Talk:Green Nude Eel (5e Creature)

Nude eel?

I don't understand why nude is in the name or why it's mentioned later that it doesn't wear clothes. It's an eel. Of course it doesn't wear clothes. --PJammaz (talk) 11:01, 28 April 2020 (MDT)

It is the name of the creature in real life. Red Leg Leo (talk) 11:38, 28 April 2020 (MDT)

There isn't a creature called a green nude eel in real life. --PJammaz (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2020 (MDT)

I coulda sworn I found something earlier but now all I see is political puns. Red Leg Leo (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2020 (MDT)

April Fools

Where's the humor or joke about this article? Red Leg Leo (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2020 (MDT)

Is the name not a pun on "Green New Deal"? The entire premise is based on a pun. --PJammaz (talk) 08:00, 4 May 2020 (MDT)

It is taking me awhile because it was conversation over a year ago and a lot of edits have been made, but, it is my understanding that articles stand on their own merits. We don't judge articles or modify them based on outside influences. We also assume good faith and the user that created this page, named it such without an intent to stir up a political based pun. Be objective when looking at things. I'll continue to search. Also, AF says in the description the article isn't balanced nor is it intended for play. Is there legitimately balance issues here? Red Leg Leo (talk) 08:44, 4 May 2020 (MDT)

If the name isn't based on a pun, what does the name mean? When I first asked about the name, I was legitimately confused. It doesn't make sense outside of the context of the pun. --PJammaz (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2020 (MDT)

The name and the entire page are meant to be biting satire regarding the "Green New Deal" which is anti civilization just like the creature. Everything about the creature, not just the name, is a criticism of it. Dungeon masters who agree with its satire can run this in a campaign in which satire is not out of place. Fantastic satire has a long history in literature. For example Gulliver's Travels. And so satire fits the fantastic genre. Arquebus (talk) 09:17, 4 May 2020 (MDT)

Then there you go. Thanks Arquebus for letting us know!

I didn't find the conversation but I did find something relating to this, the article might not apply in this circumstance since it speaks more to comparing articles to other articles. Shall have to keep thinking it over.

Moving on, since the goal was to be satire or is indeed political, people are offended. The honesty shared here may just warrant a title change! Red Leg Leo (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2020 (MDT)

I don't know if anyone was offended. I think the big question is whether explicitly political creations should be allowed. Help:Behavioral Policy mentions not allowing political links or political "rants". I see absolutely no issue with someone using this creature in their own campaign, but it doesn't seem appropriate for the wiki to host creations that have a political bias, as they reflect the attitudes of the wiki as a whole. --PJammaz (talk) 09:54, 4 May 2020 (MDT)

Perhaps this needs to be treated the same was adult content is treated, we already have a tag to warn readers of sexual content within a page. As people in polite conversation are not supposed to discuss, sex, religion, and politics, I propose having a tag for {{satire}} or {{metaphor}} or {{political}} or {{religious}}. Tolkien's design for elves and orcs is as a religious metaphor, elves were supposed to be an affectionate metaphor for Jews, and orcs were a satirical metaphor for Muslims. Tolkien did not like Muslims. Dungeons and Dragons basically copies Tolkien's religious metaphors into their game.

Also, and there is a huge difference between a rant and a carefully constructed satirical metaphor. Arquebus (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2020 (MDT)

The behavior guideline mentions politics only in that it states "No links or information deemed hateful, terrorist, adult/pornographic, spiritual or political.", and yet adult content is allowed with the adult content tag, in order to avoid offence. Arquebus (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2020 (MDT)

I only brought up the section from Help:Behavioral Policy because even though it mentions rants, I have a feeling that most political speech on a user's page would probably be frowned upon. I could very well be wrong about this, though.

Respectfully, I think you are completely wrong when it comes to the religious metaphors in Lord of the Rings. Tolkien explicitly said that he hated allegory and that the races were not intended to be placeholders for groups of people in the real world. Regardless, even if it were true, the supposed allegory in the Tolkien books would so veiled that the average reader would not have noticed them. Your creature is much more blatant than that and you have stated explicitly what the purpose of the creature is here. --PJammaz (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2020 (MDT)

Political satire is meant to poke fun rather than teach as with religious metaphor, so the metaphor needs to more obvious. Arquebus (talk) 10:25, 4 May 2020 (MDT)

I've been around here long enough to know that if the title was mentioned as needing changed, someone was offended by it.

I think {{Adult Content}} is the most appropriate title, though I think there may be cause to delete the article if community consensus deems it appropriate seems how while tastefully written, and not a rant or link, still does a great deal of work ridiculing political views. Before, based on good faith, I didn't see enough reason to warrant change. But now, with the truth at hand, allowing an article to intentionally make fun of others' beliefs I don't think coincides with D&D Wiki's ethics, morales, etc. Red Leg Leo (talk) 10:26, 4 May 2020 (MDT)

The ability to handle political satire is a very adult ability. Therefore the adult tag is adequate. Please don't destroy my creation. Other people of like mind may find it useful. And I have put a lot of creativity and work into it. Arquebus (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2020 (MDT)

I don't think it is really appropriate for you to say whether someone else was offended or not. --PJammaz (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2020 (MDT)

Are you responding to me or Red? The Adult tag warns about offense. Changing the name destroys the satire. It essentially destroys the creation. Arquebus (talk) 10:39, 4 May 2020 (MDT)

I remember watching Pleasantville, in which only certain colors were allowed. This feels the same. Arquebus (talk) 10:39, 4 May 2020 (MDT)

That was a response to Red Leg Leo. I assure you, this is not an attack against you or your beliefs. If someone created a similar article attacking the right, I would feel the same way. I just don't think it is appropriate for the site. --PJammaz (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2020 (MDT)

Toby McGuires Speech from Pleasantille: "you don't have a right to do this. I mean I know you want it to stay pleasant around here, but - there are so many things - that are so much better. Like silly, or sexy or dangerous - of brief. And every one of those things is in you all the time, If you just have the guts to look for them" Arquebus (talk) 10:50, 4 May 2020 (MDT)

Our society has become so offense-phobic that we can not have civil political discourse. This creation is an example of civil political discourse. It is not a rant and it is not a direct attack. It is a veiled criticism in the form of satire. Arquebus (talk) 10:50, 4 May 2020 (MDT)

I am going to leave it to the community Arquebus. PJammaz doesn't agree with the title, and I am leaning that the article doesn't have a place on the site. I am fully aware of Adult Content, and strongly advocate for it, but when it is necessary. The website is very apolitical, or detached from them, and I enjoy it very much. I am only one person though. And Green Dragon's bureaucratic input may be necessary too. Red Leg Leo (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2020 (MDT)

If I had not mentioned the meaning of the title, this discussion would not have happened. :( I think we should allow elevated political discourse with appropriate warnings. I think metaphors need to be allowed. Arquebus (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2020 (MDT)

None, none, of the admins want to babysit political discussion. As soon as you were honest about your intent, pandora's box was open. But, you get credit for being an honest person! Plenty of times users skirt the truth and play on technicalities. It is such a breath of fresh air to see something of truth. Red Leg Leo (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2020 (MDT)

Let me be clear, as I feel like my intentions are being manipulated. I personally do not feel like this is the appropriate place to put political points of view, satire or not. This is my personal opinion, and since the wiki does not have very clear rules about this, I wanted to bring it up. I don't care if someone wants to spend their time making creatures that lampoon various political topics. I don't care that this attacks the Green New Deal. I am not offended. --PJammaz (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2020 (MDT)

I understand how my comment may have implied you were offended and I am sorry that wasn't my intent. I only wanted to communicate that someone would be offended. I very important word I forgot. Again, I get it. Not offended. Sorry I wasn't clear. Red Leg Leo (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2020 (MDT)

No one, to my knowledge, has actually been offended by this. As you have indicated that this is meant to be a work of satire lampooning real-world politics, the April Fools tag is appropriate. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 11:24, 4 May 2020 (MDT)

I can live with the April Fool's tag even though the humor is serious rather than whimsical Arquebus (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2020 (MDT)

Political Content

I have added the 'Adult Content' tag to the page as it is the closest content tag to the tag needed for this page. Arquebus (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2020 (MDT)