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

[Thomas Shey]

Advice is advice.

You're a grown-up. You use your judgement and decide what to do with and whether it's any good. If you're taking a risk, you're taking a risk. You're likely taking a much bigger risk with zero advice, because then you can't even say "But I talked to the people I gave credits to in my book!" (which will get people to judge you more kindly even if you were mislead).

And the sort of people who are very certain they "know better" than to need any advice are exactly the people who need it most.

All fair. I'm just noting that from outside a subgroup, it can be hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It occurs to me you can also run into a case where you're using a cultural/mythological element derived from a particularly culture, and people get really offended by your handling of it--because they think its derived from a different place than it is. There are sometimes similar cultural element that are handled very differently in nearby cultures (the difference between kitsune and kumiho in Japan and Korea respectively comes to mind here, but perhaps more broadly the deva/asura split in Vedic and Zoarastarian religious use come to mind too (though it might be harder to distinguish those if not using the names involved from inspiration).

 

[pemerton]

But that's not to say the idea of a 'monstrous heroes' book is a bad idea.

Isn't the idea that certain peoples/"races" are monstrous the bad idea?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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

You say that using Halfling Vikings is "insensitive", dude, so it's just incredibly hard to take this particular line of argument seriously from you.

 

[Scribe]

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.

There have been recent sports teams who consulted with cultural sensitivity reps, to keep their names.

Then a few years later, changed it anyway when it was socially expedient.

What is fine today, depending upon some number of consultants, could change in a month.

 

[Hussar]

There have been recent sports teams who consulted with cultural sensitivity reps, to keep their names.

Then a few years later, changed it anyway when it was socially expedient.

What is fine today, depending upon some number of consultants, could change in a month.

And this is bad why?

Are we seriously considering that there should be one, final answer to cultural issues? That we deal with it once, and never have to revisit these issues ever again? That's ... not going to happen.

As always, this is a process. It moves in fits and starts and there will be missteps along the way.

IOW, don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Because, frankly, there is no perfect answer here. The answer will always, always be, "good enough for now".

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

Yeah that was pretty funny, I have to admit.

I just don't think it's complicated though, maybe it's my age, or my background or whatever, but I saw that coming a mile off, and it was also easy to dismiss, because they were including Damon in their cheesy popcorn movie for the exact same reason some cheesy popcorn Hollywood movies randomly include a major Chinese star in the last few years. They're trying to cross-market.

Just because someone is mad on Twitter, doesn't mean they're right.

I guess I sort of see your point in kind of a different way, which is, if you doubt your ability to spot when people are being ridiculous, because maybe you've sailed too close to the edge, or really are afraid of doing so, yeah maybe this becomes scarier. Like, if someone tried to tell me Great Wall was whitewashing, yes even Asian person, I could confidently say "That's just like, your opinion, man", because I know enough about what was going on that I have confidence. Whereas I have a bit more sympathy with the kimono people, because even if some people aren't offended, that is being done by Westerners, and it does fit an unfortunate pattern. I don't think I'd have been surprised by that, but I suspect the people who run that art gallery are 20-30 years older than me and/or only really talk to "people like them" (which isn't even really a race thing - it's a social class thing and social circle thing).

I guess for me, like, if you make a long-term effort to understand this stuff, you'll get in tune with it, and you'll become able to spot stuff that:

A) Is obviously bogus or shenanigans, or silly. As with Great Wall.

B) Where you should shut your yap about, and listen, so you can understand. Some of that will be kind of dubious/opinionated, but it's important that you understand and don't just mouth off about it.

C) Is definitely and clearly a problem, and that people deserve support on.

Once you've started, there's no real long-term time-investment, note, it's just stuff you'll pick up. But okay, I do see how if you've never really started with this stuff, it's going to seem a bit intimidating. I wouldn't use "bewildering", but maybe that's just an unusual word choice. I feel like it's a bit close to saying people are being unfair, or that expectations are impossible, and I don't agree with either. But again I see it might be scary at first. Just follow some people on Twitter. Unfollow them if they seem like maniacs, and follow someone else. You'll work it out. Personally I find POCGamer very reliable. He follows a couple of people who are a bit pretentious but most of what he retweets and likes and so on is pretty good.

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

I did not say that to you. You may want to recheck who I was quoting.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

There have been recent sports teams who consulted with cultural sensitivity reps, to keep their names.

Then a few years later, changed it anyway when it was socially expedient.

What is fine today, depending upon some number of consultants, could change in a month.

Let's be real about this.

The original consultation was a bad-faith effort in probably all those cases, because there was an existing goal: retain the name.

Anything else was not what they wanted, and they were paying.

You cannot go into a consultation like that with a goal like that. And in all the cases I'm aware of, they basically knew the name had to be changed and they were just hoping to delay it for a decade or whatever. I think one of the owners literally came out and said something along those lines, like we know we'll have to change it eventually, but maybe in a decade.

They didn't change the names because it was "socially expedient", either, that's not right. That implies they had an option. That implies they were just doing it for kudos. I don't think that's true in any of the cases I'm aware of (correct me if I'm wrong). They did it because they had no real other choice. They'd exhausted their options.

 

[Scribe]

The original consultation was a bad-faith effort in probably all those cases, because there was an existing goal: retain the name.

I think thats a considerably uncharitable take on the situation.

Note: I'm not talking about the Washington Football Team, nor the Baseball teams.

 

[billd91]

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.

Not easy to navigate is right. You saw some of it with the way they picked apart Oriental Adventures as well. Some of the criticism was leveled at things that came right out of Shaw Brothers films. While they may seem stereotypical to Asian-American observers, they were extremely popular among Chinese audiences - MCU or even Star Wars levels of popularity. And that reflects very different agendas. Which one do you seek approval from? Can you get it from both? Will seeking the approval from one alienate the other?