Oriental Adventures, was it really that racist?

[Einlanzer0]

By the way, I don't deny there's a such thing as chilling effect. I've swung way around over the last few decades on my views about a lot of these issues, but one thing I haven't bought into is the taboo against "cultural appropriation" and I think when activists attack an author for writing about an experience which isn't their own...not just for getting it wrong, but for daring to even do so...it dissuades other authors (which is the goal) and stifles creativity.

But just like I think the anti-cultural-appropriation point of view is taking things to an extreme, I also don't think things should be taken to the extreme the other way, i.e. "no content should ever be discontinued for any reason because of the chilling effect"....which feels like the argument being presented here.

There's really no such thing as anti-cultural appropropriation. The idea of cultural appropriation is nonsensical in virtually every context under which it is applied. Culture is shared organically and it is usually a sign of progress. Battling cultural diffusion is something that is motivated by fearful tribalism and is almost universally regressive and toxic. Ironic considering it's usually people who claim to be liberal who make a big issue out of it.

Telling a white person they can't just enjoy yoga's benefits or wear dreadlocks without a bunch of pretense and playing apologetics about it constantly is every bit as full of conservative prejudice as telling a racial minority they should self-segregate and not enjoy baseball. It should be called out that one of these things happens all the time and the other literally never happens. Nobody should be surprised that we're getting more divided.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The AR podcast were under the impression that Comeliness was introduced with Oriental Adventures. This is technically not correct, but it isn't a major faux-pas in the slightest. And their reactions that the inclusion of a Comeliness mechanic, not present in core D&D, in an Asian supplement, was honest and legit.

It is problematic. Not by intent, but by effect.

But that's just not correct. Look, if someone is complaining about Uncle Tom's Cabin, and they think it was written two years ago, they might have honest and legit reactions to it that are also wrong because they don't understand the history.

Here, on this issue, they were just wrong. There was nothing about the mechanic in the book (as I have repeatedly said, they used the exact same language that was used in the "regular" Unearthed Arcana) that was problematic vis-a-vis Asian cultures or stereotypes; just the normal, problematic issues for that mechanic.

In other words, the only objection is if you assume that the ability was introduced only for an Asian setting; just like if you assumed, incorrectly, that Wisdom had been put in there just for the Asian setting. Or Strength. Or Intelligence.

Unfortunately for the thesis, it has nothing to do with the setting at all, and is orthogonal to issues related to stereotypes of Asian beauty and/or ugliness.

Likewise with honor systems. The AR crew pushes back on the idea that all Asian people live guided by honor, any more or less than peoples in other parts of the world. Honor for ALL Asian characters, but honor for only SOME Western characters, by profession, is the issue.

Cook was trying to emulate his experience with the genre, there was no ill intent. But again, it's problematic for many Asian-descent gamers.

That Honor systems exist in other games isn't directly relevant. It's problematic in some of those RPGs for similar reasons, and in others it is less so, or even not at all. Depends on the focus of the game, and the implementation of "honor".

This, on the other hand, is a valid observation. While there was no ill intent, it is certainly problematic that D&D only introduced (and only used) an "Honor" mechanic in their OA- especially given that it should have equally been applicable to the other chivalry issues that they had just revamped in Unearthed Arcana.



Right there - that's the difference and a point of some frustration. When people are discussing things, we should respect feeling and honest reactions. But we also need to respect facts. If a part of a person's critique is based on a misunderstanding, or they simply got something wrong, it doesn't invalidate everything they say- but it does invalidate the thing that is incorrect. And the more people keep saying that actual facts don't matter, the more it seems like the purpose is not to accurately critique the issues of a book, but rather to say that a book has issues regardless of the content.

 

[Alzrius]

D&D only introduced (and only used) an "Honor" mechanic in their OA

Well, again, that wasn't the only place where that rule came into effect.

 

[Shades of Eternity]

Fraid so.

watch any "asian" episode on 80's tv and you'll get the same vibe...unfortunately.

heck

Kara-Tur - Some Thoughts - Part 1 - Overview

This was written more sensitively and it got chewed out on another forum.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Well, again, that wasn't the only place where that rule came into effect.

Totally forgot you posted that ... my knowledge of 2e splat books is limited.

 

[Einlanzer0]

Right there - that's the difference and a point of some frustration. When people are discussing things, we should respect feeling and honest reactions. But we also need to respect facts. If a part of a person's critique is based on a misunderstanding, or they simply got something wrong, it doesn't invalidate everything they say- but it does invalidate the thing that is incorrect. And the more people keep saying that actual facts don't matter, the more it seems like the purpose is not to accurately critique the issues of a book, but rather to say that a book has issues regardless of the content.

I mostly agree with this, but there's a signficant caveat. Feelings and emotions are a result of biases shaped from years of being taught how to think moreso than they are a result of just baseline experience. It's not only important to challenge facts, but also to challenge (respectually) the biases that are at play in shaping peoples' subjectve interpretation of reality. This is something we have societally lost touch with over the past couple of decades.

When someone claims offense to something, it's worth fully unpacking that and not just pandering to it. As humans, we should respect one another enough to challenge each other as adults, and that includes pointing out biases that might be at play in how they interpret situations they encounter.

A really good example of this dilemma is the "scope creep" on blackface. It actually refers to something very specific, but more and more things are lumped under the idea of blackface in ways that make zero sense. Here's a newsflash - darkening your complexion slightly to dress as Prince for halloween isn't even remotly the same thing as performing a blackface minstrel show where you exaggerate features to mock an entire race. Why do we act like they are? It's completely irrational and a sign of how we've grown carried away pandering to victimhood.

 

[MGibster]

The AR podcast were under the impression that Comeliness was introduced with Oriental Adventures. This is technically not correct, but it isn't a major faux-pas in the slightest. And their reactions that the inclusion of a Comeliness mechanic, not present in core D&D, in an Asian supplement, was honest and legit.

I'm sure their reactions were honest and legit. And we've all been there. We've all reacted strongly to something only to find that our initial reaction was predicated on having limited information. The right thing to do when presented with additional information is to reevaluate your opinion based the additional factors you now know about. But a lot of people just double down with their initial reaction new information be darned. (Sorry about swearing there.)

 

[Mannahnin]

When some says that something offends them, it's worth fully unpacking that and not just pandering to it.

Sure, but validating people's feelings doesn't have to mean pandering. It's worth listening respectfully, being open to the possibility that we might be wrong, and being respectful if we're going to offer pushback or correction.

 

[FrogReaver]

Sure, but validating people's feelings doesn't have to mean pandering. It's worth listening respectfully, being open to the possibility that we might be wrong, and being respectful if we're going to offer pushback or correction.

I mostly agree but I’ve got to ask is the person sharing their feelings doing so respectfully? Are they open to the possibility they might be wrong. Personally thats where my problem with these topics begin.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I mostly agree with this, but there's a signficant caveat. Feelings and emotions are a result of biases shaped from years of being taught how to think moreso than they are a result of just baseline experience. It's not only important to challenge facts, but also to challenge (respectually) the biases that are at play in shaping peoples' subjectve interpretation of reality. This is something we have societally lost touch with over the past couple of decades.

When some says that something offends them, it's worth fully unpacking that and not just pandering to it.

Eh, I'm not sure I'd use the phrase "challenging" when it comes to people's feelings and reactions.

I think it can be very hard to understand the life experience of other people- we do our best, we can listen, but it's hard. Even if you're a member of one marginalized community, it can be difficult to understand the experiences of another one. If you're a gay man, you might have certain memories of fear and discrimination, but those won't be the same as what is experienced growing up a straight women in our society. For that matter, neither of those is the same is being black and trans.

I can disagree on a factual basis with some of what was stated in the youtube series, but I also try to hear what their experience is like. I am also reminded of a commenter here ... for him, OA was a disappointment, because he was an Asian-American that wasn't of Japanese or Chinese heritage, and it was crushing to see that his heritage wasn't represented. It was a familiar experience for many in the 80s, when the dominant culture lumped all Asians together.

Respect and civility should be the touchstones for a better understanding ... on all sides.