• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

When Fantasy Meets Africa

The roaring success of the recent Black Panther film is another sign that fantasy worlds are changing. The fictional African country of Wakanda as portrayed in Marvel comic books has been isolated and stagnant, a common problem with "Othering" of non-white cultures. The plot of the film addresses its isolationist past and in doing so, blazes a trail for other fantasy universes in how they portray African-like nations.

Status
Not open for further replies.
The roaring success of the recent Black Panther film is another sign that fantasy worlds are changing. The fictional African country of Wakanda as portrayed in Marvel comic books has been isolated and stagnant, a common problem with "Othering" of non-white cultures. The plot of the film addresses its isolationist past and in doing so, blazes a trail for other fantasy universes in how they portray African-like nations.

[h=3]Marvel Deals With its "Other"[/h]Othering is a process in which other cultures are viewed through a biased lens of exoticism and isolationism. These cultures are not integrated into the world but are rather static, often amalgamating a region's various cultures into one homogeneous mass. The culture may be portrayed as never having advanced beyond what defines it as exotic.

Any world creation will likely be influence by the beliefs of the time, and many fantasy worlds -- Marvel's superhero universe included -- paint different cultures with broad strokes for white audiences as a form of shorthand. This is how we got Wakanda as a technologically-advanced culture that never fully engaged with the horrors of war that have rocked the world at large. As Nate Jones puts it:

It refuses to trade with other nations, though as one line in the movie makes clear, Wakandans are still able to consume American memes. As we see in a Western television broadcast in the movie, Wakanda is able to get away with this by masquerading as an impoverished third-world country, and since the country’s leadership refuses to take international aid, the rest of the world doesn’t ask too many questions.


The plot of Black Panther addresses this isolationism -- a byproduct of "othering" Wakanda as a a fictional nation in Africa -- head on, and makes it clear that the Marvel Cinematic Universe plans to integrate Wakanda into its narrative like any other nation. It's a bold choice that will likely change the static nature of Wakanda forever. Role-playing games face a similar dilemma.
[h=3]RPGs and Africa[/h]There hasn't been a great track record in nuanced representation of African nations in tabletop role-playing games. G.A. Barber uses Rifts Africa by Palladium as an example:

...with a decided lack of POC in the art, and the entire continent serves as a place for non-Africans to adventure in. There are 67 interior pictures in Rifts Africa, of which 54 depict non-Africans or landscape, and 13 depict Africans. The first picture with Africans in it has them acting as porters for a white game hunter. Four of the pictures (just under 25% of the pictures depicting Africans) depict Africans as monsters. None of the pictures show Africans using modern or futuristic technology or weapons, none of them are of Africans fighting monsters or “looking cool”. In a single book, ostensibly about Africa, only 19% of the pictures show Africans (omission), and the few depictions of them make it clear they are there as set dressing and nothing more (stereotypes and limited roles).


Dungeons & Dragons
has slowly, steadily, been addressing this issue. Fifth Edition has made efforts to be more inclusive, and that reflects in the diversity of character art. The lead image for the human race in the Player's Handbook is of a black woman. And yet, D&D still struggles with its broad strokes representation of African nations, as the controversy over the depiction of Chult demonstrates in Tomb of Annihilation:

Its point of inspiration is a campaign setting that, for years, has been written off as tone-deaf. The new adventure draws on D&D co-creator Gary Gygax’s adventure Tomb of Horrors and combines that with source material detailing Chult, a jungle peninsula first conceived of in a 1992 novel called The Ring of Winter, in which an adventurer travels to Chult’s dinosaur-filled wilderness seeking the eponymous artifact...The canonical Chultan peninsula finally congealed in a 1993 campaign setting as a dinosaur-infested jungle where heat wiped out even the strongest adventurers and insects carried fatal diseases. Reptilian races and undead skeletons dominate the land and humans live in tribal clusters and clans. Its major city, Mezro, “rivals some of the most ‘civilized’ population centers in Faerun,” the setting reads. Slavery is mentioned about 40 times. In D&D’s 3rd edition, it’s written that Chultan priest-kings worship “strange deities” in the city of Mezro. In D&D’s 4th edition, Chult is located on what’s called the “Savage Coast.” It’s said there that the city of Port Nyanzaru is controlled by foreign traders who often must defend against pirates. Mezro has collapsed. It just sank into the abyss. What remains is this: “Human civilization is virtually nonexistent here, though an Amnian colony and a port sponsored by Baldur’s Gate cling to the northern coasts, and a few tribes—some noble savages, others depraved cannibals—roam the interior.”


Tomb of Annihilation
works hard to create a more comprehensive African culture in Chult, but it may suffer from not enough nuance:

While many players I talked to enjoyed how the history and political structures of Chult were expanded in Tomb of Annihilation (and enjoyed the adventure’s plot generally), they were still unimpressed by its execution. Its setting is an amalgamation of African cultures, a trope frequent in 20th century media that flattens the dimensionality of human experiences on the continent, which contains hundreds of ethnic groups. There are nods to West African voodoo, Southern African click-based Khoisan languages, East African attire (like Kenyan kofia hats) and the jungle climate of Central Africa. Its fantasy setting dissolves “Africa” into an all-in-one cultural stew that comes off as a little detached, sources I interviewed said.


Is it possible to depict a more nuanced fantasy Africa? Nyambe: African Adventures for 3.5 D&D, by Christopher Dolunt, offers some hope:

My motivation for creating Nyambe was simple. Africa was a major part of the Earth that has little or no representation in fantasy literature, let alone RPGs. When it does appear, it usually follows the pulp fiction model: steaming jungles, bloodthirsty cannibals, and dark gods long forgotten by the civilized races. Of course, historical Africa was nothing like that, so my goal for Nyambe was to create a fantasy version of Africa based on the actual history and mythology of Africa, rather than previous fantasy depictions. So, I went about taking snippets of history or myth, and twisting them, adding fantasy elements or changing specifics to make them fit into an OGL world.

[h=3]Now What?[/h]Wizards of the Coast made considerable strides in increasing D&D's diverse representation and transitioning Chult from conquered land to fantasy nation, but there's still work to do. As more people of color play D&D, the game will need to change to accommodate its players' diverse views. With Black Panther leading the way, here's hoping future game designers will take note.

Mike "Talien" Tresca is a freelance game columnist, author, communicator, and a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to http://amazon.com. You can follow him at Patreon.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca

Hussar

Legend
Actually, skin color is superficial, and genetically insignificant. Skin color is a human response to ultraviolet radiation. Where the sun is strong, pigmentation increases thus surviving skin cancer. Oppositely, where the sun is weak, pigmentation decreases thus producing sufficient amounts of vitamin D. It takes as few as about 10 generations to dramatically affect the overall complexion of populations who migrate north or south.



Regarding Dark Sun, perhaps the ‘dark’ sun emits less ultraviolet light, thus a planet with lighter complexion.

IMO, the simpler explanation here would be, Dark Sun was published in the early 90's and EVERYONE was white in RPG books in that time. There was virtually no representation to be found in RPG's at all. Not intention, I believe, but, more just the fact that the artists never actually bothered with anything like representation at the time. More casual racism than any sort of intentioned message.

Sure, we could try to spackle over that by inventing some sort of in game reason, but, why? Why not simply admit what was going on and then do better in the future?

Which fantasy nation is actually dynamic? FR just had a 100 year timejump, but nothing really changed. Cormyr is still Cormyr, etc.
And as Celebrim said, its not as if "white cultures" fare any better. Most fantasy nations are just the same mix of generic knights and castle stereotypes which at worst have no relation to history at all or at best were taken from a span of several centuries and mixed together.
Or they are just a exaggerated and cliché version of a existing country like "the merchant republic one" or "the viking one".
Some settings are not even subtle about it like 7th sea or warhammer fantasy.
So its not like non-white cultures are treated any different in fantasy gaming.

Yes and no though. "White cultures" are given a very diverse treatment with some being good, bad or somewhere in between. OTOH, every single representation in RPG's for the past 50 years or so of any sort of "African" society is basically pulled straight from the pulps - savage lands with cannibals and jungles. Sure, we get the cliche societies, fair enough. But, again, even in the cliche societies, you get a variety of different ones.

That's where the problem really lies. Using cliches isn't the issue. Using only one cliche every single time is.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Aldarc

Legend
Jewish people committed genocides in the name of their faith too- check the Old Testament.
Though I largely agree with your point regarding the blood on everyone's hands, I don't think that this particular assertion is a solid claim to make. There are two primary points of contention with this claim. 1) The emergence and point of origin for "Judaism" is the subject of fierce scholarly debate, and 2) in the Tanakh/Old Testament you are dealing with historiographic texts of dubious historical veracity.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
Though I largely agree with your point regarding the blood on everyone's hands, I don't think that this particular assertion is a solid claim to make. There are two primary points of contention with this claim. 1) The emergence and point of origin for "Judaism" is the subject of fierce scholarly debate, and 2) in the Tanakh/Old Testament you are dealing with historiographic texts of dubious historical veracity.

I take your point, but several are listed, relatively deeply into the OT. The destruction of Amalek is mentioned in Deuteronomy, Exodus, and Numbers. This is well after what most would recognize as Judaism had formed. Moses gets involved.

There is also the concept that “a statement against interest” has the hallmarks of truthfulness. Regardless of whether God told them to do what they did, they essentially admitted to doing it. Could they have been bragging to build their “street cred” among their contemporary tribal rivals? Sure! But absent other evidence, the “confession” stands.

Whether or not the tribes of Israel actually committed genocide, they were proud enough of the concept that they might have that they recorded it for posterity...and didn’t excise it from their own texts. They added context- in the Talmud and commentary, Amalek comes across as the first coming of the Nazis, and their complete destruction a form of divine retribution.

Of course, paraphrasing James Kirk, why does God need help wiping out anyone? The tales of the Flood, the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah- ahistorical thought they may be, God clearly didn’t need help wiping people out in those narratives. So why would He need His Chosen People to bloody their hands by taking out their tormentors? Character building?

Rings a bit hollow, IMHO.

So, I’ll stand by my assertion: all faiths, all cultures have atrocities as part of their history. Calling evil out is good, but only insofar as we all recognize that nobody can claim the high ground of true innocence.

(And to be clear, I’m NOT saying all atrocities are equivalent. Some are clearly worse than others.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Doug McCrae

Legend
That kind of mindless moral relativism is precisely why postmodernism is ethically bankrupt, and even historically monstrous at times.
Moral relativism usually means that moral judgements are subjective. Postmodernism attacks claims to know, for example a postmodernist would regard Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire as literature rather than as something that could be true.

If someone says that Germans were primarily responsible for the Holocaust, therefore German culture is inferior, and someone else responds by saying that the Allied strategic bombing campaign during WWII was also a moral crime, the second claim is neither moral relativism nor postmodernist. It's not moral relativism because it's attempting to make an objective moral judgement, and it's not postmodernist because it regards WWII and the bombing campaign as historical facts that can be known.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
Guys, a thread which is discussing the Bible, and the Holocaust is going waaaay too far into the "no religion/politics" territory. I've given this thread a little leeway, as it's a tough subject to discuss without touching a little on the real world, but it's going full bore at top speed into a full-fledged discussion of religion, which isn't going to happen here.
 

Doug McCrae

Legend
A typical treatment of fantasy Africa in a typical D&D game in 2018 would look like something like this:

The PCs are mostly, but not entirely, a bunch of white boys living in fantasy Western Europe. Once they reach sufficient level they go on one or more trips to exotic places, like fantasy Viking land, fantasy Arabia, fantasy China or fantasy Africa. Mostly they are just places to fight terrain appropriate monsters and take in a bit of local colour. The PCs visit fantasy Africa looking for a treasure rumoured to be in a ruined temple. Soon after getting off the ship they meet a potentially friendly tribe of dark-skinned human natives who live in a village and can provide aid in the form of information, a guide or (if the game is particularly old school) bearers. The village will have a shaman.

The PCs head off into the jungle encountering carnivorous apes, man-eating plants, wereleopards, and frogpeople. The frog people will be part man, part poison arrow frog, even though poison arrow frogs are only found in the Americas. In the temple, which won't resemble any real world African architecture, the PCs will fight Yuan-Ti, even though their name sounds East Asian. The climax of the adventure will be a fight with a giant ape.

This is all basically fine, the treatment of the villagers won't be racist or anything. The only problematic aspect imo is the wereleopard and how much that's played up. Like there might be a whole evil tribe of wereleopards who are in conflict with the good tribe. It's a problem because of the idea that black people are closer to nature, particularly the savage, animalistic aspects of nature, than non-black people. One can see that idea in relatively benign form in the superhero Storm, for example.
 

Aldarc

Legend
I take your point, but several are listed, relatively deeply into the OT. The destruction of Amalek is mentioned in Deuteronomy, Exodus, and Numbers. This is well after what most would recognize as Judaism had formed. Moses gets involved.
Suffice to say, that's nowhere close to true, which is the point that I was trying to make earlier. I will not engage in further discussion on the matter here, but if you would like, I would be more than willing to continue this particular topic in PM.
 

The mere act of exploration -- one of the pillars of DnD -- is in itself a sort of "othering" of a culture. Explorers from afar visit a strange, new land or roam the streets of an exotic city. All of the people, sights, and sounds of this new place are not strange to themselves. They are quite normal in their own view. It is the visitor who finds this "other" culture to be exotic. DnD takes as its baseline culture a kind of fantasy medieval European world. When characters from this world go visit and tame wild places it can smack of the worst aspects of the European age of exploration or exploitive colonialism. I don't think WoTC should be too badly criticized for marrying an Africa-like continent with dinosaurs and tribal societies. It's only been done in a gazillion books, comics, movies, and RPGs. In the future, they would be well advised to think it through more carefully when treading on issue areas that, when mishandled, many people could find hurtful and insulting.
 

Celebrim

Legend
This is all basically fine, the treatment of the villagers won't be racist or anything. The only problematic aspect imo is the wereleopard and how much that's played up. Like there might be a whole evil tribe of wereleopards who are in conflict with the good tribe. It's a problem because of the idea that black people are closer to nature, particularly the savage, animalistic aspects of nature, than non-black people.

Because tribes of werewolves, wererats, wereboars, were-seals(!), and even weresharks(!!) never occur in areas with non-African themes?

Not only is your example highly implausible it's probably much less likely than a portrayal of pseudo-Norse being literally and explicitly closer to nature, particularly to the savage animalistic aspects of nature (berserkers anyone? shape-changing into bears?) than non-Norse people.

One of my flags for racism is whether the person had double standards. Is the speaker literally two minded with respect to his behavior toward people so that there are whole different trains of thought and behaviors that happen when you change the skin color of the person.

And this is the reason why Africa can't get good stuff. Because no sane publisher that wanted to stay in business is going to publish anything in Africa if everyone is going to apply a double standard to his work so that no matter what he does, he can't meet the standard. It's always "problematic", not because of any intention or lack of attention on his part, but because of what is in the heart of the viewer. So instead of a campaign in Africa, it's going to be in fantasy Northern Europe, and it will look like this:

"The PCs are mostly, but not entirely, a bunch of white boys living in fantasy Western Europe. Once they reach sufficient level they go on one or more trips to exotic places, like fantasy Viking land. Mostly they are just places to fight terrain appropriate monsters and take in a bit of local colour. The PCs visit fantasy Norway looking for a treasure rumored to be in a ruined temple. Soon after getting off the ship they meet a potentially friendly tribe of white-skinned human natives who live in a village and can provide aid in the form of information, a guide or (if the game is particularly old school) bearers. The village will have a shaman who wears a bear skin. The PC's will be invited to drinking contests, feats of strength, and axe throwing contests by a bunch of guys that look and talk like Arnold Shwarzenegger, even though he's Austrian, because the DM can't do a Norse accent. The PCs head off into the moors encountering carnivorous apes (Yeti and Taur), man-eating plants (peat monsters), werewolves, and frogpeople (bullywogs). The temple, which won't resemble any real world norse architecture will look like a cross between a Greek temple and a Gothic cathedral, even though those things are 1000 years removed from the setting in either direction. The PC's will fight Yuan-Ti, even though their name sounds East Asian. The climax of the adventure will be a fight with a Wendigo, even though that is a North American myth."

And all the reviewers will be like, "This is all basically fine. The only problematic aspect IMO is how everything has been whitewashed. One would think that in 2018 we'd be more inclusive."

A double standard isn't a standard at all. It's just an excuse to gripe and complain and pretend in doing so you are being deeply thoughtful and intellectual. You can't have a standard that complains about the use of stereotypical pastiches and at the same time is going to complain if the pastiche is subverted by the inclusion of multiple unexpected elements. If neither pastiche Africa nor non-pastiche Africa is going to make the reviewers happy, the best solution is not to have Africa at all. If you got to be extra respectful to Africa but you can safely portray any non-English European ethnic group as a bunch of drunks that love to fight, guess which group is going to be your "ethnic color"? If some extra wheel starts spinning in your head when you see pictures of people with different skin color than you that causes you to treat that presentation differently, that ought to be a great big huge warning flag about something other than what you are looking at. That extra wheel doesn't help the industry become "more inclusive". It just is a big red flag to avoid any sort of controversy (sort of like what this thread might be with respect to publishing articles about Africa).
 

talien

Community Supporter
My next article is about a similar discussion around Asian cultures, so clearly I haven't learned my lesson. :)
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top