D&D 5E SKT: The Uthgardt and Modern Sensibilities

[Alexemplar]

The point about virtue-signalling is the empathy is not for those who actually stand to be harmed by a situation, but for the other bystanders and what they think about it.

The goal here is not to help Native Americans, but to show off the subtlety of your sensibilities to other white people.

Thus it's is more like a modern permutation of baroque WASPy social etiquette than moral reasoning grounded in actual human suffering. It becomes grotesque when taken too seriously.

We don't know if that's the case here. You're making a lot of assumptions about the OP and their player's situation.

 

[Azzy]

I would definitely post about this at RPG.net. This sort of hand-wringing virtue signalling is basically their stock-in-trade now that they've given up on RPGs....

Did they touch you in a bad place?

 

[Eltab]

Is there a third-party group you can introduce to the campaign, which trashes the wrong Uthgardt mound while also searching for the PCs' McGuffin? Maybe another band of adventurers also working on the Giants' problem before it can spill all over the civilized world?
This opens a Diplomacy option: the PCs will help the Uthgardt get revenge on the 3P group, in exchange for being allowed to borrow the right McGuffin for a while to solve the Giants' problem. Of course, if the Giants want to KEEP the McGuffin, the PCs have to do some more Diplomacy...

In FR, if somebody plundered my church, burnt it to the ground, dug up the graveyard next door, and left the corpses scattered about all over, while looking for a sacred ancient relic ... I'd be thinking about raising the bodies of my forefathers as Wights and Revenants and whatever else to track down and avenge my tribe - just in case I couldn't get the job done myself.

I don't see the problem with 'cultural appropriation'. If you treat the individual Uthgardt as sincere in their traditional way of life, the players should be able to roll with it. D&D has always had strange exotic foreign cultures as a backdrop to the adventure.

Note: I haven't looked over SKT so I'm not up-to-date on the details. This proposal might not make sense in that context.

 

[Libramarian]

We don't know if that's the case here. You're making a lot of assumptions about the OP and their player's situation.

OP is a crystal clear example of virtue signalling: the concern explicitly is whether the portrayal of the Uthgardt conflicts with "modern sensibilities", not whether it's offensive or derogatory to Native Americans. The latter is actually a much easier but I guess less interesting question to answer.

So if I understand correctly, an expression of consideration for another culture must be understood to be an expression of consideration for our own culture? That duality sounds fine: we are always embedded in our own culture while commenting or being considerate to others. Indeed, when publicly expressing consideration for American Indians, we might also be thinking of influencing our own culture. Ultimately having a normative effect.

That's quite a stretch and there are only about a million things you could do instead right now that would more directly help people. That's kind of like thinking you're fighting crime in your neighborhood by dressing well. Just as we can recognize that it's nice to dress well without being self-righteous about it, we can recognize that it's nice to use very refined language for other cultures and ethnicities without thinking this will change the world for the better. Most people most of the time recognize the difference between being nice and doing good, but for some reason many people playing this particular language game are off the reservation (so to speak) and don't see the difference anymore.

By the way, "American Indians" is definitely a faux-pas. The correct term is "Native Americans", or if you'd really like to be on point (at least here in Canada), "First Nations".

 

[Azzy]

OP is a crystal clear example of virtue signalling: the concern explicitly is whether the portrayal of the Uthgardt conflicts with "modern sensibilities", not whether it's offensive or derogatory to Native Americans. The latter is actually a much easier but I guess less interesting question to answer.



That's quite a stretch and there are only about a million things you could do instead right now that would more directly help people. That's kind of like thinking you're fighting crime in your neighborhood by dressing well. Just as we can recognize that it's nice to dress well without being self-righteous about it, we can recognize that it's nice to use very refined language for other cultures and ethnicities without thinking this will change the world for the better. Most people most of the time recognize the difference between being nice and doing good, but for some reason many people playing this particular language game are off the reservation (so to speak) and don't see the difference anymore.

By the way, "American Indians" is definitely a faux-pas. The correct term is "Native Americans", or if you'd really like to be on point (at least here in Canada), "First Nations".

Cool talking points, bro.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

It appears that the alt know-it-alls are here to tell us how contemptible we are for showing common human decency. Sad!

 

[Desdemoli]

I'm sure the Uthgard wouldn't be happy about greenwashing their roles...

Sent from my Nexus 6P using EN World mobile app

 

[THEMNGMNT]

Hi all,

I am eventually going to be running Storm King's Thunder as Act 3 of an on-going campaign, and one part of it that I'm a bit uncomfortable with is the raiding of the Uthgardt burial mounds. I realize that the Uthgardt have long been part of the Realms, and that they are descended from the setting's equivalent of Vikings, but there is still a noticeable American Indian influence there, and I think one could say there's a bit of white-washing involved as a result ... so I'm having trouble separating my modern, real world sensitivities from the fantasy.

Does anyone else have this problem? Would it, perhaps, be better to swap them out for orc tribes? Or would that make it worse in terms of cultural implications?

Should I just leave that part out entirely? Some of the locations are quite cool. I particularly like Beorunna's Well, for instance. Should I have them be abandoned sites, rather than actively used ones, and replace the Uthgardt with random monsters?

Anyone got any ideas? I don't want to cause any offence, either here on the forums or at my gaming table.

I love SKT. But it has its problems. And this is probably the most problematic section of the entire adventure path. Putting aside the possible analogs to real-world indigenous cultures...it simply doesn't feel like epic, heroic fantasy to go around desecrating holy sites and burial grounds on an obvious fetch quest. To me, epic fantasy heroes go around punching bad guys in the face. This adventure is supposed to pit the players "against the giants" not "against the burial mounds." So what's the solution?

First, other posters have suggested elegant solutions for leaving the AP unchanged, such as embracing the moral quandry and playing through the consequences. This is a smart way to go if you're so inclined and if it fits your group.

Second, rather than sending the PCs out to raid multiple burial mounds, send them to raid only one. This eliminates repetition, gets across the essential points, and allows you to place MacGuffins in the hands of different types of opponents for more variety.

Third, I too am planning to make SKT the capstone for my current campaign. When I reach this section, I'm going to switch up a few elements. The Oracle will not send the players on a fetch quest. Rather, it will give them all the info they came for, and then tell them that giant-slaying artifacts can be found in the treasure hoards of several dragons across the North. So, rather than raid burial mounds, they'll be fighting dragons.

Best of luck!

 

[clearstream]

That's quite a stretch and there are only about a million things you could do instead right now that would more directly help people.

And yet, I have chosen to engage a contrarian on the internet I'm glad you think it is a stretch, because I was restating your argument.

Most people most of the time recognize the difference between being nice and doing good, but for some reason many people playing this particular language game are off the reservation (so to speak) and don't see the difference anymore.

It's easier to do good if you get use to thinking nice thoughts.

By the way, "American Indians" is definitely a faux-pas. The correct term is "Native Americans", or if you'd really like to be on point (at least here in Canada), "First Nations".

Thank you. I appreciate the consideration you show Native Americans by helping improve my language.

 

[pukunui]

Second, rather than sending the PCs out to raid multiple burial mounds, send them to raid only one. This eliminates repetition, gets across the essential points, and allows you to place MacGuffins in the hands of different types of opponents for more variety.

Yes! As I mentioned in the OP, I think Beorunna's Well is quite cool. The rest of them are fairly meh. If I were to just send them to one mound, it would be that one.

Third, I too am planning to make SKT the capstone for my current campaign. When I reach this section, I'm going to switch up a few elements. The Oracle will not send the players on a fetch quest. Rather, it will give them all the info they came for, and then tell them that giant-slaying artifacts can be found in the treasure hoards of several dragons across the North. So, rather than raid burial mounds, they'll be fighting dragons.

That would be cool. Will they all be evil dragons? I could see some good dragons having some, and the PCs having to negotiate / convince the dragon to relinquish the artifact to them.