Note: My use of you in this post refers to the reader not @Chaosmancer. I quoted them to establish the conversation starter.
If you had to put a number on it....what percentage of 5e players do you think know that the Rakshasa from the Monster Manual is a reference to ancient Hindu mythology and not some made up thing without a real world historical basis?
Do you think that there is a Rakshasa problem in D&D on par with the issues some have with OA?
Is there a similar issue with portrayals of the Sphinx , or Baba Yaga, or Coatl, or Wendigo, or any other non-European source material?
Do you think it's D&D's job to explain the real world historical basis of each thing included in the game and how the game presentation differs from other historical sources?
Honestly? I did not know for years that Rakshasa were Indian in origin. It wasn't until I read a completely different novel and they made mention of it that I was made aware of that connection.
And, it wasn't until you put Coatl in this list that I realized that they are probably connected to the "feathered serpent" myths in mesoamerica.
Is it WoTC's job to explain them? No, I don't think so. But an "Appendix N" type section where they at least acknowledged "hey, these monsters are based off this mythos" would be nice.
I'm not talking about labeling people as racist (though some have suggested that prefering 1E OA is unacceptable, but thankfully not WotC). I'm talking about inclusivity. WotC was very clear about wanting everyone to feel welcome--not just ethnic, gendered and sexual demographics, but fans of older editions.
So do we want to be inclusive or not? Who do we want to include and who gets shown the door? Removing OA from availability--while probably effecting only a small number of folks--has symbolic weight to it. It says, "Sorry fans of AD&D, but this product is no longer available because some people don't want you to use it."
Ok. What if some of those people are AD&D fans? What is the symbolic weight of someone who loves 1e, asking for this product to be removed?
Which part of this is telling fans of older editions to leave and never come back? Are you that tied to your old content that even criticism of it will drive you away from the game?
I loved Disney's Peter Pan as a kid, but I don't feel personally attacked when people point out that the Indians in that move are horrifically racist stereotypes. I don't feel like if Disney put out a statement saying that was wrong of the company to do decades ago, that they are somehow pushing me away from watching any of their new movies that are worth watching.
You are trying to make this an either/or. "Either you want us old fans, or you don't make up your mind." But this isn't about the fans. This isn't about the mechanics. This is about stereotypes in the work. And, if they kept OA with no comment, isn't that telling the people who they are stereotyping and offending that they don't want them? Isn't that anti-inclusivity?
But is fighting with barstools as much of a trope as fighting with chopsticks is in the media that inspire RPGs? Jackie Chan may fight with barstools (I have no idea) or step ladders (which I've definitely seen him do), but I'm willing to bet chopsticks show up in more Chinese kung fu action movies that are produced by and acted by Asian companies and actors. Is it excessively stereotypical to include them as an option when they are relatively common, maybe even iconic, in movies produced by Chinese companies? Would excluding them be doing the material a service or a disservice?
You seem to be missing the point I was making.
Western Guy sitting in a bar, accosted by attackers, grabs tankards, bar stools, whatever. Fights them off. No additional weapon rules were needed to handle this trope.
Chinese Guy sitting in a bar, accosted by attackers, grabs chopsticks, bowls, whatever. Fights them off. We need to make sure to add chopsticks to the weapon list to handle this trope.
Why? It is the same trope, and it is common in both cultures. Now, maybe this inspired the improvised weapon rules, but looking back on it, it seems incredibly odd to make that choice.
Both of these topics - honor systems and the required weapons of a samurai - and the criticism leveled at them hinge on what I think is a lack of understanding of the development of D&D. And I think it undermines the criticism.
There was no honor system prior to OA. This was developed because elements of Japanese culture suggested an interesting new game mechanic that a player could use to incorporate elements of an ethical system quite different from the ethical system of paladins in D&D or chivalry in medieval romances like Morte d'Arthur. Sure, it may have been a bit of a stretch to extend it to all of the cultures encompassed by OA and I think that gets to OA's limitations being over-influenced by Japanese stories and tropes, but equating a European knight's honor system with a bushido system would be at least as problematic. They aren't the same.
Stopping here for a second. You both get it and don't get it.
They developed the system because of Japanese culture which included an ethical system that was "different". And it is different. There are parts of Japanese culture which seem incredibly stiff and formal to us that have no real way to translate into the game. The fact that you use different versions of the Japanese language when talking to different people is something that we just don't have in the West. And the Bushido code was very different from the Chivalric Code. Of course it was.
But, within their myths and legends, and within their historical accounts, there is no "honor system". It is much more similar in effect to the ethical and polite society norms of the West.
Sure, in Japanese culture you might be seen as being rude if during a formal tea ceremony you drink the tea incorrectly. But, in Victorian Society you might be seen as rude for grabbing the wrong spoon to eat your soup. They parallel.
But, instead of depicting this as it is, a new culture with interesting beliefs. Games (and I am talking in general, because I've seen quite a few) end up taking the approach of an "honor system" granting and taking points and making seem far more strange and stiff than it actually was.
With respect to the samurai class's weapon restrictions, the fact that you didn't realize the samurai class needed to learn the bow suggests you really don't know what the game actually had it in it or implied aside from what you're hearing second hand. It's also worth noting that weapon proficiencies worked differently in AD&D than they do in any edition in 3e and beyond. Characters learned to use weapons individually rather than learning all martial weapons as part of a martial class perk. Samurai weren't limited away from learning weapons beyond the daisho and daikyu eventually as they gained more slots - but those particular weapons were a significant part of a samurai's historical image from real historical sources. This kind of stuff is rife through Japanese sources, not just filtered through western adaptations. Would it make sense from a game mechanic perspective for a samurai to be under competent with the historically iconic tools he was portrayed as using? Is that really an unfair stereotype when the sources of the stereotype are native to the culture?
Like I said, I didn't know they needed the bow. That is something that just about every single depiction I've ever seen gets wrong.
But, the polearms (yari and naginata) were also equally iconic. So, they are under-competent with them unless the player chooses to fix that. While the Cavalier seemed to have a huge list. Especially if they normally had to pick single weapons at a time, since the cavalier had nearly eight different weapons listed.
What I'm getting at with this post is that not all of the criticisms leveled at OA are going to be agreed upon by everyone. Some are based on historical portrayals native to the culture or widely enjoyed media portrayals native to the culture. Is it really a strong criticism if OA draws on those? Should OA have drawn on just the history and not mythologized history, fantasy literature, or even exaggerated hagiography (which is probably an apt description of Miyamoto Musashi's writings) that might have come from those cultures? Honestly, I'm not sure it's fair to criticize a game thoroughly based on larger than life fantasy/pulp stories for doing so.
Edit: Fun side note - someone actually did come up with an honor system for European-inspired chivalric orders in Dragon #125 just a couple of years after OA debuted.
To the side note, I'm glad that some did. I'm sad it took them years to realize that European's had honor and manners too.
And obviously drawing on works of literature and mythology is fine. We draw on Arthurian legend and Robin Hood and everything else right?
But we also interspersed it with things that were slightly more grounded. Not every noble born fighter was a Knight of the Round, so why are all Samurai treated the same?
But let's say that somehow I was a major publisher of an internationally-sold game system.
Am I bad if I include hockey stick on the weapons list?
As a Fantasy Canada exclusive rule? Yes, that would be stereotyping and uncool
Or am I bad if I have some rules around improvised weapons and use hockey stick, beer mug, chopsticks and pool cue as examples?
Nope. Because you are making a general rule that covers a lot of different tropes.
Past tense, they wanted in 1985 to... I'm not being pedantic here. When you say 'they want' and 'they can' your talking about the present. In the present I agree completely. For this though we need to step into our Delorean...
First, and more problematically, it is common trope in Asian martial arts cinema generally. I don't think it had much to do with any real-world comps. Chopsticks got used in fight scenes all the time in the movies and so the authors wanted to make sure that was possible mechanically. Putting them on the weapon list, in the context of 1st edition, was necessary to make them even remotely usable as weapons. That's the problematic reading but accounting for 1E mechanics. It still looks poor.
Second, it's the OA equivalent of the knife. The knife is on the 1st Ed weapon list separate from and inferior to the dagger. Its not there as a legit weapon choice, it's there so if a fight breaks out at the tavern you know how much damage your utensil does. They do identical damage to chopsticks btw. This is a far less problematic reading, IMO anyway.
The second bit above is a entirely legitimate reading of 1st edition rules. I'm not suggesting that it's the whole story mind, but I do think that its an example of how the 'chopsticks issue' suffers from a overly superficial treatment. So when I say nuance, I mean that completely seriously (and not as a dodge, or distractor). The issue about comeliness suffers from a similar lack of understanding of the 1st edition rules.
I wouldn't put chopsticks on a weapons chart now at all. One, they're covered just fine by the 5E improvised weapons rules, and two, navigating the issues with representation and trope use just make it a poor idea all around to single them out.
Knowing they had knives on the weapon list for other places does make it read a lot better. That just makes it part of the general rules of the game that they had "weapons" that were really just things you grabbed.
And before I get more people commenting on how I don't know 1e. Yeah, I did not go out and buy and research the entirety of First Edition. I figured details like "utensils were always included on the weapon charts in case of fights in dining situations" would get mentioned early on. Not this late in the discussion.
Well I know the answer. No, they should not stop selling those issues just because it contains offensive imagery.
Well, I'm glad you are confident at least.
Whether you'll ever read Lovecraft or not isn't germane. Odds are good I'm never going to read Precious or Beyond Megenta but that has no bearing on whether or not it's okay to have them removed from libraries.
Well, good thing that DMs Guild isn't a library and is instead a private marketplace.
Libraries are public spaces staffed for public information. Where books are free too. Libraries are not book stores that sell material. That seems to be a massive difference.
No.
You're deliberately making an effort to limit other's access to a book based on what you deem to be objectionable content. You're essentially taking the same position as people who want Beyond Magenta removed from the library because the contents are offensive to them.
Okay. So, a company should not be forced to continue selling a work if it is unprofitable.
It is not objectionable for me to boycott a sold material until it becomes unprofitable and is removed. the boycott starting because the contents are offesnive.
It is objectionable for me to ask to have the material removed from sale, because the contents are offensive.
Is it just that you feel a boycott is guaranteed to fail, and that's why it is less objectionable to do it? Because it seems the same motivation and same end result occur, one just has me vocally asking for it to be removed, the other has me going and convincing people not to buy it until it is removed due to lack of profits.
So, morally, I don't get why one is better than the other here.
If you are saying a publisher should no longer sell a book you find objectionable, that is advocating for censorship (people are not saying it is censorship, they are saying it is a censorious position because it is asking a company to make a book no longer available to the public). I don't think this is a very controversial position at all. But everyone who is saying this, also acknowledges they have a right to make that request. Just like lots of group shave a right to ask for censorship. But it doesn't mean we can't call that what we think it is. Especially when, if the request to take down the book is heeded, this supplement won't be legally available by buying older copies (which are skyrocketing in price) and by going to the library---and who is to say libraries won't be targeted for this sort of thing next. I am fine with them making the criticisms they want of any book. I do have problems when people try to use social media to pressure companies to not publish or not sell books. Regardless of whether we agree or not on whether to label that censorship, I still think it is wrong and doesn't produce a healthy society.
What I don't understand is how asking for the book to be removed is censorship, but boycotting it by not buying it is not.
And, if both are censorship, why are posters okay with the second, but appalled by the first?
