I am almost 100% certain nobody in Vietnam is going to get hot and bothered if the D&D Monk more resembles a Chinese or Korean version. By and large, people in China, Korea, Japan, etc., etc., aren't really concerned with the same things that might concern Asian Americans in regards to representation.The biggest problem youll have with this culture representing culture argument is for example the monk: each respective Asian society that has monks in thier myth will be just as offended if China were to make a monk and ignore thier version. this whole argument is a sinkhole that turns into a black hole that erases any possible use of the concept. Do we let china or thailand, or Japan or one of the many other countries that have monks use their inspiration . It's a fantasy game it's either fun or delete it. My opinion is ignore the real world while you play in your fantasy world. Why bring all that misery with you.
Intellectual property in the form of patents, trademarks, and copyright go back further than the 20th century. Some of these ideas go back to the 17th century, though of course they didn't refer to them as intellectual property back then. While it wasn't until the 20th century that IP because common throughout the legal framework of most countries, it's older than the 20th century.iteresting side bar the whole idea of intellectual property is a 20th century construct. Prior to the 30's if you referenced anyone's research or ideas you were considered a well read person and doing what smart people do.
I've come to accept that Bards, Druids, Barbarians, Paladins, etc., etc. in D&D aren't at all representative of what they were in real life. Just another D&Dism like Thac0, savings throws, and the Flumph.Great. What are we doing about the paladin, barbarian, bard, druid and warlock while we're at it?
In the Norse animistic traditions, it is less about having relationships with animals, and more about becoming animals. The many Bard class spells that accomplish shapeshifting can represent this well. The animistic traditions have strong relationships with the personas of natural features, such as mountains, rivers, ocean, thunderclouds, and so on, and here the spells that affect monsters (including Giant, Dragon, Undead, etcetera) are about right. Fey associations might help if more this-worldly. Meanwhile, much of the animism is human-on-human, where spells like Project Image and mind magic work well. Healing is of interest. Psychic Divination is central, and the Bard class excels at this.Wait, what? No it's not. Not even remotely close. There is literally nothing about the bard that relates to European animism (or any regional animism). Animism, on a broad level, is the belief that spirits inhibit everything, from rocks to plants to animals to everything else. Even if you look at one of the more popular European animist beliefs, the fylgiur (Norse spirit animals), it's all about the animal spirits helping and guiding humans and the person having an intimate relationship with their animal spirit, where one affects the other.
In the Norse view, humanity is one of the nature beings. And there are several kinds of nature beings. Corpses (of ancestors) count as a separate feature of nature.I'd posit the D&D bard is the opposite of animism, because the bard is all about people only. All of the abilities and powers are human centric. I can't think of a single bardic ability in D&D that centers around using mineral, plant, or animal spirits to help the party.
Heh, I cant help but notice. In your post, the assumption of what animism is − "animal spirits", "plants", etcetera − is itself an ethnocentrism that doesnt fully apply to some other cultures. The "mineral" somewhat applies in the sense of landscape features. Skyscapes and waterscapes are relevant too.The mechanics don't force anything. That would be your (general you) personal bias, not the game. If the class is basically, "most hp, all armor and weapons", like the b/x fighter is, that's not culturally specific. The problem you describe isn't one of "one size fits all", it's one of your own assumptions.
I am. But people still fight goblins, and wolves, and bears, and other stuff not requiring magic or fantastic anatomy. Verisimilitude matters to me just as setting, and in fact goes hand in hand in my own worlds.That’s interesting, I always thought you were big into story/lore and setting and campaign worlds.
I'd agree, but language is a funny tool and if you use a word like barbarian, it brings connotation from beyond the game with it. If D&D used completely made up words like ragebound or pactsworn, you can easily claim exclusive D&Dism, but barbarian and warlock bring real world tropes of savages and Satanism with them unfortunately.I've come to accept that Bards, Druids, Barbarians, Paladins, etc., etc. in D&D aren't at all representative of what they were in real life. Just another D&Dism like Thac0, savings throws, and the Flumph.
I've come to accept that Bards, Druids, Barbarians, Paladins, etc., etc. in D&D aren't at all representative of what they were in real life. Just another D&Dism like Thac0, savings throws, and the Flumph.