WotC Dungeons & Dragons Fans Seek Removal of Oriental Adventures From Online Marketplace

[JEB]

The fact that it doesn't match the one you looked up doesn't make it incorrect. Some of the more basic definitions don't unpack the racist undertones enough to make it obvious to someone who's unfamiliar with Rousseau's writings. Even the definitions you linked to are pretty obviously not Conan either. Barbarians are not by definition anything to do with the 'noble savage'. I think the part you're missing about the definition there is the part about innate goodness and simple-mindedness. So not Conan.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on how "obviously not Conan" those definitions I found are, but OK. So if a character with other traits of the "noble savage" trope isn't innately good or simple-minded, they're not evoking the "noble savage" trope anymore? That seems a lot narrower than the definition applied upthread, which included the Native American characters from The Last of the Mohicans, or the definition that seems to be accepted elsewhere online. But let's go with that.

This sounds to me that if you have a society of Conan types, avoiding any intimation that there's something simple-minded or innately good about that society, that's enough to distinguish it from a society of "noble savages" and no longer evokes the harmful trope. Is that a fair statement? Or is it still too close for comfort?

 

[Fenris-77]

Disecting the consept of the Noble Savage belongs to a 102 postcolonial studies class. The thing we ought to discuss here is weather ethno-cultural borders and gatekeeping is a constructive way to create an inclusive and epistemologicaly sound RPG community. I don’t think so.

By 'dissecting' do you mean correctly using a basic definition? Because that's where we're at here. It only came up because someone upstream used the phrase unaware of its baggage. Subsequent to that some other people proved conclusively that they didn't grok the concept by positing Conan as an example. Anyway, if you want to indulge in some interpretive lens ballet by all means, I'm your Huckleberry, but let's not raise the hue and cry of over-analysis unless it's actually the case.

We can also discuss whether objecting to stereotyping is indeed ethno-cultural gatekeeping, if that's your party, since it's not obvious or given that it is. I'm not sure what you're envisioning when you talk about an epistemologically sound RPG community though. Are you talking about a Kantian attempt to understand the conditions of the possibility of human understanding? Or perhaps about whether we can justify our conclusions by an appeal to sensory experience? Or even a reasonable attempt explain the ways in which interests affect our evidence, and affect our rational constraints more generally? Epistemology covers a lot of ground. Pick you weapon and I'll happily meet you in the street at high noon.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yeah, I have to laugh (and cry internally) whenever some person on the internet complains that "x" new Star Trek show is pushing a liberal agenda. It's like, have you even watched any of the previous Star Trek series?

Old trek makes you think, new trek tells you what to think.

It's more preachy which just outright annoys people.

Would you rather read Bible stories or have the Jehovah Witnesses preach to you? It's not what you say but how you say it.

Bigger problem is when the story suffers so the show can preach.

You can have a progressive type show that still tells a good story (Sense8 for example). Shawshank Redemption gets it's point across while also being a good movie.

Noble Savage was applied to numerous cultures the 2E kit is just Savage and isn't tied to anything in particular (and was 30 years ago).

In 1997 I spent some time with Maori in an army barracks. I had done D&D books in me and they liked the representation more than than the purity test. As long as they made a reasonable effort without being insulting.

Context they statted out Taniwha in Dragon along with Taiha, mere, patu and various other Maori weapons.

It's like the Moana movie. Fails some purity tests but the Polynesians here love it (probably not all of them).

So yeah you could run a Polynesian themed game in 2E with material from various books.

 

[Fenris-77]

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on how "obviously not Conan" those definitions I found are, but OK. So if a character with other traits of the "noble savage" trope isn't innately good or simple-minded, they're not evoking the "noble savage" trope anymore? That seems a lot narrower than the definition applied upthread, which included the Native American characters from The Last of the Mohicans, or the definition that seems to be accepted elsewhere online. But let's go with that.

This sounds to me that if you have a society of Conan types, avoiding any intimation that there's something simple-minded or innately good about that society, that's enough to distinguish it from a society of "noble savages" and no longer evokes the harmful trope. Is that a fair statement? Or is it still too close for comfort?

Barbarians aren't noble savages. You also completely elided the part about inherent goodness and everything else other than simple-mindedness. The idea of 'people untouched by civilization' for someone like Rousseau meant ignorant an uneducated. Once you smear on some casual racism you get simple-minded. Conan misses the boat in more than just that one way though, pretty obviously. He's not inherently good, nor is he free of the corrupting influences of civilization, rather the opposite in fact. Anyway, we can move on.

 

[Dire Bare]

Serious question: Does not the barbarian class in D&D basically evoke the "noble savage" trope? They are pretty heavily based on Conan.

Yup.

EDIT: To add . . .

Looks like I responded after a bit of back-and-forth on the good ol' noble savage.

There is no single true definition or description of any stereotype, like most things boundaries and meanings shift over time and in context.

The D&D barbarian is largely modeled after Conan, but is not solely modeled after him. And in the decades of D&D evolution, the barbarian has gobbled up other stereotypes and tropes. The D&D 5E barbarian does include the DNA of the noble savage, but a lot more also.

Is the class archetype problematic? I think so, others do as well. How best to deal with it? I don't know . . .

 

[Fenris-77]

Yup.

They really aren't though. There's some overlap in the Venn there, but the missing bits are key. No inherent goodness, or ignorance. Plus the the whole berserker rage thing is completely out.

 

[Dire Bare]

They really aren't though. There's some overlap in the Venn there, but the missing bits are key. No inherent goodness, or ignorance. Plus the the whole berserker rage thing is completely out.

Disagree. (sorry, I went back and edited my "yup" post, probably should have just made a new post) To continue, the D&D barbarian isn't 100% noble savage and nothing else, but the DNA of the troubling stereotype is in there.

To bring it back to race, ethnicity, and culture . . . . I don't have a problem with the D&D barbarian being used to model Conan types, or pseudo-Celtic warriors or pseudo-Norse warriors . . . not that it accurately does so by any means. Maybe this should make me uncomfortable . . .

But the noble savage stereotype is most often applied to indigenous peoples encountered by European colonialists. I always cringe when the D&D barbarian is used to model pseudo-Native American warriors, pseudo-Polynesian warriors, pseudo-Mongolian horde warriors, etc, etc . . . .

 

[Zardnaar]

Disagree. (sorry, I went back and edited my "yup" post, probably should have just made a new post) To continue, the D&D barbarian isn't 100% noble savage and nothing else, but the DNA of the troubling stereotype is in there.

To bring it back to race, ethnicity, and culture . . . . I don't have a problem with the D&D barbarian being used to model Conan types, or pseudo-Celtic warriors or pseudo-Norse warriors . . . not that it accurately does so by any means. Maybe this should make me uncomfortable . . .

But the noble savage stereotype is most often applied to indigenous peoples encountered by European colonialists. I always cringe when the D&D barbarian is used to model pseudo-Native American warriors, pseudo-Polynesian warriors, pseudo-Mongolian horde warriors, etc, etc . . . .

2E had the most representative barbarian. The Polynesian inspired one could shapeshift into turtles.

They weren't ragers except for one kit.

 

[Fenris-77]

Not enough of it to say 'the Barbarian class is a representation of the Noble Savage', because it isn't. The NS is a pretty particular thing, despite the fact that the phrase gets bandied around a lot by people who use it to mean all manner of things. There are some potentially troubling stereotypes lurking in the Barbarian class, but I suspect if you wanted to use a historical comparison in the same vein as the NS you'd be better off looking at the subsequent 19th century stereotype of the brutal savage.

The NS as an idea is that the savage, because of separation from culture (specifically 18th century European culture), represents the inherent goodness of humans, hearkening back to Adam and Eve before they stole the fruit salad. It really doesn't bear that much resemblance to the Barbarian class.

Part of the problem here is that there are many overlapping and mutually informative stereotypes that rely on the othering power of the charge of being without, or outside, culture. Even the word barbarian itself is an othering term that comes from the unintelligibility of some foreign speech to the ancient Greeks. You need to employ some nuance here and not try to fit too much into a small box.

 

[MGibster]

Is the class archetype problematic? I think so, others do as well. How best to deal with it? I don't know . . .

I think the above represents a radical departure from the attitudes of the D&D player base at large in regards to the barbarian class. If a player came to me saying they found the class to be problematic all I could do is shrug my shoulders.