D&D General The Rakshasa and Genie Problem

[Helldritch]

Again, you can have villains who are coded Arab. However, it's really bad to have said villains be terrible Arab stereotypes.

But an efreet is not an Arab. That is exactly this kind of bad associations that should be avoided. You are taking quite a short cut that would not hold scrutiny.

 

[Justice and Rule]

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.

Okay, so it's wrong to say that D&D and others are just "depicting a part of the mythos of a culture", because a lot of what goes on with genies is just wholesale made-up. For example, the City of Brass is not where ifrits dwell, but is a dead city that is trapped against outsiders. So there are plenty of additions, largely meant to distinguish them from the other kinds of genies (because, largely speaking, there wasn't much to distinguish them outside of being good or evil).

And in trying to put them into a box to distinguish them, we can see the problem: they are the "evil" genies, so they are largely are pastiches of evil Arab tropes because they are meant to be Arab-coded and thus people use the tropes that evil Arabs have normally been depicted with. The logical line is there, the problem is that those tropes are bad and shouldn't be used anymore.

This is why I want to move them out of where D&D has placed them: the whole Plane of Fire needs a rework from a social standpoint. We don't need every elemental plane having genies; it feels weirdly too organized and they all still feel kind of samey. I'd rather Djinn be genies with a broader culture and track to the Elemental Plane of Air, and then create several different races for the other planes. Move Marids and Efreets back to being malevolent spirits closer to their classics (I resist making them demons or devils because I feel like everything has to get into that whole "Bloodwar" thing and the whole weird cosmology of the three different sides in that).

Bit an efreet is not an Arab. That is exactly this kind of bad associations that should be avoided. You are taking quite a short cut that would not hold scrutiny.

I mean, it absolutely does. They are absolutely depicted wearing Arabic-styled clothing and Arab-styled cultures. The City of Brass has Arabesque architecture and it's ruled by a Grand Sultan, for Pelor's sake. And you know what that Sultan's name is? Marrake al-Sidan al-Hariq ben Lazan. To deny that they are being depicted as Arab misses everything about them.

 

[Cadence]

I mean, it absolutely does. They are absolutely depicted wearing Arabic-styled clothing and Arab-styled cultures. The City of Brass has Arabesque architecture and it's ruled by a Grand Sultan, for Pelor's sake. And you know what that Sultan's name is? Marrake al-Sidan al-Hariq ben Lazan. To deny that they are being depicted as Arab misses everything about them.

What kind of new, clothing, and architecture would you use for the rulers of the elemental plane of fire if you got to redo it?

 

[Bedrockgames]

And in trying to put them into a box to distinguish them, we can see the problem: they are the "evil" genies, so they are largely are pastiches of evil Arab tropes because they are meant to be Arab-coded and thus people use the tropes that evil Arabs have normally been depicted with. The logical line is there, the problem is that those tropes are bad and shouldn't be used anymore.

Which description are you going by. I have been looking at some of the monster manual entries, and the ones I've been looking at (AD&D and 3E) don't strike me as particularly 'evil arab trope' when describing their personalities. The only thing that really seems to connect is the slaver thing, but slavers exist in a lot of cultures (the US, the Romans, etc). So I am not sure that is in there as a part of a trope about arabs (it is also one I don't think people heavily associate anymore as a stereotype: I think more recently the stereotypes are things like terrorism, extreme piety, etc). But I don' even think I saw a reference to slavers in the monster manual entry (I could be wrong, as I read it last night and may have forgotten or missed it), but the closest I saw to that was mention of Efreet hating servitude. If it is in the city of Brass, fair enough, but that is one place in one setting. And again, slavery is more code for evil than arab I think in D&D. And there are other genie capitals with different societies.

 

[Helldritch]

Okay, so it's wrong to say that D&D and others are just "depicting a part of the mythos of a culture", because a lot of what goes on with genies is just wholesale made-up. For example, the City of Brass is not where ifrits dwell, but is a dead city that is trapped against outsiders. So there are plenty of additions, largely meant to distinguish them from the other kinds of genies (because, largely speaking, there wasn't much to distinguish them outside of being good or evil).

And in trying to put them into a box to distinguish them, we can see the problem: they are the "evil" genies, so they are largely are pastiches of evil Arab tropes because they are meant to be Arab-coded and thus people use the tropes that evil Arabs have normally been depicted with. The logical line is there, the problem is that those tropes are bad and shouldn't be used anymore.

This is why I want to move them out of where D&D has placed them: the whole Plane of Fire needs a rework from a social standpoint. We don't need every elemental plane having genies; it feels weirdly too organized and they all still feel kind of samey. I'd rather Djinn be genies with a broader culture and track to the Elemental Plane of Air, and then create several different races for the other planes. Move Marids and Efreets back to being malevolent spirits



I mean, it absolutely does. They are absolutely depicted wearing Arabic-styled clothing and Arab-styled cultures. The City of Brass has Arabesque architecture and it's ruled by a Grand Sultan, for Pelor's sake. And you know what that Sultan's name is? Marrake al-Sidan al-Hariq ben Lazan. To deny that they are being depicted as Arab misses everything about them.

Sure but you focus entirerly on the evil part. The Djinns are good and following your logic are depicting the Arabs as noble and a powerful force for good. In a sense, equilibrium is reached.

But I still say that these spirits, evil or good do not stand for the Arabic people. If you want to see the stance of D&D on Arabic culture, read Empires of the Sands (FR 3?) Or the Acclaimed AL Quasim box set.

Yes, if you really feel that efreeti are what you claimed, a bad ficus on the Arabic people, then your only course of action is to either remove the genies from your games or to add more positive representations of the Arabic culture. And at which point I will ask you which one? Sunnite? Shiit? Turc, Libanian? Syrian? Berbher? Which one will you take as there are dozens and taking only one might be offensive for the others.

Our game is as much a literary art form as is it is a game. An author should be able to take some "liberties" as long as the author do not fall on stupidly bad, tasteless associations for the sake of negatively depicting a culture it should be ok.

Nothing prevents you to enhance the presence of one culture over the other. This is your choice, and it is as valid as saying that nothing should be done. Personally, I do not really use evil genies, devils fills the same role. The Djinns however, I do use. So stop using efreet and use only Djinns.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Which description are you going by. I have been looking at some of the monster manual entries, and the ones I've been looking at (AD&D and 3E) don't strike me as particularly 'evil arab trope' when describing their personalities. The only thing that really seems to connect is the slaver thing, but slavers exist in a lot of cultures (the US, the Romans, etc). So I am not sure that is in there as a part of a trope about arabs (it is also one I don't think people heavily associate anymore as a stereotype: I think more recently the stereotypes are things like terrorism, extreme piety, etc). But I don' even think I saw a reference to slavers in the monster manual entry (I could be wrong, as I read it last night and may have forgotten or missed it), but the closest I saw to that was mention of Efreet hating servitude. If it is in the city of Brass, fair enough, but that is one place in one setting. And again, slavery is more code for evil than arab I think in D&D. And there are other genie capitals with different societies.

I mean, I'm focusing on the lore they are given from the Forgotten Realms, which is the lore that is focused on by 5E and is imitated by 3PP.

Slavery exists in a lot of cultures, but it is not used as a harmful stereotype in all of them. I detailed this earlier in the thread that there are certain ones that persist to today and are used to define a culture in a harmful way.

Sure but you focus entirerly on the evil part. The Djinns are good and following your logic are depicting the Arabs as noble and a powerful force for good. In a sense, equilibrium is reached.

But I still say that these spirits, evil or good do not stand for the Arabic people. If you want to see the stance of D&D on Arabic culture, read Empires of the Sands (FR 3?) Or the Acclaimed AL Quasim box set.

Yes, if you really feel that efreeti are what you claimed, a bad ficus on the Arabic people, then your only course of action is to either remove the genies from your games or to add more positive representations of the Arabic culture. And at which point I will ask you which one? Sunnite? Shiit? Turc, Libanian? Syrian? Berbher? Which one will you take as there are dozens and taking only one might be offensive for the others.

Our game is as much a literary art form as is it is a game. An author should be able to take some "liberties" as long as the author do not fall on stupidly bad, tasteless associations for the sake of negatively depicting a culture it should be ok.

Nothing prevents you to enhance the presence of one culture over the other. This is your choice, and it is as valid as saying that nothing should be done. Personally, I do not really use evil genies, devils fills the same role. The Djinns however, I do use. So stop using efreet and use only Djinns.

I mean, I think the first thing we need to at least admit for a common ground is that Efreets are coded to be Arabs. To me, this is undeniable. If you want to argue they aren't harmful, fine. But let's at least agree that they are obviously coded as an Arab culture.

 

[Voadam]

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.

I would suggest checking out this long thread on rpgnet and its predecessor. I have found them really fun discussions of the origins of tons of individual D&D monsters in an orderly fashion.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Slavery exists in a lot of cultures, but it is not used as a harmful stereotype in all of them. I detailed this earlier in the thread that there are certain ones that persist to today and are used to define a culture in a harmful way.

I am not so sure that stereotype has much currency these days. The only time I hear about it is in debates about US slavery (ie what about African or Arab slave traders?) or in serious political discussions about modern slavery (and then it isn’t typically applied to Arabs as a group). And awareness of modern slavery is quite recent. My sense is most Americans know very little about that or about historical slave traders (beyond what happened within the US): they are much more likely to lean on stereotypes of fanaticism, attitudes towards women, and terrorism than slave traders. But in D&D one of the features the alignment system used to always mention with Evil, was slave owning societies were evil. So I think it is more s stand in for them being evil than for them being Arab coded.

 

[Cadence]

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.

Pathfinder seemed to go out of there way to put a lot of monsters from around the world in their bestiaries. One spreadsheet someone had for it can be linked to from: List of Pathfinder monsters by mythological origin?

 

[Justice and Rule]

What kind of new, clothing, and architecture would you use for the rulers of the elemental plane of fire if you got to redo it?

I mean, to start move away from the whole "They're all genies". I think the Djinn are good enough and we can move Efreets and Marids to unaligned malevolent spirits, which probably in-keeps better with their origin and is, arguably, a more interesting place than "A different kind of genie". They can still have some sort of relation with Djinn (Are Efreets and Marids exiles? Lost tribes? Distant cousins?), but let it be less set in stone as to how it is.

Make Djinn broader overall and have there be no set alignment for them; without the whole elemental theme, you don't need them and suddenly you can intrigue and strife in the Citadel of Ice and Steel. You can have evil Djinn, Djinn that form from sand, smoke, wind, etc... having diversity inside of a creature set instead of creating whole new ones to occupy different spaces. Now there are reasons to go to this fantastic falling orb in an endless sky, and it doesn't have to share time with the City of Brass.

For the Plane of Fire, move away from the City of Brass. I think going to something closer to the original tale is actually a better idea, so I would create smaller city-states on the Plane of Fire and go with my Elemental Hansa idea. For the other planes, I'd have to think about it: I'd love to see different kinds of elemental creatures with interesting cultures, given that Marids obviously didn't get as much focus and Daos are straight-up brand new.

I am not so sure that stereotype has much currency these days. The only time I hear about it is in debates about US slavery (ie what about African or Arab slave traders?) or in serious political discussions about modern slavery (and then it isn’t typically applied to Arabs as a group). And awareness of modern slavery is quite recent. My sense is most Americans know very little about that or about historical slave traders (beyond what happened within the US): they are much more likely to lean on stereotypes of fanaticism, attitudes towards women, and terrorism than slave traders. But in D&D one of the features the alignment system used to always mention with Evil, was slave owning societies were evil. So I think it is more s stand in for them being evil than for them being Arab coded.

I mean, I don't know what to tell you other than these tropes absolutely get overused in trying to depict Arab culture badly. Again, you can have an evil nation that happens to be Arab, but when it plays into the most obvious stereotypes of Arabs, it should be called out.

And I can't speak to your debates, but I've absolutely seen it all over being used as a bludgeon to attack Arab culture as well as to distract from the horrors of our own slave past. It's not hard to find these online and when you create races that are obviously coded Arab and play into these tropes, it's just bad. I mean, we can talk about the Efreet, but it's worth noting that all genies have slaves in 5E, even the canonically good-aligned ones. So it's not just a "these guys are evil" thing.