D&D General Al-Qadim, Campaign Guide: Zakhara, and Cultural Sensitivity

Ixal

Hero
You seem to be placing a higher emphasis on Islamic/Arab/Turkic evils than you do any other.
Because it is severly underrepresented and deserves a proper representation and not a whitewashed one. (But that applies to all cultures, but in todays climate not many people call for authentic european culture representation. Most demands is for authentic representation of African and Asian cultures. And as I said before imo for authentic or even just respectful representation you need to show everything, not only the disney version of said cultures).

Also, this is a Al-Quadim thread, so no surprise I talk about Islamic and Arabic culture.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Voadam

Legend
Two of those aren't D&D settings (I did specify). Freeport is system-agnostic (I have a version of it for Fate; I think it's the same setting as the one you linked), and Ptolus is 3pp.
You specified D&D settings, but not official TSR/WotC 1st party only D&D settings. I generally consider OGL D&D settings D&D settings so these came to mind.

Freeport was first a 3.0 D&D setting with its first module released the first day of the OGL going live. It's first city setting hardcover was 3.0, it was the second version of the setting hardcover book that was statless with companion books for OGL 3.5, 4e, Castles and Crusades, True20, Pathfinder, Fate, and other systems.

And Thrane's inquisition happened 200 years before game start. I'd also suggest that none of these settings are truly European-based, as Ixal stated. I haven't actually read any Ptolus, but it's a ginormous city, right? And not supposed to be a pseudo-medieval European country.
Ptolus was Monte Cook's setting for official playtesting of 3e and was 3.0 then 3.5. Eventually there was a Cypher system and a 5e version. It is based on a city within a big theocratic empire that is a lot based on Byzantium. It even has Uraq as a fantasy Arab rival competitor empire. The main theocratic religion is based on an ascended martyred paladin and is very fantasy christian analogue down to the orders of saints, system of bishops, and nunneries. There is standard D&D polytheism of Old Gods that is fairly tolerated but not part of the theocracy that the main Church is. So the setting has both a big medieval church fantasy analogue with big associated tropes and room for standard D&D polytheisms.
I'll grant you this--but in all of those cases, those are evil groups, doing evil things probably just so PCs have an enemy. It's not being shown as being part of regular culture. AFAIK, there's no Inquisition of Tyr or Lathander or Helm. So this is still very different from Ixal's statement about how... I can't even really tell. How we should include Hollywood-style harems and stuff in Middle Eastern-inspired settings because otherwise we would only be showing the bad side of the culture? Something like that.
Well wouldn't real world ugly history warts generally translate into evil stuff in a D&D fantasy analogue? Most slavery in D&D is considered evil and mostly for bad guys.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
Don't start with strawmens.
Nowhere did I call for Hollywood harems. But harems were part of ottoman culture so it should not be praised that they are completely missing. What would be praise worthy would be having accurate harems.
But there's another issue with them, which is their extreme sexism. The purpose of a harem was specifically to seclude women, because they were property of men (sometimes very literally, as they had slave-concubines in them as well as wives) and therefore kept away from other men's prying eyes. As a woman, I'm really not cool with what is supposed to be a fun game relegating me to property. That is not praise-worthy.

And, again, Al Qidam is not the real world and there's no reason why it needs to have real world harems in it, just because the setting is flavored in a particular way. If Al Qidam had harems where every member (a) completely consented to be there, (b) could leave at any time without any risk, and (c) were not considered property, then that would be OK. But that's not accurate to the real-world culture, is it?
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
Well wouldn't real world ugly history warts generally translate into evil stuff in a D&D fantasy analogue? Most slavery in D&D is considered evil and mostly for bad guys.
In the real world, religions that real people generally consider to be good performed acts that, in D&D, are considered Evil.

If you go with realism and historical accuracy, then religions that worship Good or Neutral deities[1] should also be performing those Evil acts, which would likely either make the religion not literally Good or the acts not actually Evil. Either that, or they would have inquisitions that didn't engage in torture or magical influence.

If you go with fantasy, then only religions that worship Evil gods would have an traditional inquisition.

[1] By which I mean, gods that demonstrably exist and have an actual alignment. It's unclear whether the gods actually exist in Eberron. And based on a thing Keith Baker said, I have a hunch that he wouldn't have used alignment at all if he could have gotten away with it.
 


In fantasy fiction the poligamy and the concubinage could possible in kingdoms based in Western cultures, but most of authors and readers would rather monogamy, among other reasons the poligamy is "anti-romantic".

The Vatican church from "7th Sea" is a good example of potentialy controversial because this "ersatz" is too close to analogue one from the real life. Not only it is annoying but also potentially dangerous. In my land some times Catholic clerics were killed by mobs by fault of false rumors of children killed by poisoned candies. Forgive me if my words may be misunderstood, but... would you allow in a fiction work a queer characters to be showed like a child groomer? The people would have right to report it as a message promoting the hate and the intolerance based in a dangerous and offensive trope. Then you should take care if you add too many times characters as cardenal Richelieu.

* There are different groups within the Muslims community. Someones can say al-Qadim is right, "no problem" but others saying all board games, even the chess!, are "haram" (forbidden, sinful, unholy). The 99, the comic about Muslims superheroes, was banned in Saud Arabian.

* The islam allows until four wives, if you have got enough money to keep them, and more if there are "gamina" (war loot).

* Some things are better to be implied than explicitly shown.

* Al-Qadim is practically an artistic look based in Near Orient culture, but their faith is more like Hinduism whose deities' faces can't be showed, or like the Jahiliyyah or "age of ignorance" . And al-Qadim may be a "chop-suey", a mixture of different cultures, traditions and arts.
 

Yeah, I...basically ignored any amount of that stuff with the setting I built with my players, which was (in part) inspired by Zakhara. That is, there might be some of these unfortunate things occurring somewhere in the Tarrakhuna, but they aren't particularly relevant as a cultural practice.

Frankly, I don't see any reason why "uglier" aspects of past extant societies need to be included in new authored works. For example, it is historically factual that Al-Andalus, one of the primary IRL historical periods/cultural groups I've drawn on, practiced slavery in a way that was, in practice, almost purely race-based. (Technically it was religion-based, but realistically, they imported massive numbers of Central and Eastern European Christians.) Yet, despite the fact that slavery was rampant in Al-Andalus, my setting emphatically forbids it, for its own cultural reasons.* This is not an accident, but it doesn't make the Tarrakhuna suddenly alien and weird compared to either the IRL historical/cultural inspirations nor the literary inspirations both fiction and non-fiction (e.g. the Thousand and One Nights, the Seven Voyages of Sinbad the Sailor, the Rihla, the Kitab al-I'tibar, etc.) My players and I collaborated on what is or isn't in this world, and one of the biggest requirements I had, though I did not explicitly state it, was that the world be "bright" enough to actually be worth saving/protecting. Together, we made sure that that is true.

I did something similar with the primary religions of the setting. The dominant religious force, which is the "new" faith (though "new" is relative--both have existed for well over a thousand years), is the Safiqi priesthood. They accept priests regardless of gender, because their monotheistic deity, the One, is explicitly pre-gender; our concepts of "male" and "female" arise out of aspects of the One. There may be specific, relatively obscure sects that admit only men or only women, and it is known that some monasteries choose to have members of only one gender. But all are welcome in the priesthood regardless of their gender identity specifically because the One is too vast, too infinite. The "old" faith, which is still quite strong despite being a distinct second now, are the Kahina, the shamans and druids who deal with the nature-spirits and quelling the restless spirits of the unquiet dead, and they don't care about gender either, because they were founded long, long ago. Back then, mortal-kind was eking out a hardscrabble existence in the vast wastes between the genie-rajah cities. You never turned down a promising student because you never knew when you might find another. Nature can be a cruel mistress, and she does not look kindly on fools who put pointless restrictions before survival.

We, as creators, have the power to create worlds that are better than our own in various ways. That doesn't mean we must close our eyes and plug our ears. We can still face the wickedness that exists or existed. We can know, as the Shadow knows, what evil lurks in the hearts of men; we can build places and worlds where that evil is real and dangerous and lurking, without one where that evil is entrenched and pervasive and successful.

*Specifically, the current culture of the Tarrakhuna arose in part from throwing off the shackles of slavery to the ancient genie-rajahs, who were forced to abandon the mortal world for Al-Akirah, the elemental otherworld, where they formed the modern "country" of Jinnistan. (Modern Jinnistani nobles, naturally, deny that their ancestors were driven out, and claim that they willingly departed the world. The evidence is highly equivocal, so likely it's a mix of both.) As a result of literally being founded through a mortal slave revolt, the idea of enslaving other mortal beings is extremely not okay in the eyes of modern residents of the Tarrakhuna. That doesn't mean some people don't do it--they surely do, just as some people try here in the US--but it's a crime basically everywhere and being caught in mortal trafficking is basically a one-way ticket to financial and personal ruin.
I agree completely. My game, Scavenger, is a Bronze Age "punk" setting that has a tremendous amount of queer leaders, mystics, and so on throughout it. I think that having to rely on various -isms to make your world "gritty" is often uninteresting and a weakness in a setting, not a boon. It can be done well — wildlings and northmen in A Song of Ice and Fire — but usually I just wonder why we even bothered with it in the first place.
 

Voadam

Legend
In the real world, religions that real people generally consider to be good performed acts that, in D&D, are considered Evil.

If you go with realism and historical accuracy, then religions that worship Good or Neutral deities[1] should also be performing those Evil acts, which would likely either make the religion not literally Good or the acts not actually Evil. Either that, or they would have inquisitions that didn't engage in torture or magical influence.

If you go with fantasy, then only religions that worship Evil gods would have an traditional inquisition.

[1] By which I mean, gods that demonstrably exist and have an actual alignment. It's unclear whether the gods actually exist in Eberron. And based on a thing Keith Baker said, I have a hunch that he wouldn't have used alignment at all if he could have gotten away with it.
I would say that Eberron with its mystery about the true nature of the gods and allowing any alignment to be a follower of any god is closer to a model of realism and historical accuracy than Forgotten Realms active materially manifesting gods with (depending on edition) strong alignment restrictions for religions.

Religions doing enough evil would not be good in D&D alignment terms, the fact that they are worshiping neutral or good gods would not turn the evil actions not actually evil.

Doing some evil but significantly more good might be enough to still be good, but that is a judgment call.

FR seems to be a model of including historical inquisition type evil in a fantasy D&D western analogue.
 

Blue Orange

Gone to Texas
I agree completely. My game, Scavenger, is a Bronze Age "punk" setting that has a tremendous amount of queer leaders, mystics, and so on throughout it. I think that having to rely on various -isms to make your world "gritty" is often uninteresting and a weakness in a setting, not a boon. It can be done well — wildlings and northmen in A Song of Ice and Fire — but usually I just wonder why we even bothered with it in the first place.

It's entirely possible to have a non-homophobic culture that's nonetheless full of violence, disease, and other nasty bits. You can do 'grim and gritty' where the clan chieftain and his boyfriend have killed all challengers and the tribe wages war against the tribe on the other side of the lake. It's not like there's enough food to go around since the Rain of Colored Fire, after all...
 

Ixal

Hero
I agree completely. My game, Scavenger, is a Bronze Age "punk" setting that has a tremendous amount of queer leaders, mystics, and so on throughout it. I think that having to rely on various -isms to make your world "gritty" is often uninteresting and a weakness in a setting, not a boon. It can be done well — wildlings and northmen in A Song of Ice and Fire — but usually I just wonder why we even bothered with it in the first place.
So basically ancient greece?
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top