Diablo 3 Beta Test report

[Rhydderch Hael]

I never said your idea would promote racism nor did I infer it. Come on, dont make a strawman.

Aye, but I say that my idea is to combat racism. By showing it in effect. How? Consider the typical iron-clad heroic knight, and then some of his heroic (but not nearly as heroic as he) sidekicks and consorts. Stereotypical rendering: hero = white; sidekick = not white. It has become so ingrained in popular fiction that the words "Roderec, the brave and noble knight. And Damo, his loyal and trusty sidekick..." automatically paints the hero one invariable color, and the sidekick another. The Lone Ranger and Tonto. Maximus and Juba. Jack O'Neill and Teal'c. The archetype allows it to slip into our consciousness with ease, so subtle we hardly raise a voice to it...

...unless the pattern gets changed. Then we notice it, much like how an artist will draw a subject upside-down, using the new perspective to awaken the senses and force the brain to look beyond the comfortable ruts we all settle into.

But what did you have to say about it? You did say that Blizz never made it an issue, and that I could "do better" to follow suit.

You also said it was an act of stupidity. And an ugly issue that I'm better off having left unsaid.

When people argue like that the should be ashamed.

The only shameful style of argument I have seen so far is where someone applies their own level of sensibility to judge another's perspective in a work of fiction while never clearly describing the reasons for concern. They opt instead to drop innuendos and half-said, contradictory opinions about how the principle is not objectionable, yet they still object to it. And then to call what that writer is pursuing a 'stupid' and 'ugly' prospect, to say he's pursuing a mistaken course-- without actually saying why one feels it is such a mistake.

What I said was pretty clear.

No, the things you have said are not.

You first interjected an opinion that racial issues need not addressed. Then you say those issues were not offensive at all, yet focusing on them is an act of stupidity. Now, why would outlining social order according to race (a practice history has done countless times in the past, where this very story does occur) in order to produce plausibility seem stupid?

Secondly, you re-interate that there's no problem driving a story according to race and social order, yet in the same post wonder why it in neccessary to do so! The closest I come to understanding you there is when you say you do not like the inverse status quo that is implied: a shallow sentiment considering that it fails to address the many deep, insightful issues on how we perceive fantasy worlds and heroes, on racial perception and the shock of seeing racism in effect-- especially from an unexpected quarter. But no, all you have to say on the matter is that you do not care for it, that it is unwise, and that it is familiar to slavery (though I never said that whites were slaves in my version of the Zakarum Empire!!!)

What is more troubling is that you pass judgement on one thread of a greater tapestry, without having seen how the threads are woven together. Even when told as such, you take your one small glimpse at my world and still profess a full and inrrevocable judgement upon it.

Thirdly, you make one nebulous and irrelevent analogy to Islam and how it crosses racial barriers, after I have said twice that the Zakarum in my interpretation was not of religion alone, but rather instead turns on the administrative engine of an Empire with all political, social, and economic forces implied within. Your analogy takes no heed to the particulars of my vision of the Zakarum, so it gives little insight. Then you voiced, once again, one small peep about how this turns up some ugliness that the great Blizzard chose not to pursue. Implying, again, a course of action for me to take without ever giving a concrete reason why I should take that course to abandon this facet of the story.

You dont have to agree with my principals on the matter, but  misdirect the agrguement.

There is no misdirection in the argument, for there was no direction in the argument in the first place. You state your opinion on why you do not like it. When I ask why, you again state your opinion that you do not like it. I will ask one more time. Why?

It's not a challenge. It's an entreaty. After all, who is the greater purveyor of ignorance: the fool who does not know the right, or the teacher who does not bother to tell him what is the right?

What do you know that I do not know that troubles you so?

The only problem I had was that you chose to make an enjoyable fantasy setting sound remarkable similar to real life issues and you even used the the same particular races.  It wasnt "wrong" but it is needless.

Well, you see, there's this little problem with the D2 universe of Sanctuary: if I tell the story just like how the game plays out, only a gamer will understand or enjoy it. I cannot make passages like "... this sword I give your has fifty percent better ratings of attack than the one you wield now. With every strike that you make, you have a better chance of slipping past the demon's defenses and inflicting damage..." Why? Because it'd suck! It'd exclude the general audience, the one who doesn't know an Obsidian Lord from a Carver, from ever fully understanding the story or the elements within. Re-interpretation is the only way to make the Diablo universe "mainstream". That's my intent. Plausibility is a key factor in that. There are just certain things that occur as presented in-game that would make little sense in any other venue.

I begin to see your problem with my interpretation. Mine's a bit more real. You don't want real. This is a story of how the forces of Hell conspire to tear the mortal world apart in order to strengthen its position in the eternal war against heaven. But you do not want the murkiness of real-world issues, despite the fact that to the denizens of Sanctuary, this is their "real world".

My version might play out like a PG-13 movie. What the game itself plays out like is more akin to a Saturday morning cartoon. Understand that, and perhaps your opinions on matters may become a bit more constructive. Details on the matter, feelings about them, and no side-stepping and light-footed mutterings of "It's stupid"... and leaving it at that.