A Door on Other Time

Title is from Tolkien's "On Fairy Stories". Handle means "storyteller" in Nahuatl. This'll mostly be about pop culture, linguistics, philosophy, history, and other things that interest me, but also about writing.

[tlaquetzqui]

[thydungeongal]

I have posted before about how sometimes well-meaning attempts at running D&D without some of the more unfortunate dynamics can often backfire but in a way where most people don't even register it backfiring. Because when you take the step of "oh D&D's various 'evil humanoids' don't just exist in a vacuum and given the renfaire colonialism on display it's kind of impossible not to read them as somewhat racialized" many people will then go "okay but we still need some people who player characters should be allowed to kill guilt-free, so let's replace 'orcs' with 'bandits' because killing bad criminal people is perfectly ideologically neutral." At that point it's like "okay so your characters are no longer the racist kill squad, now they're just the Tough on Crime Vigilantes."

But I feel I should make clear that D&D the game itself is not exactly at fault here: like, okay, it is sort of at fault in the sense that it is a game of fantasy killing people with swords and magic. And it is easier for people to accept the killing with people with swords and magic part when they can imagine that their characters are at least to a degree justified. That is sort of just built into the game (and the game has built into its lore varying levels of making the fantasy of killing certain types of guy justifiable).

But D&D is not at fault for making people go "okay so it's bad when you kill orcs simply because they're orcs. It's better when you kill people who are bandits, who are a class of evil criminals where killing them is actually wholesome and sensible." Like, yeah, most people probably don't think about it that deeply, but the reason people don't think about it that deeply is ultimately ideological.

And the ideology is basically "it is bad to be racist but it's good to be a tough on crime vigilante."

[krongbly]

I don't disagree with this post but I do think there's an important element being left out here which is that 9 times out of 10 players are engaging in combat primarily as a form of self defense. Most of the time it's less of "we can kill these people because they're criminals and that makes it ideologically neutral" and more "these NPCs are trying to kill us and the most effective way to stop them right now is to reduce their hit points to 0 which, if they fail their death saves, means they will die."

I think "vigilantes tough on crime" is actually kind of a bad descriptor for how most parties operate. This definitely varies wildly from table to table but I think for the *average* table there's honestly a solid chance that either your players are friends with at least one criminal NPC or even that they themselves are criminals. There's even an entire class who's fantasy is "criminal."

[thydungeongal]

I don't think the self defense point actually holds true in a meaningful sense.

In older editions of D&D, which were much clearer on the expected gameplay being "go into the dungeon and steal the stuff," there wasn't really this layer there. The rules for combat were generally quite harsh on player characters so combat was certainly something they didn't want to get into too casually, but ultimately the player characters were just going into the dang monsters' house and stealing their stuff. The monsters were arguably the ones acting in self-defense (but they're evil so who cares).

But in the WotC editions the self-defense justification is still fraught because modern D&D especially is an action game. It's a game where characters mostly have access to various methods of visiting violence upon their environs and where the gameplay itself rewards them for violence, because combat is the main source of experience as written in all WotC editions of the game and characters primarily grow in combat effectiveness.

The self-defense angle I feel is not supported by the game's rules itself, but is more of a narrative contrivance introduced by groups to make their characters feel more heroic.

My friend @tenleaguesbeneath once described it as, and I am paraphrasing, "characters hunting things for sport but the things attack them first so they can claim self-defense." Characters want to get into fights (because that's where the rewards are), characters primarily grow in terms of being able to get into cooler fights, but because getting into fights on purpose isn't heroic there's an angle of "those goblins started it" to make the characters feel more heroic.

I don't think this is a bad thing per se. It is one way to make the power fantasy of D&D feel less like the characters are violent thugs and more like heroes. But like it is basically a group of mercenaries going into a warzone, they can't really say "well we didn't really expect to have to kill anyone on our mission, but sadly, circumstances conspired against us." Fighting is what the game wants them to do and I don't think anyone is wrong for wanting to portray the player characters as engaging in self-defense, but it's only self-defense through a very crooked lens imo.

[lumpout]

Linking this to the modern "revenge porn" action movies like John Wick and Nobody.

The self defense/revenge motivation is a fig leaf for indulging in gleeful violence. While modern DnD fictionally positions the party as the righteous castle-doctrine empowered heroes; we should at the very least be critical of why it is doing that. It's functionally identical to the fantasy of "what would I do if a bunch of terrorists/bank robbers burst into the room?" Just because there's an in-universe reason as to why you get have to murder all those people in flashy and fun ways does not mean that it isn't what you (the player) sat down at the table to do.

[jambeast]

And the key thing to remember is that violence is awesome (in fiction) and we don't have to justify it to anyone.

[brazenautomaton]

Yeah this post is horseshit and the ideology behind it is soul poison. If you demand a Maoist struggle session for your D&D campaign for its ideological implications then 387.44 million miles of wafer-thin circuits is not enough to express the extent to which you need to go fuck yourself. The assumptions and demands you make are based in a concept of human experience that only exists to serve your politics. This is not how human beings engage with art, this is not how human beings engage with stories, this is not how human beings engage with games. You are suffering under this monstrous worldview and you are monstrous in attempting to inflict it on others.

You are not revealing a secret pro-vigilantism argument, you unfathomably vast stumblefuck. You are revealing that you have conditioned other people to be afraid of speaking up against you and they're unable to fight your openly malevolent bad-faith attacks, so when you threaten them with Unpersoning for some game mechanic or setting detail you don't understand, instead of standing up for themselves and telling you to fuck off they shuffle to the closest equivalent of it that they think won't get them yelled at.

[thydungeongal]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I personally enjoy playing D&D and thinking about stuff like this. :)

[brazenautomaton]

I'm sure you do. I'm sure this is so natural to you that it does not even register as a coherent or specific thing that you're doing. I'm sure you think this is just the way everyone looks at everything.

But if at any point in your entire life you ever, under any circumstances, believe yourself to have revealed something about someone's moral ideology based on how they engage with a game, you need to go fuck yourself inside-out.

[thydungeongal]

I'm sorry you've gotten that impression from my post but that couldn't be further from what I actually think. However, you seem like a genuinely unpleasant person so I don't think there's any point in keeping up this discussion for either of our sakes. :)

[brazenautomaton]

Did the following words come out of you yes or no:

The reason people don't think about it that deeply is ultimately ideological.

And the ideology is basically "it is bad to be racist but it's good to be a tough on crime vigilante."

[cookingwithroxy]

Unfortunately Brazen I think the simple factor here is that your vitriolic reaction gave OP an excuse to absolutely ignore the counterpoint being made.

The classic D&D part being a big example, considering the scenario is 'Dangerous creatures/violent criminals have nested in the (ruins of a fallen town/keep)/(local forest)/(nearby cave system) and are posing a constant and ongoing threat to everyone in the area. And you, as a hero, can gain renown/save people/profit off of dealing with them.'

The concept that everything there is harmless and safe and nobody is doing anything bad until the adventurers show up is a complete fabrication and I can absolutely say this and base this on the over 100 copies of Dragon Magazine I have sitting in a bin amongst the other things I have collected since my mother bought me the original Red Box set when I was NINE.

The need to define a world entirely and utterly divorced from our own by the standards of political theory that even on THIS world are actually rather questionable? Has nothing to do with 'issues in the text' and everything to do with 'if everything does not reflect my politics, my politics have no weight'.

But again, your vitreol si what OP is using to ignore this rather pointed fact.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

>Linking this to the modern "revenge porn" action movies like John Wick and Nobody.

In John Wick and Nobody, the revenge fantasy is presented as toxic and harmful to the people engaging in it, and those around them, and occasionally innocent bystanders.

Heck, the villain of the second Wick film uses avengance as an excuse to silence the guy he forced to kill his sister, and it backfires.

>It's functionally identical to the fantasy of "what would I do if a bunch of terrorists/bank robbers burst into the room?"

The stereotypical DND adventurer party are usually the aggressors, not the defenders.

You're stretching extremely far to draw a false equivalence to People You Dislike, without any actual criticism of either.

And I don't think you actually understand either group.

I don't think "how would I react if my life was under serious and immediate threat from assailants?" Says Anything™ about the people asking the question, despite your

[tlaquetzqui]

The party may be the defenders. The Slave Lords modules start with them raiding your town. Pretty sure at least part of Against the Giants/Vault of the Drow involves a town being raided. You’re protecting the town in Temple of Elemental Evil, too, though in that you do kinda go out looking for the people making all the trouble.

You’re the defenders in the first Dragonlance modules. Like pretty sure the draconians and goblins come and make trouble for normal people, and you get in a fight with them because of it (although my memory of the adventures is overlapping with my memory of the novels, so don’t quote me on that).

In the original 2e intro adventure to Spelljammer, you’re just minding your own business when some idiot almost drops an anchor out of the sky on your groundling ass. Pretty sure the Dark Sun intro adventure starts much like an Elder Scrolls game, with you as a prisoner slated for sale as a slave and/or meal for a genocidal sorcerer who changed himself into a dragon, when some shit hits the fan.

One generally winds up in Ravenloft against one’s wishes. That big 2e “super dungeon” whose name escapes me, the one that introduced the Far Realm to the game’s cosmology, starts, I think, with you being asked to look for some explorer or wizard who ventured into the place. The Faction War (my least favorite adventure in all of 2e) started with the PCs minding their own business.

At least two Pathfinder adventure paths, including the first one which was written when Golarion was still a D&D setting rather than for its own game, start with a town fair being attacked. (That’s Rise of the Runelords, of course. The other is Wrath of the Righteous.)

[stupittmoran]

[supreme-leader-stoat]

Don't forget the wedding invite his in-laws put out for his wedding.

[hatie]

[diversityland]

Canada spent $216M digging up Christian schools looking for 'secret' indigenous child graves—0 found... - Revolver News

Who will pay to rebuild all the Christian Churches that were burned down because of this HOAX?

[mascula-sappho]

what a lot of people say is anti-arab racism: borders existing, being correctly labeled a colonial culture, being told Arabs are not the ancient Canaanites + ancient Mesopotamians + ancient Egyptians all at the same time, being asked to speak a language other than Arabic, Jews + Kurds + Persians existing in proximity to an Arab or doing anything such as singing or talking or dancing, wondering where all that gold came from, being called out on cultural appropriation of head wrap styles from Jews and rugs from Persians and henna styles from Somalis (among many others these are just examples), having to be around religions other than Islam.

what Persians, Jews, Kurds, Druze, etc. agree is racism: not being allowed to speak native language, culture erased, land stolen, children murdered, thousands jailed, hijabs mandatory, murdered for resisting or practicing culture or religion, historical artifacts and temples built over or destroyed or disappeared, religion stolen, people claiming to be the "true" inheritors of your culture while killing your people, etc.

anyway all West Asians who are not Arab and will never be Arab, I love you, I love you, I love you. Never give up.

[tlaquetzqui]

For Kurds it’s more Turks than Arabs, though. Also extremely important to remember the Coptic and Assyrian Christians, the indigenous of Egypt and Iraq respectively.

A scifi writer of my slight acquaintance mentioned attending Mass in one of the Coptic churches that’s in union with Rome. And he noticed that, whenever the deacons weren’t assisting the priest, they stood with their arms crossed on their chests…exactly like the effigies carved on mummy-cases. Because that’s just what ancient Egyptians consider “dignified posture”, even after they became Christian.

[beardedmrbean]

[arretoskore]

Ok this is it, I have to get something of my chest. Because of this goddamned Odyssey film I keep reading everywhere that Emily Wilson is the first woman to translate the Odyssey and because of this she has a unique take on the text.... NO NO NO THIS IS NOT TRUE she's the first ENGLISH woman to translate the Odyssey but women have been translating and publishing their translation since the 1700s !!!! In French and Italian and I'm sure other languages too!!

I'm so mad because students in Italy have been studying on Rosa Calzecchi Onesti's translation for decades!! Her translation is so well regarded it keeps being used in academia to this day and it's from the 60s!!! There have been dozens of other translations since then but we keep using that one !!!

(and also many other women published their translations both before and after her)

The irresistible urge of english/american ppl to make universal statements out of their experience

[laurelindorenan]

I love how when journalists try to paint her as the first female translator of the Odyssey she immediately pushes back (and also thinks the narrative is kind of silly)

[tlaquetzqui]

She still didn’t point out the phrase is “chest thumping”, though…

[girlactionfigure]

[tlaquetzqui]

Jesus, in secular, ethnic terms, was a member of the House of David in the Clan of Judah, which clan gives its name to the whole Nation of Israel in modern times. (Technically only two of the twelve clans—they’re not really tribes—returned intact from Babylon, the other being Levi, who owned and worked no land but lived among the other eleven serving as their religious caste. Foreigners like Greeks and Romans called the nation “Jews” and its land “Judea” because that was who the land belonged to.)

[acatholicrose]

[coruscanttojerusalem]

@acatholicrose

First of all, let's make sure we understand where our sources come from. Pope Pius XI indeed did write an instruction recalling the faithful to modesty of dress on January 12, 1930. In there were instructions to continue to dress modestly even in athletic competitions, but nowhere in the document are the guidelines listed above found. The document can be found in Latin in the official record of legal documents from Catholic Church, Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1930, p, 26-28.

The guidelines given for women's modesty of dress actually come from a "Marylike Standards for Modesty in Dress" added to an English translation of the document by "olvrc.com," which is cited by many "traditional" sources.

Even if you do not know Latin (as any traditionalist ought to, but many embarrassingly do not), you can see through comparison that the original decree has twelve points and the addendum has six additional points. Misleading at best.

Secondly, modesty in dress is largely culturally conditioned and far overstressed in contemporary Christian discussions about chastity. Far more important historically has been the concept of custos oculi, custody of the eyes, clearly required by our Lord Jesus when he said,

"You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell." (Matthew 5:27-29)

Christianity that is paying attention to the words of Christ knows that it sin is primarily in the lust in the heart, not in the dress. If one has a problem with chastity, look first to they eye and to the heart. Custody of the eyes is commanded by Our Lord and chastity is first of all a matter of the heart.

[disgruntled-foreign-patriarch]

Good grief its not that hard to dress modestly.

[tlaquetzqui]

Remember: “modesty” in dress really means the same thing as “modesty” in speech.

Don’t be a showoff.

[saintofpride201]

Question that's been on my mind for a while, and I'd like opinions on this.

A woman forces/tricks a man into impregnating her (Poking holes in his condom, lying about being on birth control, not letting him pull out, etc). Do you consider that to be rape of any kind?

Yes

No

Remaining time: 5 days 20 hours

Regardless of your answer, I highly request y'all to explain your answer as well.

[takashi0]

It'd be wrong to regard it as anything BUT rape

[the-davest-of-uncles]

He didn't consent to impregnating her. It's rape.

[tlaquetzqui]

Specifically, rape through false pretenses. He’s having sex on the assumption she can’t get pregnant, but she’s lying about it. Same as, like, pretending to be your identical twin to sleep with their SO.

[spikelleberrygin]

If given the chance to change your height, would you want to

(4'11" or under) be taller

(4'11" or under) be shorter

(4'11" or under) stay the same

(5' - 5'7") be taller

(5' - 5'7") be shorter

(5' - 5'7") stay the same

(5'8" - 6'2") be taller

(5'8" - 6'2") be shorter

(5'8" - 6'2") stay the same

(6'3 or more) be taller

(6'3 or more) be shorter

(6'3 or more) stay the same

Remaining time: 1 day 21 hours

[tlaquetzqui]

Website with a primarily female userbase, clusters on exactly the answer you’d expect.

[proudamericansworld]

[supreme-leader-stoat]

NEVER ASK

A woman her age

A man his salary

An elf-racist what shape his girlfriend's ears are

[siryouarebeingmocked]

Does this mean an elf who is racist, or someone who's racist AGAINST elves?

[tlaquetzqui]

Both. Never ask a Thalmor why he knows how to cook Hammerfell cuisine; never ask a Stormcloak why there’s an alrathith in his wagon.

[swedishjazz]

[inthefallofasparrow]

[moran-with-a-g]

Sighhhhhh

[iswearbyalltheflowers]

[tlaquetzqui]

Antizionism is worse than other antisemitism. It’s unfair to hate Jews because of Hollywood or Wall Street sleazeballs, for example, but you are at least judging the group by its real bad members. Antizionists hate Jews for *checks notes* retaliating, very restrainedly, for one of the worst peacetime massacres in a generation.

[grapnel]

An example of why one should use the Oxford comma.