D&D General The Rakshasa and Genie Problem

[Helldritch]

My overall experience has been: people can tell when you're exploring their culture out of genuine curiosity vs when you're repeating stereotypes without questioning them. It's hard to precisely define the difference, but it's easy to see in person.

In my experience, most people do not care at all. What they care about is not being associated with bad things. Not all Muslims are on a Jihad, far from that. Not all Indians are scamers. Far from that. These are the things we have to avoid. Incorporating part of their culture in our games in no way harm them and it is quite the contrary. I would never have read about Hindouism or Arabian cultures were it not for D&D. There is a difference between using part of a culture and make it appear bad.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Have you ever read the 4e PHB1 or MM1?

I have and given that, this post heavily implies you haven't.

Edited.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

You over thinking things, they aren't stand ins, they simply borrow a few cultural elements, but far from all.

I think the OP has a good point. If in a campaign the only place those few cultural elements appear are in association with a particular monster, then it's a stand-in Iand a two-dimensional stand-in at that). The questions at hand are 1) how and when to put those cultural elements into context; and 2) should we divorce those cultural elements from the creatures entirely?

Yeah, that's exactly what I was asking. Basically, if a world doesn't have a fantasy-counterpart culture for the group that's folklore/mythology inspired the D&D monster, should we divorce the cultural context from the monsters to avoid them becoming the stand-ins for those people, or would it just be best to not include them in the world in the first place if they would become those stand-ins due to the lack of having another cultural stand-in in the same world?

People in this thread that are whining about the current direction of D&D, saying that I'm overthinking/overreaction, or that your own personal anecdotes invalidate whatever you think the OP was about, because that's not what this thread or the OP was about.

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.

Does that make sense? Maybe I just didn't explain it that well in the OP. Thanks @Irlo for explaining it better than I did originally.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, that's exactly what I was asking. Basically, if a world doesn't have a fantasy-counterpart culture for the group that's folklore/mythology inspired the D&D monster, should we divorce the cultural context from the monsters to avoid them becoming the stand-ins for those people, or would it just be best to not include them in the world in the first place if they would become those stand-ins due to the lack of having another cultural stand-in in the same world?

People in this thread that are whining about the current direction of D&D, saying that I'm overthinking/overreaction, or that your own personal anecdotes invalidate whatever you think the OP was about, because that's not what this thread or the OP was about.

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.

Does that make sense? Maybe I just didn't explain it that well in the OP. Thanks @Irlo for explaining it better than I did originally.

For me, the answers are:

1. No
2. No
3. If you feel like it

I expect others have different opinions, and that's perfectly fine for your own games.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Does that make sense? Maybe I just didn't explain it that well in the OP. Thanks @Irlo for explaining it better than I did originally.

Either 1 or 3 seem fine to me. We could also do a mix of the two. Make cultural trappings of both the monster and the setting less explicit an more mixed. Like instead of being simply fantasy Europe, your setting is fantasy culture that borrows and mixes from many sources and same with the monsters.

 

[Mercurius]

D&D is a grab-bag of different ideas from different cultures and time periods. I see nothing wrong with using any of its ideas in whatever way you want. I mean, must we provide the proper Greek cultural context for Titans? Do frost giants "have to be" properly framed within Norse tropes? And what about literary origins? By this same logic, should not orcs be closer to Tolkien's version, who was the first to really codify them as a distinct creature? Or can we, instead, just play with the D&D versions, and adjust them to our liking?

A further element is that, as the OP pointed out, D&D creatures like the rakshasa often bear little resemblance to their real world inspiration. So why would you need to provide authentic cultural context for something that isn't authentic to that culture?

Things only get dicey when you're trying to depict, say, ancient India or Medieval Arabia in your fantasy world. Then it might be best to just scrap the D&D version, and start afresh, or find a well-researched supplement, and then read some books on the relevant culture. But even then, there are many different variations. For example, the rakshasa have been depicted in a variety of ways, from their earliest depiction in the Rig Veda to later depictions in the two great epics, the Mahabharata and Ramayana, to Buddhist and Jain versions, not to mention any number of more recent versions, such as that of the philosopher Sri Aurobindo. If providing the correct cultural context is important, which context do you mean? And again, if you're going for the authentic cultural context, why would you use the D&D version?

It becomes an endless entanglement, and one, I think, doesn't need to be un-tangled. Meaning, pull the so-called problem at the root and get back to the spirit of the game: Create your own fantasy world and populate it as you see fit. If you want an authentic Indian or Arabian context, then hit the books. If you just want to use the D&D Rakshasa or Genie, then go for it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It's not a question of just using the creatures though, but draping them in theme park versions of their respective cultures with zero anchoring essentially attaching those cultures solely to monsters.

 

[Remathilis]

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.)

Sure. Fine. Do that. No giants unless you have a Norse analog. No Raksasha's without India. No Medusa, Minotaurs, Nymphs or Centaurs without Greece. No Oni without Japan. No Genies without Arabia. No Wendigo without First Nations. No Banshee without Ireland. Cut those monsters right out of the Monster Manual and add them to the appropriate setting supplements and you'll have enough space left in the Monster Manual for multiple detailed cultures of goblins and orcs.

Everything stays in its own box. Everyone is happy.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think most people understand that a given monster has cultural aesthetic A because it originated in A.

Also don’t most settings have analogs for most places? Not up to date on the current ones but Forgotten Realms and Ravenloft both had analogs for places these monsters originated from. I am no Dark Sun expert, so maybe I missed it but that setting didn’t seem to have stuff like Rakshasa and the monsters all seemed tailored to the setting. Mystara had all kinds of cultural analogs. Can’t recall if dragonlance had a Middle East but I don’t really remember genies or rakashasa coming up there (totally could have since it has been years, and I am going by memory). But even if a setting didn’t have a Middle East and genies cans up, of no India or Buddhist analog places but an Indian rakashasa or Arabian style genie was encountered, I wouldn’t assume those monsters were standing for entire cultures. I would just assume they were that way because it is a familiar and expected presentation of them

 

[Hexmage-EN]

One complication regarding stripping D&D monsters from references to their originating culture is that it reduces the likelihood of people learning about those cultures, if they're so inclined. Looking up the City of Brass, the city of the efreet so often referenced in D&D, led to me learning about a recent Middle Eastern fantasy series called the Daevabad Trilogy, whose first entry is "The City of Brass." The novel description mentions djinn and marids, too, so as a D&D fan who might use genies some day I'm curious how this trilogy depicts them.

EDIT: Maybe an "inspirational reading" section could be tagged on for at least certain monsters?