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

[Hussar]

AFAIC, slap a disclaimer on it and we're done. Actually, add in that idea of demonetizing (I first read that as demonizing, TOTALLY different) the books and have any proceeds go to charity.

It doesn't need to be excised from the library of D&D books. That's just unnecessary and frankly won't solve anything. Putting a nice big disclaimer on it lets people know that this is based on some ... less than socially conscious writing and call it a day.

 

[Bedrockgames]

OA is problematic, for me, because it does such a poor job of being what it claims to be - a sourcebook for "Oriental" adventures. If it claimed to be "Adventures in Fantasy Japan" or something like that, I'd have no problems. But, it doesn't. It claims to cover a much broader area.

And, then, it uses, almost exclusively, Japanese language, culture, mythology and tropes....

But, that's exactly what the original Oriental Adventures was. They use Japanese liberally through the book. The races, the classes, the equipment names, the monsters, the setting background, all of it is almost entirely Japanese. So, it's not really a shock that the 5 Japanese play testers didn't see any problems.

This I don't disagree with this particular criticism. I used the OA books (both 2E and 3E) for my D&D wuxia campaigns and the Chinese, Kung Fu and wuxia elements were definitely peripheral (though there are modules and stuff that feature them more prominently). They definitely felt pretty Japanese-centric (which does make sense as it was made at the height of the Ninja craze on the heels of Shogun being popular). I still managed to cobble together enough my purposes to do wuxia (though it did involve reskinning many of the mechanics and finding mechanics, classes and options from other splat books and RPGs).

 

[Lanefan]

It would require time travel. I have the hardcover in my hand!

Add-in for a second printing?

 

[Guest 6801328]

I've found it interesting while promoting our latest book, Mythological Figures & Maleficent Monsters, I've seen a noticeable overlap in people who (a) complain about the concept of cultural appropriation and (b) were really concerned that we might try to stat Jesus in our book (we don't, BTW). It's almost like cultural appropriation is OK until it's one's own culture and then suddenly it's a problem. I'm sure if I "misused" an American flag, they'd be all up in arms.

Legendary Abilities
Slow Death Saves: if you are reduced to 0 HP you only make a death saving throw once per day, rather than on each of your turns.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Is it really useful to insist on using terms like "toxic masculinity" and "patriarchy" when you could use a term like "toxic gender-associated stereotypes" or "systemic injustice of the establishment"? After all, doesn't "toxic masculinity" oppress men and women? Doesn't "patriarch" oppress men and women?

I'm chopping out this section, because while you made some very well articulated points, I could not get this section out of my head.

No, Toxic Masculinity is not about the oppression of women, it is about the oppression of men, which may have blow-back on women, because men are defined by not being women, but the entire point of the term is to talk about the pressures on men.


For example, I remember my only ever trip to San Diego comic-con, I was watching a bunch of panels for my paper that was due (I went for a class on communications) and I was looking into various gender panels. During one of them a famous artist was speaking, I think he was the artist responsible for Vampirella. But, he said something that resonated with me heavily.

He was telling a story of how he had gone to his editor with an idea for an all-female superhero team, way back in the 60's or 70's. And his editor had replied that it was a dead-end idea "Because boys won't read a comic with girl heroes. But girls will read anything."

Sure, there is a component here about women, how they were marginalized as buyers of comics, but that isn't the Toxic Masculinity. The Toxic Masculinity part comes from this idea that was held, and in a lot of ways is still held, that men can't have female role models. They can't have female heroes whom they respect and admire. Ogle sure, but not respect and admire. Which resonates with me, because some of my favorite shows and books have female leads. One of my favorite anime was about a culture club as an all-girls school, and the simple lives and problems of the girls there. It was a great show, but I never told anyone about it. Becuase it was a girl's show, and a guy admitting he watched a girl's show was unthinkable.


And I think, in a way, what is tripping me up with your attempt to say "toxic gender-associated stereotypes" is that they are different things, and need to be approached differently. Which is fine. It is possible to have multiple things wrong, your water can have Uranium and Mercury in it. Both are bad and will kill you, but just saying "heavy metal poisoning" might not be specific enough to get anything done about it, since they need to be approached and treated differently.

 

[MGibster]

I've found it interesting while promoting our latest book, Mythological Figures & Maleficent Monsters, I've seen a noticeable overlap in people who (a) complain about the concept of cultural appropriation and (b) were really concerned that we might try to stat Jesus in our book (we don't, BTW). It's almost like cultural appropriation is OK until it's one's own culture and then suddenly it's a problem. I'm sure if I "misused" an American flag, they'd be all up in arms.

In your case, would using Jesus even be appropriation? Throughout Great Britain you've got cathedrals, churches, kirks, and your monarch is head of the Church of England. Whatever your religion might be, Jesus is certainly a part of your culture. But appropriation is certainly a complex issue. I sure wouldn't use any of the Hindu deities but I'm perfectly comfortable using the Greek and Norse pantheon.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

@AbdulAlhazred - the discussion about chopsticks on the weapon list has been covered pretty expetensively in both threads, so I don't think it needs to be revisted.

As I said - if the complaint is about having cutlery on weapon charts, I think it's not warranted. (1) It's a martial arts film trope. (2) Knives, also cutlery, are on the UA weapon list also.

But if the cojmplaint is about chopsticks on the weapon lilst as a triggering trope - well, that isn't addressed by pointing to knives on the UA list.

And as I said I think the complaint is closer to the second than the first.

Sorry, 66 pages of discussion literally rolled out in the time between my first read of the thread and when I got a chance to post a response to the OP, so I probably skipped it. I'm not even sure what 'other thread' you would be referring to... (maybe the one about what word to use to replace 'race', that one is pretty interesting). So, the complaint is literally that someone wrote something about chopsticks which seemed to be a trope? As I said in another post, I think it most certainly IS a trope! It is a trope IN CHINA, and not even a recent one, it goes back, probably many centuries.

You and I have a pretty long history of agreeing on most things and talking openly about stuff. I ask you, is this literally an issue that you all have that a white man said something about chopsticks????!!!!! I mean, maybe it is so dorky that no Chinese RPG designer would do it, but I suspect some of them would. If so, I again have to wonder at the dubious nature of a 'rule' where certain types of people are told it is unacceptable for them to exercise creativity in a certain way. I cannot be in favor of that, surely not without there being some mitigating factors. Its one thing to say that someone has a phobia of spiders (as I made an example in the race thread). That's not a choice someone has. Our reactions to various cultural things, assuming they don't cross a line into denigration, etc. are a lot more under our control. So, there's a balance here, are you going to deny white guys a chance to say chopstick in their RPG because someone else CHOOSES TO BE OFFENDED by it? Who's got the priority here? Its a serious question! I'm certainly willing to look at it, but there's more work to be done if that's going to fly as some kind of taboo.

On terminology: East Asia is the standard term for referring to those countries and cultures that are in the east of Asia. I don't have a good suggestion for a title for a sourcebook that tries to emulate tropes and traditions from this part of the world in a fantasy context. But that's probably why I'm not paid to be an author of such works.

As far as "the West" is concerned, it's a phrase I do my best to avoid both in writing and teaching. Depending on what exactly is intended I find one of the following tends to do the job: Western Europe; North-western Europe; West and Central Europe; Europe and North America.

Right, so I didn't understand your earlier reference to the frowning upon these geographical terms. While it is true that Europeans have looked down on, and exploited people of other regions in the past, so that the very terms for those regions were sometime seen as derogatory, such as 'Oriental', is that the case today? I think, at least in respect to 'East Asia' things have certainly evolved. I know that there are individuals in Europe/America/wherever who insist on bigotry against 'Orientals' (and pretty much everyone else, they are mostly generalized haters). So, OK, if 'Oriental Adventures' continues to signify that for a group of people, then we should endeavor to find a new set of terminology. I wouldn't personally find 'Eastern Adventures' quite as evocative, but this is the sort of place where I don't have to feel like I'm deprived of something of real value. It is simply one word, of many words, and I stand with people everywhere against hatred, bias, etc.

I have been saying this since my earliest posts in this thread - ie that as best I can tell the complaint is primarily one of cultural appropriation. This is a complaint that no amount of rewriting or disclaimer can resolve, because it goes to authenticity of authorship.

If this is the argument, I think it would be helpful to make it clearer. It's implications for RPGing are obviously at least as significant as for other forms of entertainment media, probably greater because of the imaginitive projection that is so central to RPGing as an activity.

Yeah, I mean, the message virtually seems to be 'stick to your own culture, buddy. This one belongs to other people!' Which TBH makes me bristle! Nobody OWNS a culture, nobody can, nobody should, nobody ever will even if they try. So, it comes back to the question I asked earlier, where is this line?

I mean, I can imagine some things that would give me pause: Suppose a major multinational company took a specific distinctive artistic style used by a small ethnic group and turned it into a multi-billion dollar business. Further suppose this ethnic group had nothing to do with it, and that their own livelihood was in no way improved, perhaps even it became hard for them to sell their own goods. I would not look favorably on that. If you called THAT 'cultural appropriation' then I am going to feel OK about that use of the term. The use is primarily commercial for one, and there is a clear cultural distinction, an imbalance of power, etc. A lot of things seem wrong there to me.

OTOH when some white guys wrote a campy RPG supplement take on a major historical culture who's practitioners number 20% of mankind, have vast economic, political, and cultural clout, and are quite well-equipped to answer with their own spin on this subject matter. I'm a lot less concerned. In fact, I tend to think this is far on the other side of the line where it is simply a somewhat involved cultural reference. This is particularly true when this subject matter actually treats the material with a fair degree of respect in many ways. Nor did this supplement single out said culture(s actually) for some kind of extra silly or humiliating treatment when compared to any others. Fantasy Europe, while I agree it is a bit more expertly handled, is also rife with silly tropes and painfully ridiculous nonsense.

So, if OA is really unacceptable, is Baba Yaga next? How about references to Norse mythology (oh, well, these guys were all in Wisconsin, so they could probably claim to have some Nordic background I suppose...). I mean, horns on the helmets? Really? How silly!

It all feels like a very slippery slope to me. Not someplace to willingly tread. I think WotC is wise to put a disclaimer on OA, as I'm willing to, happy to, want Kwan and others to see that we all really do both take their feelings seriously, and acknowledge that even today there are biases and prejudices out there, not to even get into history. There's plenty of bad old history that we should try to put to rest and get past, so that's cool. I would just rather get on to the time when we need not, any of us, feel like we have anything we need to defend, in our culture or against another.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I've found it interesting while promoting our latest book, Mythological Figures & Maleficent Monsters, I've seen a noticeable overlap in people who (a) complain about the concept of cultural appropriation and (b) were really concerned that we might try to stat Jesus in our book (we don't, BTW). It's almost like cultural appropriation is OK until it's one's own culture and then suddenly it's a problem. I'm sure if I "misused" an American flag, they'd be all up in arms.

I don't doubt that you run into that, Morrus. I personally don't fall into that sort of category. This is just a data point for you. I don't like the term, because the whole argument is bad. Its, AT BEST, a slippery slope kind of thing. I assume you know Mike Meyers, you marketed game material based on Santiago. You know how much lambasting Meyers got for that novel? A LOT! He was raked over the coals for 'cultural appropriation' for daring to write a novel in a style that was evocative of a literary style of another culture (Magical Realism).

I'm interested in your take on that.

 

[Hussar]

So, if OA is really unacceptable, is Baba Yaga next? How about references to Norse mythology (oh, well, these guys were all in Wisconsin, so they could probably claim to have some Nordic background I suppose...). I mean, horns on the helmets? Really? How silly!

Why? Where is the connection here? I mean, I just happen to recently read the 4e take on Baba Yaga (Dungeon 196 to be exact) for my campaign. Where is the appropriation? The legend seems to have been brought into D&D pretty much whole cloth, without any attempt to obfuscate or change where the idea came from.

See, that's where the "Cultural appropriation" arguments go off the tracks. It's perfectly fine to use some culture's trappings or whatnot, so long as it's done respectfully and without any attempt to hide where the ideas come from.

OA is problematic because it paints a picture of "Oriental" which is massively skewed towards Japan and then viewed through the lens of 1980's pop-culture understanding of the history and culture of an incredibly diverse range of peoples. I mean, seriously, WHY THE HECK is a yakuza considered a class? Oh, hey, let's really annoy people and whack a great big rising sun flag on the bottom of page 30. That's not offensive to people at all. ((Little hint, that would be the equivalent of putting a Confederate Flag in a D&D book)) Oh, and let's draw almost exclusively from Japan when talking about armor and weapons, right down to the names. Scanning the book, I can find exactly ONE art piece that isn't pulled straight from a Japanese art history book.

In other words, it's not really cultural appropriation so much as just wildly inaccurate.

 

[Aldarc]

Sure. Why isn't OA an example of diffusion instead of appropriation? It seems to me that China and Japan have eagerly sent their media to the United States for consumption to the point where Kung-Fu warriors and samurai have literally been part of the entertainment landscape my entire life.

I would say that a big part of that involves how OA is packaged as "oriental" and "Far East" fantasy, but the hyper-majority is drawn from Japanese sources as filtered through a Euro-American lens.

Though it does not come from OA, one of the best examples of East Asian cultural appropriation involves a simple piece of art. This was drawn by Samwise Diddler, the art director at Blizzard Entertainment.

What might be wrong with this picture and why might someone with a Chinese cultural background find this photo harmful or objectionable? I'll give you time to think and answer.

Although this is not OA, large portions of D&D OA can come across in a similar manner. But when Samwise was told how this was harmful and offensive, he changed it, and the Pandaren in Warcraft are now inspired by Chinese aesthetics and culture. And here are those characters now:

I would also say that the exchange of media between China, Japan, and the United States has not always been some sort of even exchange. In the 1980s, for example, anime was something so much that was exported by Japan, but, rather, it was something imported or brought over by the United States. Robotech is a fairly infamous example of the United States company Harmony Gold taking a bunch of Japanese series (i.e., SDF-1 Macross, Southern Cross, Genesis Climber Mospeda) and repackaging them as a singular, albeit re-edited, story for American audiences.

I mean, if the term you use to describe a phenomenon is actively offensive to people who aren't familiar with the details of that concept, you should probably change the term.

I don't particularly think that you are presenting a compelling overall argument here, Bacon Bits, and I am not particularly interested in going through a wall of text where you throw a metric ton of loaded terms that require explaining the difference, for example, between why we changed the terms for positions to be gender-inclusive and terms of academic discourse that laypeople are offended about because they are unfamiliar with or haven't engaged the discourse.

If the term itself alienates the very audience you're trying to convince, then you're dooming yourself.

My inner cynic suspects that people would be offended regardless of the term we chose, because the bottom line is that they feel that they are being accused of doing not nice things but they think of themselves as nice people who wouldn't do not nice things. This is also one reason why the "where do you draw the line?" game is pointless, because if we gave the people who are asking this question some crayons to draw where they think the line is and where they are in relation to the line, you can bet that 10 out of 10 times that they will have either not drawn the line or have drawn the line with themselves safely over it. We could call "cultural appropriation" something else like "cultural denigration" and people would still be upset because they would insist that they are not denigrating anything or they would try to relativize it by asking which culture hasn't denigrated another culture in history before so it should be okay that they are also doing it.

Think of it this way. If you dismiss their feelings of being offended by the terms you used, why shouldn't they dismiss your feelings of being offended? Isn't that just a bit hypocritical?

Think of it this way. Whose feelings should take priority, the racist who claims that their feelings are being hurt for being called a racist or the person whose personhood the racist is denigrating? Whose feelings should take priority, the bully who is upset that they are being punished for bullying or the bullied? The argument that you are presenting is trying to equivocate between different sorts of offended people and presenting it as hypocritical to dismiss their feelings, but it's not gonna pass muster under scrutiny. I remember my parents asking my sibling and me, "are you crying because you are genuinely sorry for what you have done or are you crying because you got caught?"

Yeah, but the difference between appropriation and diffusion isn't based on what the individual is doing. It's based on the historical and cultural context of who the person is and whose cultural elements they're using and how they're using them. Just because you're taking or using something from a foreign culture doesn't mean it's offensive. In a general sense, the whole point of culture is to adopt the ideas -- fashion, music, etc. -- that are desirable and to discard those that are not. Information transfer is a core element of culture, and all cultures adopt foreign ideas and incorporate them.

I did not say that taking or using something from a foreign culture is inherently offensive, BaconBits. I even pointed to how this commonly occurs in trans-cultural diffusion. So I would personally have appreciated it if your verbose wall of text could have bothered acknowledged that.

The best explanation of how muddy this topic actually gets that I've seen is this video from Rare Earth. It's only 8 minutes long, but I think it covers a lot of the conceptual problems around both actual harmful cultural appropriation and the problem of calling something out as cultural appropriation.

Having watched it, the video seems mainly about cultural diffusion of imagery with the actual topic of cultural appropriation not really receiving that much attention. And the overall message at the end also seems to be that it's natural for the strong to exploit the weak and for the colonizer to colonize, which is not exactly a good look.

Plus, I would say that the problem with the example that they provide also dovetails into the amount of information available about the subject. What does a lion look like? You don't need an academic book on lions by this point, because we have photographs, zoological parks, and Zoobooks. Remember those? But back in the day? A lot of animals are quite weird when you describe them. I don't think that we have that same sort of excuse of disinformation even back in the 1980s.

But here is another video from PBS on the subject that I would probably trust more:

As I said - if the complaint is about having cutlery on weapon charts, I think it's not warranted. (1) It's a martial arts film trope. (2) Knives, also cutlery, are on the UA weapon list also.

But are forks and spoons on the weapon charts for Occidental Adventures? Or how about frying pans? Using frying pans as a weapon is a trope that we see in films like Indiana Jones (Marion), Tangled (Rapunzel), and Lord of the Rings (Samwise Gamgee). We can probably even find more uses in media of frying pan as a weapon than chopsticks as a weapon. So does "it's a common trope" argument really explain why an improvised weapon is included in one weapon list but the other isn't?