Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Levistus's_Leviathan" data-source="post: 8508262" data-attributes="member: 7023887">While I don't like to quote myself, but I feel like it's important here to lay out why I haven't chosen a position yet. Let's go down the pros and cons of every option. Pros - <ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">If you remove cultural context and replace it with others, it can have some cool/interesting results. For example, you could have a Pirate Frost Giant, that still keeps the theme of a nautical raider, but makes it unique and less attached to Nordic stereotypes. Or a Roman Rakshasa, that uses a gladius and shield, and is still militaristic, but not tied to Indian stereotypes. Or a Djinni stylized off of an Ancient-Greek-Philosopher, who debates moral philosophy with the PCs (perhaps about the evil nature of certain creatures). This can result in some new and inventive ideas/combinations. (Or, alternatively, you could just make up an entirely new fantasy culture to staple on these monsters and get rid of the problem entirely.)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">This can result in things like Theros! There's not really any Rakshasas, Genies, or similar monsters in Theros (anything not taken/inspired by Greek Mythology doesn't really exist in the setting), but it still works as an example of how basing a setting off of a real world culture can work (a lot of M:tG worlds are pretty good examples of this, too). And if the mono-cultural worlds do exist in a shared multiverse (like the M:tG worlds), they can still cross-pollinate and end up sharing ideas and concepts with each other. An Eldritch Horror-type creature from Innistrad could invade Theros, or vice-versa, and it could result in some cool and memorable stories.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">This would explain why certain monsters have certain cultures, as it would show that the monsters took/borrowed the culture from the fantasy-counterpart-culture of that world and were influenced by having that culture. Alternatively, you could go as far as to say that these creatures are kinda like "culture sponges/mirrors", and will adapt to a culture that they're close to to get some kind of leverage (maybe by trying to deceive them, or gain some political power, or to just try and connect more with them). </li> </ol>Cons - <ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">This could be/seem like cultural appropriation. If you're not using the monsters in their intended context, why are you even using them? If it's for a sense of the exotic, it's probably a bad idea to use them. "Write what you know" and be respectful for the context of other people's cultures. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">This is, by definition, exclusionary and could come across as "don't get your peanut butter on my chocolate". A lot of the time, cross-pollinating story elements across cultures is a beneficial thing. This almost definitely removes that (unless there is travel between worlds, like through Spelljammer, Sigil, or the Planeswalkers of M:tG). It's a sort of "fantastical cultural segregation", and that could quite possibly be a bad thing. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">This requires more work than the others and involves retconning official settings' lore in your games to add in a sort of Thermian justification for their usage of that culture (explaining the culture's presence by changing lore for it to make sense). It's a better solution than none (IMO), but that doesn't make it a good solution. </li> </ol>And, of course, there's always the fourth option: do nothing. This thread came up as a way to try and answer a personal dilemma, so I'm not going to take that one. Other people can, but I'm absolutely not going to.</blockquote>

Verification