The W*ndigo Problem

[LBHills]

A similar argument was put forth during the D&D Satanism scare of the mid-eighties. Church groups who regarded Satan as a real and active threat were worried that their children would embrace demonology because D&D had demons in it.

That 'scare' was largely manufactured outrage so that the religious would keep tuning into The 700 Club. Many devout parents lost a great deal of their concern when they observed a few games in play and realized that the point of putting evil monsters in the game was so that the players could engage in guilt-free simulated violence.

So - to the point - if including the W-----o in an adventure would make anybody at the table uncomfortable, excluding it is a good GM decision. But you probably shouldn't expect the general Paizo community to razor-blade that page out of their Bestiary. Their comfort level is theirs to decide.

[Castilliano]

Does anybody know if Marvel's gotten any heat for their Wendigo?
It's been around for many decades and hardly holds true to the myth.

[The-Magic-Sword]

I think that we shouldn't remove things like this, the notion of 'cultural ownership' being a thing an ethnic group has, that gives them authority (moral or otherwise) over works inspired by their culture, is ethno-nationalist-yikes masquerading as progressiveness.

Writers should be free to take inspiration wherever they can find it, and rework it more or less as they see fit, just as a member of the culture might choose to represent it as traditionally as possible. I view that as part of a fundamental human right to freedom of expression. It's also an important part of cultural exchange and growth, as members of one culture take elements from another and reinterpret them.

'Cultural Appropriation' in this hardline right-wing fashion destroys that, and represents a sense that cultural purity is virtuous. It also erases the viewpoint of members of the culture and descendants of the culture that would be fine with it, or would actively like to see it.

In doing so, we privilege the group's most conservative members (e.g. the ones that would have a problem with it), as the only valid voice. Its a bit like treating orthodox Jews as a greater authority on Judaism than reform Jews.

[Malk_Content]

So I've now had the time to read the links posted (apart from the last one that didn't work for me.) All of them white people telling other white people not to do something. All of them using Wendigo very liberally throughout and none of them first hand reports of someone being offended by the depiction in PF2e.

Then the quote from Desmond doesn't say don't use it either. Just be respectful when you do.

So whole bunch of smoke about nothing... again.

[Wind Chime]

gnoams wrote:

Drow are a race of dark skinned demon worshiping sadists ruled by women (seriously, can you even stack any more prejudice onto that one?

Are you really calling Loth a women she is a Multi-dimensional Spider Demon Goddess is arguably the most interesting villain in d&d canon.

There are also plenty of Male lead evil nations in the lore as well, think Thay and all the red wizards.

[PossibleCabbage]

I guess the basic question is "how should a fantasy writer harvest a creature from folklore/mythology while being respectful of the people who came up with it"?

For "cultures that no longer exist" this is easy, since you're not potentially harming actual humans- the original Mayan religion is pretty heavily syncretized with Roman Catholicism for modern Mayan people, so if you want to beat up Camazotz in your elf game that's probably fine (it's not like he was well liked to begin with).

But for "cultures that still exist" and indeed "cultures that are struggling to still exist" it's a lot trickier. I think the "don't say the name of the thing" is trying to put the genie back in the bottle (I mean, there are 3 lakes, two rivers, a village in Quebec, and a ranger station on Isle Royale named after it), but "be more respectful to the people who came up with it, and reflect its original cultural context" seem workable.

[The Raven Black]

Apparently native writers mentioned in Wikipedia do not mind using the word Wendigo. And both the name and concept seem very far from taboo. In fact the story of the Wendigo seems to have been used as a strong cautionary tale. Which you want as many people as possible to hear about.

Also there are likely a great many cultures out there that have taboos on specific creatures. But the OP seems to focus exclusively on creatures from native American tales. Likely because those are the one they are closest to. But it does feel exclusive of other beliefs.

And the notion of majority belief is so dependent on location. Really all religions deserve equal respect.

[PossibleCabbage]

Yeah, I knew about the original mythology of the thing, and about the supposed "psychosis", and the wiindigookaanzhimowin, and I watched "the Last Winter". But this thread was the first time I had encountered "do not speak its name" around this particular creature.

[siegfriedliner]

Most creatures from myths and legends have many forms, there are at lesst a dozen different accounts of how Hades married Persephone and we are still making more.

There are countless conflicting stories about the Christian devil's origin and name.

So I may be wrong and please tell me if i am but i am assuming there are multiple similar but different stories around thease creatures, highlighting different things and come out of the fact that storytelling (even of factual truth) leads to variation over time.

If there going to be multiple stories about something of that is true then inevitable some of those are going to be less abstractly true than others. The existence of less true alternatives doesn't change the inherent truth of the original.

Dragons means different things to different people some of them are still today worships as deieties others are fire breathing lizards, the fact that pathfinder has dragons in it doesn't detract from the deithic dragons worshipers. Because any believers knows that all other dragons aren't true Dragons but merely scaly lizards.

[gnoams]

Quasi related:

I find it fascinating how universal certain stories are. Tales about a thing that should not be named is a common trope used throughout numerous disparate cultures. As is the fact that people of said culture all know the name that they are not supposed to say, meaning someone had to have told them at some point.

We like to look at old folktales and superstitions and think that everyone used to believe these things way back when, but that's not very accurate. Skepticism and nonconformity aren't exactly modern inventions. We were just arguing over a campfire back then instead of on the internet.

[PossibleCabbage]

I think the compelling thing about this kind of creature is not that "it's a scary monstrous thing that eats people" since there's no shortage of those, Rahshasas for example (as an aside there are virtuous Rakshasas in the Ramanyana and the Mahabarita, but never in fantasy games... weird.)

But unlike a Rakshasa you become the monster that this thread is about by engaging in destructive and unforgivable selfishness in times of duress. Which is, I believe, the point of the monster in its original context- as a cautionary tale to remind people not to be a dick just because times are hard.

[Ravingdork]

The-Magic-Sword is absolutely right.

The whole point of culture is that it spreads and intermingles with that of other peoples. That's how society and culture works, how it evolves and flourishes. If any one culture takes a hardline stance on "cultural appropriation," it will eventually stagnate and die.

Whenever I see discussions like this come up, it's almost always non-members of the culture defending it. Why? Got me. Oftentimes, when representatives of the culture are contacted about it, the emotions range from complete indifference to joy that others cared enough to share in their culture.

[The-Magic-Sword]

Ravingdork wrote:

The-Magic-Sword is absolutely right.

The whole point of culture is that it spreads and intermingles with that of other peoples. That's how society and culture works, how it evolves and flourishes. If any one culture takes a hardline stance on "cultural appropriation," it will eventually stagnate and die.

Whenever I see discussions like this come up, it's almost always non-members of the culture defending it. Why? Got me. Oftentimes, when representatives of the culture are contacted about it, the emotions range from complete indifference to joy that others cared enough to share in their culture.

Or as I like to call it "That Culture Belongs in a Museum!"

There is no culture today that really exists without exterior influences, transgression and disruption are the purpose of art, and no one ever spoke the folklore in the first place thinking it was restricted to their ethnic group.

[Deadmanwalking]

I agree with all of what The Magic-Sword just said, however I think Angle Hunter D meant that the mythological creature we're talking about here is not real, not that the prejudice isn't.

That's not a statement I'm entirely in support of (see my discussion about religion above), but it's a different one from what The Magic-Sword seems to think.

[Albatoonoe]

As far as social justice issues go, I'd say that cultural appropriation seems to be one of the grayest and most difficult to handle. I don't think there is an easy, clear cut answer to be had. I don't think anyone here wants to be disrespectful to a culture, but the line or where the disrespect begins is well disputed and murky.

I guess this has been an issue that has been eating at me for a while now.

[mikeawmids]

As an Irishman, I find Paizo's portrayal of leprechauns to be deeply troubling and disrespectful of my culture.

[Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti]

Wouldnt it be morw respectful to refer to the Dine as the Dine?

[Deadmanwalking]

Fumarole wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

And the notion of majority belief is so dependent on location. Really all religions deserve equal respect.

Beliefs don't deserve respect. People do.

It's pretty disrespectful of people to disrespect their religion. So if people deserve respect, definitionally so does their religion.

Now, one can argue that not all people deserve respect, and thus neither do some religious beliefs confined to certain people (I tend to feel this way personally about Prosperity Gospel stuff), but that's a separate issue.

[Ravingdork]

mikeawmids wrote:

As an Irishman, I find Paizo's portrayal of leprechauns to be deeply troubling and disrespectful of my culture.

For those of us who are ignorant of Irish culture, could you please elaborate, specifically, on what it is you find so troubling and disrespectful about the leprechaun?

Simply screaming "I'm offended!" into the wind does absolutely nothing for anybody.

[mikeawmids]

Ravingdork wrote:

mikeawmids wrote:

As an Irishman, I find Paizo's portrayal of leprechauns to be deeply troubling and disrespectful of my culture.

For those of us who are ignorant of Irish culture, could you please elaborate, specifically, on what it is you find so troubling and disrespectful about the leprechaun?

Simply screaming "I'm offended!" into the wind does absolutely nothing for anybody.

I'm so glad you asked! The entry in Bestiary 2 shows the leprechaun, a creature commonly associated with Irish heritage, holding a bottle in one hand and a club in the other, suggesting a cultural predilection for both violence and alcoholism.

[Rysky]

mikeawmids wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

mikeawmids wrote:

As an Irishman, I find Paizo's portrayal of leprechauns to be deeply troubling and disrespectful of my culture.

For those of us who are ignorant of Irish culture, could you please elaborate, specifically, on what it is you find so troubling and disrespectful about the leprechaun?

Simply screaming "I'm offended!" into the wind does absolutely nothing for anybody.

I'm so glad you asked! The entry in Bestiary 2 shows the leprechaun, a creature commonly associated with Irish heritage, holding a bottle in one hand and a club in the other, suggesting a cultural predilection for both violence and alcoholism.

Well then you'll be glad to know that the Pathfinder 2 Bestiary 2 art of the Leprechaun ditches the bottle. They still have a club/walking stick, like most human shaped critters in the Bestiaries.

[Temperans]

mikeawmids wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

mikeawmids wrote:

As an Irishman, I find Paizo's portrayal of leprechauns to be deeply troubling and disrespectful of my culture.

For those of us who are ignorant of Irish culture, could you please elaborate, specifically, on what it is you find so troubling and disrespectful about the leprechaun?

Simply screaming "I'm offended!" into the wind does absolutely nothing for anybody.

I'm so glad you asked! The entry in Bestiary 2 shows the leprechaun, a creature commonly associated with Irish heritage, holding a bottle in one hand and a club in the other, suggesting a cultural predilection for both violence and alcoholism.

The PF2 image of a leprechaun has it holding a club and a sack/pouch. No bottle.

[PossibleCabbage]

Does anyone have a source on "you shouldn't even say the name of the creature"? A lot of those links earlier in the thread by people advising non-Algonquin writers to avoid cultural appropriation say the word a whole lot.

I would google it, but this is something that's hard to google.

[The-Magic-Sword]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Does anyone have a source on "you shouldn't even say the name of the creature"? A lot of those links earlier in the thread by people advising non-Algonquin writers to avoid cultural appropriation say the word a whole lot.

I would google it, but this is something that's hard to google.

Most of the sources I'm finding don't mention it, here's something: https://books.google.com/books?id=7DuFDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45& ;dq=wendigo+name+taboo&source=bl&ots=hPs-0qkfTg&sig=ACfU3U0rNDS Uzlti1OOOWSPfQ2g1RjApZw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiZ-rT207bqAhXej3I EHc7RDU4Q6AEwEXoECA0QAQ#v=onepage&q=wendigo%20name%20taboo&f=false

But most of the claims I'm finding aren't primary (with the exception of the one I just linked)

I'm guessing its a permutation that exists, but isn't a definitive/universal part of it's legend even in a purely native context. Meaning, some regions it was fine to name it, others it wasn't.

Edit: Also possible is that it may be a later addition to the legend, created by hearsay recently enough to have only partially caught on.

[Freehold DM]

I love Werewolf The Apocalypse.

I am now concerned.

[Fumarole]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Fumarole wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

And the notion of majority belief is so dependent on location. Really all religions deserve equal respect.

Beliefs don't deserve respect. People do.

It's pretty disrespectful of people to disrespect their religion. So if people deserve respect, definitionally so does their religion.

You seem to be equating people with their beliefs. I do not do that. I can absolutely not respect a belief system based on its tenets, but respect a holder of that belief based simply on their humanity. Beliefs can be changed, one's humanity cannot. Some religious circles would couch this as a "hate the sin not the sinner" attitude, though that has certain implications I do not necessarily agree with, I use it as a common example only.

[The-Magic-Sword]

Fumarole wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Fumarole wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

And the notion of majority belief is so dependent on location. Really all religions deserve equal respect.

Beliefs don't deserve respect. People do.

It's pretty disrespectful of people to disrespect their religion. So if people deserve respect, definitionally so does their religion.

You seem to be equating people with their beliefs. I do not do that. I can absolutely not respect a belief system based on its tenets, but respect a holder of that belief based simply on their humanity. Beliefs can be changed, one's humanity cannot. Some religious circles would couch this as a "hate the sin not the sinner" attitude, though that has certain implications I do not necessarily agree with, I use it as a common example only.

I would say it depends, but in the sense that respecting the belief to an extent (not antagonizing people for beliefs that don't harm others, debating with good faith sincerity) is the same as respecting the person. But I kind of assume you don't disagree with that.