Mana, Shamans, and the Cultural Misappropriation behind Fantasy Terms

[MGibster]

And generally I note there are a lot of people who get disproportionately upset (just in the world generally) when cultural appropriation is discussed, which is a neutral term describing an act with no inherent moral characteristics (hence appropriation, rather than a weighted word like theft), which is a natural part of humanity, but can become problematic when it takes on certain forms (particularly a powerful culture taking a lot from a weak one, especially if they weaken the value of the "IP" as it were, or misinterpret, misunderstand, or cheaply use sacred stuff).

Cultural appropriation might be a neutral term in academic circles, but in spaces like this it's most often used as a pejorative. It's more common for someone here to list cultural appropriation as one of their complaints about a game than it is as a positive or even neutral descriptor.

 

[Maxperson]

No, this is a false equivalence, and thank you for proving my point.

No-one has committed a physical act against you. No-one has objectively oppressed you. You are claiming instead that you have subjectively experienced oppression, because of a mild request. Equating a mild request to a violent physical assault which might cause very serious harm or even kill (see: "one punch manslaughter") absolutely supports what I'm saying re: partisan and unreasonable arguments.

Eh, no. Policing =/= oppression, seems like you're no stranger to the False Equivalence yourself. Nor did I equate a mild request to a violent physical assault. I equated one instance of you doing something to me and my saying, "don't do that to me." as me doing the same thing to you, to another instance of the same category of thing. So the only False Equivalence here is yours.

 

[Bedrockgames]

What "vetting"? By whom? When? WotC has literally just decided to start doing this. Looking through history, I can't think of a single RPG product nerfed by "vetting" about this kind of language. I can see 2E was designed somewhat to avoid MADD etc., initially, but 2E certainly wasn't "pablum", and that was something very different - not a suggestion to be careful with language, but an organised campaign to specifically destroy D&D by people who didn't play it.

Again, being honest here, something about your posting style makes me very wary of getting into specifics with you. I do have specifics in mind, I am sure many who follow this topic can intuit the games and vetting I am talking about. But you have a posting style that just makes me not want to get into the trenches with you as I think it won't be terribly productive

 

[MGibster]

And you have to get rid of Paladins, Rangers, Clerics, Elves, Dwarves, Wizards and Warlocks(and even more) which all have real world correlations. We wouldn't want the wrong cultures appropriating them.

Actually, warlocks are pretty damned close to the conception of witches as held by western Europeans during the early modern period. The class has both diabolism and maleficum built right in! Aside from the fighter and rogue, the warlock might be the most historically accurate class!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I have to be honest, based on your posting style and your tone, I wouldn't trust PMs with you to remain private. And a big reason why I am not providing examples to you, is again, your tone and your posting style. If I felt it was a good faith request, I would have happily gone down that road. But my sense was it wasn't a good faith request.

Except, talk to anyone, including people I've argued with at length, who has PM'd me, and you'll find out it's true.

You refuse to give any evidence at all for your claim that mild language suggestions/restrictions lead to "pablum". I have demonstrated, with at least two examples, and I can come up with more, that pablum and trash are perfectly easy to produce with total creative freedom. How many examples do you need from me?

Nor did I equate a mild request to a violent physical assault.

You literally did. That's not arguable. Your words are right there. Oh well.

Again, being honest here, something about your posting style makes me very wary of getting into specifics with you. I do have specifics in mind, I am sure many who follow this topic can intuit the games and vetting I am talking about. But you have a posting style that just makes me not want to get into the trenches with you as I think it won't be terribly productive

Okay, but the fact is, you've made really extreme claims, that require specific evidence to support them, and have refused to provide that evidence. If you were serious, and still somehow afraid I'm going to hurt you in some way, you could simply block me, and post the evidence. I then would not be able to argue with you, and but you would have proven your point.

Without evidence, which should be relatively easy to obtain, given your claims, your position is not reasonable. Whether you like me or not, you clearly are aware that you need to provide evidence. So if you're really concerned, block and then post it or whatever. I'm happy to provide counter-examples, and right now, that's all we have counter-examples. Proof against your assertion. I can think of tons of pablum, but I can't think of any bits where restrictions about language for cultural sensitivity-type reasons have caused the pablum.

Stuff like "many" and "intuit" is not rational argument, note, it's just innuendo.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think there is a trend towards more socially conscious media. I regard this as a good thing.
I also believe there is a trend towards more censorious attitudes. I do not regard this as a good thing.

I think socially conscious media can be good. It can also be less interesting than media that doesn't worry about being socially conscious. I think there is a danger when people look to media for salvation, or when we lose the ability to distinguish between content and message. There is also the danger that the parameters of what is allowable become narrower and narrower (which is where I think you get the pablum problem). I generally agree with you, the censorious attitude is the thing I take issue with. But I think you also have to address critiques you think are bad critiques. But addressing a bad critique isn't the same as saying the critique shouldn't be allowed.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Except, talk to anyone, including people I've argued with at length, who has PM'd me, and you'll find out it's true.

You refuse to give any evidence at all for your claim that mild language suggestions/restrictions lead to "pablum". I have demonstrated, with at least two examples, and I can come up with more, that pablum and trash are perfectly easy to produce with total creative freedom. How many examples do you need from me?



You literally did. That's not arguable. Your words are right there. Oh well.



Okay, but the fact is, you've made really extreme claims, that require specific evidence to support them, and have refused to provide that evidence. If you were serious, and still somehow afraid I'm going to hurt you in some way, you could simply block me, and post the evidence. I then would not be able to argue with you, and but you would have proven your point.

Without evidence, which should be relatively easy to obtain, given your claims, your position is not reasonable. Whether you like me or not, you clearly are aware that you need to provide evidence. So if you're really concerned, block and then post it or whatever.

Stuff like "many" and "intuit" is not rational argument, note, it's just innuendo.

So far you are the only poster I haven't given specifics to when asked. And the reason is your posting style. I am not going to ask other people if you are trustworthy in PM, if my intuition says, don't give this person specifics because they don't have any intention of doing anything but ripping them to shreds. Sorry but that is my impression and it is why I won't engage you in the way you are requesting. I feel my arguments have been sound and I feel I have been willing to go into more detail when there were good faith requests.

Also, worth pointing out, my remark about pablum was a fairly small part of my argument.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Interesting. I do think though that all the stuff Aldarc has linked/quote showed a far more nuanced opinion than a legalistic one devoid of context and intent, and asked people to think about the usage, rather than suggesting they were "offenders" for using (indeed the last quote was very positive about it).

But it does explain to some extent, some of the very defensive reactions from people to certain things - things which aren't accusations, in that they're not intended to carry moral judgment or the like, merely to inform, but which people take as pretty serious allegations. And generally I note there are a lot of people who get disproportionately upset (just in the world generally) when cultural appropriation is discussed, which is a neutral term describing an act with no inherent moral characteristics (hence appropriation, rather than a weighted word like theft), which is a natural part of humanity, but can become problematic when it takes on certain forms (particularly a powerful culture taking a lot from a weak one, especially if they weaken the value of the "IP" as it were, or misinterpret, misunderstand, or cheaply use sacred stuff).

The use of "misappropriation" in the OP probably was a part of the negative reaction it garnered, as well as the strange analogy with bike "theft". While you point out that cultural appropriation can be a valid evolution of any culture, that it can be problematic in some case, and not in others (pyjamas and mana counting, IMHO, as example of cases where I don't think it is problematic), "cultural misappropriation" is more loaded and evocative of theft. On a more personal level, the fact that disagreeing that appropriation was taking place when people with no knowledge of how it entered the English language in the first place acquired it in turn (from English) got me an accusation of not knowing what the mana was and two accusations of not having watched the video didn't make me consider the OP was debating in good faith, so I bowed out debating with him. I could easily have gotten incensed instead.

Oddly with mana I feel like it's a slightly passe term. It's still used a lot, but much less in TT RPGs than CRPGs/MMOs.

Yes I thought of GURPS but I don't see it used anymore in fantasy RPGs. It's more a computer game thing.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think socially conscious media can be good. It can also be less interesting than media that doesn't worry about being socially conscious.

Again no evidence, no examples. It really seems like they should be easy to find. But it's a claim that requires you to demonstrate a connection.

There's plenty of wild and unrestricted media that is absolutely boring junk - or media that is not at all socially conscious that is absolute drivel. A good example in the media in general might be NCIS, which is a show that various been homophobic, misogynistic, transphobic, racist and a whole bunch of other things over the years. But it's never been anything but pablum. Indeed the same could be said of a number of cop-shows.

Or we might look at Star Trek TNG - a generally socially-conscious show, and the least socially-conscious episodes are among the worst here - The second episode of S1 is both grotesquely racist (which is a long story) and just a bad story. Go through a list of "worst episodes" for TNG and you'll a correlation with them and being completely non-socially-conscious.

So far you are the only poster I haven't given specifics to when asked. And the reason is your posting style. I am not going to ask other people if you are trustworthy in PM, if my intuition says, don't give this person specifics because they don't have any intention of doing anything but ripping them to shreds. Sorry but that is my impression and it is why I won't engage you in the way you are requesting. I feel my arguments have been sound and I feel I have been willing to go into more detail when there were good faith requests.

It really seems unreasonable to make a strong claim like you have repeatedly don't re: pablum, and not provide any examples. You could certainly do so and then ignore me, but instead you're using me as a rather transparent excuse to not provide examples. Accusing me of "bad faith" and variously being scary or whatever is kind of amusing, as it makes me feel like I'm some sort of tricky monster or something but meh.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Again no evidence, no examples. It really seems like they should be easy to find. But it's a claim that requires you to demonstrate a connection.

There's plenty of wild and unrestricted media that is absolutely boring junk - or media that is not at all socially conscious that is absolute drivel. A good example in the media in general might be NCIS, which is a show that various been homophobic, misogynistic, transphobic, racist and a whole bunch of other things over the years. But it's never been anything but pablum. Indeed the same could be said of a number of cop-shows.

Or we might look at Star Trek TNG - a generally socially-conscious show, and the least socially-conscious episodes are among the worst here - The second episode of S1 is both grotesquely racist (which is a long story) and just a bad story. Go through a list of "worst episodes" for TNG and you'll a correlation with them and being completely non-socially-conscious.



It really seems unreasonable to make a strong claim like you have repeatedly don't re: pablum, and not provide any examples. You could certainly do so and then ignore me, but instead you're using me as a rather transparent excuse to not provide examples. Accusing me of "bad faith" and variously

Pretty comfortable with not engaging you