D&D General The Rakshasa and Genie Problem

[Yaarel]

So, this is an issue that I've been thinking about lately, which I first thought of in light of some recent threads of similar topic, and I'm not sure what the solution is. It's pretty unique to D&D, but can come from any fantasy work that borrows its creatures from a lot of different cultures, folklore, and mythologies. The problem that I noticed is in a lot of D&D worlds, especially ones that don't have Fantasy Counterpart Cultures of the cultures that the creatures were borrowed from in the first place, tend to basically evolve into those Fantasy Counterpart Cultures. And this can be a problem, and I think one of the most apparent examples is actually from Eberron: the Carrion Tribes of the Demon Wastes, which are largely populated by Rakshasa.

D&D "borrowed" Rakshasa from Hindu and Buddhist mythologies (they're quite different from D&D Rakshasa), which have been major religions in India and surrounding areas for millennia. And I have no problem with borrowing monsters from other cultures. Giants, Dwarves, and Elves come from Norse Mythology, Satyrs, Nymphs, Minotaurs, Harpies, and Centaurs come from Greek Mythology, Fomorians, most Fey, and Banshee come from Celtic Mythology, Griffons and Sphynxes come from Egyptian Mythology, and I could go on and on. Borrowing monsters, fantasy races, and other aspects of other culture's mythologies and folklore is not the problem. The problem is when the monsters become stand-ins for those peoples in the fantasy worlds. I've mostly noticed this happen to Rakshasa and Genies, but I'm sure it's also happened to other creatures.

And on some level, it makes sense that the creatures that came from other cultures would have the same base culture, especially if they're fairly similar to humanoids. The mythologies and folklore that they came from would probably treat fantasy people as their base culture when writing about them. But there's also examples that don't follow this at all (the Courts of the Feywild don't tend to have Irish stereotypes with them from what I've noticed, Dwarves aren't Vikings, etc), so it clearly isn't a rule. D&D Rakshasas could easily just be another anthropomorphic animal character race (well, maybe then they'd be called Rakasta) while Genies could just be magic people that are trapped in bottles/lamps. They don't necessarily have to have the same culture (or a stereotyped version of it) as the culture they were drawn from. I honestly don't know which is better, which is why I'm creating this thread. For me it feels uncomfortable to have Rakshasa and Genies be fantasy-counterpart Middle-Eastern/Indian people, but I also don't know if just taking the monsters out of their cultural context is cultural appropriation. Is it better to just not use the creatures if you don't have a Fantasy-Counterpart in your world of that culture in the first place? Maybe it would be better to just keep them in Al-Qadim and similar areas of certain D&D worlds instead of having them assumed to exist in most D&D worlds (Eberron, for example)? I honestly do not know the answer, and all of these answers seem a bit uncomfortable to me (at least at the moment).

Does anyone have any suggestions or thoughts?

(I don't want to mark this thread as a (+) thread, because debating the different options and discussing which would be best is the point of this thread, but I do want to keep the spirit. Please, don't threadcrap or troll. Please be sincere in your questioning and not adverse to the base premise. If you don't think these kinds of discussions are necessary or important, just don't participate.)

For me, there is a simple rule.

All cultures are strictly human cultures (often informed by reallife human cultures).

If an elf adopts a Norse culture, if a dwarf adopts a German culture, and if a djinn adopts an Arabian culture, this is good. These creatures are participants in the respective human cultures.

But if all Norse are elves, if all Germans are dwarves, and if all Arabians are djinn, this is bad. This is actually a kind of racism.

The way to stay safe away from this fine line, is to make culture inherently human.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You're... halfway there. It's not necessarily bad that genies reflect back on Arab culture. This can be done well and without being problematic. The problem you have Efreets, who embody a bunch of terrible stereotypes of Arab culture. In this case, it's just particularly egregious.

Again, I don't think this was the OPs complaint. it think the complaint was specific to a setting that has Arabic style genies but no Arab analog. And that is what I was responding to there

 

[Bedrockgames]

I mean, you might have a point there if they were used bad, though Europeans getting European-myth wrong is generally less harmful than someone outside of a group taking it and using it wrongly.

To me it doesn't really matter if it is Europeans or non-Europeans using the trope. I think I would be much more interested in gauging the intent of the trope usage than what it might appear to be on first glance because of optics. I watch a lot of Chinese movies, and they feature a lot of stereotypical western characters. My reaction isn't based on the superficial fact that these are non-Europeans depicting a European character, it is based on assessing it in a multilayered way (something I don't think often happens in these discussions).

 

[Voadam]

I mean, people who know something of India? It depends on the portrayal, per OP. If anything, you could probably push for a revamp of the Rakshasas given that the D&D version are not exactly the same as they are in Hindu myth. Or more accurately, they're inspired by an episode of Kolchak.

I am really glad Gary had his Q&A thread on here.

Before asking him about the origin of the Rakshasa holy crossbow bolt vulnerability (it didn't match up to anything I had read about Rakshasas outside of D&D) I had never heard of Kolchak the Nightstalker. I later watched the whole series on Netflix and really enjoyed it.

It was really nice to be able to interact with Gary a bit.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Several projects have been put on hold, retooled, or stopped because of this, yes. Often when they launch a Kickstarter or preview art and get called out on Twitter.

I mean, I would like to think that someone pointing out things wrong with the art might be a good thing, so that it can be changed before it's in print. If it's being retooled, it sounds like that's good!

Again, I don't think this was the OPs complaint. it think the complaint was specific to a setting that has Arabic style genies but no Arab analog. And that is what I was responding to there

I mean, it's half-there given that he does say that they are often bad stereotypes of it. It's part of the problem of having them and not having an Arab culture: you get the ridiculously stereotyped version. But again, I think OP was being fairly generous with the question and I think it's a good discussion to have. We should work through these feelings and ideas, because I think it helps us understand better.

To me it doesn't really matter if it is Europeans or non-Europeans using the trope. I think I would be much more interested in gauging the intent of the trope usage than what it might appear to be on first glance because of optics. I watch a lot of Chinese movies, and they feature a lot of stereotypical western characters. My reaction isn't based on the superficial fact that these are non-Europeans depicting a European character, it is based on assessing it in a multilayered way (something I don't think often happens in these discussions).

It's a power-differential. In America, where you are the dominant culture, it matters less of how you are portrayed. But if you are minority and you see your culture portrayed in a certain way, it can have a much larger effect. I mean, I think that's the point @Umbran was trying to make earlier.

I am really glad Gary had his Q&A thread on here.

Before asking him about the origin of the Rakshasa holy crossbow bolt vulnerability (it didn't match up to anything I had read about Rakshasas outside of D&D) I had never heard of Kolchak the Nightstalker. I later watched the whole series on Netflix and really enjoyed it.

It was really nice to be able to interact with Gary a bit.

For whatever reason Peacock Premium has infiltrated my YouTube recommendations and just giving me constant Columbo clips. Which isn't a bad thing because those are generally fun mysteries, but just reminded me of it because Peacock also recommends a bunch of Kolchak to me after I watch an episode.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Can you point to an example of pablum being produced? Like, do you have a good example of something being so watered down that it didn't stand up? I know the new Zakara supplement on GM's guild got a lot of good will. Was that pablum? Mwangi Expanse got rave reviews; was that watered down in some way?

Like I said before, because this is such a heated conversation and because a call out culture exists in parts of the gaming community, I wouldn't want to single out a product. Especially since I design stuff too, and that means anyone I single out is a competitor, so it just isn't responsible for me to do that, knowing it might say shape the purchasing habits of anyone who is a fan of my stuff (my fanbase isn't huge, but I wouldn't want to influence them out of buying something because I happen to find it pablum, especially when a lot of different people work on an RPG book, not just designers). Also, pablum is how I would describe some of what I see, but that isn't very objective language. It is negatively charged. So let me phrase it more like this: there are a lot of products that prioritize a kind of wholesomeness around the key issues being discussed in this thread. And I think that overly wholesome quality, reminds me a lot of the whitbread entertainment I remember from times like the 80s. Nothing wrong with it. I don't begrudge someone making something wholesome. There is definitely value in it and a place for it. But when it is the overriding thing all RPGs or all entertainment must be, it creates an environment where lots of games feel like they are missing rough edges. I definitely see this in RPG books I have bought and read int he also few years (I don't always get to play them, but I do make a point of reading lots new games and supplements so I am aware of what is going on). Obviously this is subjective. I suspect a lot of people in this thread who are taking the position I am, are doing so because they feel they've seen a lot of watered down content. I know I have. I think if your rubric for a good gaming product is how much it cleaves to this paradigm of wholesomeness, then it doesn't really feel pablum to you. But if your rubric is broader, it may.

If I don't respond as much to other posts it isn't that I am ignoring you. But I have already spent an excessive amount of time in this thread today and need to write. So I don't know how many responses I will have a chance to get to

 

[Micah Sweet]

I am really glad Gary had his Q&A thread on here.

Before asking him about the origin of the Rakshasa holy crossbow bolt vulnerability (it didn't match up to anything I had read about Rakshasas outside of D&D) I had never heard of Kolchak the Nightstalker. I later watched the whole series on Netflix and really enjoyed it.

It was really nice to be able to interact with Gary a bit.

It would also be nice to be able to base a monster on a depiction in a TV show and not get jumped on for cultural appropriation.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I mean, I would like to think that someone pointing out things wrong with the art might be a good thing, so that it can be changed before it's in print. If it's being retooled, it sounds like that's good!

If the designer actually wants that, and if they can actually afford to change it that late in the game. A lot of the online criticisms I think are misguided or innacurate, but gain momentum and weight because of the nature of platforms like twitter. I also think it isn't good when people want a book but it doesn't get made because someone online points out things they don't like.

Sometimes people are pointing out things the designer cares about and wants to remove. Sometimes the designer feels they have to remove even if they don't want to. I don't have an issue if they are in agreement with the observation and do it. I have more of an issue when it starts to become the fanbase effectively editing the product (or worse people who aren't even fans of the product shaping its content). I think this isn't limited to this discussion either. This is a problem for all sorts of things (even mechanics), where you can have a too many cooks spoil the broth effect, or every rough edge gets whittled down until it is palatable to everyone, but lacking real flavor).

 

[Bedrockgames]

It's a power-differential. In America, where you are the dominant culture, it matters less of how you are portrayed. But if you are minority and you see your culture portrayed in a certain way, it can have a much larger effect. I mean, I think that's the point @Umbran was trying to make earlier.

And there is a grain of truth to this point. but my problem is it gets very exaggerated, and we also are reductive. We put people into blocks of identity and I don't think that tells the whole story of who a person is. Nor is it a particularly useful measure because it is really hard to determine who speaks for said minority group. Further, prioritizing this really seems to have a negative impact on content, beyond what it was intended to do. In short, I disagree with this concept but I don't think there is time to really get into it today

 

[Voadam]

For whatever reason Peacock Premium has infiltrated my YouTube recommendations and just giving me constant Columbo clips. Which isn't a bad thing because those are generally fun mysteries, but just reminded me of it because Peacock also recommends a bunch of Kolchak to me after I watch an episode.

The dad from A Christmas Story as a monster hunting reporter who nobody believes is pretty fantastic.

Playing in a Vampire game I based a Malkavian pretty heavily on a similar concept background and it was great.