Some people have responded to my blog entry earlier, or other comments where I've spoken up in support of inclusive language in D&D, with a bit of befuddlement as to why I'd bother. Why open up a 'can of worms'?
Obviously, the fact that the Pseudo-Activists have tried to unfairly portray me as homophobic or transphobic factors into the reason to make unequivocal statements to the contrary. But that's only a reason to be more vocal about my actual convictions, not the reason for the convictions themselves.
The real reason I care about this (in spite of being neither transgender nor LGBT) is the SAME reason I care about most of the other issues I bring up: I have a profound aversion to people who think they know "what's best" for other people. Whether that's because they took a Cultural Studies class in a Liberal Arts College, or because they think that God happens to have the exact same prejudices they have is pretty much irrelevant to me.
I have these convictions precisely because I am a dedicated individualist, and despise the idea of collective groups trying to control other people's lives, or try to impose their ideas of how they think other people should or shouldn't be, think, or act. It seems crazy to me to think that anyone could claim they believe in the rights of the individual while thinking that they should get to impose their own ideas of what others should do with their identities.
RPGPundit
(originally posted October 28, 2014)
Did D&D previously have "exclusive" language? I must have missed those passages.
ReplyDeleteI think D&D went with the standard he pronoun for everything as was a scholarly standard at the time and because nearly all players were male at the time. The images also included a number scantily clad damsels because Swords & Sorcery was a big influence on the early game. The books included nearly all European appearing images because A medieval European/Tolkien model was the background of the game. These were considered exclusive by the usual subjects.
ReplyDeleteThe best thing of it all was when the attempt to make an Asian version of the game was considered cultural appropriation by some nitwit. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I think they went with "he" because that's proper English. I don't recall all these scantily clad damsels you are referring to; what version of D&D are you writing about?
DeleteI did say "he" was the scholarly standard.
DeleteThe image that came to mind was from the original white box set: http://blogofholding.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/witchamazon.png
I'm attempting to explain things that I don't agree with. I think you should read what I said and not try to nitpick every sentence. I suspect we actually agree.
Not at all, I really have no recollection of those sorts of images in the D&D volumes I have (OD&D, Basic/Expert Mentzer version, 1st ed. ad&D), but I seldom look at them as I rarely play D&D
DeleteDoesn't matter if anyone sees it, the SJW's will find it.
Deletehttp://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/2017/03/classic-rant-can-you-engage-with.html
I'm all for genuine inclusivity. Anyone's welcome at my table at the game store.
ReplyDeleteBut inclusivity applies to everyone. If you sit down at my table and then start bitching about patriarchal attitudes in my mostly-historial setting, or "Orientalism" or "appropriation" or any of the other Humpty Dumpty words so beloved of the current crop of fascist "progressives," then you're the one who's not being inclusive. You're not tolerating things I want in my game.
It's a sad truth that good manners and tolerance are routinely abused by these fascists, which puts the rest of us in the uncomfortable position of either letting them boss us around, or give up on the very qualities of society we're trying to defend against them.