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

[Dannyalcatraz]

I just read this, and without knowing where you're coming from, I thought... "Ooo...cool! I could get into a world like that. Inca as the baseline, with variations from other areas/cultures...neat..."

I hope you were pointing this out as a "good thing" and not a "bad thing". Because it got my imagination and desire to look more into all of the cultures above to see how you could make a cool character. I wasn't thinking D&D as a base though...somehow feels more "skill based system". Could do it with D&D though I guess.

So, um...did you mean "imagine an RPG set in the new world..." as some sort of 'bad thing'?
(Gawds I hope not...)

^_^

Paul L. Ming

A new world RPG can be a good thing. I have a couple.

But to erase all of the other cultures of the Americas save variations of a single one would not be. You can see that, right?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think you are helping @Ruin Explorer's point, I think. Good or bad we tend to know a lot about the Romans (and the Greeks) in a context and as part of a larger well-examined (though still fragmentary) history. The history of the Aztecs, such as it is, is mostly tied up with European contact and decontextualized customs and rituals that make that context much harder to imagine for the average person who cares enough to think about the cultures of ancient civilizations (though Aztec is not really "ancient" since is existed 1000+ years after Roman).

I wasn't attacking that point. I was just responding to the point about how we view the negatives of the Roman empire.

My point about the Aztecs was about a lack of interest. There are just some cultures I am more interested in than others. And because of that, I can't really weigh in on the 'why' of Aztec history being not as thoroughly understood (I have some ideas but it isn't a subject I am familiar with enough that I would be comfortable making assertions about it).

But I wasn't disputing that we know more about some historical cultures than others. We know a lot less about Carthage for example than Rome. There are lots of reasons that go into the why of primary sources being preserved. Who conquered who is often a huge factor but so is climate, the medium of the sources, the literacy level of the people themselves (their determination to preserve their primary sources), the culture of the people who conquered them and their interest in preserving the sources, how well the culture in question captures the imagination of people who come after them, dumb luck, etc.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It was the Christians, who were persecuted by Rome, who wrote the history (at least in our predominantly in our culture).

As someone who has read a lot of this, I feel like this is a distinction without much of a difference, and I believe I can argue it extremely well, because the form of Christianity was absolutely distinctly a Roman Christianity (we still call it that!), right down to where it was based and the laws it used (including laws which arguably flew in the face of Christian teaching). There's some nuance of course, but even as some pre-Christian Romans were indeed demonized by later historians, other ones were basically lionized as "honorary Christians" lol. And the Protestant/Catholic split has some impact, it's temporally limited, and by the 1800s, the "Romans were amazing!" freight-train is running full-speed. I think that's all that can be really argued here on ENworld due to it involving religion, but if you want to discuss further, I'm happy to via DMs.

If you read books like Roman murder mysteries (there is a whole genre dedicated to this), the issue of slavery frequently comes up.

I am aware, though only really have read some of the Falco ones, and they were ummmm, not exactly historically accurate, and in my view, are very much part of the tradition of playing up the similarities of Roman culture to the modern day (or to the 1950s, at least), whilst playing down anything too uncomfortable. I see the genre is still alive and well and busier than ever, and I'll be honest, I have no idea if recent books in it are more challenging to this "Just like us but with togas" view of Rome, or if they perpetuate it further, or it's a mix or what.

Even in the golden age of Hollywood: you have films like Spartacus which are about a slave revolt (which ends with a massive crucifixion on the Appian Way: this is not an effort to say the bad things of the Roman empire were not all that bad).

Absolutely, but I think there's a bit of subtext often found to the nature of "Rome wasn't wrong, it was just the guys in charge hating Christians that was wrong".

Re: Spartacus, I think one might contrast the BBC/HBO series "Rome" and the Starz Spartacus. The BBC/HBO Rome went about as far as you're "allowed" to go in criticising Rome before loud establishment voices start telling you you're being "unfair" and you need to "remember what Rome did for you!". Compared to Roman writings, it's actually extremely tame in the depiction of Rome. It's far more tame and safe and modern-day-like than the Rome Roman authors of that period or even later described. Spartacus is lurid, over the top, sex-and-violence, and yet... much closer to the society the Romans themselves described (even on specific points, I'm already going on too much but frankly whoever wrote Spartacus did more research than whoever wrote Rome, even if they decided to ignore it and hard on melodrama at times).

And re: Spartacus further, it's almost impossible to see him as anything but a deeply heroic figure. You have to work really hard. Voltaire said his war was the "only just war in history". But it's telling that, in the British establishment (i.e. the public-schoolboy-lead brotherhood of people who basically run the country - politicians, senior civil servants, bankers, senior media figures, etc.), during the 20th century were one of the few groups who didn't typically see Spartacus as a hero, but rather as some kind of idiot, and I think that speaks to the sheer level of indoctrination re: the importance and superiority of Rome.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If I were to go to Glasgow and proclaim myself Scottish, I imagine the Glaswegians at the pub would be slightly bemused by my decidedly American accent, my lack of interest in the Rangers F.C., or my lack of fear at taking a stroll at night with a big wad of cash in my pocket. i.e. They're not going to see me as Scottish they're going to see me as an American and I think that would be a fair assessment.

I'm not going to lie and say we don't find it extremely amusing that Americans will identify themselves with 200+ year distant ancestors, but equally, I don't think it's something we typically see as "wrong", just... odd. And they're not going to deny that you have a right to wear the appropriate tartan or whatever (itself a quasi-colonial tradition but that's another discussion) or identify as being from a clan you've traced yourself back to (though I think that may be more popular outside Scotland than in!). My dad is Glaswegian, note, and most of my family from southern Scotland.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I am aware, though only really have read some of the Falco ones, and they were ummmm, not exactly historically accurate, and in my view, are very much part of the tradition of playing up the similarities of Roman culture to the modern day (or to the 1950s, at least), whilst playing down anything too uncomfortable. I see the genre is still alive and well and busier than ever, and I'll be honest, I have no idea if recent books in it are more challenging to this "Just like us but with togas" view of Rome, or if they perpetuate it further, or it's a mix or what.

The Falco books were entertaining but I would agree bit anachronistic. Steven Saylor's series is where I remember seeing commentary by the protagonist on things like slavery (almost to the point that it felt a little implausible the lead character was so enlightened, but it was there). Generally it isn't a genre I would look to for historical accuracy: the setting is being used as a backdrop. Definitely more historical Romance so you are going to have that "Just like us but in Togas" feel at times. But they still often do plenty of research and my point was just that you see a lot of conflicted feelings about Rome coming from many of the writers.

 

[MGibster]

I'd agree with most of the points you're making, but I still think this one was fairly obvious, because of the double-whammy of the original picture being from a certain era and the weird disconnected "You can wear it!" thing, which like, only really connects to the art in an odd, Orientalist way.

I would submit that it was not obvious to the employees curators of the Boston Fine Arts Museum. While it's true that art museums are more likely to court controversy than many other types of museums, that was not the type of controversy they wanted any part of.

Re: class, I strongly disagree. I think what you're actually looking at there isn't "working class people don't care", but rather working class people have to work so hard and deal with so many issues in the US (esp. re health care etc.) that this can't reach high on their priority list.

I didn't say working class people didn't care. I said that the protestors were likely middle class college educated individuals themselves. i.e. The same class of people who are employed at the museum. When I hear someone talking about Orientalism and cultural appropriation they're usually someone with the privilege to have attended university and most likely have a middle class background.

Also, the US, specifically, has made Japanese-Americans into an oppressed culture, by, y'know literally oppressing them in living memory (I mean George Takei - Sulu - was in the camps, for goodness sake).

And why do Japanese Americans trump the Japanese in terms of what's okay? Monet's painting wasn't inspired from Japanese-American culture it was inspired by Japanese culture. Like I said, I'm Americentric so I get it. Asian Americans are Americans so I suppose they carry more weight. But does that sound right to you? Do Asian Americans own how the rest of us exchange culture with Japan?

Cultural appropriation is also fairly straightforward, I'd say. People like to try and overcomplicate it with weird corner cases, but conceptually, it's neutral, just a thing that happens (it's slightly unfortunate the term sounds negative, but it wasn't intended do).

This I agree with. Unfortunately, for the last few years at least, I've rarely heard cultural appropriation used in anything other than a negative context.

OA's being problem was indeed being called Oriental Adventures. Not only was that already a bit of a "grandpa title" in the 1980s, but it was really misleading, and misleading in exactly the way that was actually a problem at the time (and sometimes still is), which is the view that all "Asian" cultures are "essentially the same" or "very similar" and also that they're "exotic".

I think we can simultaneously acknowledge the flaws in OA while recognizing what a great book it was. The book has problems and that's quite clear. However, it has an important place in the history of AD&D and I think it's legacy is more positive than negative.

 

[Maxperson]

There's some nuance of course, but even as some pre-Christian Romans were indeed demonized by later historians, other ones were basically lionized as "honorary Christians" lol.

That's a novel way of describing the gladiator matches.

And yes, I know that's not what you meant, but I can't pass up potential humor.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Re: Spartacus, I think one might contrast the BBC/HBO series "Rome" and the Starz Spartacus. The BBC/HBO Rome went about as far as you're "allowed" to go in criticising Rome before loud establishment voices start telling you you're being "unfair" and you need to "remember what Rome did for you!". Compared to Roman writings, it's actually extremely tame in the depiction of Rome. It's far more tame and safe and modern-day-like than the Rome Roman authors of that period or even later described. Spartacus is lurid, over the top, sex-and-violence, and yet... much closer to the society the Romans themselves described (even on specific points, I'm already going on too much but frankly whoever wrote Spartacus did more research than whoever wrote Rome, even if they decided to ignore it and hard on melodrama at times).

And re: Spartacus further, it's almost impossible to see him as anything but a deeply heroic figure. You have to work really hard. Voltaire said his war was the "only just war in history". But it's telling that, in the British establishment (i.e. the public-schoolboy-lead brotherhood of people who basically run the country - politicians, senior civil servants, bankers, senior media figures, etc.), during the 20th century were one of the few groups who didn't typically see Spartacus as a hero, but rather as some kind of idiot, and I think that speaks to the sheer level of indoctrination re: the importance and superiority of Rome.

I just don't think that bolded part is true (edit: to be clear the part I am referring to is this idea that there is an establishment that will label you unfair if you go too far)

 

[pming]

Hiya!

A new world RPG can be a good thing. I have a couple.

But to erase all of the other cultures of the Americas save variations of a single one would not be. You can see that, right?

Erasing, yes. But adding on, manipulating and using for inspiration to create a unique fantasy "culture", all with a base-line of some single culture (Inca, in this example) ...no. Nothing I see wrong with that at all. That's how pretty much everything creative is made; take ideas, thoughts, visuals, 'feelings', etc from all sorts of input...then filter it through an artistic lens and voila! Something new.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Bedrockgames]

As someone who has read a lot of this, I feel like this is a distinction without much of a difference, and I believe I can argue it extremely well, because the form of Christianity was absolutely distinctly a Roman Christianity (we still call it that!), right down to where it was based and the laws it used (including laws which arguably flew in the face of Christian teaching). There's some nuance of course, but even as some pre-Christian Romans were indeed demonized by later historians, other ones were basically lionized as "honorary Christians" lol. And the Protestant/Catholic split has some impact, it's temporally limited, and by the 1800s, the "Romans were amazing!" freight-train is running full-speed. I think that's all that can be really argued here on ENworld due to it involving religion, but if you want to discuss further, I'm happy to via DMs.

lol I am not denying that link. Obviously the Roman empire was christianized. And, as a practicing Catholic, I am very aware of the 'Roman' part. But I also would never read "Roman Catholic" as meaning you are supposed to be an advocate of the Roman empire, or ignore its crimes. But my point is it is very hard to grow up say, reading the New Testament every sunday, and not not view the Roman empire as oppressive. That doesn't mean you can't also see its legacy and its achievements. Like I said, you can juggle multiple things in your head. You can be impressed by Rome, admire its literature, see the cleverness of its military tactics, without needing to endorse how those tactics were used. And there is plenty of room for augmentation and discussion. When people look at a society like Rome and the impact it had, they are going to take different positions on how much it gave to the world versus how much it took away. I think the best history is when we don't get dragged down into overly black and white moralizing and take a more nuanced view so we can analyze it more clearly (especially when we are taking about stuff that happened thousands of years ago).