D&D General "Red Orc" American Indians and "Yellow Orc" Mongolians in D&D

[Mirtek]

I am pretty shocked that british look back so harshly on the roman times. Don't you have restored patches of Hadrian's Wall that are treated as cultural heritage and place of yearly roman renfaires?

We sure have those along the Limes.

 

[Yaarel]

And yet the brought us civilization, urbanization. We kept and cherished those even after kicking the romans themselves out.

I am regularily going to cities that were founded by the romans thousands of years ago and still going strong in modern germany. The legacy of the roman occupation are the pillars of our modern culture. Even our laws are still based on what the romans left us (in principle).

Not based on what those savage weirdos in their longhouses worshiping Wotan did.


You missunderstood. I am not disappointed. I am having a blast as those faires and hope that next year we'll again have more of those and not all are cancelled again due to covid

During the Post-Classical Era, the power of the Roman Empire was prestigious. The chiefs of the Germanic tribes aggressively self-Romanized, styling themselves as Roman aristocrats, adopting the Roman point-of-view and Roman way of life, while conscripting tribe members into the Roman armies.

 

[Umbran]

Sure, but there's a direct link between the Romans and the logic involved in defending/supporting the Roman conquests and the colonial conquests

Well, I just rejected that logic based on how the results are nowhere near analogous. Quick, concise, and efficient.

I think discussing the Romans at this point is a distraction.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I am pretty shocked that british look back so harshly on the roman times. Don't you have restored patches of Hadrian's Wall that are treated as cultural heritage and place of yearly roman renfaires?

We sure have those along the Limes.

Sure we do, and it's not like we're spitting on it or whatever, but I think British people, especially under a certain age, are a bit less keen on the Romans, because we have at least some evidence of successful traditions wiped out by them (agriculture being one, not being massive misogynists being another - rumours of Celtic matriarchy are likely false but powerful women had far more of a place in Celtic society than Roman), and whilst neo-paganism never caught on, there's an innate sympathy for the Druids and so on, who Caesar was so proud of wiping out.

Also we can see, I think, how Rome informed the British Empire, and was used as an excuse/model by the British Empire, and most people under 40 think the British Empire was a Very Bad Thing Indeed (as you get older, that changes dramatically - esp. with over-60s).

There's enough of a split that Boomers felt the need to make pro-Roman propaganda pieces in the last couple of decades, to try and make younger people think like them via the BBC particularly. All of them are at least partly genuinely educational, but they're often extremely disingenuous, ignoring destruction and focusing solely on stuff the Romans imported to the UK (most of which Rome didn't invent, merely popularized, but that's often overlooked), and exaggerating a lot of stuff (one show basically gave the impression the Romans put paved roads all up and down Britain, which archaeology shows is absolutely not true - only about 20% of their major roads were paved, and most of their roads followed existing roads).

During the Post-Classical Era, the power of the Roman Empire was prestigious. The chiefs of the Germanic tribes aggressively self-Romanized, styling themselves as Roman aristocrats, adopting the Roman point-of-view and Roman way of life, while conscripting tribe members into the Roman armies.

Yup. You side with the winning side, not with the people who are getting crushed militarily and having their land taken away for being insufficiently Roman, and so on.

The Romans also started the whole thing that the USA later mastered, where they'd sign contracts about land/ownership, everyone would be happy and so on, then the Romans would just go "Nah we decided to ignore that and are just taking your land".

Well, I just rejected that logic based on how the results are nowhere near analogous. Quick, concise, and efficient.

I think discussing the Romans at this point is a distraction.

I mean, I don't think you can reject that logic so easily, given the huge amount of scholarship around it, but if you're saying as a mod we shouldn't discuss the Romans, I guess that's that.

 

[Umbran]

I just took offense to the idea that they brought civilization. All the conquered peoples Rome defeated had civilization. The idea that they didn't is part of the great justification for colonialism, particularly in the 19th Century.

Again, this is a distraction. The OP is talking about an issue of today, with potential ways to address it today, within the realm of RPGs.

What 18th and 19the century people thought that established the problem is appropriate to study - but I question whether this thread is the place for that study. Roman conquest really doesn't tell us what WotC ought to do about their legacy product, or what they should do going forward.

 

[MGibster]

History is written by the victor, but archaeology lets you find out that it's often a pack of lies, and a lot of what people claim about Rome is exactly that.

Every time I hear that history is written by the victors I can't help but think of Thucydides who was on the losing side of the Peloponnesian War, the robust body of Lost Cause literature created by Southern historians regarding the American Civil War, or the myriad of books on Vietnam written by Americans.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

I have read your proposal. I tickle on the recurring founding because I evaluate that you place your noble cause in a position of weakness by doing so.
IMO if I was in charge of a Waldorf school, I would politely discard an offer of funding base on products that promote mockery and racism. The tie with educational article won’t change the nature of gaz10 product. And knowing human nature, even with your proposals add in, Gaz10 may become a crush for the wrong reasons. So for educational purpose I would rather seek for a DnD setting to promote Native American culture and history.

Hi, could you clarify this phrase: "I tickle on the recurring founding" ? I realize we're not all native English speakers - and I welcome that - I just want to make sure I understand what you're conveying.

Amends is a step, it may never come, so better keep moving on, the goal is to have a meaningful and satisfying life.

Amends certainly won't come if no one calls for it. I'll move on when I wish.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

The main problem with Roman settings is, hilariously, that virtually all of them tone DOWN how horrifying a lot of elements of Roman culture were, rather than even presenting them accurately, let alone demonizing them.

I actually cannot think of a single setting which genuinely manages to demonize the Romans (it's probably out there but I can't think of it). Literally all of the Roman and quasi-Roman settings I can think of stop short of some of the more horrifying stuff (especially re: mass executions, mass slavery, sometimes quasi-genocidal conquest, and so on). There's always this "But they were civilized!!!!" thing. And like mate no. They were not. They just seemed like it. Reading about Roman society is always fascinating because one minute you're going "Wow, that's almost like us!" and the next you're going "JESUS WEPT THEY DID WHAT?!?!".

One of the most well-known components of Roman culture is crucifixion. And yet, somehow, the Rome fetishists bat that away as, what, a necessary evil, the cover charge for maintaining humankind's first great civilization?

I took a class in college that analyzed the Bible purely as literature, and the professor had a great line about all of this--that any time he hears gushing praise for Rome's cultural and political contributions all he can imagine is the sound of thousands of sandals marching in lockstep, stomping like jackboots through other civilizations.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The solution is clearly to gaslight the people who were bald-facedly insulted by these depictions until they believe they were touching tributes they should be thinking the authors for.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Every time I hear that history is written by the victors I can't help but think of Thucydides who was on the losing side of the Peloponnesian War, the robust body of Lost Cause literature created by Southern historians regarding the American Civil War, or the myriad of books on Vietnam written by Americans.

I mean, that's because of a misunderstanding of what "History is written by the victor" refers to though, isn't it?

It refers to cultural destruction. How when some cultures/groups conquer others, they destroy that culture and its ability to talk about itself (numerous examples in the New World relevant to this thread).

Your examples in in the first two cases are of internecine warfare, rather than cultural destruction. The losers in civil wars very often keep talking about it (only in the 20th century do things get so nasty that some dictators manage to stop that - c.f. Franco etc.), With the Vietnam war, horrific as it was, was military adventurism of the kind that's always existed and is usually the precursor to cultural destruction. Neither side really "won" in the sense of the adage.