Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Cultures in D&D/roleplaying: damned if you do, damned if you don't
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7398126" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>That feels ironic coming from you.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Since when has this ever mattered? Show me one case where someone who did research 'got a pass'. Show me one case where someone was offended and then was mollified by the big stack of index cards and footnotes that the author produced.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There is not, and never really has been, such a thing as a monolithic definition of human. This is particularly true if we start looking at the definitions of human in the pre-modern, pre-cosmopolitan world. To give just one example of many many, one definition of human that has currency to some is, "An animal which has a soul." But this definition is hardly universal and is revered by some and reviled by others. </p><p></p><p>But I will extend your assertion this far, you should present every human as human by your own definition of human, even if that means presenting a culture in an inauthentic manner. For example, I personally feel it's impossible to present Pre-Columbian North American culture authentically and abide by this mandate, since the Pre-Columbian North Americans themselves didn't believe every tribe was actually a human being. Each tribe tended to believe either its own mythology where other tribes had a different creation origin, or take for granted that the other tribe new its own origin and since the conception of their own origin differed from that of their neighbors conception, they were in their minds at least wholly different groups of people. This is hardly simple or obvious.</p><p></p><p>Besides that little caveat, the whole point of having things like orcs, elves, dwarves, centaurs and dragons in a setting is that they are not human. Since they are not human, there is no reason that they must be presented as human. It's quite possible that orcs are a monolithic, chaotic, and violent race. There is no reason that a non-human race would necessarily share every quality of humanity. But already this puts us in conflict. I flatly disagree with your claim: "The problem with replacing Mongols with Orcs is how D&D tends to present Orcs as a monolithic, chaotic and violent race."</p><p></p><p>No, the problem is not that at all. The problem with identifying Mongols with Orcs is that some might infer that you mean that Mongolians are not human whether you mean that or not. But there is nothing wrong with identifying Orcs as non-human. The problem comes with conflating things that aren't human with particular real world cultures. As long as I present Orcs as non-human with a non-human culture, I don't have a problem with that. Yet, you presumably will. So this is a further complexity.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Maybe. Maybe not. To go full Godwin here because the culture presents itself to be picked on and if I used any other culture it would be "problematic", there are plenty of modern stories that present Nazi's as complex, non-monolithic, nuanced human beings, whether we are talking something like 'Band of Brothers' or 'Saving Private Ryan'. But it's not necessarily wrong to tell a story like 'The Dirty Dozen' or 'Inglorious Bastards' where the Nazis are faceless bad guys to mow through, and no one says when you do, "That's pretty damn problematic" because who wants to defend Nazis. But more than that, there has never been a thing as a monolithically good culture, and in any culture there have been periods and places where the culture as a whole acted with a collective monstrous resolve and did monstrous things. There are going to be times and places where the ugly reality of the situation requires you to present a people in a way that is overwhelmingly monstrous, or at the least that such a decision can be defended both on artistic and moral grounds. It can be good to show that nuance, as for example, Guy Gabriel Kay tries to show in the 'Lions of Al-Rassan'. But it's not necessarily the case that you are required to show that nuance or even cases where showing that nuance could itself be problematic. </p><p></p><p>The whole thing is a minefield you aren't acknowledging. Consider a case like 'Dances with Wolves'. Now, 'Dances' is a part of a genre of 'anti-Westerns' where the normal dynamics of a classic Western are reversed. The Native Americans are presented as nuanced and human, where as the whites are presented as almost entirely morally bankrupt, ignorant and evil. But within even this frame work there are all sorts of complexities. It's only the Dakota that are presented as complex. Their neighbors the Pawnee are presented as faceless bad guys to mow through. That decision as to which tribe to present as heroic and which to present as monstrous turns out to be problematically based on which side allied with Europeans - and not in the way you might first expect. It is the Pawnee that historically have been portrayed as ignoble and savage despite and perhaps because they didn't fight back, while the Sioux are generally portrayed as noble even as villains (and rarely as villains) precisely because they fought back. Yet the Pawnee didn't fight the white settlers precisely because the Pawnee were on the losing side of a genocidal war with the Sioux just prior to the white settlers showing up. None of this nuance is captured in the movie. How should we respond to that? Meanwhile, it is also possible to attack 'Dances with Wolves' because it can be fit to a 'white savior narrative' where a white outsider is assimilated into an exotic culture and helps save it from its enemies and I've certainly seen it attacked in that manner. What are we to make of that? Why should the protagonist be white? Why should we see the culture through the eyes of the white character? Why shouldn't the Native Americans tell their own story? Is the depth of 'research' enough to defend it against that, or is that still problematic enough to damn it?</p><p></p><p>And yet on the other hand, if the story was through the eyes of Native Americans, wouldn't some people have objected if the story had been created and told by a white person? Wouldn't some of said that that was a morally gray area at best?</p><p></p><p>Answer those questions in an objective and non-subjective manner if this is simple. And if the answer is, "Well, of course it is subjective.", then it can't be simple, because there are simply too many different voices and viewpoints that could be brought into any conversation.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7398126, member: 4937"] That feels ironic coming from you. Since when has this ever mattered? Show me one case where someone who did research 'got a pass'. Show me one case where someone was offended and then was mollified by the big stack of index cards and footnotes that the author produced. There is not, and never really has been, such a thing as a monolithic definition of human. This is particularly true if we start looking at the definitions of human in the pre-modern, pre-cosmopolitan world. To give just one example of many many, one definition of human that has currency to some is, "An animal which has a soul." But this definition is hardly universal and is revered by some and reviled by others. But I will extend your assertion this far, you should present every human as human by your own definition of human, even if that means presenting a culture in an inauthentic manner. For example, I personally feel it's impossible to present Pre-Columbian North American culture authentically and abide by this mandate, since the Pre-Columbian North Americans themselves didn't believe every tribe was actually a human being. Each tribe tended to believe either its own mythology where other tribes had a different creation origin, or take for granted that the other tribe new its own origin and since the conception of their own origin differed from that of their neighbors conception, they were in their minds at least wholly different groups of people. This is hardly simple or obvious. Besides that little caveat, the whole point of having things like orcs, elves, dwarves, centaurs and dragons in a setting is that they are not human. Since they are not human, there is no reason that they must be presented as human. It's quite possible that orcs are a monolithic, chaotic, and violent race. There is no reason that a non-human race would necessarily share every quality of humanity. But already this puts us in conflict. I flatly disagree with your claim: "The problem with replacing Mongols with Orcs is how D&D tends to present Orcs as a monolithic, chaotic and violent race." No, the problem is not that at all. The problem with identifying Mongols with Orcs is that some might infer that you mean that Mongolians are not human whether you mean that or not. But there is nothing wrong with identifying Orcs as non-human. The problem comes with conflating things that aren't human with particular real world cultures. As long as I present Orcs as non-human with a non-human culture, I don't have a problem with that. Yet, you presumably will. So this is a further complexity. Maybe. Maybe not. To go full Godwin here because the culture presents itself to be picked on and if I used any other culture it would be "problematic", there are plenty of modern stories that present Nazi's as complex, non-monolithic, nuanced human beings, whether we are talking something like 'Band of Brothers' or 'Saving Private Ryan'. But it's not necessarily wrong to tell a story like 'The Dirty Dozen' or 'Inglorious Bastards' where the Nazis are faceless bad guys to mow through, and no one says when you do, "That's pretty damn problematic" because who wants to defend Nazis. But more than that, there has never been a thing as a monolithically good culture, and in any culture there have been periods and places where the culture as a whole acted with a collective monstrous resolve and did monstrous things. There are going to be times and places where the ugly reality of the situation requires you to present a people in a way that is overwhelmingly monstrous, or at the least that such a decision can be defended both on artistic and moral grounds. It can be good to show that nuance, as for example, Guy Gabriel Kay tries to show in the 'Lions of Al-Rassan'. But it's not necessarily the case that you are required to show that nuance or even cases where showing that nuance could itself be problematic. The whole thing is a minefield you aren't acknowledging. Consider a case like 'Dances with Wolves'. Now, 'Dances' is a part of a genre of 'anti-Westerns' where the normal dynamics of a classic Western are reversed. The Native Americans are presented as nuanced and human, where as the whites are presented as almost entirely morally bankrupt, ignorant and evil. But within even this frame work there are all sorts of complexities. It's only the Dakota that are presented as complex. Their neighbors the Pawnee are presented as faceless bad guys to mow through. That decision as to which tribe to present as heroic and which to present as monstrous turns out to be problematically based on which side allied with Europeans - and not in the way you might first expect. It is the Pawnee that historically have been portrayed as ignoble and savage despite and perhaps because they didn't fight back, while the Sioux are generally portrayed as noble even as villains (and rarely as villains) precisely because they fought back. Yet the Pawnee didn't fight the white settlers precisely because the Pawnee were on the losing side of a genocidal war with the Sioux just prior to the white settlers showing up. None of this nuance is captured in the movie. How should we respond to that? Meanwhile, it is also possible to attack 'Dances with Wolves' because it can be fit to a 'white savior narrative' where a white outsider is assimilated into an exotic culture and helps save it from its enemies and I've certainly seen it attacked in that manner. What are we to make of that? Why should the protagonist be white? Why should we see the culture through the eyes of the white character? Why shouldn't the Native Americans tell their own story? Is the depth of 'research' enough to defend it against that, or is that still problematic enough to damn it? And yet on the other hand, if the story was through the eyes of Native Americans, wouldn't some people have objected if the story had been created and told by a white person? Wouldn't some of said that that was a morally gray area at best? Answer those questions in an objective and non-subjective manner if this is simple. And if the answer is, "Well, of course it is subjective.", then it can't be simple, because there are simply too many different voices and viewpoints that could be brought into any conversation. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Cultures in D&D/roleplaying: damned if you do, damned if you don't
Top