D&D 5E On Representation and Roleplaying

[Oofta]

Mercer has said some words about that in the critrole site:

"Marquet is a fantasy continent, and one that (like other places in Exandria) occasionally holds nuggets of inspiration from Earth cultures and locations that I have a deep appreciation for. It is a unique place with unique people and civilizations occasionally woven with touchstones that call to our real world experiences in some ways, lending a familiarity and celebrating aspects of those same languages and cultures without appropriating them. I have been and will continue to be working with professional cultural & sensitivity consultants throughout the worldbuilding and presentation of Marquet to ensure I do my best to do just that."

A Warm Welcome to Marquet and Campaign 3! | Critical Role

critrole.com

If you read the article I linked to, the acknowledgment is there. Yet the author's main contention is "As a cast made up entirely of Caucasian people, many were worried that Critical Role would attempt to wade into cultures that they had no personal connections to or representatives of."

So because the previous settings were dominated by caucasians, it was okay. But because the new setting is not it's a problem even though the author had not watched a single episode. It's that kind of judgement, that only people with a certain ancestry are allowed to represent people from a part of the world inspired by real world culture that I find problematic. It's one thing to be concerned about culturally sensitivity, it's another to require cultural connections to me.

I'm 3-4 generations separated from my northern European ancestors. All I know about their cultures is what I've read in books or seen on screen. That's going to be true for most people after a few generations. I may have had more interest in those cultures growing up, I just don't think it gives me any special privilege or connection.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

There has been criticism recently about the new episodes of Critical Role being set in Marquet which is not based on pseudo-European medieval society, but is instead loosely based on SWANA [SouthWest Asian/North African] culture[article]. The problem? The entire cast is Caucasian and somehow that means cultural appropriation.

Because somehow having a region and culture that steps outside of the "safe zone" of fantasy culture is wrong, no matter how many professional consultants they employ. I mean, I get it. There have been many truly bad depictions of non-western cultures. I've made a hash of my own "eastern" civilization in my home campaign which is why I don't use it very often. Then again, my primary mythology is only loosely based Norse mythology with a smattering of Celtic but since it's the mythology of my ancestors?

The problem is that as authors of fictional worlds we have to draw inspiration from somewhere. Just about any type of culture we create will bear a passing resemblance to some real world culture. I think we need to be sensitive to that, but there's a difference between having a culture and region loosely based on a real world culture and the equivalent of campaign world blackface. We can draw inspiration from and ideas from the real world without falling into caricature. I don't think my ancestry matters.

In other words, my dwarves don't have a Scottish accent. People that portray a Scottish accent on TV and movies just happen to sound a lot like dwarves.

Yeah. Complaining about a creator making their fantasy world actually culturally diverse instead of yet another fantasy Europe is exactly the sort of unhelpful attitude I alluded to earlier.

Also, as using European influences never elicits such complaints regardless of the creator’s ethnic background, it just strengthens that culture’s position as the dominant default.

 

[Bolares]

I hope that's enough for everyone. For someone as high-profile and as respected as Mercer, it probably will be. For a lot of other current and would-be designers, maybe not.

I personally haven't seen backlash against someone for using a culture they do not represent if they've hired cultural and sensitivity consultants, no matter their "size". Not that it didn't happen, I just haven't seen it.

 

[Raduin711]

I understand this mindset as "If we can't include them with perfect accuracy in the experience or from personal experience, then including them will be too flawed or offensive, so we shouldn't try to include them."

I have seen this play out in the broader American culture with "These representations are stereotypes, so we should cut them entirely to be safe, even if most people don't object." As a specific example, many common/prominent representations of Native Americans have been cancelled or removed, and so Native Americans are now less included, less represented, and less visible in popular culture as a result. They're basically the forgotten minority and it's incredibly sad.

My question here, is who is sad? Who is objecting?

If Native Americans are frustrated with their portrayal in westerns, it's probably better that writers find something else to write their westerns about if they can't seem to nail the Native American perspective. Yeah, that means they don't get the representation they used to, but no representation is better than bad representation.

That representation might even be well-intentioned, but if you get it wrong, you've still got a bunch of cringing, ticked off Native American viewers going "where does this guy get off pretending like he understands us?"

This is why we do our research and use sensitivity readers and not assume our good intentions will protect us. Imagine being the only Native American watching a western movie and seeing how absolutely wrong the writers got the details of your culture, that they could have found out if they had only deigned to ask... and meanwhile the rest of the (white) audience is just sitting there watching the movie going "Yes, yes, this is fine. Aren't we so enlightened with our sympathetic depiction of Native Americans?" I would want to claw my eyes out.

 

[Bolares]

If you read the article I linked to, the acknowledgment is there. Yet the author's main contention is "As a cast made up entirely of Caucasian people, many were worried that Critical Role would attempt to wade into cultures that they had no personal connections to or representatives of."

But that worry is valid, and is an okay take to have, even more so in the beggining of campaign 3, where we haven't seen how Mercer made Marquet.

It's that kind of judgement, that only people with a certain ancestry are allowed to represent people from a part of the world inspired by real world culture that I find problematic.

Raising questions and saying you are worried is not the same as passing judgement, or saying someone is not allowed to write about a topic. This feels like a strawman to me. Sure, straight up saying "white people aren't allowed to write about other cultures" is wrong, but who's saying that?

 

[Micah Sweet]

My question here, is who is sad? Who is objecting?

If Native Americans are frustrated with their portrayal in westerns, it's probably better that writers find something else to write their westerns about if they can't seem to nail the Native American perspective. Yeah, that means they don't get the representation they used to, but no representation is better than bad representation.

That representation might even be well-intentioned, but if you get it wrong, you've still got a bunch of cringing, ticked off Native American viewers going "where does this guy get off pretending like he understands us?"

This is why we do our research and use sensitivity readers and not assume our good intentions will protect us. Imagine being the only Native American watching a western movie and seeing how absolutely wrong the writers got the details of your culture, that they could have found out if they had only deigned to ask... and meanwhile the rest of the (white) audience is just sitting there watching the movie going "Yes, yes, this is fine. Aren't we so enlightened with our sympathetic depiction of Native Americans?" I would want to claw my eyes out.

You know, its interesting. I've heard from more than one person that, "all representation is good representation ". Just being there is a positive, even if the details are wrong. Seems there are differing opinions on that, even within BIPOC communities. No group is a monolith.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But that worry is valid, and is an okay take to have, even more so in the beggining of campaign 3, where we haven't seen how Mercer made Marquet.

So it's ok to assume that a non-member of culture X can't tell a story about culture X without being problematic until proven otherwise?

 

[prabe]

So it's ok to assume that a non-member of culture X can't tell a story about culture X without being problematic until proven otherwise?

I think if there's a history of appropriation, it's reasonable to have concerns--especially if there's money involved.

 

[Bolares]

So it's ok to assume that a non-member of culture X can't tell a story about culture X without being problematic until proven otherwise?

Again, that's not what's being said. is not that you can't tell the story... but being worried about it? yes I can understand. For most of my life Brazil has been depicted in media as a savage land full of jungles, monkeys and naked people dancing. So, when a movie depicts my country I get worried that the steriotype will be made again. I'm not saying that americans (as an example) can't tell stories in or about Brazil, but history has shown me that most of the time they do it in a bad way.

 

[J-H]

My question here, is who is sad? Who is objecting?

If Native Americans are frustrated with their portrayal in westerns, it's probably better that writers find something else to write their westerns about if they can't seem to nail the Native American perspective. Yeah, that means they don't get the representation they used to, but no representation is better than bad representation.

That representation might even be well-intentioned, but if you get it wrong, you've still got a bunch of cringing, ticked off Native American viewers going "where does this guy get off pretending like he understands us?"

This is why we do our research and use sensitivity readers and not assume our good intentions will protect us. Imagine being the only Native American watching a western movie and seeing how absolutely wrong the writers got the details of your culture, that they could have found out if they had only deigned to ask... and meanwhile the rest of the (white) audience is just sitting there watching the movie going "Yes, yes, this is fine. Aren't we so enlightened with our sympathetic depiction of Native Americans?" I would want to claw my eyes out.

I think it's sad, because Native Americans are basically ignored in popular culture now. Land O Lakes decided to delete the Native American but keep the land.
Some depictions are good, some depictions are bad, but being ignored and erased is worse.

When books are not written, products are not made, and representations are stripped out to avoid the risk of being offensive or the expense of hiring consultants, you end up with less diversity and less exposure (of whatever quality) of anything that doesn't line up with the mainstream culture and view.

This dimunition of speech lessens everyone. I think I've adequately presented my point about the losses to free expression, communication, and diversity that are being brought about.

I've checked out a bunch of 8+ page threads in the past, and they are usually a big mess of spaghetti posting and arguing semantics without much listening. This thread is reaching the length where I'm going to disengage.