Weis, Hickman sue Wizards of the Coast

[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.

Spoiler

Show

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.

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.

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 , 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 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.

Spoiler

Show

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.