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="Gradine" data-source="post: 7398213" data-attributes="member: 57112"><p>This is consistent with what I've said in the past, though I have evolved on the issue somewhat since the last time we went on this rodeo.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'll get to this later when we hit the "minefield" paragraph, but it matters a great deal that the OP's audience is "his players" and he's not thinking about publishing. Putting something out for public consumption is a <strong><em>very different beast altogether.</em></strong> And I don't mean that to say that, if you're only running for your players, that's license to be as racist as you want to be. I mean that, he's running the material for, presumably, people he can trust and, again presumably, people he can expect to get honest and nonjudgmental feedback on. I suppose I am presuming too much, but I tend to think of people who play D&D together as <em>friends,</em> and friends approach each other on this kind of stuff in a very different way that faceless strangers on the internet do, and it gives you the ability to get genuine, useful feedback before (if ever) subjecting it to the broader audience.</p><p></p><p>Perhaps we could all stand to take a step back and approach situations like this as if we were speaking to a good friend we know <em>meant</em> well. I know I certainly could stand to do that more.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I suppose I should have been clearer in what I mean by "human": something that includes, at minimum, individuals who have beliefs and motivations that typically align with their culture in many significant ways but also often in certain ways which <em>do not</em> align with their culture.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I did not mean that the culture you present as <em>human</em> has to view all other groups through an egalitarian lens; nor did I say that the main institutions within that culture cannot be <em>villainous</em>. I'm not saying to whitewash <em>anyone's</em> history. But if you're going to tell me that <em>every</em> member of <em>every</em> one of these cultures believed that <em>every</em> member of <em>every</em> other tribe was less than human, I'm going to have to ask for your sources. Of course we have no way of knowing for sure, but the idea that were <em>no</em> outliers? Not a single member of the community who questioned the way non-members were treated? Not a single person who, maybe while not saying so out loud out of fear of personal safety, harbored doubts about such practices as war or slavery?</p><p></p><p>I have to doubt that, because in basically every culture we have actual written records from throughout history that has practiced war and slavery has <em>always</em> had critics of those behaviors, even when nearly universally-practiced religion was used as justification.</p><p></p><p>I'm not going to argue that it's not a <em>huge</em> minefield to publish, for public consumption, historically accurate roleplaying material featuring, for instance, indigenous Central/South American cultures. You could be a member of one of those communities and probably face backlash from somebody, somewhere else in the same (or a different, but similar) community. There's just no way to publish anything in today's society without having to face some public criticism. I just don't think that's such a bad thing. When we take other people's viewpoints of our work at face value, we <em>learn</em> something new about the world we many not previously have been exposed to, and that's great. I do think we, as a culture, are too quick to condemn the people <em>behind</em> the work. But I also believe that, if you're not willing to hear that criticism, and to take it that criticism as an opportunity to learn and grow as a creator, you may not be ready to produce work for public consumption yet.</p><p></p><p>And again, I do believe that there is a world of a difference between publishing works for public consumption, and wanting to explore these topics and these cultures with a group of friends in a closed setting in a way that is still humane and respectful.</p><p></p><p>One caveat I'll add: D&D, a game which definitely leans heavily on combat and killing to resolve problems, may not be the best game to do that in.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You and I simply have a disagreement on how we feel about the way D&D handles non-human but still-mortal creatures. Which, after reading your perspective on Elves and Weapon Proficiencies, does not at all come as a surprise to me. I don't like the way D&D presents some of these races, particularly in the way they tend to blend culture with natural inborn properties. These are different philosophies, and I don't think there's anything wrong with the way you approach this. As such, I don't find myself disagreeing with basically anything you say above.</p><p></p><p>Me, I tend to prefer the way Eberron does things; if you're a creature with mortality, you have free will, and thus no inborn alignment (though potentially natural (at least on the ethics scale) and/or cultural inclinations towards one perspective or another, just as PC races commonly have). For unequivocal bad guys to mow through, I prefer the immortal beings; creatures whose very essence is defined by their evil: fiends. Also, especially for the pulpier bits, distinctively evil organizations. Which leads me to...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Nazis are neither a race or a culture. They are an organization, an institution, and their mission statement is as close to our modern conception of what "evil" is as we are likely to get consensus on, as humanity as a whole. "Band of Brothers" did have that Nazi kid from Oregon, who may or may not have been swept up into circumstances outside of his control (it's been a long time since I've watched it, but I thought I remember him talking about how he moved back to join the German army because family did). I don't necessarily think that the point of these scene (and a lot of that show) was to say "look, there are sympathetic Nazis!", but rather, that war places an immense burden on a generation with little control over how they got there. See also: how much Winter struggles over having to kill that kid (who was a kid by any measure; the previous guy was coded as college-aged) during the invasion of Normandy. </p><p></p><p>Now, portraying all <em>Germans</em> from the 1930's-40's as Nazis or sympathizers <em>is</em> not only problematic but also deeply historically inaccurate; there were many Germans who either deeply critical of the regime or whom actively resisted. Not to mention how many people who were killed or tortured that were, for all intents and purposes, <em>also Germans.</em></p><p></p><p>But do I have problems with portraying <em>Nazis</em> as faceless bad guys there to get mowed down? Ehhhh. I've been working on concepts of compassion and giving people more of the benefit of the doubt, but... there has to be a line somewhere, right? There's that quote "I can disagree with you about politics and still be friends unless your politics are rooted in my dehumanization", which I can get behind, but Nazis aren't so much about "dehumanization" as they are about <em>eradication.</em> That has to be the line, right? I mean, I'm always down for the possibility of redemption, but when your baseline belief, the core philosophy that <em>makes</em> one a Nazi, is "the eradication of all non-straight, non-able-bodied white people"; you have to be at such a point in your life to <em>end up</em> at that place that I can't begin to imagine the pathway back from that. Certainly not in a way that respects the rights to life of the people the Nazi might seek to harm in the interim. Sure, if they weren't an actual physical threat to anybody, let's try to convert them first, but Nazis who are active combatants? Sure, I'm of the mind that that could be fair game.</p><p></p><p>To quote Bethesda's PR VP Pete Hines, when asked if their new game Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus (a game very much marketed as fighting against an oppressive, modern-day nazi regime) was "poking the hornet's nest", he replied: "Maybe a little bit. But the hornet's nest is full of Nazis. So <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /><img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /><img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /><img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> those guys."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As I've stated above, there's no amount of research that is going to be enough to shield anyone from criticism, but not getting criticism shouldn't be the point. As you say, nuance is the key. I kind of thought that was assumed in "treating people and cultures in a humane and respectful way" but perhaps I should have been clearer. We can talk all day about "Dances With Wolves" and how it tackles some issues with nuance and others with a particularly callous lack of the same, or how "white savior" narratives are problematic even as the need to inspire white allies to action is always urgent (interestingly, the early press of that Great Wall movie released recently got a lot of flack for being another "white savior" movie because of the way Matt Damon was put front and center to put butts in seats, but every plot synopsis I've read of the film (I've admittedly not watched it yet) made it seem like Damon's character was more of a clueless outsider and a sidekick to Chinese heroes in a Chinese story told by Chinese filmmakers, which is <em>probably</em> actually the best way to go about such a narrative. "Big Trouble in Little China" is a valiant effort of this sort of dynamic but still centers too much of the story on its white characters, even though Jack Burton is the <em>living definition</em> of "clueless sidekick in way over his head". Also... well, we'll get there later.) This is all besides the point however.</p><p></p><p>I was once in a workshop with a ton of white people and very few people of color, and we were talking about race, and the white people were hemming and hawing and taking up a lot of space and time to fumble their way to basically, sort of, in a round about way, say they didn't speak much in discussions about race because they were too afraid of saying the wrong thing (but not too afraid to take up basically all of the meeting to really uncomfortably get to that point, but that's neither here nor there.) By the time I had an opportunity to speak, we were just about out of time, so I was asked to encapsulate what I had to say within ten seconds. I said: "We all stay stupid crap all the time; that shouldn't stop us from having a conversation."</p><p></p><p>Now, I'm certain that that isn't an appropriate framework for <em>every</em> possible space, but I think it's a great one for a lot of them, and that includes discussions of "problematic" pop cultural artifacts. I think it's important for content creators to <em>make the effort</em> to try to do the right thing, which includes, <em>at bare minimum,</em> not only just doing the research, but also hiring consultants with actual first-hand experience and knowledge (i.e; members of a culture if the main subject is different from your own) to help you better introduce that necessary nuance into the narrative. And people will object, because as you so astutely point out, there is no such thing as a "universal human", and because of that there is no universal personal story, and so there will always be people whose personal story will not be represented well (if at all) in the stories they feel should have done so. Do you think there's anywhere close to a kind of consensus within black liberation movements about the collective works of Spike Lee? Because I can assure you there is not.</p><p></p><p>The point is, putting content out for consumption should start a conversation, the results of which everyone involved in can learn something from. But when content makers don't put that effort or energy in to do any kind of research or reach out to members of the affected community for consultation, they kind of deserve the condemnation they get. And yes, one side of that is often too quick to condemn what they should instead be critiquing. On the flipside, I think that many content makers are too quick to get defensive, to ignore even thoughtful and measured critique as nothing but dismissive condemnation.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, and yes. Talented people with the power and influence to create broad-reaching content about cultures not their own should instead be using that talent, power, and influence to help support works from <em>within</em> the culture and bring those works to broader audiences. We call this in the business "signal boosting" and it is <em>significantly</em> preferable than cashing in on stories that aren't yours to tell, which is another reason why "Big Trouble in Little China" doesn't work nearly as well as a piece about white allies as "The Great Wall", for instance, or why "Dances with Wolves" was kind of destined to run into the kinds of issues it ultimately ran into. To make a profit off of another culture's oppression is shady as hell; to do so with the intention of actually helping their cause definitely trends into a moral middle; while "signal boosting" is definitely the way to go. Note that James Cameron tried to skirt around this issue when he made "Avatar"; how well he did so is in the eye of the beholder but there are people I love and whose opinions I value on both sides of that fence.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Except they are simple, because in the case of the OP, there aren't "too many different voices and viewpoints", there are roughly six, and they've all already presumably entered into a social contract (deliberately or unconsciously) which involves a certain amount of trust. <strong><em>Publishing for public consumption</em></strong>, as I've stated several times in this post, is a whole different ballgame and certainly much more complicated and much more subjective of a subject.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Gradine, post: 7398213, member: 57112"] This is consistent with what I've said in the past, though I have evolved on the issue somewhat since the last time we went on this rodeo. I'll get to this later when we hit the "minefield" paragraph, but it matters a great deal that the OP's audience is "his players" and he's not thinking about publishing. Putting something out for public consumption is a [B][I]very different beast altogether.[/I][/B] And I don't mean that to say that, if you're only running for your players, that's license to be as racist as you want to be. I mean that, he's running the material for, presumably, people he can trust and, again presumably, people he can expect to get honest and nonjudgmental feedback on. I suppose I am presuming too much, but I tend to think of people who play D&D together as [I]friends,[/I] and friends approach each other on this kind of stuff in a very different way that faceless strangers on the internet do, and it gives you the ability to get genuine, useful feedback before (if ever) subjecting it to the broader audience. Perhaps we could all stand to take a step back and approach situations like this as if we were speaking to a good friend we know [I]meant[/I] well. I know I certainly could stand to do that more. I suppose I should have been clearer in what I mean by "human": something that includes, at minimum, individuals who have beliefs and motivations that typically align with their culture in many significant ways but also often in certain ways which [I]do not[/I] align with their culture. I did not mean that the culture you present as [I]human[/I] has to view all other groups through an egalitarian lens; nor did I say that the main institutions within that culture cannot be [I]villainous[/I]. I'm not saying to whitewash [I]anyone's[/I] history. But if you're going to tell me that [I]every[/I] member of [I]every[/I] one of these cultures believed that [I]every[/I] member of [I]every[/I] other tribe was less than human, I'm going to have to ask for your sources. Of course we have no way of knowing for sure, but the idea that were [I]no[/I] outliers? Not a single member of the community who questioned the way non-members were treated? Not a single person who, maybe while not saying so out loud out of fear of personal safety, harbored doubts about such practices as war or slavery? I have to doubt that, because in basically every culture we have actual written records from throughout history that has practiced war and slavery has [I]always[/I] had critics of those behaviors, even when nearly universally-practiced religion was used as justification. I'm not going to argue that it's not a [I]huge[/I] minefield to publish, for public consumption, historically accurate roleplaying material featuring, for instance, indigenous Central/South American cultures. You could be a member of one of those communities and probably face backlash from somebody, somewhere else in the same (or a different, but similar) community. There's just no way to publish anything in today's society without having to face some public criticism. I just don't think that's such a bad thing. When we take other people's viewpoints of our work at face value, we [I]learn[/I] something new about the world we many not previously have been exposed to, and that's great. I do think we, as a culture, are too quick to condemn the people [I]behind[/I] the work. But I also believe that, if you're not willing to hear that criticism, and to take it that criticism as an opportunity to learn and grow as a creator, you may not be ready to produce work for public consumption yet. And again, I do believe that there is a world of a difference between publishing works for public consumption, and wanting to explore these topics and these cultures with a group of friends in a closed setting in a way that is still humane and respectful. One caveat I'll add: D&D, a game which definitely leans heavily on combat and killing to resolve problems, may not be the best game to do that in. You and I simply have a disagreement on how we feel about the way D&D handles non-human but still-mortal creatures. Which, after reading your perspective on Elves and Weapon Proficiencies, does not at all come as a surprise to me. I don't like the way D&D presents some of these races, particularly in the way they tend to blend culture with natural inborn properties. These are different philosophies, and I don't think there's anything wrong with the way you approach this. As such, I don't find myself disagreeing with basically anything you say above. Me, I tend to prefer the way Eberron does things; if you're a creature with mortality, you have free will, and thus no inborn alignment (though potentially natural (at least on the ethics scale) and/or cultural inclinations towards one perspective or another, just as PC races commonly have). For unequivocal bad guys to mow through, I prefer the immortal beings; creatures whose very essence is defined by their evil: fiends. Also, especially for the pulpier bits, distinctively evil organizations. Which leads me to... Nazis are neither a race or a culture. They are an organization, an institution, and their mission statement is as close to our modern conception of what "evil" is as we are likely to get consensus on, as humanity as a whole. "Band of Brothers" did have that Nazi kid from Oregon, who may or may not have been swept up into circumstances outside of his control (it's been a long time since I've watched it, but I thought I remember him talking about how he moved back to join the German army because family did). I don't necessarily think that the point of these scene (and a lot of that show) was to say "look, there are sympathetic Nazis!", but rather, that war places an immense burden on a generation with little control over how they got there. See also: how much Winter struggles over having to kill that kid (who was a kid by any measure; the previous guy was coded as college-aged) during the invasion of Normandy. Now, portraying all [I]Germans[/I] from the 1930's-40's as Nazis or sympathizers [I]is[/I] not only problematic but also deeply historically inaccurate; there were many Germans who either deeply critical of the regime or whom actively resisted. Not to mention how many people who were killed or tortured that were, for all intents and purposes, [I]also Germans.[/I] But do I have problems with portraying [I]Nazis[/I] as faceless bad guys there to get mowed down? Ehhhh. I've been working on concepts of compassion and giving people more of the benefit of the doubt, but... there has to be a line somewhere, right? There's that quote "I can disagree with you about politics and still be friends unless your politics are rooted in my dehumanization", which I can get behind, but Nazis aren't so much about "dehumanization" as they are about [I]eradication.[/I] That has to be the line, right? I mean, I'm always down for the possibility of redemption, but when your baseline belief, the core philosophy that [I]makes[/I] one a Nazi, is "the eradication of all non-straight, non-able-bodied white people"; you have to be at such a point in your life to [I]end up[/I] at that place that I can't begin to imagine the pathway back from that. Certainly not in a way that respects the rights to life of the people the Nazi might seek to harm in the interim. Sure, if they weren't an actual physical threat to anybody, let's try to convert them first, but Nazis who are active combatants? Sure, I'm of the mind that that could be fair game. To quote Bethesda's PR VP Pete Hines, when asked if their new game Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus (a game very much marketed as fighting against an oppressive, modern-day nazi regime) was "poking the hornet's nest", he replied: "Maybe a little bit. But the hornet's nest is full of Nazis. So :):):):) those guys." As I've stated above, there's no amount of research that is going to be enough to shield anyone from criticism, but not getting criticism shouldn't be the point. As you say, nuance is the key. I kind of thought that was assumed in "treating people and cultures in a humane and respectful way" but perhaps I should have been clearer. We can talk all day about "Dances With Wolves" and how it tackles some issues with nuance and others with a particularly callous lack of the same, or how "white savior" narratives are problematic even as the need to inspire white allies to action is always urgent (interestingly, the early press of that Great Wall movie released recently got a lot of flack for being another "white savior" movie because of the way Matt Damon was put front and center to put butts in seats, but every plot synopsis I've read of the film (I've admittedly not watched it yet) made it seem like Damon's character was more of a clueless outsider and a sidekick to Chinese heroes in a Chinese story told by Chinese filmmakers, which is [I]probably[/I] actually the best way to go about such a narrative. "Big Trouble in Little China" is a valiant effort of this sort of dynamic but still centers too much of the story on its white characters, even though Jack Burton is the [I]living definition[/I] of "clueless sidekick in way over his head". Also... well, we'll get there later.) This is all besides the point however. I was once in a workshop with a ton of white people and very few people of color, and we were talking about race, and the white people were hemming and hawing and taking up a lot of space and time to fumble their way to basically, sort of, in a round about way, say they didn't speak much in discussions about race because they were too afraid of saying the wrong thing (but not too afraid to take up basically all of the meeting to really uncomfortably get to that point, but that's neither here nor there.) By the time I had an opportunity to speak, we were just about out of time, so I was asked to encapsulate what I had to say within ten seconds. I said: "We all stay stupid crap all the time; that shouldn't stop us from having a conversation." Now, I'm certain that that isn't an appropriate framework for [I]every[/I] possible space, but I think it's a great one for a lot of them, and that includes discussions of "problematic" pop cultural artifacts. I think it's important for content creators to [I]make the effort[/I] to try to do the right thing, which includes, [I]at bare minimum,[/I] not only just doing the research, but also hiring consultants with actual first-hand experience and knowledge (i.e; members of a culture if the main subject is different from your own) to help you better introduce that necessary nuance into the narrative. And people will object, because as you so astutely point out, there is no such thing as a "universal human", and because of that there is no universal personal story, and so there will always be people whose personal story will not be represented well (if at all) in the stories they feel should have done so. Do you think there's anywhere close to a kind of consensus within black liberation movements about the collective works of Spike Lee? Because I can assure you there is not. The point is, putting content out for consumption should start a conversation, the results of which everyone involved in can learn something from. But when content makers don't put that effort or energy in to do any kind of research or reach out to members of the affected community for consultation, they kind of deserve the condemnation they get. And yes, one side of that is often too quick to condemn what they should instead be critiquing. On the flipside, I think that many content makers are too quick to get defensive, to ignore even thoughtful and measured critique as nothing but dismissive condemnation. Yes, and yes. Talented people with the power and influence to create broad-reaching content about cultures not their own should instead be using that talent, power, and influence to help support works from [I]within[/I] the culture and bring those works to broader audiences. We call this in the business "signal boosting" and it is [I]significantly[/I] preferable than cashing in on stories that aren't yours to tell, which is another reason why "Big Trouble in Little China" doesn't work nearly as well as a piece about white allies as "The Great Wall", for instance, or why "Dances with Wolves" was kind of destined to run into the kinds of issues it ultimately ran into. To make a profit off of another culture's oppression is shady as hell; to do so with the intention of actually helping their cause definitely trends into a moral middle; while "signal boosting" is definitely the way to go. Note that James Cameron tried to skirt around this issue when he made "Avatar"; how well he did so is in the eye of the beholder but there are people I love and whose opinions I value on both sides of that fence. Except they are simple, because in the case of the OP, there aren't "too many different voices and viewpoints", there are roughly six, and they've all already presumably entered into a social contract (deliberately or unconsciously) which involves a certain amount of trust. [B][I]Publishing for public consumption[/I][/B], as I've stated several times in this post, is a whole different ballgame and certainly much more complicated and much more subjective of a subject. [/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