D&D General The Rakshasa and Genie Problem

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

One complication regarding stripping D&D monsters from references to their originating culture is that it reduces the likelihood of people learning about those cultures, if they're so inclined. Looking up the City of Brass, the city of the efreet so often referenced in D&D, led to me learning about a recent Middle Eastern fantasy series called the Daevabad Trilogy, whose first entry is "The City of Brass." The novel description mentions djinn and marids, too, so as a D&D fan who might use genies some day I'm curious how this trilogy depicts them.

EDIT: Maybe an "inspirational reading" section could be tagged on for at least certain monsters?

Yeah, I think that's a fine suggestion. Putting the inspirations for the various D&D monsters in the descriptions or an appendix would be a good thing, IMO.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Yeah, I think that's a fine suggestion. Putting the inspirations for the various D&D monsters in the descriptions or an appendix would be a good thing, IMO.

I know RPG.net had a very interesting thread on the origins of D&D monsters. I learned a lot, such as how the behir may be based on a Scottish monster called the beithir who was said to live in caves or valleys and whose name means "lightning bolt".

 

[Vaalingrade]

Sure. Fine. Do that. No giants unless you have a Norse analog. No Raksasha's without India. No Medusa, Minotaurs, Nymphs or Centaurs without Greece. No Oni without Japan. No Genies without Arabia. No Wendigo without First Nations. No Banshee without Ireland. Cut those monsters right out of the Monster Manual and add them to the appropriate setting supplements and you'll have enough space left in the Monster Manual for multiple detailed cultures of goblins and orcs.

Everything stays in its own box. Everyone is happy.

Is there a monster we can remove to ensure unnecessary slippery slope arguments and hyperbole leaves the game discussion space forever?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Is there a monster we can remove to ensure unnecessary slippery slope arguments and hyperbole leaves the game discussion space forever?

But it does seem like the slope is getting kind of slippery here. I mean it isn't a big leap from genies and rakshasa being an issue for this reason, for monsters with any connection to an existing culture (and most D&D monsters come from some kind of folklore). These conversations started with things like orcs. It seems we are getting into a lot of other areas of the game people now want to change. Personally I think if a person making a game wants to take the approach the OP is talking about, more power to them. Where I have an issue with this stuff is it is becoming very proscriptive (i.e. it is one thing to encourage the kind of design one wants to see, but another to take elements of design you don't want to see off the table for others or to say things need to be a particular way to be okay).

 

[Maxperson]

Sure. Fine. Do that. No giants unless you have a Norse analog. No Raksasha's without India. No Medusa, Minotaurs, Nymphs or Centaurs without Greece. No Oni without Japan. No Genies without Arabia. No Wendigo without First Nations. No Banshee without Ireland. Cut those monsters right out of the Monster Manual and add them to the appropriate setting supplements and you'll have enough space left in the Monster Manual for multiple detailed cultures of goblins and orcs.

Everything stays in its own box. Everyone is happy.

Nope! There are real world mythological goblins, so you'd need to have those cultures represented. And as for orcs, well, you'd need a country of Tolkien fans in order to use those.

 

[Maxperson]

Is there a monster we can remove to ensure unnecessary slippery slope arguments and hyperbole leaves the game discussion space forever?

That slope is already here. First it was orcs. Now it's genies and rakshasa. What's next?

 

[Irlo]

That slope is already here. First it was orcs. Now it's genies and rakshasa. What's next?

What’s next for what? Next for close consideration for thoughtful, deliberate decisions about how to use them in our games? Let’s not stop, please!

 

[Maxperson]

What’s next for what? Next for close consideration for thoughtful, deliberate decisions about how to use them in our games? Let’s not stop, please!

So you admit that the slope is slippery and this will continue? People were yelling slippery slope to shout down those who said during the orc discussions that this would continue to other monsters. Perhaps people should stop trying to shout people down with cries of Slippery Slope.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Oh no! Future RPGs will be more thought out and not just shotgun any and everything at the wall with zero thought!

First they came for racist, colonial stereotypes, then they came for the monsters weirdly orphaned from their culture due to exoticism. Then there was no one left when they came for other examples of ignorance or malice.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

That slope is already here. First it was orcs. Now it's genies and rakshasa. What's next?

Wtf do you think this thread is about? It's a discussion. Yes, we are/have been discussing Orcs, Goblinoids, Drow, Genies, Rakshasa, and other examples on this site recently. The point is to discuss them. If you don't think the discussion is important, don't participate.

There is no slope, because I never said what should be done in the OP. The OP explicitly stated that I don't know the answer and wanted to have a thread to discuss it.

Can we please stop threadcrapping and just discuss the topic? Because, like I said in the OP, if you don't like the topic, no one is forcing you to post. Let others discuss it and just leave it alone.