The Journey To...North America, Part Two

In writing these articles I have come to understand how many people are voiceless in the collective imaginary land that is role playing games. I hope that these articles make our hobby and industry a place where more people are welcomed and encouraged to become involved. Which brings me to North America, the part the second.


I spoke to a friend of mine and her words still resonate with me. I asked Susan what she might want in terms of how her people are portrayed in role playing. She replied that she would not want her people's traditions taken for granted. Sacred is sacred. In struggling to find a theme for this article, her words helped me focus in on what is important. So I will begin, before talking about the people, with my "How would I use this?" section.

It is not hard for those of us descended from European, especially Western European ancestry, to relate to the sacred. Stonehenge comes to mind. Beowulf and the legend of Arthur. Joan of Arc. The stand at Thermopylae. Rome at its best and at its worst. A host of cultural touchstones that help give us some common context and cultural language. They literally are sprinkled through our role playing; ideas from history and mythology that fuel how we play.


So if I were going to run a campaign among the North American native tribes, prior to European arrival, it would be heavily focused on those ideas that they found and still find as sacred. It would be an intimate campaign, with no Vecna or dragons or Sauron. Perhaps a band of folk who have suffered loss who wander from place to place, helping others and battling legends. The magic would be subtle and beautiful and full of mystery. It would deal with the idea of what is sacred and how the sacred shapes the lives of the characters. Of course this can be taken into science fiction as well and Shadowrun does some of this with its setting.

What is sacred to the native tribes of North America? A best we can generalize because there are over 500 recognized tribes in the United States, including many in Alaska. Susan mentioned a few things: The Dance, The Ceremony, The Animals, and of course The Land itself. In our modern times issues of land ownership and management have come up again as natural resources are found on tribal lands. To the native peoples, land is more than just a means of making a living or a sign of prosperity. It represents a means of preserving cultural history and identity. Indigenous folk see themselves as protectors of the land and everything associated with it. Equally important are the spiritual and religious aspects of the land and specifically sacred spaces. These sacred places are integral to the tribes spiritual practices and when the land is disrespected, this insults the people and their beliefs. They also believes it angers the land. This should be an important concept in any campaign run using native peoples.


I would recommend talking to native folk about their own tribes and tribal traditions instead of relying on just Internet searches. In general most scholars break the native peoples of North America, excluding Mexico (covered here) into ten different cultural areas. These are the Arctic, Subarctic, Northeast, Southeast, Plains, Southwest, Great Basin, California, Northwest Coast, and Plateau. These cultures had distinct lifestyles from one another, with some being agricultural and others more nomadic. Tragically some have been lost along the way and that is something we should never forget. If we as games masters and content creators can keep them alive in our games, then that is one way of continuing their legacy into the future.

​contributed by Sean Hillman
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Sean Hillman

Sean Hillman

What happens if you are role playing in Mythic Europe at around 1100 AD and your character manages to procure a Viking Longship and sail across the Atlantic? North America was discovered by Leif Erikson after all, not Columbus. the Viking colony in Vinland didn't last, but then player characters might change that history, by sailing further south along the North American coast than the Vikings ever ventured. There was some interaction between Europe and North America in the times before Columbus. What would happen if the Player characters decide to sail down the coast of North America, past Cape Cod, up the Long Island Sound and onto the shores of Manhattan Island itself?

Here is a map of what Manhattan would look like before the Europeans came:
https://welikia.org/m-map.php

One can make a D&D map out of this. In my opinion, Manhattan looks a lot nicer without the buildings, but perhaps that's just because I spend a lot of time there being stuck in traffic.

What if the PCs land their longship on the shores of Manhattan, what would they find?

Great point. What they find depends on the level of fantasy and magic in the setting and how deep the historical change-point is. For a "realistic" game, I'd have them meet the Native Americans and I'd research the area to meld reality with adventuring. Perhaps, in 2018, the dominant population would Native American/Viking ethnic blending. Odin's sons might be Thunderbird and Coyote.

If I'm going for something gonzo, NA might look like something out of Thundarr. Filled with powerful sorcerers, strange mutants, and ancient tech. Maybe Princess Ariel's Native people have formed an alliance with Ucla's people?

If I'm going for more traditional DnD, I'd have ancient Native dungeons or ziggurats or earthworks, possibly blend North American and Meso-American history and ideas. Feathered serpents and thunderbirds would replace dragons. Perhaps bubgears or sasquatch crossed over from Asia and stalk the land. Depending on how deep I wanted to explore "good" and "evil" each group would have good reasoning for their enmity.
If I use any "ancient astronaut" theories, maybe orcs or goblins are extraterrestrial in nature. Duergar or Dwarves could take the role of Shaver's Derro.

Or finally, they might find "Manhattan Island" but it's not historically accurate in any way and I just world build from scratch.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Skepticultist

Banned
Banned
Somehow I fail to see what this article wants to say. Maybe its because I have no idea what the author means with "sacred" exactly. Something "sacred" usually means something with a religious meaning or importance. Yet I fail to see how Beowulf or Thermopylae would be considered sacred. "Mythic" might have been the better word.

That's because "sacred" is an extremely wishy-washy, vague term that has no specific or concrete action. Like the statement "The magic would be subtle and beautiful and full of mystery." This is poetic, but completely ungameable. Nobody, not even SMHWorlds, really knows what it means or how it would translate into gameplay.

Also I disagree that a campaign about Tribes in North America necessarily have to be very spiritual. Like with the druid in D&D the spirituality can be mentioned but take a backseat to exploring, diplomacy/politics or warfare among the tribes.

I think it's reductive and plays dangerous close to the Noble Savage stereotype. I live inbetween two different reservations, and Native Americans are the second largest ethnic group after whites, and while it would probably be wrong to assume too much about pre-colonial natives from their modern ancestors, I can say with quite a bit of assurance that Native Americans are people, and like all people, some of them are spiritual and some of them are profane, some of them decent people and some of them are degenerates. There are industrious, honest, hard-working natives, and there are lazy, dishonest and criminal natives -- just like white people. I strongly, strongly suspect that this has always been the case.

In the old days, one could just let their imagination run wild and recklessly mix whatever nonsense from TV, movies, books, fantastical or historical you might recall to create one's own story about another culture. Today, surveying other cultures, particularly non-European cultures, is like walking through a minefield of cultural sensitivities. The recent discussions regarding Chult, Oriental Adventures, and native Americans demonstrate that you really need to do your research lest you run offend representatives of these cultures. My recommendation is that unless you have ready access to a Ph.D in the culture in question you just stay well away. Make up your own culture and make sure it's not really a front for an Earth culture.

The thing is, you don't actually have to give a rat's ass about other people getting offended. If you're some kind of content creator, selling a product on the market then you might need to care, but if you're just a DM running a home game for friends then the only people you have to worry about offending are the people at the table. And my experience is that while the pathologically offended are extremely common online and seem to exercise undue influence, in real life those people are few and far between, and lack any real authority. But I mostly quoted you to compare your statement with this:

The purpose of the Journey to... articles is really three fold
1. To open up players to potentially other cultures and mythologies for their play

And yet, these articles do the exact opposite of that. They assume that everyone is an ignorant racist who will cause disrespect, and create undue anxiety over using other cultures as the base for their play. All of these articles are written from the modern liberal progressive viewpoint, and that viewpoint is extremely judgmental and prone to self-righteousness -- and that becomes especially true the more trivial the subject matter being discussed. When you have liberal progressives opinioning on pop culture, there is a very strong tendency to make mountains out of molehills.

If you want to set a campaign in a pre-colonial America among native tribes, and you want to use Hiawatha from the 1E Deities & Demigods book, but you want to also say that he's a famous dragonslayer because you've decided that Native American warriors taking down dragons is awesome (and it is), then that's okay.

And if someone gets offended because of it, then that's their problem. That's them thinking that "respect" means doing things the way they imagine them, thinking "respect" means ceding power and authority to them and their self-righteousness. You don't actually have to care about their opinions. They certainly don't care about yours.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
I do apologize, it was thoughtless, not malicious.

However, I'd like ask about your role in choosing articles? My central complaint is that we've had an article saying Oriental Adventures aren't appropriate and a spotlight of a Oriental-inspired setting for DnD 5E.

Do these articles reflect the opinions of this site? If not, would you consider a statement like that in each article?

I'm genuinely curious.

Probably another one best for Meta, or this will get totally derailed.
 

We are not discussing history in its entirety, only a facet of it as put forth by the topic of the article.

I agreed with your implication that "stories" or "tropes" are not phenomenon unique to White Europeans. Human beings have waged war against one another since the beginning of civilization, and so, I also agree with your point that there are plenty of examples of one civilization conquering another. But in the context of this article, and now in this thread, we are discussing a specific people and how "stories" or "tropes" were used as a basis for their decimation. You may feel that what Native Americans experienced is "nothing especially unique", but I would guess that some Native Americans would beg to differ.

I am deeply aware of the decimation that Native Americans went through, however, I would hazard that nearly every ethnicity has histories that they are certain are filled with similar atrocities. Look at Australia's Aboriginal experience, how Native South and Central Americans fell to the Spanish, the history of the Polish, Rome's presence in England, the Jewish plight throughout recorded history, Japan's treatment of China, etc.

I think we should be aware of history to avoid making the same mistakes. I am certain that Native Americans are rightfully distrustful of the U.S., personally though, I don't think that attitude is reinforced as much by "tropes" as it is by past and present living conditions.

Some of us feel there is some kind of "Though Police" warning everyone not to utilize a foreign culture, except possibly to showcase it's positive traits. Every culture, every society has crime and dark points. Most of us play adventurers who, essentially, kill things and take their stuff. We are those culture dark points in many ways.

IMO, these articles are looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. If we are to believe social media right now, if you live in the U.S. you are either communist or fascist, which simply isn't true.
 

Skepticultist

Banned
Banned
I am deeply aware of the decimation that Native Americans went through, however, I would hazard that nearly every ethnicity has histories that they are certain are filled with similar atrocities. Look at Australia's Aboriginal experience, how Native South and Central Americans fell to the Spanish, the history of the Polish, Rome's presence in England, the Jewish plight throughout recorded history, Japan's treatment of China, etc.

Or just consider the fact that many American's ancestors came to America because they were forcibly driven off their own lands during the period of European land enclosures. People frequently forget that a significant number of the early colonists came here not by choice, but because it was their only option, and many of them came here in bondage.

Some of us feel there is some kind of "Though Police" warning everyone not to utilize a foreign culture, except possibly to showcase it's positive traits. Every culture, every society has crime and dark points. Most of us play adventurers who, essentially, kill things and take their stuff. We are those culture dark points in many ways.

And this right here is the real problem. If you want to tell stories set in a pre-colonial America, you need bad guys. And if you're willing to overlook the problem that horses came to the Americas from Europe, one group that makes for great enemies is the Comanche (who didn't technically exist before the colonial era, but whatever). The Comanche were pretty much hated by everyone who ever met them. Even the name "Comanche" comes from the Ute word for "enemy." When the US Army came into conflict with the Comanche, pretty much every neighboring tribe sided with the US Army (who were not well liked themselves) against the Comanche, because the Comanche were basically real serious :):):):):):):)s. There were vicious, brutal and extremely effective raiders who terrorized anyone in range of their vast territory, and thanks to their horses, their range was impressive.

They'd make a great enemy tribe, or basis for an enemy tribe, in a Native American RPG. Of course, you might piss off some of the Comanche's modern descendants, but so what? If you were running a game set in Dark Ages Ireland, a natural Bad Guy would be Viking raiders, and you might offend some Scandinavians if you present those vikings as vicious, bloodthirsty monsters who rape, pillage and destroy. But you know, maybe if they don't want to get that sort of treatment, they should have nicer ancestors.

Likewise, the Aztecs make great Bad Guys, what with the mass ritual slaughters and the enslaving of neighboring tribes. Sure, it's going to offend some people, but again, you want to get offended, maybe don't have ancestors who cut people's hearts out.
 

MoonSong

Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
Likewise, the Aztecs make great Bad Guys, what with the mass ritual slaughters and the enslaving of neighboring tribes. Sure, it's going to offend some people, but again, you want to get offended, maybe don't have ancestors who cut people's hearts out.

I know you want to be tongue in cheek, but I still feel like you aren't really caring about the finer points. For starters, yes Aztecs performed ritual sacrifice, but no, it wasn't a massive thing. Procuring victims for ritual sacrifice was a ritual on itself, there is no way any empire back then could have procured enough people to sacrifice them on an industrial scale. There's been a lot of exageration about the number and frequency of human sacrifice. Besides almost every tribe back then performed it on some degree, there were even pseudo-wars fought with the express purpose of procuring possible sacrifices for both sides of the encounter. Even if it was only something done by the "oppresors" the Aztecs weren't the sole rulers of the empire, it was an empire ruled by an alliance of three city-states, only one of which was Aztec, the other two were the Alcohuas and the Tecpanecs both of which performed human sacrifice. And again most tribes back then engaged in human sacrifice to some degree so it wasn't seen as barbaric. Heck we are talking about a civilization that considered capturing enemies alive as the mark of a good warrior, and instead someone who killed enemies right and left was seen as a savage and unskilled. Their legal system was quite developped and rivaled modern courts. They had universal education for all children. They put a lot of emphasis on honor and the rules of war.

Like I said on Journey to Mesoamerica, society back then was extremely orderly, with most people never leaving the lands of their clan in their life. That society wouldn't see what we know as adventurers as something good, not even something normal. In fact they would be most likely seen as the bad guys, deliberately disturbing the harmony and balance of the world.

Yes, other peoples saw the Triple Alliance as oppressors for the onerous tributes they forced them to pay and for taking away their independence -yes they conquered, but didn't take the whole population as slaves-, but they weren't the bad guys more than the Romans would have been, and wouldn't have been seen as bloodthirsty barbarians -except at the very begining when they were still fresh from their nomadic roots as they were the last of the nahuatlaca tribes to arrive to the Central Basin-.

Oh and an important source of the exaggeration about human sacrifice? Turns out gullible tourists are more generous with tips the higher ther death toll. Tourist guides just tell them what they want to hear in order to earn better tips.
 
Last edited by a moderator:



I know you want to be tongue in cheek, but I still feel like you aren't really caring about the finer points. For starters, yes Aztecs performed ritual sacrifice, but no, it wasn't a massive thing.

Are we defending human sacrifice? I understand studying it and seeking to understand their customs and practices, knowledge is power and understanding history is important, but human sacrifice should be something that we can agree is not socially acceptable. It can also form the basis of a custom of an enemy in a fantasy RPG setting.
 

Skepticultist

Banned
Banned
I know you want to be tongue in cheek, but I still feel like you aren't really caring about the finer points.

That's because you are entirely 100% correct: I do not care about the finer points. If I'm using the Aztecs as bad guys, I'm not going to be running them as "historically accurate." I'm going to increase the number of skulls used in their art ten thousand fold, I'm going to have them enslaving people by the thousands, and there is going to be literal rivers of blood flowing out from their temples. Because, you know, BAD GUYS.

I've been running games for 30 years, and if I have learned anything, it's that the finer points don't matter. I have never, in my entire life, encountered a gaming group that was interested in a detailed exploration of the finer points of any culture. In fact, I generally consider myself to have done a great job as a DM if I can make a strong enough impression on the players that they remember the name of the country they are in, or the town they just saved, or an NPC they met last session.

I mean seriously, the last campaign I ran was set in a "Persian" city (not actually Persia though, since my campaigns are not set on Earth), which was emphasized in every possible way, and exactly one of my five players clued in to that enough to actually give his character a "Persian" sounding name. I ended up with a party that had a native "Persian" character named "Rutger." As is Rutger Hauer. That's what real DMs who run real games have to deal with.

There is no way that the average DM running a game for the average group of players is going to get those players to do enough reading to really comprehend a foreign culture (and I include medieval European cultures in that) on anything but the most superficial level. That comes far too close to being homework. You might be able to get the whole party together to watch Apocalypto and then be able to say to your players "The bad guys are the Aztecs, like in Apocalypto, except even more heavy metal."

And that's going to be entertaining and fun in a way that the "respectful" approach being advocated in this article simply never will be. That's what the people writing and commissioning these articles just don't get. What y'all are advocating for is incredibly boring gameplay -- at least it is for most people.

What's really frustrating about this debate is that before the argument even begins, you people have defined the terms in such a way that you think you can't lose. It's all about the word "respect," which is being completely misused and abused in this debate. You guys say "respect" when what you really mean is "in accordance with our imagining of how things should be done." What you don't get is that using Aztecs as bad guys or presenting Hiawatha as a dragonslayer is not "disrespect," it's just having fun with historical concepts.
 

Remove ads

Latest threads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top