That particular point I made was responding to another poster who made a claim about such things. But I understood your point that you didn't object to borrowing from mythologies. And my criticism of your position is that it still is adding more rules onto how people can creatively engage these things (the idea that if you borrow from a culture but there isn't an analog in the setting that is bad because the monster then serves as a stand in for the culture itself).
Okay. But that's not what my position is. My position is that there is a discussion to be had about what the better kind of treatment of these creatures would be, not making rules for how people can include them in their games. I was solely speaking for me, not trying to impose any sort of moral ruleset on anyone else.
If you don't like that I'm asking questions for my own benefit . . . I seriously do not understand wtf your position is. Because right now it seems like "don't have this discussion" and "you're overreacting, snowflake" (I admit that these are hyperbole, but that's how it's coming across).
Again, if you don't think this thread's discussion is important, you're more that welcome to just not participate in it. Create your own thread about how you don't think threads like this are important. I don't care. However, I do care when that discussion comes into this thread and starts contaminating the discussion that I asked for.
I think the way we are now engaging in this exercise of combing over all the content, finding issues (in this case having a monster with cutlural aesthetics when that culture doesn't exist in the setting), especially when it seems to be framed in a way that takes a moral position about it, that it can be called overreaction.
So . . . my act of thinking about this was an overreaction to you. I'm sorry that I committed some misdeed in the act of thinking about something that came across as iffy to me and creating a discussion around it. In your mind, I crossed a line by the mere act of thinking about something you don't want me to think about and that the discussion should be silenced because of that. From what I can tell, your position is "you overreacted by
thinking about this, so I don't think this thread should exist, and will talk about how I don't think it will exist to try and make sure that the discussion asked for in the OP doesn't happen". Care to correct me on that? Because that's really how you're coming across right now to multiple people.
Oh, and I'm sorry, but you again mischaracterized my position. My OP and subsequent posts took no moral positions and made no stances as to what other people should or shouldn't do in their own worlds. It was solely about what I should do in my own worlds/campaigns.
I think the people that are actually overreacting are the ones objecting to having a discussion about a topic they're misrepresenting.
This point I am unclear on. The premise of the thread seemed to be that if there is an official setting that has a monster, and that monster seems culturally specific, but the culture in question isn't in the setting, that this is a problem because the monster then serves as a stand-in for that culture: and the logical conclusion of that argument would appear to be that D&D shouldn't have such monsters in such settings. Am I incorrect? At the very least it seems to be another layer of consideration that designers need to weigh when making games (and if so, my issue there is we have already created so many considerations it is beginning to feel like you need a degree in media studies or cultural studies to even consider designer RPG content). Perhaps I am viewing this throughs he lens of the orc thread we just had and that is coloring my perception so if you meant something else I am certainly interested in being corrected.
Yes, actually, you are. That was just one of the options I listed in the OP as a way to solve the dilemma I was facing. That's not my position. I was just pointing out that that is a valid position to take on this issue. It's not the one that I subscribe to (as I stated in the OP, I haven't made up my mind yet), and this discussion was meant to talk about the merits and faults of all of the possible options in this dilemma I'm facing.
And, yes, I do believe you and quite a few other posters have/are taking this thread in the wrong way due to recent threads, namely the Orc-based ones. This thread is not about offense, it's not about racism, it's not about changing how any of the books or official settings are written, and it's not about any sense of moral superiority/rules that people should have to adhere to. I really have no idea where you guys are coming up with this nonsense.