people commonly assign to a group in real life is just all together in a group in the design of the game, which are designed to be used as guilt-free opponents that it's OK to kill for XP.

And yes, there's an easy answer. Wizards have changed it so it's not the case any more.

Then don't project random fantasy creatures onto real world peoples then? I don't get why this is a hard thing for people to do unless an author explicitly calls something out as an allegory or the like.

Yep, wizards made a bare minimum effort change to like two races. Still left the whole thing about kobolds being excellent at cowardice and decided to swap "scary orc" for "primal yet wise savage" orc which is arguably just as racist. I applaud them for all their hard work.

[Giggling Ghast]

First, here's a quick essay discussing the racist background of orcs in Tolkien specifically (https://jamesmendezhodes.com/blog/2019/1/13/orcs-britons-and-the-martial-race-myth-part-i-a-species-built-for-racial-terror), from their physical description to their culture and attitudes.

What drivel.

That is all I have to say. *Leaps out of thread*

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Friv
...and the ways that many things that white people....

You're making some assumptions about me. I'd appreciate if you didn't.

[Lemmy]

As Tolkien said:
"If I give you monsters and you see Africans, who is the racist?"

Orcs are not and have never been a stand-in for any ethinicity, except on that one very forgettable Will Smith movie.

You know what represents different human ethiniticies? Actual human ethinicities. They are all present in D&D, have no relation to orcs and have the exact same stats as every other human.

Not that basic logic will mean anything to the outrage brigade...

Those claiming that evil, murderous, savage monsters are meant to represent certain human ethinicities are just projecting their own bigotry and racism... As they often do.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Okay, after digging through this:

Weis and Hickman have been getting paid by WotC. The suit is about trying to make WotC pay for the royalties they may have gotten from PRH at some point in the future. Conditional earnings aren't something you can usually get in a civil suit.

W&H are on their third editor. By the sound of it, they've been told repeatedly to make changes, and often the same changes. This sounds a lot like they're trying to ignore editorial. Which is breach of contract for them. Specific issues are names, joke races, magic rape drugs love potions and generally writing an 80s book in the 20s.

Some of their positioning is laughable. They've sold more fantasy books than anyone except JRRT? I guess they've never heard of Conan, Narnia, Salvatore, Pratchett, Martin, Jordan etc. I'm pretty sure Lovecraft and Algernon have outsold them as well.

Depending on how their contract with WotC is written, the contract with PRH may actually be invalid. At the least, it sounds like W&H's legal team are stretching in several places.

Given what I could find on sales numbers for DL novels (hard because WotC dropped the line several years ago), the line is not a good revenue stream any more. It's possible the new novels were more about maintaining the trademarks than anything else. WotC could put out a 64 page guide on converting DL to 5E and achieve that. The novels are not needed.

[Forum Explorer]

As Tolkien said:
"If I give you monsters and you see Africans, who is the racist?"

Not that basic logic will mean anything to the outrage brigade...

Basically my thought on the matter.


Apparently treating someone without regard to their skin color is also racist according to one of the above articles, which is what the whole 'I don't see race' thing means. Which is the sort of statement that just makes people to want to stop trying altogether. Because if you are racist if do make assumptions, and racist if you don't, than you might as well take whatever action benefits you the most.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Lemmy
As Tolkien said….

Do you have a source for this quote?


Originally Posted by Rogar Demonblud
They've sold more fantasy books than anyone except JRRT? I guess they've never heard of Conan, Narnia, Salvatore, Pratchett, Martin, Jordan etc. I'm pretty sure Lovecraft and Algernon have outsold them as well.

To say nothing of Terry Brooks, Tad Williams and Stephenie Meyer. On this list (https://thewertzone.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-sff-all-time-sales-list-revised.html) Weis and Hickman are listed at 43 and 44 respectively. Even removing the SF titles from that list, they would still be around 32 and 33.

This is not to take from those who love Weis and Hickman’s work, but industry estimates don’t seem to support that particular claim—unless they’re claiming that they’ve helped support D&D sales in general, and are including the sales of rulebooks and campaign settings as part of their total. Still a huge stretch, though.

[GloatingSwine]

As Tolkien said:
"If I give you monsters and you see Africans, who is the racist?"


Yeah, the issue is that the people who started bringing this up are people who see "something I have to put up with in real life, in the eyes of people who look at me like I'm an orc".

[Friv]

You're making some assumptions about me. I'd appreciate if you didn't.

I'm just explaining what the content of the link is, for both you and other people in this thread. I am not intended to extrapolate anything about you specifically in that link's description.

[Friv]

As Tolkien said:
"If I give you monsters and you see Africans, who is the racist?"

Actually, what Tolkien said was:


The Orcs are definitely stated to be corruptions of the 'human' form seen in Elves and Men. They are (or were) squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types.

[Anymage]

Also, apparently orcs can't be scary anymore. (https://boundingintocomics.com/2020/10/07/wizards-of-the-coast-officially-removes-negative-orc-and-kobold-racial-traits-from-dungeons-dragons/)

Intimidate is still one of the skills available under their new skill racial. And mechanically, negatives are on the way out as a design element because they do make a race even more noncompetitive compared to other options. I'd be saying the same thing if the races with negatives were the robots or the bird people. I have no problem with them trying to make new races at least a little more viable.

The broader topics that tend to all devolve into orcs and real world racism? Given what happened to all the other threads that devolved into that, I'd personally rather give them a wide berth.

[Tyndmyr]

I've been playing editions of this game since the 80s, and never once saw anything remotely like that at a gaming table.

And I've been reading Tolkien since early grade school, and never once thought of orcs as anything but monsters in a fantasy world.

I would agree. Orcs are not a real world steriotype. At least, not the D&D rendition of them.

I could make a case for say, Dwarves sometimes being scottish or russian or what have you, but the connections between fantasy races and real world races is loose at best, and generally not meant perjoratively.

Even if we're talking about Tolkien sterioypes, there's some drift in the translation go D&D, and that drift is usually further into the realm of fantasy, and away from reality. You could talk about the LotR story as an allegory for WW1, but that wouldn't hold up at all well for D&D.

Dragonlance is all hyped about frigging dragons, anyways, which are particularly strongly mythological. I would have difficulty imagning how they could even line up with real world anything.

Anyways, I do hope they get paid for what they were promised.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Anymage
And mechanically, negatives are on the way out as a design element because they do make a race even more noncompetitive compared to other options. I'd be saying the same thing if the races with negatives were the robots or the bird people. I have no problem with them trying to make new races at least a little more viable.

It’s never really bothered me that warforged have problems relating to organics, and that this is reflected in their ability mods. Or that a race of birdfolk would have a strength penalty owing to their lighter mass. I just don’t get worked up over game design.


Originally Posted by Tyndmyr
I could make a case for say, Dwarves sometimes being scottish or russian or what have you, but the connections between fantasy races and real world races is loose at best, and generally not meant perjoratively.

I’ve never seen them as having any connections, and I seriously doubt that was ever the intent of anyone at WotC. But I would rather give people the benefit of the doubt when I can.

[pendell]

I think my issue with the original dragonlance was not so much with the treatment of any one species but with the minor races as a whole. All Gnomes are tinkerers and speakreallyfast. All Gully Dwarves are stupid and can't count past two. All Kender are goodhearted souls with no concept of private property and a childlike regard to the world. On and on and on. The entire vibe is "if you've seen one you've seen 'em all". If you know one kender you know all kender. It can be a problem when you start treating intelligent beings as interchangeable who all look and act the same.

That says nothing about dragons in the original series, which could be judged not on the content of their character but the color of their scales. But that was a problem with all of D&D in those days and not of Dragonlance only. :smallamused:.

Although I have to ask if that's an issue of kinda racism or just a case of "author can't be bothered to give meaningful characterization to minor extras".

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Dragonus45]

Although I have to ask if that's an issue of kinda racism or just a case of "author can't be bothered to give meaningful characterization to minor extras".

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I usually assume the latter until proven otherwise when dealing with that question. Dragons I often considered a separate issue entirely though, even to this day when planning out homebrew settings. They are inherently magical and mystical creatures, sure they clearly have a degree of free will but it kind of makes sense in my head that they would also be more predisposed to certain alignments then others as a result of that. At least when compared to us mortal folks.

[Tyndmyr]

Although I have to ask if that's an issue of kinda racism or just a case of "author can't be bothered to give meaningful characterization to minor extras".

That is a common fictional issue. Every sci-fi universe ends up with a strange amount of mono-ecosystem worlds, too. Feels similar. Not super realistic, but I guess sort of a common cheat to try to mash in a wild variety of races/worlds. You can't really spare the time to delve into the uniquenesses that they would all have in practice.

[GrayDeath]

Prefacing that, while 2 of their books are in my Top 20 fantasy I am overall not a real fan of their work:

Honestly, WOTC. You know theyve been writing with very little change since the 80ies. After all, you ordered most of thieir work.
Now you`re wondering they have trouble working with the (for fantasy literature totally blown out of proportion, unlike in some/most real life issuies) "newfangled definitions of what is allowed for polite people"?

Sigh....

I mean honestly, read a few of thier books. The THRIVE on clichee. They cant write without it, so obviously they will have problems if their Editors tell them Clichee 2 to 5 and 9 are "racist/Sexist/X-cist", please remove".....

[JadedDM]

Raistlin was kind of a creeper, but other than that I can't think of anything particularly bad about the original novels. You could publish them today and no-one would bat an eye.

I'm a huge Dragonlance fan, but even I'll be to first to admit that it's pretty problematic on a lot of issues. For instance, the whole thing about Goldmoon. She's coded as Native American, but inexplicably for no reason she has fair skin, blonde hair and blue eyes (despite everyone else in her tribe looking exactly like a Native American), and her whole role is to play the part of a white savior, teaching her primitive people that they are worshiping wrong. (And then, the narrative promptly drops her after the first book and hands her role over to a far less interesting white dude.)

Then there's the fact that pretty much every human of color in the world is called a barbarian, regardless of whether they fit that archetype or not. Rig Mer-Krel, for instance, is a sailor. He doesn't dress in furs or skins and he doesn't live out in the wilds. He isn't of the Barbarian class, but instead is a Mariner. But despite this, the narrative insists on referring to him as a barbarian in the books. As far as I could tell, it was because he was black.

And as others have mentioned, Gully Dwarves. Just...everything about them, really. The fact that they are said to have been created by the interbreeding of dwarves and gnomes, that they are apparently too stupid to count beyond two or not eat garbage, etc.

That's just the stuff off the top of my head, too.

I'd love to see Dragonlance updated to 5E, but it really needs some serious lore updates first.

[Tvtyrant]

I'm a huge Dragonlance fan, but even I'll be to first to admit that it's pretty problematic on a lot of issues. For instance, the whole thing about Goldmoon. She's coded as Native American, but inexplicably for no reason she has fair skin, blonde hair and blue eyes (despite everyone else in her tribe looking exactly like a Native American), and her whole role is to play the part of a white savior, teaching her primitive people that they are worshiping wrong. (And then, the narrative promptly drops her after the first book and hands her role over to a far less interesting white dude.)

Then there's the fact that pretty much every human of color in the world is called a barbarian, regardless of whether they fit that archetype or not. Rig Mer-Krel, for instance, is a sailor. He doesn't dress in furs or skins and he doesn't live out in the wilds. He isn't of the Barbarian class, but instead is a Mariner. But despite this, the narrative insists on referring to him as a barbarian in the books. As far as I could tell, it was because he was black.

And as others have mentioned, Gully Dwarves. Just...everything about them, really. The fact that they are said to have been created by the interbreeding of dwarves and gnomes, that they are apparently too stupid to count beyond two or not eat garbage, etc.

That's just the stuff off the top of my head, too.

I'd love to see Dragonlance updated to 5E, but it really needs some serious lore updates first.

There really isn't much to salvage in Dragonlance:
Fails Bechdel test.
Only women that are love interests exist.
Casual murder is treated as normal.
The Gods are treated as good for murdering millions of civilians. The reasoning being that since the Gods put a theocracy in place and the head theocrat turned bad, everyone was guilty.
Color coded dragons with two exceptions, and those barely.
Obsesses over Tika's virginity.
The characters embrace all sorts of class garbage despite being a band of murder hobos.

What's left is a rehash of Tolkien with "balance" as a cosmic force on top of it. Balance that is not actually supported by the books. Raistlin and Kitiara dies for their ambitions, Tanis and Laura and Tike and Caramon live long, full lives.

[Rogar Demonblud]

The lack of reliable healing magic for most of the setting's game-adjacent history would be an issue in 5E.

[Corvus]

If WOTC thinks that Dragonlance is 'problematic' sadly I fear that we will never see anything from Dark Sun again.

[Tyndmyr]

Casual murder is treated as normal.....Color coded dragons with two exceptions, and those barely.....The characters embrace all sorts of class garbage despite being a band of murder hobos.

In fairness, quite a lot of D&D games fit all of the above. If I had a dollar for every PC I've seen that disdained spending excess gold on anything that didn't get at least a +1 to killing, lived in awful places with nary a mention of showering, and wanted to be respected and liked because/despite murdering anything that looked angry, or profitable, or fun to murder, I'd have a lot of dollars.

And color coded dragons, while not particularly deep storytelling, isn't very much like the real world. Dragons are not real world people.

I'm not gonna say that Dragonlance is perfect. The entire concept of Kender needs to die in a fire. But it does seem likely that WotC got exactly what they'd been getting for many years, and wanted something different, despite never specifying that contractually.

[Forum Explorer]

I think my issue with the original dragonlance was not so much with the treatment of any one species but with the minor races as a whole. All Gnomes are tinkerers and speakreallyfast. All Gully Dwarves are stupid and can't count past two. All Kender are goodhearted souls with no concept of private property and a childlike regard to the world. On and on and on. The entire vibe is "if you've seen one you've seen 'em all". If you know one kender you know all kender. It can be a problem when you start treating intelligent beings as interchangeable who all look and act the same.

That says nothing about dragons in the original series, which could be judged not on the content of their character but the color of their scales. But that was a problem with all of D&D in those days and not of Dragonlance only. :smallamused:.

Although I have to ask if that's an issue of kinda racism or just a case of "author can't be bothered to give meaningful characterization to minor extras".

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Except when you get into each race, you run into exceptions constantly. Bupu and the Highbulp and both cunning enough to outsmart the others. Tasslehoff is thought to be an exceptional kender, or maybe he isn't. One of the characters even muses that maybe all kender have the potential to be as loyal and true as he is, if people would make the effort to actually befriend them. The draconians aren't simple evil thugs, but are disciplined soldiers with their own hopes and dreams of a better life and so on.


Even the dragons realize that they don't actually need to fight each other just because their gods say so and that despite the color of their scales that they are more alike than not.


I'm a huge Dragonlance fan, but even I'll be to first to admit that it's pretty problematic on a lot of issues. For instance, the whole thing about Goldmoon. She's coded as Native American, but inexplicably for no reason she has fair skin, blonde hair and blue eyes (despite everyone else in her tribe looking exactly like a Native American), and her whole role is to play the part of a white savior, teaching her primitive people that they are worshiping wrong. (And then, the narrative promptly drops her after the first book and hands her role over to a far less interesting white dude.)

Then there's the fact that pretty much every human of color in the world is called a barbarian, regardless of whether they fit that archetype or not. Rig Mer-Krel, for instance, is a sailor. He doesn't dress in furs or skins and he doesn't live out in the wilds. He isn't of the Barbarian class, but instead is a Mariner. But despite this, the narrative insists on referring to him as a barbarian in the books. As far as I could tell, it was because he was black.

And as others have mentioned, Gully Dwarves. Just...everything about them, really. The fact that they are said to have been created by the interbreeding of dwarves and gnomes, that they are apparently too stupid to count beyond two or not eat garbage, etc.

That's just the stuff off the top of my head, too.

I'd love to see Dragonlance updated to 5E, but it really needs some serious lore updates first.

No arguments about Goldmoon. Or the Plainsmen in general. They never really move past a stereotype for them.

I'd disagree with that though. The first time we see someone of color, it's Theros Ironfeld, and he's a blacksmith who dares to stand up to the Dragonarmies. At no point is he ever referred to as barbaric. In fact, I can't remember any Ergothians being called barbaric in the original trilogy. A few of them are outright pirates, but they aren't really defined by it.

The eat garbage thing as an insult kinda confuses me. They don't get sick from it, and apparently it tastes good to them. So why wouldn't they?

[Ibrinar]

I never got far into Dragonlance because it just didn't seem to be on the same level as their other series I had read (The Death Gate Cycle) (plus to be honest I read the first and the beginning of the next confused me because I was unsure whether I skipped something, or maybe I did who knows) so I have no idea about the stuff being discussed. But interesting case, whether they have a legal point or not working for two years on something and it getting cut sucks. Though I guess that is what happens when others own the IP.

[Gallowglass]

There really isn't much to salvage in Dragonlance:

Fails Bechdel test.



It's been too long since I read this to comment on it, but I will say, so does almost all pre-modern fantasy fiction.



Only women that are love interests exist.


Laurana, who starts as Tanis' love interest goes on to be the primary hero of most of the second and third book, rising to become the golden general and leading the major assault on the bad guys.

Kitiara -is- the general in charge of most of the bad guys.



Casual murder is treated as normal.


...same as any and all fantasy novels...



The Gods are treated as good for murdering millions of civilians. The reasoning being that since the Gods put a theocracy in place and the head theocrat turned bad, everyone was guilty.


I certainly had a different read about the morality and regret for of the destruction of Istar than you did. I don't really follow how you got to your read at all. Regardless, the idea of Gods having to wipe out a broad swath of humanity to solve a problem is hardly unique to Dragonlance, getting its roots straight from real life religions that must not be named.



Color coded dragons with two exceptions, and those barely.


...same as all D&D settings...



Obsesses over Tika's virginity.


I don't really remember this obsession, but I give you that Tika is a problematic character in the narrative.



The characters embrace all sorts of class garbage despite being a band of murder hobos.


...same as almost all Fantasy novels...





What's left is a rehash of Tolkien with "balance" as a cosmic force on top of it. Balance that is not actually supported by the books. Raistlin and Kitiara dies for their ambitions, Tanis and Laura and Tike and Caramon live long, full lives.

I see you fall into the same misunderstanding of "balance" as all the people who complain about Star Wars do. Suffice it to say, when they talk about balance and when George Lucas talks about balance, they aren't talking about "equal amounts of good and evil"

I don't know, it seems like you just don't like fantasy fiction.

EDIT: At least mass marketed 1980s D&D style fantasy fiction.

I think there is a lot of legitimate reasons to not like dragonlance, but I don't think most of your reasons are good reasons.

[JadedDM]

The lack of reliable healing magic for most of the setting's game-adjacent history would be an issue in 5E.
Healing magic was absent for a period of about 350 years out of a history of 9500 years. That's less than 4% of the setting's history.


I'd disagree with that though. The first time we see someone of color, it's Theros Ironfeld, and he's a blacksmith who dares to stand up to the Dragonarmies. At no point is he ever referred to as barbaric. In fact, I can't remember any Ergothians being called barbaric in the original trilogy. A few of them are outright pirates, but they aren't really defined by it.
Technically speaking, Riverwind is the first person of color we see in the books. But Theros is the first black person. And in his backstory, he was a slave. So...there is that.

But yeah, Ergothians are sometimes called 'Sea Barbarians' in the setting. It may not have been mentioned in the original trilogy, but it is something that comes up in sourcebooks and other novels.


The eat garbage thing as an insult kinda confuses me. They don't get sick from it, and apparently it tastes good to them. So why wouldn't they?
That's pretty much how I reflavored them in my own version of the setting. I made them immune to disease and with no sense of taste, so they can eat anything, even rancid or rotten food, and be just fine. Thus, it's not that they are too dumb to practice basic hygiene, they just see it as completely unnecessary.

[LibraryOgre]

As a lawyer friend of mine points out, if all you're reading is the plaintiff's lawsuit, you're going to get a very biased view of what's going on in a suit. W&H have a view of what's going on, and that's going to be a mixture of truth as they see it and what is legally expedient to allege.

[Forum Explorer]

Technically speaking, Riverwind is the first person of color we see in the books. But Theros is the first black person. And in his backstory, he was a slave. So...there is that.

But yeah, Ergothians are sometimes called 'Sea Barbarians' in the setting. It may not have been mentioned in the original trilogy, but it is something that comes up in sourcebooks and other novels.


That's pretty much how I reflavored them in my own version of the setting. I made them immune to disease and with no sense of taste, so they can eat anything, even rancid or rotten food, and be just fine. Thus, it's not that they are too dumb to practice basic hygiene, they just see it as completely unnecessary.

Sure, which actually does bring up a good point. Hickman and Weis actually wrote the minority of novels for Dragonlance. Their stuff is the core of it, but stuff like Theros' backstory and the general history of Ergoth isn't their writing, but someone else who also wrote for the universe. Which is a lot of people who have very different viewpoints on what makes good fantasy. For example, some author's made it so all elves were blonde.

Also, Hickman and Weiss openly made most of the characters and so called 'good races' pretty racist. Like literally, 100%, they are racist. That's kinda a big plot point about the heroes is how they are all shunned for the various demographics they belong to. Tansis is discriminated by both humans and elves for being half-elf. The elves are hated by the humans who blame the humans for the draconian invasion, the dwarves hate everyone, everyone hates kender and magic-users, and everyone blames the Knights for the Cataclysm.

I mean, talking about questionable things, the elves literally enslave the wilder elves, and it's a direct allegory for 'The White Man's Burden' and other disgusting justifications that were used in past human history. And no one really does anything about it. The closest we see it to being addressed is Raistlin pointing it out to Crysania as a method to tempt her into helping him.

[pendell]

I see you fall into the same misunderstanding of "balance" as all the people who complain about Star Wars do. Suffice it to say, when they talk about balance and when George Lucas talks about balance, they aren't talking about "equal amounts of good and evil"



I don't think this comparison is apt; When GL speaks of "balance" , he means a world where evil exists but is restrained; a galaxy where evil is entirely wiped out is simply not possible in Star Wars, so the ideal is where the forces of law and order restrain evil with minimum force, using Jedi Knights instead of Star Destroyers.

By contrast, M&T really seemed to believe in making a world where good and evil were about equal.

As Fizban said in Dragons of Spring Dawning



“All this suffering, just for that?” Laurana asked, coming to stand beside Tanis. “Why
shouldn’t good win, drive the darkness away forever?”

“Haven’t you learned anything, young lady?” Fizban scolded, shaking a bony finger at her.
“There was a time when good held sway. Do you know when that was? Right before the
Cataclysm!”

“Yes,” he continued, seeing their astonishment, “the Kingpriest of Istar was a good man. Does
that surprise you? It shouldn’t, because both of you have seen what goodness like that can do.
You’ve seen it in the elves, the ancient embodiment of good! It breeds intolerance, rigidity, a
belief that because I am right, those who don’t believe as I do are wrong.


The world in which good dominated and evil was minimal to nonexistent was the Age of Might, and it resulted in a Cataclysm when the various peoples grew too arrogant and brought destruction on themselves at the hands of the gods. The character of Steel, created in Dragons of Summer Flame as an evil counterpart to the Knights of Solamnia, reinforces this point. Both good and evil creatures banded together against a greater threat, Chaos, because neither was powerful enough to survive alone.

All of which leads me to believe that when 14 year old me read these books for the first time and concluded the authors were trying to say there needed to be just enough evil in the world, I was right to do so. I also rejected that message even as I still enjoyed the books, because I don't allow authors to do my thinking for me. Dragonlance is not the only book I have read.


Incidentally, I think there's a point that should be made in W&H's favor: They did tackle racism explicitly in the books. The elves were racist. They have little but contempt for humans and Tanis is an outcast among them because of his human blood. In Legends, some of the elvish leaders were quite happy with a cataclysm because they believed it would purify Krynn of the "lesser races". Verminaard was racist against elves. So was Hederic the High Theocrat. All of these people were portrayed as villains, not to be emulated, and the solution was found in people like Tasslehoff, insisting at the Council of Whitestone that the good people of Krynn should be fighting evil, not each other. And the reason they were fighting was exactly because of bigotry, both on the part of human Knights of Solamnia and their elvish counterparts.

While we can discuss the problematic parts of the story, we should recognize that the authors were intentionally writing an anti-racist story. Which, in 1987, it was.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Mikeavelli]

If WOTC thinks that Dragonlance is 'problematic' sadly I fear that we will never see anything from Dark Sun again.

Mystara is over in the corner, quietly crying itself to sleep.

[Lurkmoar]

If WOTC thinks that Dragonlance is 'problematic' sadly I fear that we will never see anything from Dark Sun again.

Because of all the slaves? My DM was like, hey, slaves are a thing. You may end up being one. Evil people, neutral people and even good people may have slaves.

Funnily enough, Dark Sun is still my favorite setting. The novels were trash though. I enjoyed Dragonlance to a degree, until they did the Gods go away (AGAIN) plot and I stopped paying attention.

[Corvus]

Because of all the slaves? My DM was like, hey, slaves are a thing. You may end up being one. Evil people, neutral people and even good people may have slaves.

Funnily enough, Dark Sun is still my favorite setting. The novels were trash though. I enjoyed Dragonlance to a degree, until they did the Gods go away (AGAIN) plot and I stopped paying attention.

Slavery, ecological destruction, immortal Sorcerer-Kings who run totalitarian dictatorships that make anything on Earth look tame, racism, genocide and the list goes on. But on the positive side it does encourage recycling (as in, your team mate is dead so lets just recycle him into food, turn his bones into weapons and skin into leather).

[Mikeavelli]

Slavery, ecological destruction, immortal Sorcerer-Kings who run totalitarian dictatorships that make anything on Earth look tame, racism, genocide and the list goes on. But on the positive side it does encourage recycling (as in, your team mate is dead so lets just recycle him into food, turn his bones into weapons and skin into leather).

I mean, most of those are portrayed as bad things.

Mad Max: Fury Road took everything except the literal magic and turned it into a film that was celebrated for its wokeness.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Lemmy
As Tolkien said:
"If I give you monsters and you see Africans, who is the racist?"

Still interested if this is a verified quote.


Originally Posted by pendell
…we should recognize that the authors were intentionally writing an anti-racist story. Which, in 1987, it was.

I don’t doubt this, but I have to say that when I read these books it went completely past me. For me, they were just three not-especially-great fantasy books.


Originally Posted by Mikeavelli
Mad Max: Fury Road took everything except the literal magic and turned it into a film that was celebrated for its wokeness.

Really?

There’s just…not much to that film. Not sure what there is to celebrate.


Originally Posted by Mikeavelli
Mystara is over in the corner, quietly crying itself to sleep.

And why is Mystara weeping?

[Corvus]

I mean, most of those are portrayed as bad things.


The players may realise it is a bad thing, but the characters? As far as they are concerned it is treated as just a fact of life and has always been that way. History has been forgotten or rewritten so that the SKs, despite all their brutality, are seen as necessary for the survival of civilisation, even though they are the ones responsible for the current state of affairs (but as said, no one knows that and all evidence to the contrary has been erased.)

And given how overwhelmingly powerful the SKs are, the chances of changing things are next to zero.

[Keltest]

Obsesses over Tika's virginity.

I feel the need to chime in here for a moment. It doesnt "obsess" over it, its brought up once, maybe twice, in relation to her growing romance with the worldly and romantically experienced Caramon, and how Caramon shouldnt make any assumptions about what she does or does not know about romance and sex.

[Mikeavelli]

I personally never got why Fury Road was supposed to be a feminist masterpiece, but it got famously advertised as being one around the time it was released. Someone else can probably explain it better than I can.

As for Mystara, the vast majority of nations were intentionally made as fantasy counterparts to real-world cultures. Some of these were fairly well done and could probably be retooled for modern sensibilities. Others were offensive stereotypes even by the standards of the 80s and 90s when they came out.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Mikeavelli
I personally never got why Fury Road was supposed to be a feminist masterpiece, but it got famously advertised as being one around the time it was released.

I missed that advertising. The little I read was highly critical of how most of the female characters were supermodels.

To say nothing about how one female character was entirely nude, in a desert, as bait for (presumably) passing males.

[Willie the Duck]

As a lawyer friend of mine points out, if all you're reading is the plaintiff's lawsuit, you're going to get a very biased view of what's going on in a suit. W&H have a view of what's going on, and that's going to be a mixture of truth as they see it and what is legally expedient to allege.
Very much so. This one in particular includes a lot of posturing and claims without clear support (in particular, this implication that it is the non-DL bad press that WotC is getting that is the driving force in canning the trilogy is something stated, but no clear support given). The notion that W&H would get $10M from the trilogy and related stuff over the next decade seems pretty far fetched). I'm guessing that this includes a lot of grandstanding specifically because they know that this is likely all most of us will ever see, thus influencing the public perception of the matter, and thus the best way to influence the amount for which WotC will be willing to settle (to end any bad press).


I'm curious to see how WotC responds.
Sadly, it seems unlikely that we'll get to see much of it. WotC is likely to keep their cards to their chest, and in all likelihood this will end up with a settlement and NDAs all-around (and thus we'll never know if the settlement is a veritable victory or defeat, nor for whom).

[JadedDM]

Very much so. This one in particular includes a lot of posturing and ...grandstanding...
Yeeeah, it was pretty weird how the statement refers to Weis and Hickman as 'rock stars' and claims they were second only to Tolkien as fantasy fiction writers.

[warty goblin]

I don't really remember this obsession, but I give you that Tika is a problematic character in the narrative.


I'm honestly curious about what you or others think is problematic with Tika. She has a pretty solid character arc over the course of Chronicles, does her part to contribute to the party, and is overall a solidly good person. Sure she's not a major character, but Chronicles has so many characters quite frequently the main characters are also minor characters. Her being a virgin is brought up literally once, when Goldmoon tells Caramon to maybe hit the brakes a bit, which seems like a reasonable conversation between two adults on behalf of a legitimately nervous third. You know, the sort of thing friends do. There's no value judgement attached to her virginity either; it's just an aspect of her character. And by Winter Night she's clearly raring to go, and Caramon's the one putting the kibosh on a more physical relationship due to having to deal with the world's worst sibling drama 24/7.

Which is even of itself is something that stands out. I honestly can't name another fantasy novel, let alone one of that vintage, where the male character in a male/female romance says he isn't ready for sex.

[137beth]

Slavery, ecological destruction, immortal Sorcerer-Kings who run totalitarian dictatorships that make anything on Earth look tame, racism, genocide and the list goes on.

But merely having those exist in fiction isn't problematic: it's problematic when the author says those things are "objectively good" according to the "objective" alignment system.

[Dragonus45]

But merely having those exist in fiction isn't problematic: it's problematic when the author says those things are "objectively good" according to the "objective" alignment system.

Any SK I can think of is officially listed as a variety of evil in it's alignment section? Is there one with a G in there somewhere?

[Friv]

Any SK I can think of is officially listed as a variety of evil in it's alignment section? Is there one with a G in there somewhere?
No, I think that's the point. Sorcerer Kings are monsters in a dark setting, that's fine. It's Dragonlance that presents slavery and genocide as a result of "too much Good" rather than of powerful beings no longer being Good.

[Vahnavoi]

Oh hey, someone brought up Harry Potter.

There's a thing you should remember about Harry Potter. (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telesurenglish.net/amp/news/Reading-Harry-Potter-Makes-Kids-Less-Racist-20140804-0003.html)

The more you pound it as a fact that Harry Potter has all these problematic racist, sexist etc. stereotypes and caricatures in it, the less I have a reason to care, because it's been already shown those things don't consistently make people reading Harry Potter any of those things.

So what does this have to do with Dragonlance?

To quote a poster from above:



While we can discuss the problematic parts of [Dragonlance] , we should recognize that the authors were intentionally writing an anti-racist story. Which, in 1987, it was.

If a story has an obvious, anti-discrimination message like Harry Potter or Dragonlance, why, exactly, should we focus on those problematic (to us) parts? No-one in the whole world has shown they actually cause problematic behaviour in real people. No-one has shown they actually cause harm to real people, except through self-fulfilling prophecy of getting upset at the supposed harm they do.

[Forum Explorer]

Oh hey, someone brought up Harry Potter.

There's a thing you should remember about Harry Potter. (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telesurenglish.net/amp/news/Reading-Harry-Potter-Makes-Kids-Less-Racist-20140804-0003.html)

The more you pound it as a fact that Harry Potter has all these problematic racist, sexist etc. stereotypes and caricatures in it, the less I have a reason to care, because it's been already shown those things don't consistently make people reading Harry Potter any of those things.


I actually brought up Harry Potter to get a question answered (which no one did), did anyone actually have a problem with that stuff being in the story? Because I don't remember anyone complaining about that. Thus, I'm pretty sure Dragonlance would be able to get away with things like Gully Dwarves and elven racism as well.

[Dragonus45]

No, I think that's the point. Sorcerer Kings are monsters in a dark setting, that's fine. It's Dragonlance that presents slavery and genocide as a result of "too much Good" rather than of powerful beings no longer being Good.

Ah, so that's like I said earlier about good and evil not quite equaling the same things in the Dragonlance universe they do in other D&D properties.

[Vahnavoi]

I actually brought up Harry Potter to get a question answered (which no one did), did anyone actually have a problem with that stuff being in the story? Because I don't remember anyone complaining about that. Thus, I'm pretty sure Dragonlance would be able to get away with things like Gully Dwarves and elven racism as well.

Well I can answer that question as well:

No-one really had a problem with it when the books were first published. Or rather, very few took the people who had problems seriously.

Ditto for when the movie series was first published.

These things had to be made first, and become massively popular first, before people started picking them apart with a serious critical eye. And this didn't become mainstream until the author, J. K. Rowling very publicly made their opinions known about another, largely unrelated, social issue.

This was poorly received and afterwards, people started going through the source material with a fine comb in order to prove that the author is a bigot. This in turned moved those other things from academic and fringe concerns, into widespread discussion.

If we compare to Dragonlance, Dragonlance is already an old and succesful franchise. It's already been analyzed and over-analyzed by academic and fringe circles. The reason to think that new Dragonlance content would come under fire is the very reason why WotC is allegeldy trying to weasel out of the contract: because WotC has been a center of negative attention due their public relations screw ups.

If we were talking about a new, unknown B-grade fantasy novel trilogy, no-one would care. But we also wouldn't be talking about 10 million dollar reparations for lost profits.

[The Glyphstone]

I actually brought up Harry Potter to get a question answered (which no one did), did anyone actually have a problem with that stuff being in the story? Because I don't remember anyone complaining about that. Thus, I'm pretty sure Dragonlance would be able to get away with things like Gully Dwarves and elven racism as well.

Frankly, if there is anything to complain about in Harry Potter, it would be goblins over house elves. Their uncanny resemblance to the hostile stereotypes of a very specific real world minority group are somewhat noticeable, even if the goblins themselves are shown in a non-negative light and the prejudice against them unjustified.

[JadedDM]

If a story has an obvious, anti-discrimination message like Harry Potter or Dragonlance, why, exactly, should we focus on those problematic (to us) parts? No-one in the whole world has shown they actually cause problematic behaviour in real people. No-one has shown they actually cause harm to real people, except through self-fulfilling prophecy of getting upset at the supposed harm they do.

The problem here, is that you are assuming that people object to stories having problematic elements because they are afraid it will make people problematic. You are framing it from the perspective of the majority (white, male, cis, hetero, etc.). Why should 'we' care about this kind of thing, since it's not actively making 'us' worse?

But these sorts of problematic elements do cause harm to the minorities they depict. Their self-esteem is harmed, their desire to be seen as normal people is harmed, etc. It's easy to say, "It's just a story, it doesn't matter" when you're not the one being depicted as a primitive barbarian (or whatever).

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by The Glyphstone
Frankly, if there is anything to complain about in Harry Potter, it would be goblins over house elves. Their uncanny resemblance to the hostile stereotypes of a very specific real world minority group are somewhat noticeable….

Once again I must not have the same eagle eye for these things that other people apparently do. I’ve read the books, I’ve watched the movies, and I never saw any “hostile stereotypes” in the goblins. They were goblins, a fantasy race in a fantasy story.

[Vahnavoi]

The problem here, is that you are assuming that people object to stories having problematic elements because they are afraid it will make people problematic. You are framing it from the perspective of the majority (white, male, cis, hetero, etc.). Why should 'we' care about this kind of thing, since it's not actively making 'us' worse?

You're mistaking about my framing. The "we" I'm referring to is all the people who know that Harry Potter hasn't actually been shown to cause any of the effects you allege it does. By reframing my argument, you are essentially claiming who reads the book makes the difference, but then you have to actually show it does.

Go ahead. Find me the contrasting study about non-white, non-male, non-straight (etc.) who strongly identified with house elves and had this negatively impact them.


But these sorts of problematic elements do cause harm to the minorities they depict. Their self-esteem is harmed, their desire to be seen as normal people is harmed, etc. It's easy to say, "It's just a story, it doesn't matter" when you're not the one being depicted as a primitive barbarian (or whatever).

There is a popular stereotype of my people (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Finnish_sentiment) , specifically, as stubborn, uncommunicative, violent drunks, repeated both inside and outside of my country. Due to near-pathological self-centeredness of my people, there are myriad surveys on the topic of whether this actually reflects how outsiders view us, and what they really think about us. Turns out, if they have an opinion of us at all, it's generally positive. The supposed "stereotype threat" is largely self-created and self-maintained. The arrow of causation doesn't go "fiction causes bad self-esteem", it goes "bad self-esteem causes the fiction".

There is no objective reason to consider deciptions of my people as barbarians, as anything but insignificant repetion of outdated beliefs. I personally read and enjoy works (https://satwcomic.com/traveling-light-the-finnish-way) that play on the trope without it negatively influencing my self-esteem whatsoever.

I'm not arguing this is the same for all possible minorities; I'm pointing out that your rhetorical device of trying to put me in the boots of a minority group doesn't work, because what you describe is not a hypothetical situation for me. There ARE stories where I'm the evil troll, and they don't matter.

[Anymage]

Once again I must not have the same eagle eye for these things that other people apparently do. I’ve read the books, I’ve watched the movies, and I never saw any “hostile stereotypes” in the goblins. They were goblins, a fantasy race in a fantasy story.

Certain tropes that started aimed at religious/ethnic groups have broadened to the point that they now point at broader concepts, while still carrying hints of their old connotations. Many things tying in with money, be they bankers or cutthroat plutocrats, can follow their conceptual roots to some pretty nasty places.

Very few people are insisting that Harry Potter be pulled off shelves over that. But knowing that other people have spoken up about stereotypes rooted in antisemitism should encourage new authors to maybe avoid taking inspiration from Rowling's goblins.


If we compare to Dragonlance, Dragonlance is already an old and succesful franchise. It's already been analyzed and over-analyzed by academic and fringe circles. The reason to think that new Dragonlance content would come under fire is the very reason why WotC is allegeldy trying to weasel out of the contract: because WotC has been a center of negative attention due their public relations screw ups.

If we were talking about a new, unknown B-grade fantasy novel trilogy, no-one would care. But we also wouldn't be talking about 10 million dollar reparations for lost profits.

I don't get the feeling that Hasbro wants to pull the old school Dragonlance books either.

I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted certain things either played down or eliminated in the new books. Or that W&H were too stuck in old habits to meaningfully change. This isn't WotC trying to cancel anybody for past sins. This is WotC thinking that the publishing would cause more culture backlash than it's worth.

[GloatingSwine]

I'm not arguing this is the same for all possible minorities; I'm pointing out that your rhetorical device of trying to put me in the boots of a minority group doesn't work, because what you describe is not a hypothetical situation for me. There ARE stories where I'm the evil troll, and they don't matter.

They don't matter to you because you don't live as a visible and meaningfully disadvantaged minority in a culture where those stereotypes are present among the majority in sufficient prevalence to direct the course of society and law.

[Rodin]

I missed that advertising. The little I read was highly critical of how most of the female characters were supermodels.

To say nothing about how one female character was entirely nude, in a desert, as bait for (presumably) passing males.

From what I recall the argument was started by the other side complaining that Fury Road "wasn't really a Mad Max movie". He's involved, but the protagonist role sits firmly on Furiosa's shoulders. She and the other wives break themselves out of Immortan Joe's clutches. From that point on you have a bunch of ladies (including the killer grannies) kicking the ass of a patriarchal monster with a harem. Max himself isn't integral to the plot other than adding his action hero skills to the escape attempt. That sat badly with a certain demographic and the flame wars were fierce.

That's why I'm not inclined to instantly write off most franchises. Anything is controversial and a good writer can deal with that.

[Rynjin]

From what I recall the argument was started by the other side complaining that Fury Road "wasn't really a Mad Max movie". He's involved, but the protagonist role sits firmly on Furiosa's shoulders. She and the other wives break themselves out of Immortan Joe's clutches. From that point on you have a bunch of ladies (including the killer grannies) kicking the ass of a patriarchal monster with a harem. Max himself isn't integral to the plot other than adding his action hero skills to the escape attempt. That sat badly with a certain demographic and the flame wars were fierce.

That's why I'm not inclined to instantly write off most franchises. Anything is controversial and a good writer can deal with that.

IMO it's a valid criticism of the movie's premise, to be fair, as it really ISN'T a Mad Max movie by the strictest definition, but it was a really entertaining movie regardless. I was excited when they announced a sequel...up until it was clarified to instead be a PREQUEL.

[GloatingSwine]

IMO it's a valid criticism of the movie's premise, to be fair, as it really ISN'T a Mad Max movie by the strictest definition, but it was a really entertaining movie regardless. I was excited when they announced a sequel...up until it was clarified to instead be a PREQUEL.

By the criteria that "Max is an enabler in someone else's story", only the first one is a Mad Max movie.

Both 2 and 3 (especially 2) are Max as an enabling participant in a story that's actually about other characters and their journey.

[Rynjin]

By the criteria that "Max is an enabler in someone else's story", only the first one is a Mad Max movie.

Both 2 and 3 (especially 2) are Max as an enabling participant in a story that's actually about other characters and their journey.

Sort of, but he plays a much more recognizable role in those films; to be fair part of that is due to Mel Gibson being really good at selling the "mad" part of...any role he's ever played.

Recasting the actor and also stepping down the role does make it feel more like Mad Max is an "artifact title" at this point; it's the "Mad Max Universe: Fury Road (ft. Mad Max)" essentially.

Fury Road was a pretty solid proof of concept on the idea that a "Mad Max" film doesn't even need to have Max himself in it, even as a glorified cameo.

[Vahnavoi]

They don't matter to you because you don't live as a visible and meaningfully disadvantaged minority in a culture where those stereotypes are present among the majority in sufficient prevalence to direct the course of society and law.

So you say. To say you're wrong, I'd have to prove that hateful national stereotypes from last century still negatively impact me.

As in, do the exact same thing I'm asking people to do in case of alleged stereotype threat of Harry Potter, Dragonlance etc.

The genealogy of ideas is clear enough; f. ex., it's trivial to show how the portrayal of goblins in the movies repeats old anti-semitic tropes. But to show it matters, you need to give me that study of semitic Harry Potter readers who had their self-esteem hurt by it. (Based on the earlier study I referred to, I feel safe in saying that Harry Potter provenly doesn't cause anti-semitism. So unless you feel like debunking that study, I think we can consider that line of discussion closed.)

Or you can do that with Africans and house elves, as I said earlier, or whatever other combination of real people versus racist caricatures in the work.

I mean, the synthesis of our arguments should be simple enough: there's a best-before-date for every negative stereotype. No stereotype can be harmful in perpetuity; society can move on and render origin of a stereotype insignificant. In case of Finns, this, apparently, took less than a century. Every case must be examined in their contemporary context.

[pendell]

So you say. To say you're wrong, I'd have to prove that hateful national stereotypes from last century still negatively impact me.

As in, do the exact same thing I'm asking people to do in case of alleged stereotype threat of Harry Potter, Dragonlance etc.

The genealogy of ideas is clear enough; f. ex., it's trivial to show how the portrayal of goblins in the movies repeats old anti-semitic tropes. But to show it matters, you need to give me that study of semitic Harry Potter readers who had their self-esteem hurt by it. (Based on the earlier study I referred to, I feel safe in saying that Harry Potter provenly doesn't cause anti-semitism. So unless you feel like debunking that study, I think we can consider that line of discussion closed.)

Or you can do that with Africans and house elves, as I said earlier, or whatever other combination of real people versus racist caricatures in the work.

I mean, the synthesis of our arguments should be simple enough: there's a best-before-date for every negative stereotype. No stereotype can be harmful in perpetuity; society can move on and render origin of a stereotype insignificant. In case of Finns, this, apparently, took less than a century. Every case must be examined in their contemporary context.

Yes, I recognized the anti-Semitic tropes associated with the goblins as well. It was a minor part of the story, so I didn't think much of it. But then, I'm not Jewish so I don't feel qualified to comment further. But I didn't see many Jewish people complaining about it back in the day. If I had to guess, I would say they had bigger problems than a children's story to address. Also, it didn't look like JK Rowling was deliberately trying to go on some anti-Semitic crusade. If anything, the obvious stand in for Anti-Semites in her work (Voldemort, Death Eaters) were the main enemy our heroes were trying to overcome, so I can forgive some minor flaws.

And in answer to Forum Explorer: I tried to answer your question. The portrayal of house elves didn't bother me. They were used by her to launch a speech on judging other people by the way they treated their inferiors, not the way they treated their equals or superiors, and to me that still seems to be good advice and one of the high points of her books.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[GloatingSwine]

I mean, the synthesis of our arguments should be simple enough: there's a best-before-date for every negative stereotype. No stereotype can be harmful in perpetuity; society can move on and render origin of a stereotype insignificant. In case of Finns, this, apparently, took less than a century. Every case must be examined in their contemporary context.

You need to look at the context it exists in though.

Finns are not regularly a significant historically oppressed minority in majority non-Finnish countries, so negative stereotypes of Finns don't have significant power to affect the daily lives of Finns, and never did even when they were prominent.

In the case of the ones being specifically mentioned here, society really hasn't moved on. The people who are seeing their stereotypes crop up in fantasy, all conveniently bundled up together in one fantasy race (one which is usually the disposable enemy to boot), are still living with negative effects based on that stereotype in the real world.


It doesn't take much empathy or imagination to figure out why they might take against that. You just have to stretch your roleplaying muscles a bit.

[pendell]

You need to look at the context it exists in though.

In the case of the ones being specifically mentioned here, society really hasn't moved on. The people who are seeing their stereotypes crop up in fantasy, all conveniently bundled up together in one fantasy race (one which is usually the disposable enemy to boot), are still living with negative effects based on that stereotype in the real world.


Hold on a second. We just finished discussing the races of dragonlance. If you're referring to a stereotype of Africans as stupid, violent savages that doesn't exist in DL. You have the gully dwarves and the kender and the gnomes, but those don't fit that particular stereotype. Those dark-skinned people we do see, such as Theros Ironfeld, aren't anything like that and Theros is a hero in his own right.

Tolkien, as seen in the letter before, stole from then-current stereotypes of the Hordes of the East, steppe tribespeople, to make his orcs ... so how did this somehow get interpreted into a standin for Africans? That wasn't what he had in mind at all, and it looks like a case of "appropriation", when people pick something that doesn't apply to them at all and say it does.

And yes, if it needs to be said, Tolkien was not trying to launch a racist diatribe against steppe nomads. And , so far as I know, I have seen no complaints that he had or did.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Yora]

I'll just quote myself again:


It's not about whether gutter dwarves were ever intended to stand in for whatever racial minority group of your choice.
The issue would be (as it certainly is for me), that the existence of gutter dwarves makes people familiar with the idea that some ethnicities are genetically predetermined to be retarded and filthy, and that thinking of them that way is harmless fun.
What we see portrayed in fiction imprints patterns of thinking in our brains that we also apply in reality, even if we don't mean to. It makes us see protagonists who are clearly having racist thoughts and acting in racist ways, but we still regard them as likeable heroes, because within their fictional world, their prejudices of people as savage degenerates are actually factually correct. People see that and remember that, and it affects how our brains are wired. (Which might even the whole evolutionary purpose of storytelling. It's meant to teach ways of thinking through fictional examples.)

Stereotyping as a whole is a bad practice. You don't need to take an existing discriminated group and make them look bad.

[GloatingSwine]

Hold on a second. We just finished discussing the races of dragonlance. If you're referring to a stereotype of Africans as stupid, violent savages that doesn't exist in DL. You have the gully dwarves and the kender and the gnomes, but those don't fit that particular stereotype. Those dark-skinned people we do see, such as Theros Ironfeld, aren't anything like that and Theros is a hero in his own right.


I was, as I have in most of my contributions to this thread, discussing the ones that have been changed by Wizards for D&D (which got brought up a couple pages back). The version of Orcs that are all -2 Int and all Menacing and Evil are intended to be used as the invading other.

It's very likely that happened without someone actively having racist intent, just by not thinking about how it might affect other people.

[pendell]

It makes us see protagonists who are clearly having racist thoughts and acting in racist ways, but we still regard them as likeable heroes, because within their fictional world, their prejudices of people as savage degenerates are actually factually correct.


The flaw I see in this argument is the idea that "the heroes are shining examples of pure good, and whatever they think is right. And because I see this, I want to emulate them, consciously or no".

That is manifestly not the case in Dragonlance. All of these characters except Paladine himself are flawed to one extent or another. Tanis spends three books wavering between good and evil. Raistlin is, well, Raistlin. Caramon places blind trust in his brother and pays for it. In the Legends books

He starts as a drunk, and spends a big part of the books as a willing henchman to an evil wizard, launching the unjustified Dwarfgate War to fill Fistandantilus' purposes

The "good" elves are racist and bigoted. Tasslehoff is purehearted but immature and as trustworthy as a child in kindergarten. Laurana allows her infatuation with Tanis to nearly get her killed twice. Flint is a grumpy old dwarf who hates goblins, hates boats, hates gully dwarves, hates mountain dwarves, and in general is a walking bag of prejudices. Sturm is stubborn and prejudiced against Raistlin from the start. On and on and on.

The lesson I learned from reading these books was not to emulate the characters. I rather learned that heroes are flawed, human creatures and they can't be accepted as worthy of emulation uncritically. Rather, they need to be evaluated carefully, accepting and recognizing their flaws while also honoring those things that actually make them heroes.

Further, when I was 14 reading these books for the first time, this was not a new idea. I was already in the habit of examining characters and their interactions with a critical eye, because oftentimes the media I consumed did not line up with moral teaching. This isn't an After School special or a children's cartoon with a simon-pure He-man or She-Ra to be paragons and give us a five minute after episode message just in case we missed it. In that case I might agree with you. But this is literature for young adults, who are supposed to have elementary reasoning and discernment abilities.

Also, I think your argument might hold water if the brain is a tabula rasa which never had another thought imprinted on it, and the human reader had no ability to think critically about the text being read. As it is, this is not so; A typical YA reader takes all their experiences and previous literature to a book, which is where Death of the Author comes from: We interpret a work through the lens of our own past experiences and reading, with the result that we can take a message or idea from the work quite at variance from the author's original intent. This fact -- that the human brain has many experiences and reading the work is only one of them -- is why, I believe, so many people play grand theft auto or mortal kombat and yet don't see this as a license to rob cars or murder people in the real world.

Games and media simply don't have the effect you describe; while there's no point in reading a work if it has no impact on us at all, the effect is greatly attenuated by the mass of other reading and experiences that we do. I've done some machine learning, and it takes a lot of experiences to adjust those weights. That takes away from the idea of unconsciously programming people and puts it back on the human reader as a choice --what media they consume, in what amounts, what ideas they choose to reinforce, what ideas they choose to ignore, and above all what ideas they act on in the real world.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Vahnavoi]

You need to look at the context it exists in though.

Finns are not regularly a significant historically oppressed minority in majority non-Finnish countries, so negative stereotypes of Finns don't have significant power to affect the daily lives of Finns, and never did even when they were prominent.

The additional context doesn't matter because it doesn't change what the standard of proof is, nor where the burden of it lies. In both case the testable part of the hypothesis is "exposure to stereotype causes harm to self-esteem".


In the case of the ones being specifically mentioned here, society really hasn't moved on. The people who are seeing their stereotypes crop up in fantasy, all conveniently bundled up together in one fantasy race (one which is usually the disposable enemy to boot), are still living with negative effects based on that stereotype in the real world.

I was talking specifially about Harry Potter's house elves and goblins, not orcs. These aren't enemies at all in their narratives, in fact a point is made in the narrative that wizard supremacists have been unfair to them. Completely unsurprisingly, this anti-racist message makes kids exposed to it less racist.

I extend a similar argument to gully dwarves, plainspeople, tinker gnomes etc. caricatures in Dragonlance. These caricatures aren't described as antagonists, and are part of a similar anti-racist message, yet supposedly they are still problematic. Again, the testable hypothesis that's left is "exposure to stereotype causes harm to self-esteem".


It doesn't take much empathy or imagination to figure out why they might take against that. You just have to stretch your roleplaying muscles a bit.
The issue isn't, at all, in whether I have sufficient empathy or imagination. It's entirely in that it still hasn't been shown that actual people, reading through the actual stories, are negatively impacted by them. The testable hypothesis remains "exposure to stereotype causes harm to self-esteem" and you need data to back that up. My imagination can never fill that hole.

[Precure]

After seeing the full art, I think I finally understand the terrible hidden reference behind the "stone throwing devils." Yeah, they were right to remove it. :smallsigh:

About Gully Dwarves, aren't they just dwarves mutated by graygem, not a separate race?

[Keltest]

After seeing the full art, I think I finally understand the terrible hidden reference behind the "stone throwing devils." Yeah, they were right to remove it. :smallsigh:

About Gully Dwarves, aren't they just dwarves mutated by graygem, not a separate race?

All dwarves are mutated by the Graygem. They used to be gnomes. Many of the clans do actually have some biological differences between them though, most pronounced with the Theiwar and Daergar, who have better than normal darkvision and extreme light sensitivity. The Klaw dwarves are also extremely predisposed towards chaos and literal insanity, supposedly stemming from a curse from Reorx on the clan.

Having said that, i dont think its ever specifically explained where the aghar came from, or why theyre so different from other dwarves, besides speculation and propaganda from the more traditional dwarves.

[Sholos]

I was, as I have in most of my contributions to this thread, discussing the ones that have been changed by Wizards for D&D (which got brought up a couple pages back). The version of Orcs that are all -2 Int and all Menacing and Evil are intended to be used as the invading other.

It's very likely that happened without someone actively having racist intent, just by not thinking about how it might affect other people.

I always found this to be a bit odd, since even as far back as 3E orcs were never always evil. That sounds more like a failure of players and DMs.

[pendell]

I always found this to be a bit odd, since even as far back as 3E orcs were never always evil. That sounds more like a failure of players and DMs.

*Nods* That's something I think Rich did extremely well with How The Paladin Got His Scar ; you can portray hobgoblins as an alien culture, one that has a number of very nasty people in it, without falling into the trap of trying to generalize judgement of an entire species based on the actions of individuals within it. As O-chul wisely pointed out, if we must generalize it is better to presume the guilty innocent than to presume the innocent guilty. That's the way justice is supposed to work.

Terry Pratchett also approached this in his football in Ankh Morporkh novel which I find otherwise so utterly forgettable I can't even remember the title -- Unseen Academicals, I think?



Orcs show up in there as soldiers bred as tools for war by the Evil Empire -- but the Evil Empire was ruled by humans. So the true evil lies with them, not with the slaves they bio-engineered. And after the fall of the Evil Empire, the one orc we meet is shown as someone who's just trying to make his way in the world, same as other humans.



Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Dragonus45]

After seeing the full art, I think I finally understand the terrible hidden reference behind the "stone throwing devils." Yeah, they were right to remove it. :smallsigh:


Is this one of those secret symbol code things I'm just missing somewhere then? Because even with you mentioning it's hidden in the art I'm not seeing it.

Also, just as a general statement. Stereotype threat is bad science that constantly fails to replicate. Publication bias bad, proper controls good. Also not exactly what is being talked about anyways since the term generally was meant to refer to education related stuff and not just general bad feels from stereotypes that may or may not even really apply.

As for the goblin thing in Harry Potter, my read of it was always that goblins were just a different culture, well species really, with it's own values that seemed fine on their own and things would work a lot better if wizards were willing to meet them half way on that instead of demanding they act under "our" values at the threat of wandpoint and most of their most negative traits seemed directly related to a degree of cultural bitterness left over from wizard colonialism and general dickery from wizards in day to day life. I can't ever think of thinking that the traits they had were even really negative, let alone that they might be some anti-Semitic thing.

[LibraryOgre]

Any SK I can think of is officially listed as a variety of evil in it's alignment section? Is there one with a G in there somewhere?

In the revised Boxed Set, yes. He's concealed that he changed from a Dragon to an Avangion (never can remember how to spell that, or care too much) from the other SKs, but he's good and working at improving things subtly.

[Dragonus45]

In the revised Boxed Set, yes. He's concealed that he changed from a Dragon to an Avangion (never can remember how to spell that, or care too much) from the other SKs, but he's good and working at improving things subtly.

Oh yea, Dark Sun was a bit before my time so I sort of forgot about him. I had been thinking of the one who managed to aspire all the way up to LN and basic competence in running his place as the closest any of them got to being to having good in their alignment.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Dragonus45
Is this one of those secret symbol code things I'm just missing somewhere then? Because even with you mentioning it's hidden in the art I'm not seeing it.


Pretty much this. I have no idea what the alleged “hidden meaning” is supposed to be, and it’s certainly not obvious.

[GrayDeath]

Thirded.

Aside from a very vague "Devils are set ins for barbaric raiders who threw stuff at city people" I dont see it either....

[Dragonus45]

Thirded.

Aside from a very vague "Devils are set ins for barbaric raiders who threw stuff at city people" I dont see it either....

So, I have been told that the name itself is a slur in certain parts of the world/historically by people who's opinion I respect enough to believe them but it doesn't look to be a common or modern one. I found two different stories on what it might refer too but I worry specific context for it would go against board rules since it's vaguely religion related and the context of the card and it's flavor text makes me think it was probably unrelated. Something being hidden in the art is news to me though

[Precure]

Ahem to explain it without mentioning politics, the card is part of a deck called "Arabian Nights," and there is a mosque behind them and they're throwing stones over a wall. All of these refers to a certain common event done in middle east.

[pendell]

Ahem to explain it without mentioning politics, the card is part of a deck called "Arabian Nights," and there is a mosque behind them and they're throwing stones over a wall. All of these refers to a certain common event done in middle east.

Oh. OH. I get it. Stone throwing is commonly done to protest certain government actions. If I were a minority group attempting to protest a government policy, and part of that protest was rock-throwing, I'd be offended too.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Thread closed for review. Probably permanently.