What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Kaodi]

Not really about being knowledgeable per se. It is about having enough ownership to get it wrong. Like, the fidelity of Pathfinder to historical Europe is practically nil but it does not matter because we have the cultural ownership to do that and be like, "Whatever."

 

[Mesero]

Not really about being knowledgeable per se. It is about having enough ownership to get it wrong. Like, the fidelity of Pathfinder to historical Europe is practically nil but it does not matter because we have the cultural ownership to do that and be like, "Whatever."

Cultural ownership? Care to define that?

 

[Justice and Rule]

Yes, but being a minority in America does not make you knowledgeable about specific cultures in Africa.
So when you say "people from those cultures" like you did in your post I do expect that the writers would have grown up in said cultures. Not just that they are descendent from someone from said culture or otherwise claim kinship to it.

This is a bad distinction, because many people have cultural heritage that goes beyond just "claiming" it, nor does this actually comment on the fact that they actually knowledgeable. Further, they do have the lived experience of the harmful tropes and stereotypes that are associated with such areas, even if they are not directly from them, which makes it easier for them to identify them.

 

[Kaodi]

Cultural ownership? Care to define that?

Like the opposite of cultural appropriation.

 

[Mesero]

Like the opposite of cultural appropriation.

That doesn't make it any clearer.

 

[Umbran]

Yes, but being a minority in America does not make you knowledgeable about specific cultures in Africa.

Yes, but whose fault is that?

You are talking about people who were frequently violently removed from their cultures, and then forbidden to practice those cultures, or otherwise had those cultures suppressed by the majority.

To then insist that, in effect, their connection to their cultures is invalid is continuing the same process, which shows a significant disrespect for what their people have gone through.

I understand that such questions orbit around an idea of fairness. One does not make the current world more fair by continuing unfair practices of the past. If one wants to be seen as a valid participant in working with cultural legacies, one must be highly respectful of the people and their history.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yes, but whose fault is that?

You are talking about people who were frequently violently removed from their cultures, and then forbidden to practice those cultures, or otherwise had those cultures suppressed by the majority.

To then insist that, in effect, their connection to their cultures is invalid is continuing the same process, which shows a significant disrespect for what their people have gone through.

I understand that such questions orbit around an idea of fairness. One does not make the current world more fair by continuing unfair practices of the past. If one wants to be seen as a valid participant in working with cultural legacies, one must be highly respectful of the people and their history.

The only issue here is that its not always the case that someone from Africa considers an African-American any more qualified to talk about Africa than a white American. So whether its fair or not is not the only issue.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, but whose fault is that?

You are talking about people who were frequently violently removed from their cultures, and then forbidden to practice those cultures, or otherwise had those cultures suppressed by the majority.

To then insist that, in effect, their connection to their cultures is invalid is continuing the same process, which shows a significant disrespect for what their people have gone through.

I understand that such questions orbit around an idea of fairness. One does not make the current world more fair by continuing unfair practices of the past. If one wants to be seen as a valid participant in working with cultural legacies, one must be highly respectful of the people and their history.

Does that mean that knowledge of the culture is less relevant than blood ancestry then?

 

[CapnZapp]

I was listening to Sebastian Major's great podcast "Our Fake History" today, specifically the recent series on Yasuke, the African Samurai, and a thought came to me:

That story is really cool and makes for a great PC backstory, but it absolutely depends on the ecistence of such controversial topics as slavery and colonialism in order to exist. Without acknowledging and accepting those aspects of history and humanity, there is no Yasuke. In the context of RPGs, worlds that are scrubbed of those things can't have an "African Samurai" character.

Yasuke is hardly the only example. There's some rough stuff needed for Boudica to exist as a compelling PC, for example, or Nanisca from The Woman King. Adversity and harrowing trials make for great drama and interesting characters, and often times that adversity comes from the injustices that one people inflict upon another.

I am not saying we need to wallow in the horrors of slavery, colonialism, terrorism, fascism, etc... But I do think that we do not want to erase those things from our game worlds, because they give us the opportunity to create heroes that feel more real -- because in the popular imagination at least, it is rising above injustice (in all its forms) that makes heroes.

Do you scrub your world of slavery and other historical crimes? If so, how do you encourage heroism? If not, what do you do to mitigate the real potential discomfort such subjects can cause? Do you make different decisions based on the specific game or setting? Do you run historical games, and if so do you "soften" history to make it palatable?

Note that this thread isn't a place to talk about racial essentialism or inherent evil or any of that? If it helps you get in the right frame, assume we are talking about historical RPGing only. That said, nor is it a place to talk about modern real world politics. Thank you in advance for being kind and respectful to your fellow posters.

My first thought was that we should absolutely be "allowed" to feature slavery, colonialism, terrorism, fascism, etc in our games, and not just as "this is bad. go destroy bad" adventure quests either.

But I do need to point out that the way we do this is by not setting out stories on Earth. You start your post by prominently discussing several real life historical examples, and that can easily obscure this very important fact:

Our genre is called fantasy. This is because it allows players to explore difficult topics by explicitly setting the stories in made-up worlds where there are no Yasuke, no Samurai* and no Africa.

*) if there is a subclass or whatever called Samurai it is understood to mean the general concept of honor-bound trained warriors with an Asian theme, not the specific historical "real" Samurai.

This is what makes the discussion difficult. I absolutely agree that we should not have to remove injustice and mistreatment from our game worlds, but that is specifically because we don't game on real life Earth.

This is the cornerstone of the entire genre.

TL;DR: It's called "fantasy" for a reason.

And no, I'm not secretly making excuses for wallowing in misogyny and racism. I am explaining that by setting stories featuring misogyny and racism in made-up worlds we distance ourselves from real history and real minorities and real suffering. If you can't accept that, I have trouble concluding anything less that you invalidating the entire foundation for the fantasy genre. You are of course entitled to that opinion, but please realize what that means. If you can't accept fantasy adventures if they feature injustice and inequality I'm asking you at the very least are open about this.

 

[CapnZapp]

(I also don't think we should remove injustice and mistreatment from stories set on Earth, so nobody infers me arguing that. It's just not relevant for adventures in the fantasy genre)