D&D General "Red Orc" American Indians and "Yellow Orc" Mongolians in D&D

[MGibster]

It's not about one person and never has been, that's the thing, that's the point I was trying to illustrate re: Halflings.

Of course not. But by extension, I don't always care when a lot of people are offended by something.

And it's also worth noting that most of the time, it doesn't matter - it's only with indigenous or otherwise-abused minority cultures it's likely that you're going to have to think hard about (that an importing literally sacred stuff that's highly specific, not metaphorically sacred stuff).

Yes, and what's an abused minority changes based on context. It's a bewildering and difficult thing to keep up with which is to be expected because people are complicated. It's also best to think of showing respect as a process rather than a simple task with an end goal.

 

[CleverNickName]

Welcome to the downside of today's political zeitgeist. You can use real world cultures if you take sufficient care, but it's a series of someone elses who determine if you've taken sufficient care. And they may not agree.
Good luck.

I get what you're saying, about how this isn't a simple task and it should never be taken lightly. I agree.

But it doesn't take graduate-level studies in cultural anthropology to see that the tropes and stereotypes in GAZ10 (for example) are problematic and offensive now, and were problematic and offensive at the time they were written. This level of disregard wasn't an accident. The people who are offended by it aren't picking nits.

 

[Mirtek]

English people is the answer. Right out of Tolkein's own mouth. So, if you're saying "They're not good enough for mighty culture!", what do you think you're saying? Hmmm.

He's saying exactly what he's saying. That in his eyes they are not good enough for mighty culture. If some english guy thought different and the general english public agrees with him, that's a matter for the english and other countries are free to disagree with that.

Yes, one person may have a strange opinion of halflings, but if it's not commonly-held, it doesn't really matter.

And which opinion is the odd one out and which is the commonly-held can vary drastically from country to country

 

[Malmuria]

The theory is that by hiring cultural consultants they can avoid this.

I'm somewhat sceptical because there's no guarantee that two different people from the same minority group will actively agree about content. I've read accounts of journalists getting into trouble for articles and people blasting them for not using sensitivity readers when they insist that they did use sensitivity readers.

Which is not to say they should not be used, but they are not a cure-all and independent creators may not have the funds to pay them.

I think it's more the larger companies that ought to worry about hiring cultural consultants and/or sensitivity readers. If independent creators are worried about their use of real world cultures or other issues, they are probably already more sensitive to those as they are designing their product, and if they work with editors or play testers, are more likely to find people who are likewise aware of potential issues. In fact, larger companies like wotc could learn here by hiring designers and editors who are already sensitive to potential issues. (For example, Tomb of Annihilation received some criticism when it came out (though it's still a broadly popular book, so I don't think the criticism really hurt their bottom line). The linked article contains the line, "When I asked, Perkins said that no black writers or consultants worked on Tomb of Annihilation." Wotc certainly has the resources to fix that!).

I'd also make a distinction, subtle as it might be, between preventing offense and preventing harm. Preventing offense strikes me as something that, again, larger companies are concerned about. Wotc or Paizo wouldn't want bad press, or twitter controversies, because those are bad for their bottom line and bad for their brand. Independent creators, on the other hand, have smaller audiences. In the case of ttrpgs, that audience might very well be under 100 people. In that case, creators maybe have a better picture as to who is playing their game, and their games are not likely to elicit much response, if any, online (either positive or negative). But also those creators might be more concerned with preventing harm--making sure the people who read and play their games are comfortable and don't feel invalidated by, say, real-world analogues or by inappropriate representations of disability.

Moreover, a mindset of preventing harm would recognize that it's an ongoing process, and if you mess up and people notice that's not a bad thing ("bad press" etc) but a chance to learn and do better. I think when you approach these issues with that mindset you earn a lot more credit from audiences. And then it also becomes more about listening to your readers rather than paranoia about people "getting offended."

 

[Malmuria]

Welcome to the downside of today's political zeitgeist. You can use real world cultures if you take sufficient care, but it's a series of someone elses who determine if you've taken sufficient care. And they may not agree.
Good luck.

That's always the relationship between creators and audiences though? For a long time in the United States, white performers donning blackface was acceptable and normal (because the people they were mocking had little power to do anything about it). Then it was only acceptable in certain circumstances. And then it just wasn't acceptable at all.

 

[MGibster]

But it doesn't take graduate-level studies in cultural anthropology to see that the tropes and stereotypes in GAZ10 (for example) are problematic and offensive now, and were problematic and offensive at the time they were written. This level of disregard wasn't an accident. The people who are offended by it aren't picking nits.

Is anyone here actually defending GAZ10 though? I think we have near universal agreement in this thread that this is a bad and offensive product. The main disagreement seems to revolve around what WotC should do with GAZ10.

 

[CleverNickName]

Is anyone here actually defending GAZ10 though? I think we have near universal agreement in this thread that this is a bad and offensive product. The main disagreement seems to revolve around what WotC should do with GAZ10.

No, nobody is defending GAZ10. I pointed it out as an extreme example. I'm suggesting that as long as writers aren't trying to do similar work, they won't have to worry about groups of people having a similar response.

As for what WotC should do with GAZ10? They've already done everything they should, in my opinion.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's a bewildering and difficult thing to keep up with which is to be expected because people are complicated.

It really isn't. That's incredible hyperbole.

Getting everything right takes some effort, but getting the basics right does not unless you intentionally close your ears to a lot of stuff. It's certainly not "bewildering" in my opinion if you have an open mind and ears. Why do you say it is? You don't have to be continuously aware of everything, just adaptable, willing to do a fairly limited amount of research, and so on.

And which opinion is the odd one out and which is the commonly-held can vary drastically from country to country

I feel like this is a bad-faith argument, because I don't think you or anyone else believes @Yaarel is representative of Scandinavians here, nor are they an oppressed culture in any way, shape, or form.

Welcome to the downside of today's political zeitgeist. You can use real world cultures if you take sufficient care, but it's a series of someone elses who determine if you've taken sufficient care. And they may not agree.

@Yaarel's position means that he can never use "real world cultures", given the standard he's applying.

I don't hold the same position.

 

[MGibster]

It really isn't. That's incredible hyperbole.

It's not always easy navigate. The Boston Museum of Fine Arts were blindsided by those who protested their kimono exhibit back in 2015 that giving patrons an opportunity to wear a replica of the kimono in Claude Monet's "La Japonaise" and have photos taken in front of the painting. This exhibit didn't offend the Japanese, some of whom were confused by the protests thinking they originated with anti-Japanese sentiment. That wasn't it of course, the protest originated with Asian Americans who felt as though the exhibit was an example of white supremacy, Orientalism, and encouraged cultural appropriation. 2016's Great Wall got some flak because a lot of people thought it was an example of Hollywood white washing when Matt Damon was cast in one of the leading roles. Never mind that a Chinese company produced the movie and they wanted Damon in what they said was a role not meant for a Chinese actor. So, yes, I think sometimes it is complicated and difficult to navigate.

I feel like this is a bad-faith argument, because I don't think you or anyone else believes @Yaarel is representative of Scandinavians here, nor are they an oppressed culture in any way, shape, or form.

I'd rather you simply stop engaging me rather than accuse me of making a bad faith argument. Because that's pretty darn rude.

 

[Yaarel]

@Yaarel's position means that he can never use "real world cultures", given the standard he's applying.

I don't hold the same position.

I am a D&D fan. I want D&D to be able to represent reallife cultures, especially for settings that are historically accurate or mythologically accurate.

Moreover, I like how Japanese sensitivity consultants seem to have moreorless green-lit the 5e Samurai archetype and the near-future Kamigawa "Neon Dynasty" setting for MTG.

I want D&D to be able to do this kind of thing.

But it is difficult to represent well a reallife culture.



Certain rules of thumb seem obvious. If one is ignorant about someone elses culture, then dont represent it or appropriate from it.

Similarly, dont use a reallife cultural term if one has no intention to use it accurately or sensitively.