Do We Still Need "Oriental Adventures"?

Orientalism -- a wide-ranging term originally used to encompass depictions of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and East Asian cultures -- has gradually come to represent a more negative term. Should Dungeons & Dragons, known for two well-received books titled "Oriental Adventures," have another edition dedicated to "Eastern" cultures?

View attachment 94898
​

[h=3]A Brief History of Orientalism[/h]For a time, orientalism was a term used by art historians and literary scholars to group "Eastern" cultures together. That changed in 1978 with Edward Said's Orientalism, which argued that treatment of these cultures conflated peoples, times, and places into a narrative of incident and adventure in an exotic land.

It's easy to see why this approach might appeal to role-playing games. Orientalism is one lens to view a non-European culture within the game's context. We previously discussed how "othering" can create a mishmash of cultures, and it can apply to orientalism as well. The challenge is in how to portray a culture with nuance, and often one large region isn't enough to do the topic justice. The concept even applies to the idea of the "East" and the "Orient," which turns all of the Asian regions into one mono-culture. Wikipedia explains the term in that context:

The imperial conquest of "non–white" countries was intellectually justified with the fetishization of the Eastern world, which was effected with cultural generalizations that divided the peoples of the world into the artificial, binary-relationship of "The Eastern World and The Western World", the dichotomy which identified, designated, and subordinated the peoples of the Orient as the Other—as the non–European Self.

​

Game designers -- who were often admitted fans of Asian cultures -- sought to introduce a new kind of fantasy into traditional Western tropes. Viewed through a modern lens, their approach would likely be different today.
[h=3]The "Oriental" Books in D&D[/h]The original Oriental Adventures was published in 1985 by co-creator of D&D Gary Gygax, David "Zeb" Cook and François Marcela-Froideval. It introduced the ninja, kensai, wu-jen, and shukenja as well as new takes on the barbarian and monk. It was also the first supplement to introduce non-weapn proficiencies, the precursor to D&D's skill system. The book was well-received, and was envisioned by Gygax as an opportunity to reinvigorate the line -- ambitions which collapsed when he left the company. The book's hardcover had the following text printed on the back:

…The mysterious and exotic Orient, land of spices and warlords, has at last opened her gates to the West.

​

Aaron Trammell provides a detailed analysis of how problematic this one line of text is. The sum of his argument:

Although Gary Gygax envisioned a campaign setting that brought a multicultural dimension to Dungeons & Dragons, the reality is that by lumping together Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Mongolian, Philippine, and “Southeast Asian” lore he and co-authors David “Zeb” Cook and Francois Marcela-Froideval actually developed a campaign setting that reinforced western culture’s already racist understanding of the “Orient.”

​

The next edition would shift the setting from Kara-Tur (which was later sent in the Forgotten Realms) to Rokugan from the Legend of the Five Rings role-playing game.
[h=3]Controversy of the Five Rings[/h]James Wyatt wrote the revised Oriental Adventures for Third Edition D&D, published by Wizards of the Coast in 2001. It was updated to 3.5 in Dragon Magazine #318.

Legend of the Five Rings, a franchise that extends to card games, is itself not immune to controversy. Quintin Smith got enough comments on his review of the Legend of the Five Rings card game that he included an appendix that looked critically at chanting phrases "banzai!" at conventions and some of the game's art:

Now, I have no idea if this is right or wrong, but I do know that chanting in Japanese at an event exclusively attended by white men and women made me feel a tiny bit weird. My usual headcheck for this is “How would I feel if I brought a Japanese-English friend to the event?” and my answer is “Even more weird.” Personally, I found the game’s cover art to be a little more questionable. I think it’s fantastic to have a fantasy world that draws on Asian conventions instead of Western ones. But in a game that almost exclusively depicts Asian men and women, don’t then put white people on the cover! It’s such a lovely piece of art. I just wish she looked a little bit less like a cosplayer.

​

Perhaps in response to this criticism, Fantasy Flight Games removed the "banzai" chant as a bullet point from its web site. The page also features several pictures of past tournament winners, which provides some context as to who was shouting the chant.
[h=3]Fifth Edition and Diversity[/h]By the time the Fifth Edition of D&D was published, the game's approach to diverse peoples had changed. Indigo Boock on GeekGirlCon explains how:

Diversity is strength. The strongest adventuring party is the most diverse adventuring party. Try thinking about it in terms of classes—you have your healers, fighters, and magic users. Same goes for diversity. Different outlooks on life create more mobility and openness for different situations. Jeremy also explained that it was crucial that the art also reflected diversity, as did Art Director Kate Erwin. With this, they tried to make sure that there was a 50/50 split of people who identify as male and people who identify as female in the illustrations.

​

Trammell points out how these changes are reflected in the art of the core rule books:

First, there are illustrations: an East Asian warlock, a female samurai, an Arabian princess, an Arab warrior, and a Moor in battle, to name a few. Then, there are mechanics: the Monk persists as a class replete with a spiritual connection to another world via the “ki” mechanic. Scimitars and blowguns are commonly available as weapons, and elephants are available for purchase as mounts for only 200 gold. Although all of these mechanics are presented with an earnest multiculturalist ethic of appreciation, this ethic often surreptitiously produces a problematic and fictitious exotic, Oriental figure. At this point, given the embrace of multiculturalism by the franchise, it seems that the system is designed to embrace the construction of Orientalist fictional worlds where the Orient and Occident mix, mingle, and wage war.

​

A good first step is to understand the nuances of a region by exploring more than one culture there. Sean "S.M." Hill's "The Journey to..." series is a great place to start, particularly "Romance of the Three Kingdoms."

D&D has come a long way, but it still has some work to do if it plans to reflect the diversity of its modern player base and their cultures...which is why it seems unlikely we'll get another Oriental Adventures title.

Mike "Talien" Tresca is a freelance game columnist, author, communicator, and a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to http://amazon.com. You can follow him at Patreon.

 

[Celebrim]

This could have been a really interesting discussion about how to approach portraying a mythic version of non-Western cultures in a respectful way, but predictably, that discussion got usurped by people who want to debate the merits of respectful yet mythic portrayals of non-Western cultures. There could have been some cool, fresh ideas for classes, monsters, mechanics, etc. brainstormed by insiders in those non-Western cultures that people outside those cultures would never have come up with on their own because they didn't spend a lifetime in those cultures.

I would love that too. But my impression was that right from the start we were being told that there was no way for a Western culture to respectfully portray non-Western cultures, and that even the title of the thread questioned whether or not we would in fact we should do so.

In both threads, I've always suggested that rather than debating what the thread debates, show people how. Rather than debating this crap, because it is crap, start posting those fresh ideas, cool mechanics, awesome monsters and so forth. If you do that, you might not escape controversy completely, but at least you'll be being productive. Because we do need "Oriental Adventures".

We could have had something different, interesting and more meaningful than what we've had before, but that didn't happen because the same dominant perspectives and voices are unsatisfied with being dominant in real life. They have to be dominant in imagination too.

Well, that's one way to interpret this conversation. However, again, the OP didn't exactly invite people to do what you and I would both want. Rather, the terms of the debate began by the OP only chill interest in doing those things.

It makes me sad.

Me too.

 

[Mike Myler]

I mean this is exactly what I mean when I say I don't like playing in asian-styled settings ran by palefaces. I understand the concept of shame vs guilt cultures and was already aware of it, I am just tired of it having it being a reason to include one of these types of houserules in the game. The existence of a cultural difference doesn't necessitate special rules in order to make a setting more "asian-y". It generates stereotypes because any cultural differences will be exaggerated to an unrealistic degree when in most cases it's a minor difference unless it's in the purview of nobles or clans. I hate it exactly because peckerwoods like you want to reinforce your understandings of our cultures and think that justifying it with some flimsy Anthropology-101 terminology means you're right.

That's kind of the point of the Mists--without the supernatural magic thing going on there is no Dignity or Haitoku score so I'm confused about why that's upsetting to you.
Is it not refreshing to see a setting that doesn't rely on the traditional treatment of Honor systems in eastern fantasy settings and exacerbates it with an inverse parody?
Does the fact that you can easily ditch this part of the setting (as a player or the GM) matter?
What about half of this aspect just not having an English word and being a Japanese concept?

I'm genuinely interested in how I could have reinforced the functional difference in culture (which is definitely present in more than just nobles and clans, modern day or before globalization) while being a paleface, and I'm really not sold on "you can make a world that's eastern fantasy without acknowledging the cultural divisions between your own and eastern cultures".

 

[Afrodyte]

I would love that too. But my impression was that right from the start we were being told that there was no way for a Western culture to respectfully portray non-Western cultures, and that even the title of the thread questioned whether or not we would in fact we should do so.

In both threads, I've always suggested that rather than debating what the thread debates, show people how. Rather than debating this crap, because it is crap, start posting those fresh ideas, cool mechanics, awesome monsters and so forth. If you do that, you might not escape controversy completely, but at least you'll be being productive. Because we do need "Oriental Adventures".

Well, that's one way to interpret this conversation. However, again, the OP didn't exactly invite people to do what you and I would both want. Rather, the terms of the debate began by the OP only chill interest in doing those things.

Me too.

I'm sure your intentions were good, but everything you've posed in both threads seem to have been a major contributor to the fact that this possibility we both say we want didn't happen.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm sure your intentions were good, but everything you've posed in both threads seem to have been a major contributor to the fact that this possibility we both say we want didn't happen.

I don't see how that logically follows, but feel free to explain yourself and in particular to use quotes of what I've said to explain that observation to me.

In both threads, I have been I think adamant about the fact that terms like "cultural appropriation" are not useful, and that they are not useful precisely because (among other things) they inhibit the free sharing of ideas between cultures and shut down dialogues between people of two culture groups. I have repeatedly stated that the problems in both threads is that they offer criticism, but no solution to the perceived problem because they can't define an objective standard. I have repeatedly said that the great tragedy of such discussions is that they will only convince publishers that publishing things based on non-European cultures is so problematic that it is best to just be avoided.

Just a few posts above this, someone just unleashed a huge torrent of overtly racist slurs at a publisher who did everything he could to celebrate a culture not his own, including having the game vetted by members of the culture he was trying to portray. Yet this does nothing to immunize him against the racist venom in directed at him. So why would you think that any publisher reading these threads would want to risk negative publicity by publishing such a setting and exposing themselves to the possibility of censure, protests, and so forth no matter how well intentioned that they had been?

Is it me that is inhibiting the publication of what we both want, or is it the sort of people unloading all those racial slurs against anyone that disagrees with them? Is it me that is inhibiting the publication of what we both want, or is that poster that said it was racially motivated colonialism for a European publisher to even profit from the publication of a supplement that had non-European themes?

 

[Gradine]

I have repeatedly said that the great tragedy of such discussions is that they will only convince publishers that publishing things based on non-European cultures is so problematic that it is best to just be avoided.

...convince [white] publishers...

Is it me that is inhibiting the publication of what we both want, or is that poster that said it was racially motivated colonialism for a European publisher to even profit from the publication of a supplement that had non-European themes?

I believe the words I used was "ethically gray at best", but I suppose getting that stretched to "racially motivated colonialism" isn't the most egregious mischaracterization of my arguments in these threads.

Again, you seem to be conflating "white publishers" with "all publishers", and are ignoring the repeated attempts by many, many people to argue that the best and most appropriate way to get excellent material inspired by non-western cultures is to encourage and support members of those cultures who are doing that work.

 

[Celebrim]

...convince [white] publishers...

First, once again your insertion of skin color into everything you think about.

I believe the words I used was "ethically gray at best"...

I wasn't even thinking of you when I wrote the above post. I'd have to go back and search out which poster argued that the profits of a publication about Africa had to primarily go to Africans, but I agree it wasn't you. You were the one that said that whites publishing a story about non-whites no matter how sensitive the presentation was "ethically gray at best", which I agree is not the same thing, but does rather fit into what I'm talking about.

Again, you seem to be conflating "white publishers" with "all publishers", and are ignoring the repeated attempts by many, many people to argue that the best and most appropriate way to get excellent material inspired by non-western cultures is to encourage and support members of those cultures who are doing that work.

If you want material from non-white publishers, it's out there for you to purchase. In the mean time, you just excluded the majority of the thread on the grounds of their skin color.

 

[Plageman]

Again, you seem to be conflating "white publishers" with "all publishers", and are ignoring the repeated attempts by many, many people to argue that the best and most appropriate way to get excellent material inspired by non-western cultures is to encourage and support members of those cultures who are doing that work.

Please then do submit some of this content you talk about. In this day and age you can do it via POD like Lulu, mount a Kickstarter, self-publishing on DrivethruRPG Adventurer's League.

If you wait for WotC to publish a book that will throw out all the 40+ content they for the sake of "correcting mistakes of the past" you may wait for a long time.

What you need/want is a fresh start, the D&D legacy is too heavy in the existing settings to change it the way you want.

I'm all for some non-Westerner settings but keep in mind that by being a westerner I won't have all the cultural background you may have about your own country. Heck I'm no even sure to have the cultural background about the folks living 50 km from me in Germany or from the southern Regions even if it's my country of birth.

You ask for better content by making the cultural content be read/developed by some natives. That's a good idea but it has never been done properly simply because of logistics and return of investment. I could give you multiple game lines that had names, distances, concepts wrongly done about France which were corrected in the translated versions of the book but never in the original american-english version. Stereotypes that I see in every anime or american Cartoons that reduce the multicultural diversity of France to a single city (Paris) and a handful of Tropes. I suspect it's the same for German, East-European, English or Italian cultures. they are systematically reduced to a fragment of their complexity by both the US developed properties or 'eastern' authors.

This discussion is very complex because it derailed from a very simple question into a debate a guilt and cultural representation. You can't argue that the products for D&D are developed by a US-based company with a very small staff mostly for an english-speaking crowd. Other countries may translate the game but there is no obligation to do so if deemed offensive as the OGL permit the reuse of the game engine to attach it to a whole new setting.

If you wonder if this setting could be brought back to the mass I'd point you to some other European publishers who used Kickstarter to help translate their game lines in English bringing it to a wider audience.

Again instead of just complaining and adding some oil on the fire try to show the example and produce something that will show us how you want it to be done.

 

[Afrodyte]

I don't see how that logically follows, but feel free to explain yourself and in particular to use quotes of what I've said to explain that observation to me.

There is literally not enough time in the day. I'm not saying "literally" as a means of emphasis. I mean that factually. I do not have the time to rehash and debate everything you've said that contributed to the downward spiral of both of these threads.

 

[Mercurius]

This is part of the problem.

There is a difference between something being foreign and something being "exoticised" in the fashion discussed in the OP. Exoticisation, in this context, is a type of projection. If it wasn't, then it wouldn't be a "Western/Occidental view" of anything - it would just be an account of that thing.

It's the projection that makes it racist.

Only if the point is to try to be accurate, which is only vaguely the cased in OA, which is meant to be more inspired by and draw from Asian cultures, just as numerous settings are inspired by or drawn from premodern European settings.
And what is wrong with exoticization? That's sort of the halfway point between realism and fantasy. Remember, we're talking about RPG settings, not an anthropological dissertation.

You seem to be applying academic (and the accompanying sociological) standards
to RPG settings, which to me is a bit misplaced. And I don't see anyone up in arms about how the Sword Coast is an exoticized mockery of premodern northern Europe.

 

[Mercurius]

This clarification concerning the spiritual diversity of the cleric class needs to be core, and integrated into the Players Handbook from the get-go.

If an update to the 5e SRD includes this explicit reference to the cleric class representing a diversity of spiritual worldviews, especially clerics with nonpolytheistic views, I would relax a bit more on this issue.

4e and worse 5e have become too heavy handed about imposing polytheism as the setting assumptions in the rules descriptions. The motive is corporate, out of desire to use D&D gods as trademark branding, relating to novels, movie rights, and so on. I am deeply uncomfortable with this situation of polytheism.

THis is an interesting issue. I personally am not uncomfortable with polytheism as a default, but aesthetically and creatively D&D's approach is just sloppy. In my own settings, each culture has their own religious and spiritual viewpoint, some polytheism, some monotheistic, some more philosophical, and everything in-between...just as in our world.

That said, I also play with the idea that there is only one pantheon of gods, but different cultures have their versions, names, and degrees of emphasis. For instance in our world, we could say that Zeus and Thor are the same god, but whereas the Greeks see Zeus as the head honcho, the Nordic people see Thor as kind of the warrior god who plays second fiddle to Odin. But regardless, each are the cultural version of a more archetypal being.

Furthermore, these different systems aren't inherently opposing or anthithetical to each other. Buddhism is both nontheistic and polytheistic. Ultimately there is only Buddhamind, the Dharmakaya, and the "gods" are illusory forms that are impermanent, but have apparent and relative reality. Just as in the Hindu traditions (which are wide and diverse), the One being Brahman manifests as Trimurti--Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver, Shiva the Destroyer--and then there are countless lesser gods who are in a sense variations of these gods. And then we have human beings, who are also "Brahman in disguise."

It is only in the more concrete and literalist view of religion that we get either/or thinking.