Oriental Adventures, was it really that racist?

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

Mod Note:

HOOOO-BOY!

You can EASILY dress as Prince without “slightly darkening your face”. See Al Roker on the flip side, NOT using lightening makeup to dress as Caucasian celebs.

The cases in which you can acceptably use makeup to appear as a member of a different RW race are exceedingly rare, and mostly confined to theatrical/televisual/cinematic performances. Typically comedic ones where the person doing so is part of the joke. See Eddie Murphy in Coming To America or Gene Wilder in Silver Streak.

And even then, if you’re a member of the privileged in your society, you may STILL get called in it. See Ted Danson who did blackface at the insistence of Whoopi Goldberg- his girlfriend at the time.

Sooooo, you’re really not going to find a lot of allies for your position in POC America.
Kids: Just say “No!” to blackface, brownface, redface and yellowface.

 

[Hussar]

Can you point out someone in this thread who is engaging in such skullduggery?

It seems to matter a great deal to people who say it doesn't matter whether they knew anything about comeliness in D&D in general. So you tell me. Why does it matter so much?

Let's see.... sliding WAYYY back in the thread to like one post above mine...

I am going to disagree with you.

I think their factual mistake that Comeliness originated in OA was foundational to their initial emotional reaction and to their conclusion that Comeliness in OA was othering and sexualizing Asians.
/snip

Being specifically targeted by OA to be portrayed as uniquely exotically sexualized and alienated from the default because of Asian racial identity is different than everyone being sexualized by D&D.

You were saying @MGibster?

 

[Hussar]

Maybe someone should summarise some of their other main criticisms of the book for discussion?

Part of the problem with discussion of the issue is the main source of criticism is an interminably long podcast discussion going on episode after episode. Is there someone here who actually watched the whole thing?

Fair question. It has been posted a few times, but, it does get lost in the noise.

Primarily: OA trivializes Asian cultures by presenting a primarily Chinese setting and then overlaying 99% Japanese culture over top. To the degree of using Japanese names for classes, monsters, and the art in the book is primarily Japanese.

I think that pretty much covers the main bit.

 

[MGibster]

Let's see.... sliding WAYYY back in the thread to like one post above mine...


You were saying @MGibster?

I was saying I haven't seen anyone dismiss all the criticisms against OA. I still haven't.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Thing is - all of these things are more ideological narratives stemming from obsessions with the past than they are salient points about modern society.

Mod Note:

If it were all in the past, people wouldn’t still be complaining.

You’ve racked up a BUNCH of reports in this thread. Time for a vacation from it.

Einlanzer0 has involuntarily left this thread.

 

[Mordhau]

Fair question. It has been posted a few times, but, it does get lost in the noise.

Primarily: OA trivializes Asian cultures by presenting a primarily Chinese setting and then overlaying 99% Japanese culture over top. To the degree of using Japanese names for classes, monsters, and the art in the book is primarily Japanese.

I think that pretty much covers the main bit.

Ok yes. And I agree with that. However, we have discussed that at some length in this thread already, and a little about the possible issues with honour.

Are there things we haven't discussed? I'm still somewhat confused about what is supposed to be so harmful that Daniel Kwan thought WotC should have it removed from sale.

 

[Hussar]

Ok yes. And I agree with that. However, we have discussed that at some length in this thread already, and a little about the possible issues with honour.

Are there things we haven't discussed? I'm still somewhat confused about what is supposed to be so harmful that Daniel Kwan thought WotC should have it removed from sale.

Yeah, I gotta agree on the "removed from sale" part. It does seem a bit over the top as a reaction. Granted, the issues discussed do make the continued sale of the book, and profiting from it a bit on the icky side. I mean, we all agree that this book is less than stellar in its treatment of culture.

So, I guess where someone falls out on this issue is more, "Is it okay to keep selling stuff you know is culturally insensitive?" It's not like WotC doesn't know. They can't claim ignorance here. They know so well that they put a disclaimer on it. So, the argument could be made that this isn't enough and the right thing to do here would be to stop making money off of it.

I'm not sure I agree with that. I can certainly see the point. And I would 100% support WotC if they chose to remove the work from the catalogue. But, by the same token, I'm not going to get too bent out of shape over it either. They have provided the disclaimer, which, to me, is enough in this case.

In my 100% personal opinion, this is one of those edge cases where it could really go either way. Doing nothing wasn't really an option, but, making a disclaimer and then making sure it doesn't happen again seems, to me anyway, as doing enough.

Now, if they were to pump out another Oriental Adventures like this in 2022, my song would likely change considerably.

 

[Dire Bare]

Why are people pretending that the comeliness thing is the sole criticism of the youtube series, ignoring the fact that they bring up several hours more of reactions, and then pretend that being wrong about this one thing somehow completely invalidates all of their thoughts?

Never minding that focusing on this one specific thing pretty much derails any conversation that has been going on about the larger context and issues surrounding the book?

Why is it, every single time we try to talk about this sort of thing - whether it's chainmail bikinis, or cultural expression or whatever - people want to endlessly myopically focus on one tiny little thing?

So, they were wrong about comeliness? Who cares? Why does that matter? Does having comeliness in the OA suddenly redeem it in your eyes?

"Oh, here I was thinking that a book that trivializes numerous cultures by presenting one single culture, with TONS of historical baggage" as the only culture of note was a bad thing, BUT, they have a comeliness stat so, I guess everything is okay?"

WTF?

Yeah. Ignoring the forest for one very specific tree, so to speak.

I feel like I played into the focus on Comeliness by trying to explain . . . .

 

[Dire Bare]

Yeah, I gotta agree on the "removed from sale" part. It does seem a bit over the top as a reaction. Granted, the issues discussed do make the continued sale of the book, and profiting from it a bit on the icky side. I mean, we all agree that this book is less than stellar in its treatment of culture.

I respect the voices that would rather WotC discontinue the sale of Oriental Adventures and other highly problematic titles. I don't agree, but I respect the point of view and I understand where its coming from (I think).

Oriental Adventures 1E is largely of historical value at this point. Not many folks playing AD&D 1E anymore. The only reason to really offer it for digital sale is nostalgia and research . . . . and a case can be made that the issues with the title outweigh the reasons to keep it available.

But while I've come to accept the title as highly problematic, I'm glad it's available. It's hard to have these discussions without the source material to refer to. It's hard to try to do better if you don't understand where we went wrong in the past. And the title, while problematic, isn't without merit and value in-and-of-itself.

There are fans releasing Oriental Adventures updates on the DM's Guild . . . . I have no experience with any of them, but I hope they are attempting to take the material and do better when it comes to portraying these issues in the game. It's nice to have the original material as a starting point. It'd be nicer, as some have asked on this thread, if there was a nice summary of the issues for those interested.

 

[Irlo]

Yeah, I gotta agree on the "removed from sale" part. It does seem a bit over the top as a reaction. Granted, the issues discussed do make the continued sale of the book, and profiting from it a bit on the icky side. I mean, we all agree that this book is less than stellar in its treatment of culture.

It occurs to me that if Kwan hadn't called for removal of OA from the virtual shelves:

1) I never would have been pointed toward the videos;
2) I wouldn't have heard the interesting perpectives on the book;
3) This discussion wouldn't be happening; and
4) WotC would not have even placed a disclaimer on old products.

It's apparent that disclaimer have sparked a lot of thought and conversation. Despite the extremes and sometimes the heated exchanges, I think that's worthwhile.

I'm not suggesting that Kwan's request was insincere, but I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that Kwan didn't really expect WotC to pull the book. Sometimes you ask for more than you expect to get so that you get something, and that something is better than nothing, even if it's not perfect.