D&D General The Rakshasa and Genie Problem

[BookTenTiger]

Exactly! "This monster has a rich and extensive history, dating back to 500 BCE, and this one exists because Gary Gygax looked at a plastic monster, thought it looked really weird, and decided to make it one of the most iconic monsters of D&D ever."

That is one of the really fun things about D&D!

In fact, I'm surprised we haven't wound up with more modern monsters like the Jersey Devil or Sasquatch!

 

[BookTenTiger]

This is the issue we get with D&D Core having a pseudo-setting rather than being a base game. Citing mythology at this point would be 'out of character' for the voice of the monster manual.

It's a great idea, but D&D would have to re-center itself to make it happen.

Oh it would absolutely take a re-centering! I have long thought that the pseudo-setting of D&D leads to many of the challenges, despite the benefits of promoting homebrewed settings.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I haven't read every post in the thread, just to warn folks.

One thing I did really like was the idea of WotC citing sources or discussing the cultural origins of monsters in the Monster Manual. Not only would it show due diligence, but it would also be interesting. Some posters have mentioned how much they have learned about other cultures, religions, and mythologies from D&D.

If the Monster Manual had a little section on "Djinn in Mythology" or "Orcs in Literature" or whatever, it might be an interesting way to add some cultural acknowledgements to the text. It would also be helpful to have a "Djinn in Forgotten Realms" or "Djinn in Your Campaign" section, but that might get a little too page-heavy!

Not going to lie, I would buy a whole new book if it were just a list of every monster in the monster manual and citing the sources of how they came about in the hobby (from listing primary sources of their origins and an explanation of how they changed when added to D&D, to just explaining where some of the unique D&D monsters, like Beholders, Owlbears, Flumphs, and others were created). A book like that would be awesome if it isn't practical to have it in the Monster Manual.

A “Monster Cyclopedia”, with deeper dives into the history & ecology of the game’s creatures- sans stats- could be a valuable and voluminous tome, indeed,

Perhaps as a website? Or more accurately, a part of WotC’s.

 

[Vaalingrade]

That is one of the really fun things about D&D!

In fact, I'm surprised we haven't wound up with more modern monsters like the Jersey Devil or Sasquatch!

What would you call the Jersey Devil in a world with no Jersey, I wonder?

I've been mucking around recently with making monsters by combining the legend with what it was misidentified with. Like a Cyclophant, a one-eyed mammoth with vertigo-inducing vision, and Sand Griffins, sand 'swimming' griffins that combine griffin with protoceratops.

 

[MGibster]

A “Monster Cyclopedia”, with deeper dives into the history & ecology of the game’s creatures- sans stats- could be a valuable and voluminous tome, indeed,

I could really go for some more "Ecology of" articles because those very often gave me new and interesting ways to use threats from the Monster Manual in my campaigns. But I don't think a game book sans stats is going to be very popular with most D&D fans. I would prefer a slimmed down Monster Manual in the future with a bit more information on how one might use different monsters in their campaign. There are a ton of creatures I rarely use.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Sasquatch

In my game, those are just Bugbears. They're not called "Sasquatches", but they are.

 

[Helldritch]

So a couple ways I see to view this.

A) An Arabic folklore evil spirit in D&D, cool.

B) The most prominent Arabic thing in D&D is structurally a supernaturally evil villain. Because of the Arabic good and bad genies as monsters pool the villain one is naturally most prominent because of their monster role.

C) The most prominent Arabic thing in D&D is structurally a supernaturally evil villain. This structurally connects up to a problematic trope of Arabs as villains.

Mostly I am A, but I also see B and C and would want to be conscious of the issues involved in C in how I use Efreeti in my own games. I've used D&D's normal Arabic themed evil efreeti and gone with Arabic themed City of Brass and Arabic Djinnis. I use a mostly mashup homebrew world which has fantasy Arab areas in it that are decently big deals in world politics and history but usually at least a bit over the border of where I set the action and I have kept a bunch of options open on a lot of specifics. For instance I am going back and forth on adopting in Midgard's Mahorti Dragon empire as part of the Arab areas with no need to make decisions soon as my current campaign is in a distinctly different part of the world.

My biggest personal issue with genies is the wish aspects and how they actually work in a D&D ecology/cosmology power hierarchy narrative type of sense. Most of D&D does a fairly poor job of narratively integrating genies and wish power into the normal D&D power hierarchies.

You got it wrong.
Depicting a part of the mythos of a culture does not portrait members of that culture as evil, bad or downright racist. We are talking about a cultural mythos. It is as if in a game, you would be infering that because there are angels in the game, all christians are parangons of virtue. You are making a false association of ideas here.

If you wanted to describe Arabians in a bad way, you would simply create a culture in your game where all of the members copying that culture would be ready to go boom. That kind of thing would not only raise my eyebrows, but my ire as nothing can be further from the truth.

Nothing can and should prevent you to improve on your representation of the Arabic culture. But do not claim that D&D is doing something that it isn't. Yes, a better representation would do no harm. But as such, the efreeti are not representative of the arabian culture, but a simple part of their mythos. Nothing else.

 

[amethal]

What would you call the Jersey Devil in a world with no Jersey, I wonder?

Well, in Pathfinder they called it the Sandpoint Devil.

I was a bit surprised I'd never heard of the Jersey Devil, despite living close enough to see Jersey on a clear day. Turns out it is in fact the New Jersey Devil ("old" Jersey apparently having been removed from history).

 

[Mordhau]

Well, in Pathfinder they called it the Sandpoint Devil.

I was a bit surprised I'd never heard of the Jersey Devil, despite living close enough to see Jersey on a clear day. Turns out it is in fact the New Jersey Devil ("old" Jersey apparently having been removed from history).

Jersey

 

[amethal]

Jersey

I probably wasn't clear in my post, but that is the Jersey I live 25 miles away from and thought the Jersey Devil was from.