D&D General The Rakshasa and Genie Problem

[Hexmage-EN]

Is there a Nerath sourcebook? Google fails me. I only gave one 4e publication, but I’m interested.

This forum has a number of threads that go over different subjects in depth:

The Piazza - Nentir Vale

Information about the world (history, locations, NPCs, etc) was scattered throughout nearly every sourcebook. A world map didn't appear until the Conquest of Nerath board game, when WotC released a number of articles to go with the new map.

There was probably also more lore given about the planes, gods, etc, than the Material Plane itself.

Oh, by the way, the Shadowfell city of Gloomwrought mentioned in passing in Wild Beyond the Witchlight as the original home of two shadar-kai NPCs was detailed in a boxed set during 4E. It was nice to see it be acknowledged.

 

[Remathilis]

There was probably also more lore given about the planes, gods, etc, than the Material Plane itself.

That fit me was a positive, since that allowed a lot more expansion. I added things from other settings, homebrew, 3pp stuff, and didn't feel I was betraying some established cannon. A little more structure (or at least better organizing) would have been nice.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I laughed so hard the earth shook, the skies opened and a new age dawned on the forum…an age of harmony and understanding. An age free of flame wars

 

[Faolyn]

What would you call the Jersey Devil in a world with no Jersey, I wonder?

Pathfinder apparently called it a devil steed.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Pathfinder apparently called it a devil steed.

The very first Pathfinder adventure path entry (Burnt Offerings) had the Sandpoint Devil, but maybe it was later retconned as just an individual devil steed rather than a unique creature.

 

[Faolyn]

I mean, we can literally just look at D&D and see the stereotype in it. Even the good decadent Arab creatures have slaves, it's just that they treat them nicely. If it weren't part of the stereotype, there wouldn't be a need to have the good ones have them as well; then it would be the mark of evil ones. But instead, they all have them. The reasoning is obvious: when you show off rich, decadent Arabs, there is an expectation that they have slaves. If you want to run around it, you can, but it's literally right there in the modern main book.

To be fair, the way they're written is that genies themselves a slave race, that it's very likely that any particular genie had been a slave themself, and thus their entire mentality is based around the concept of either owning others or being owned because that's all they know. After all, the traditional genie-in-a-lamp the slave of whoever rubs the lamp, and is imprisoned within it as well. Therefore there's the question of who enslaved others first?

I do agree that it's a bad stereotype, I'm sure WotC is never going to put out a Volo's-like book that delves into genie history (even if it'd be cool, though) and reveals this.

 

[Faolyn]

That's the real issue, isn't it? They are wearing the cultural garb of a people while being evil. The hobgoblins in Asian armor had the same problem. Maybe we should eliminate creatures wearing cultural garb or even just drastically reduce the art depicting said creatures.

Or just not have hobgoblins as being Typically Evil villains.

If there was an actually well-done Edo period-inspired human culture in D&D, nobody would upset, because if it were well-done, it would show both the good, neutral, and bad aspects of the culture. But with hobgoblins, their lives are described as brutal and artless.

If hobgoblins aren't Typically Evil (or Always Evil, or even Often Evil), but are people, then yes, there will be ruthless hobgoblin warlords to fight, but that wouldn't be the norm, and the fact that they are shown in Japanese-inspired garb wouldn't be a problem.

 

[Remathilis]

Or just not have hobgoblins as being Typically Evil villains.

If there was an actually well-done Edo period-inspired human culture in D&D, nobody would upset, because if it were well-done, it would show both the good, neutral, and bad aspects of the culture. But with hobgoblins, their lives are described as brutal and artless.

If hobgoblins aren't Typically Evil (or Always Evil, or even Often Evil), but are people, then yes, there will be ruthless hobgoblin warlords to fight, but that wouldn't be the norm, and the fact that they are shown in Japanese-inspired garb wouldn't be a problem.

Hobgoblins, I accept. They're a mortal race and capable of moral choice.

Efreeti, the actual evil genie (as in, if they were good, they'd be djinn) or raksasha's, literal FIENDS, aren't allowed to be Always/Often Evil?

I said a long time ago, when orcs and drow were the topic at hand, it wasn't going to stop at humanoids. I am being proved right that even extra-planar beings are being criticized for being majority Evil. Fiends, the literal definition of Evil Incarnate, is being pushed to be "any alignment". That doesn't sit well with me. Can we not even allow Demons/Devils/Fiends to be examples of the Always Evil/Exception that Proves the Rule?

 

[Faolyn]

Hobgoblins, I accept. They're a mortal race and capable of moral choice.

Efreeti, the actual evil genie (as in, if they were good, they'd be djinn) or raksasha's, literal FIENDS, aren't allowed to be Always/Often Evil?

I said a long time ago, when orcs and drow were the topic at hand, it wasn't going to stop at humanoids. I am being proved right that even extra-planar beings are being criticized for being majority Evil. Fiends, the literal definition of Evil Incarnate, is being pushed to be "any alignment". That doesn't sit well with me. Can we not even allow Demons/Devils/Fiends to be examples of the Always Evil/Exception that Proves the Rule?

Personally, I prefer no alignments and Always Evil fiends. I like how Level Up did it, where Evil (and Good, Lawful, and Chaotic) is just a tag some creatures, like fiends, have.

But anyway, when I bring up the idea of why fiends, being literally made of Evil, are OK to have an evil alignment, other people point out that they can rise. Also personally, I prefer the idea that a fiend that stops being Evil stops being a fiend.

But would an efreet stop being an efreet if it weren't evil? Well, part of the definition--probably the main definition--of an efreet is that they're powerful elemental spirits. So I would imagine that an efreet would stay an efreet if it weren't evil. It's still fire, after all. It would just represent the creative or helpful aspects of fire instead of the destructive aspects.

 

[GreyLord]

To me, this doesn't sound like a real solution to the problem, it's just trying to buy your way out of it. People from "those cultures" can promote stereotypes just as well as imperialists can, especially when their job depends on it.

I will agree that employing from the cultures you want to depict is a big step. But there's no guarantee it's a step in the right direction. You still need to do all the important work, starting with paying them properly, and ending with making a conscious effort to depict the culture appropriately. But simply hiring a few minority authors and claiming you're in the clear? Nope. That's a blatant diversity hire, and it's just a band aid on a systematic illness.

Then let them write what they WANT to write instead of dictating it to them.

What you state above has been used for DECADES on reasons why a company or group doesn't need to or should not hire a minority. It is an AWFUL opinion.

If anything, having a larger minority employee network increases the diversity in the workplace and might (though, yes, you are right, it might not, but there's a bigger chance if you have people from different backgrounds of having diverse ideas than having everyone from the same background) give more diverse ideas and creativity.

Hire them, pay them equal wages, give them equal benefits, and that's a start. It's a better start then making an excuse of why one shouldn't hire them. Of course they don't claim they are in the clear, but you HAVE TO START somewhere and it's a better start than many other ideas.

If more minorities are hired, there is a FAR better chance of them writing things that they understand and are pertinent to them than some White Boss dictating to them what is or is not acceptable.

There may be no guarantee, but it's a better start than a bunch of white guys trying to write out what they THINK that culture is like...which invariably leads to a LOT of stereotyping and worse.