D&D General The Rakshasa and Genie Problem

[Irlo]

It's not a Slippery Slope like you claimed when the slope is real and happening.

Honestly, it's really an uphill slog.

 

[guachi]

Just let me know if I'm supposed to hate all those vampire books and movies that are completely divorced from Eastern European culture. Or maybe we can celebrate the kind of cultural fusion and borrowing that has gone on basically forever.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Those were the options that I thought of. I never claimed that it was a comprehensive/definitive list and asked for other suggestions. Seriously, can you guys stop threadcrapping like this? The thread is not about any of the things that you seem to claim it's about.

And, no, only one was about removing them, and it was only from worlds that don't already have those fantasy-counterpart cultures (I mentioned how they would still remain in Al-Qadim, for example). The other was about changing them so they could have different cultures attached to them in any given setting, and another was about adding in those fantasy counterpart cultures to the world to justify them having that cultural style.

Can you at least properly represent my posts if you're going to refer to them? Is that too much to ask? (P.S. I never mentioned WotC. This thread was not about convincing anyone of any sort of change to how the official settings are presented. It was more of a thought experiment of which would be better from a cultural standpoint.)

You're right, only one was removing them. I apologize. This topic is very hot-button, so it's easy to see someone you dont like and extrapolate it out. I dont agree that any action on this topic needs to be taken, but you were talking about you should do. Fair enough, it's not about me.

 

[Vaalingrade]

But people aren't advocating for colonialism, malice, racism, or any other bad moral thing you want to chuck their way.

I don't think they're (for the most part) advocating that. I think they're just trying to dig in and silence/deflect the discussion because it threatens traditions. One of the things that brings out the absolute worst in D&D is the defense of tradition based solely on it being tradition.

 

[Irlo]

The dilemma that I discussed in the OP broke down into these three options:

1. Should we strip the cultural context from the borrowed monsters to avoid them becoming stand-ins for those cultures in worlds that don't already have stand-ins for them. (Like Eberron, which doesn't have a humanoid cultural stand-in for Middle Eastern people, but does have a nation of Rakshasa that wear similar outfits, have similar architecture, the same titles, etc.) This has the issue of possibly being mis-appropriation of those cultures' creatures.
2. Should we just not use those creatures in the first place if there is a risk of them being taken as stand-ins for that real-world culture? (Again, would it better to just not use Rakshasas in Eberron as a major population of an area of the main continent and instead just use a different type of fiend to get across the same theme without appearing to misuse the monsters.)
3. Should we instead include a humanoid version of the cultural stand-ins (like Al-Qadim) so there would then be a place for the creatures from those real-world cultures in the used setting? (Maybe by adding a Middle-East stand in to the area of the Demon Wastes or perhaps Sarlona/Xen'Drik to explain why they have similar cultures to the real world counterparts of them.)

That's what I was asking (while also asking if there was another option that people thought of), not whether or not it was okay to use those creatures in the first place (I said in the OP that I was okay with this), or any other mischaracterization of the OP.

Now that I'm done being distracted by comments that are contrary to the spirit of this thread:

1) Generally, IMO, the D&D representations of borrowed monsters are already stripped of meaningful cultural context. I'm comfortable placing those monsters in adventures. That's not universal. I'm sure I could find examples that would make me uncomfortable. And of course when I hear from informed people that particular placements are cringey or inappropriate, I will listen and adapt my games.

2) No, if I were being consistently thoughtful and living up to my own expectations, I would try not to use those creatures in the first place in a way that set them up as stand-ins for a real-world culture. But DO use them in a way that doesn't set them up superficially as stand-ins. That means you can take the djinni out of the turbans and pantaloons and throw away the falchion. Those props if used lazily are short-hand cultural signifiers that can be dropped from any DM's campaign without worry.

3) I'm still formulating my thoughts on the third point. I think the main point is that if monsters in the fantasy world have a culture based on a real-world one, I'd establish a fantasy-world human analog also. Otherwise, give the monsters a fantasy culture divorced from real-world counterparts.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think they're (for the most part) advocating that. I think they're just trying to dig in and silence/deflect the discussion because it threatens traditions. One of the things that brings out the absolute worst in D&D is the defense of tradition based solely on it being tradition.

I have asked you before: what do you want D&D to be? What kind of content do you want to actually be in the books? I haven't heard anything from you about what you actually like (and if you have put it out there I apologize), just what you have a problem with. What's your ideal D&D?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I have asked you before: what do you want D&D to be? What kind of content do you want to actually be in the books? I haven't heard anything from you about what you actually like (and if you have put it out there I apologize), just what you have a problem with. What's your ideal D&D?

I'm sorry, this really isn't the thread to discuss this. The thread is about the connection between monsters/creatures that are borrowed from other cultures' mythologies/folklore and how they're presented in D&D worlds. It's not about any of those questions. If you want to make a thread about it or take that to PMs, feel free. However, we've already had enough threadcrapping and red herrings in this thread's past 5 pages.

 

[Argyle King]

I find your focus on the people currently living in India misplaced.

Folks who live in India, constantly among a majority who share their cultural background, may not feel particularly put upon by appropriation. But, they are in a majority in the middle of a population of a billion people - they are fairly secure. When you visit them in India, they YOU the minority.

When you come to these shores, that's flipped - the power dynamic is different, and the considerations should therefore be different.

In addition, take one country - India. That's one group, and maybe they don't currently feel they have a problem with appropriation. Let us, for this paragraph, take that to be correct. So, now we have one minority that doesn't have an issue, but others that do have issues. We should, what, not think so much about how we handle the one as compared to the others? "Okay, the African, Native American, and South American cultures all deserve this level of respect and attention, but folks from the Indian sub-continent don't deserve the respect?

Seems to me they all deserve the same sort of respect, whether they start out cheesed off at us or not.

Is there a version of that scenario in which doing what you're suggesting could be seen as disrespectful?

As someone who is not a member of that culture, what authority do you claim to decide for them that they ought to be offended even when/if they aren't?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

This is both hyperbole and strawmannirg. The issue with most of these things is there is serious, and legitimate, disagreement over whether any of these elements constitute something as bad as racism, or if they are colonialist propaganda.

Nope. Again, read the OP if you want to know the topic. That's not what this thread is about or the issue at hand. Again, in the OP I said I was absolutely fine with borrowing creatures from other cultures' mythologies/folklore.

We've had those discussions endlessly, so I don't think there is a need to rehash them here. But people aren't advocating for colonialism, malice, racism, or any other bad moral thing you want to chuck their way.

And no one in that thread was saying any of that.

They are seeing that this might be an over-reaction, perhaps even becoming a bit of a moral panic, and that we are in the process of removing things that add flavor, conflict, and enjoyment to the game (and that a lot of this is removing creativity as well because it is a narrowing of what is creatively permissible: seriously you need a masters degree, or must have been invested in multiple hundred-page threads, at this point to even know where the lines are).

What might be an overreaction? Because this thread sincerely is just asking questions and trying to prompt a discussion about the cultures given to fantasy monsters based on those creatures' mythological roots. Saying "I don't know what to do about this issue" is an overreaction to you?

This thread is not about gatekeeping creative ideas for how to depict monsters/creatures in your D&D games or official D&D products (it's quite the opposite, actually), it's not about creating a moral panic, or removing lore, or the enjoyment of the game.

Can we all please stop with these reactionary outrage because of what you thought this thread was about? Because it's not about any of the stuff you "suggest" it was about. I didn't do anything to attack or offend you, so why do you feel the need to crap on a thread that did neither of those to you?

 

[Scars Unseen]

1. Should we strip the cultural context from the borrowed monsters to avoid them becoming stand-ins for those cultures in worlds that don't already have stand-ins for them. (Like Eberron, which doesn't have a humanoid cultural stand-in for Middle Eastern people, but does have a nation of Rakshasa that wear similar outfits, have similar architecture, the same titles, etc.) This has the issue of possibly being mis-appropriation of those cultures' creatures.
2. Should we just not use those creatures in the first place if there is a risk of them being taken as stand-ins for that real-world culture? (Again, would it better to just not use Rakshasas in Eberron as a major population of an area of the main continent and instead just use a different type of fiend to get across the same theme without appearing to misuse the monsters.)
3. Should we instead include a humanoid version of the cultural stand-ins (like Al-Qadim) so there would then be a place for the creatures from those real-world cultures in the used setting? (Maybe by adding a Middle-East stand in to the area of the Demon Wastes or perhaps Sarlona/Xen'Drik to explain why they have similar cultures to the real world counterparts of them.)

1. Can be done, but risks disassociating the result from the inspiration. Which sometimes happens anyway, especially in a game with as many iterations as D&D. E.g. how much of the myth of Perseus survives in the entry for medusa or gorgon?
2. This one I kind of mostly reject. I think there could be some edge cases where real world mistreatment of a subject is too prominent for a fictional analogue not to be tainted by association, but I feel that it would have to pretty egregious to make it unsalvageable. Overall I reject the notion that sharing ideas and stories - even imperfectly - across cultures is a bad thing. Even mythology is often cross-pollinated, as seen by elements of Sumerian mythology informing mythologies of other Mesopotamian cultures.
3. This one I think has to be a decision made on a setting level, not an overall game level, certainly not a gaming culture level. To bring up the earlier example, I don't think that the hobby would be enriched overall if every setting had to have a swords and sandals area in order for a medusa to appear. In fact, overused, I could see this doing the opposite of positively addressing your concerns, as it could just as likely result in a collection of cultural theme parks as it could a respectful treatment of cultural origins.

I do like the earlier suggestion made in the thread to include references to originating literature where possible.