It seems that many people have misinterpreted what I've said. I identified a very specific failure of logic used to criticize people who have a perspective of what fantasy should be/represent. If you think fantasy should represent the beliefs of wealthy liberal westerners that is entirely your prerogative. If you think that fantasy the genre has no essential characteristics and everything is in flux then that is okay (this is an epistemological nightmare of course because sophists will question your definition of a chair). My issue is that instead of seeing that some people want fantasy to stay true to it's well established genre conventions (I played AD&D and Dark Sun is my favourite setting so I've some credibility when I say that it is a bit of stretch to conflate the liberalism of BG3/Wizards of the Coast with fantasy as it has existed) whilst maintaining a level of authenticity in terms of gender identities/sexuality/ethnicity people who do not subscribe to this belief simply throw out, "It's fantasy so your perspective is invalid." Oppose people honestly when they say that it is silly that there a so many different phenotypes of Duergar that directly correlate with real world ethnicities. Say that it is because you think representation trumps world building; say that it is because it fits your ideological perspective; say that it is commercially a good move but don't say that it is fantasy so anything is permissible.
Last edited by Borys of Ebe; 25/08/23 09:33 AM.
