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

[Micah Sweet]

The only way this would really matter to any question of honesty, which you have challenged by calling certain types of settings disingenuous, would be if state sponsored were a part of every culture, throughout history, always, and even then only when discussing direct analogues of a real culture, and even then it wouldn't make not featuring that in the fictional world at all, in any way, less honest or genuine. It's a fictional world, no one calls grimdark worlds disingenuous, but make a world that is a bit more aspirational/optimistic, and hooooboy it's "theme parks" and "disingenuous".

Slavery is not central or necessary to Islam, to Southwest Asia and Northern Africa, nor to stories about heroes in a mythical desert realm with a strongly dominant mainstream religion that runs across species and cultures, creating a shared language and common idioms and practices even in otherwise very very different groups.

Not including it is no more disingenuous than not doing a deep dive on medieval travel and making the PCs abide by the norms of medieval travel while adventuring, or allowing female characters to be knights without ostracization.

I'd love to do a deep dive on medieval travel, actually, but I see your point. It depends on the situation of course. I'll withdraw my claim of disingenuity since it obviously bothers you.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

IT's not a "theme park", there is nothing disingenuous about imagining a more optimistic world, using historical settings as inspiration does not obligate anyone to including anything specific from that setting, and frankly your wording here is needlessly dismissive and comes across like you think your mode of play is somehow superior to others.

If you use the name of an existing setting and completely change the spirit of it, it is disingenuous if you claim it to be the same setting with the same name after all of these changes. It would be better to create a new setting if you change a lot of things vital to that setting.

I didn't, i stated that people have a choice to play and like what they want.

See above.

And yes, I am very much the arbiter of my own opinion.

Good for you. You haven't been speaking purely to your own opinion about running the game at your table, you've been prescribing how people should behave with regard to changing or not changing a setting.

Except you replied to me and I was talking about Al-Qadim, included in the title of this thread...

See the above quotes. That is the reply of mine that you replied to, starting the interaction between us. You replied to a post I made in a discussion with someone else, interjection with a bunch of stuff about changing settings being disingenuous. I did not begin the interaction between us.

 

[Dukey]

See above.

Good for you. You haven't been speaking purely to your own opinion about running the game at your table, you've been prescribing how people should behave with regard to changing or not changing a setting.

See the above quotes. That is the reply of mine that you replied to, starting the interaction between us. You replied to a post I made in a discussion with someone else, interjection with a bunch of stuff about changing settings being disingenuous. I did not begin the interaction between us.

Im not prescribing anything, you are hallucinating.

The title of this thread is about Al-Qadim, and my reaction is clearly about Al-Qadim too. Your reaction to my comment is not related to Al-Qadim at all.

 

[Ixal]

About the slavery in Islam specifically there were Islamic countries which were run by slaves. Not "slaves did all the work" but the actual leadership of the country were (former) slaves (Mamluks).
By removing slavery completely from your setting you are also not representing those countries (and they were far from unimportant. Egypt was one and I think there was another one in India around Delhi) and the culture that came with them. How faithful would that be?

 

[Dukey]

The only way this would really matter to any question of honesty, which you have challenged by calling certain types of settings disingenuous, would be if state sponsored were a part of every culture, throughout history, always, and even then only when discussing direct analogues of a real culture, and even then it wouldn't make not featuring that in the fictional world at all, in any way, less honest or genuine. It's a fictional world, no one calls grimdark worlds disingenuous, but make a world that is a bit more aspirational/optimistic, and hooooboy it's "theme parks" and "disingenuous".

Slavery is not central or necessary to Islam, to Southwest Asia and Northern Africa, nor to stories about heroes in a mythical desert realm with a strongly dominant mainstream religion that runs across species and cultures, creating a shared language and common idioms and practices even in otherwise very very different groups.

Not including it is no more disingenuous than not doing a deep dive on medieval travel and making the PCs abide by the norms of medieval travel while adventuring, or allowing female characters to be knights without ostracization.

"Slavery is not central or necessary to Islam" But it is, and still practiced today. Roughly 6 months ago. Heart-breaking moment Afghan father forced to sell daughter, aged NINE

Edit: For showing the truth you receive a warning...I hope the woke orgasm was satisfactory. Censorship at enworld is a very bad thing !!

 

[MGibster]

At least in my experience, "theme park" is a description of the style of game, not the depth or accuracy of it historical lore. A theme park is an open world full of railroads (rollercoasters).

For me, a theme park setting is one where there isn't a whole lot of consideration into how things work beyond what is necessary for adventurers to take place in. I also consider the term neutral, most of the settings I play in can be described as theme parks whether they're ultra edgy grim darkness or a thousand points of light.

 

[Ixal]

For me, a theme park setting is one where there isn't a whole lot of consideration into how things work beyond what is necessary for adventurers to take place in. I also consider the term neutral, most of the settings I play in can be described as theme parks whether they're ultra edgy grim darkness or a thousand points of light.

I am not sure if there even is a real definition of the meaning of theme park.
In a PnP context my understanding of theme park is a family friendly setting with no bad things happening and the PCs being celebrated heroes when they go on one of the "rides".

In a MMORPG context on the other hand theme park is a design philosophy of having mulitple quest hubs for different levels, each offering a series of quests given and returned there and a railroad which connects the quest hubs.

 

[Reynard]

For me, a theme park setting is one where there isn't a whole lot of consideration into how things work beyond what is necessary for adventurers to take place in. I also consider the term neutral, most of the settings I play in can be described as theme parks whether they're ultra edgy grim darkness or a thousand points of light.

My point was that there is an existing meaning to the term "theme park" when discussing game settings, and so it can be a little confusing to use the term discussing settings but not use its broadly accepted meaning. Shared language helps us have productive discussions.

 

[MGibster]

I am not sure if there even is a real definition of the meaning of theme park.

Probably not. I'm the first one I can recall referring to settings as theme parks, but I wouldn't doubt if someone used it before me and in a different manner. And who knows? Maybe I heard someone else use it before but just forgot.

My point was that there is an existing meaning to the term "theme park" when discussing game settings, and so it can be a little confusing to use the term discussing settings but not use its broadly accepted meaning. Shared language helps us have productive discussions.

Fair enough, I've never heard it used before. Like I said, I'm the first one I can recall describing settings as theme parks. I don't know if there is a broadly accepted definition of theme park as it applies to game settings.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

We should agree there is a great difference between intentional and accidental offense. For example an accidental offense would be to use the name "Almanzor/al-Manṣūr" for a character. In the real life it was it means "the victorious" and it was the nickname of a historical andaluci warlord, and a "very bad guy" in the eyes of the Christian Spanishs who suffered his "aceifas"(razzias or raids). Or the pirates in a "1001 nights" adventure can be potentiallly controversial. Why? Because the Otoman corsairs attacked Christian coasts in the Mediterranean sea to catch slaves. A DM could search information about al-Andalus as source of inspiration for his next campaign, and he may find contradictory versions, one telling al-Andalus was a golden age of tolerance, but other saying this was a myth, and it was a aparheid-like regime for the "dhimmis" ("protected ones", Christians and Jews, the people of the Book).

Even when we are using fictional races as antagonists, for example the githyankis or evil genies as planar invaders, there are still some potential risks. Maybe is a story about vampires kidnapping children to be turned into wereboars to use their regenerative traits to "gather vitae", months laters in the real life there are news about traffick of human beings for slavery. Then this plot become taboo and an unconfortable threat.

* What can we do? WotC can publish corebooks focused more in the crunch and little details about the lore, almost only the names of places and rulers.

* The living idols could be interesting hook for adventures.