Cultural Appropriation and Campaign Settings

[Scott Wilhelm]

Ryan Freire wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

"I don't believe in whatever it is we're talking about" is generally a bad faith argument regardless of the subject of discussion.

I would go so far as to call it borderline trolling. Opinions are opinions but anyone who's been online longer than a week knows what comes after "I disagree fundamentally with the existence of the premise of your question"

I guess it depends on what is meant by it. If Cabbage doesn't believe in it in the same way some people don't believe in Santa Claus, then it's probably not very productive or germaine.

If he believes that borrowing ideas from other cultures is inevitable and healthy, and "cultural appropriation" is itself a slur that is never valid, that is a relevant argument to this thread. Perhaps he was being hyperbolic, only literally believing that cultural appropriation is an exaggerated evil, and the OP should not worry too much about it, also a relevant argument. Agreeing or disagreeing with that is another matter.

I hesitate to weigh in a response to PC's argument because I am already considering ambiguities of what he really met, and I only want to argue for or against what people are really saying.

[Scott Wilhelm]

Quixote wrote:

On one hand, I think it's incredibly hard to create a fantasy culture or people that doesn't feel at least somewhat inspired by one that exists in the "real world".

If a fantasy world has no relationship to the real world, it is probably very hard to relate to.

Quixote wrote:

And on another, I feel like...shouldn't we try to celebrate all the awesome stuff that people have done and are in the world? I'd hate to lose those opportunities, but I also don't want to be an ignorant jerk and offend people.

It seems like a fine line between a lampoon and a loveletter.

[Cavall]

Sometimes it's a great thing for the lines of culture and gaming to blur. For instance, I often say "Galt is like the french revolution that never ended". Its fairly accurate and allows for an immediate mindset.

Likewise I could say "orsiron is like ancient egypt". This is also not only a great way to instantly convey the setting but is obviously true.

And knowing that mindset and playing well within it should be the goal. The culture should be embraced and respectfully played with. It's when we take these cues and run poorly with them, that's when it's a problem and needs to be addressed.

Culture is to be celebrated not mocked.

[Quixote]

A lot of good points here.

From what I've read in this thread and elsewhere, it seems like the truly damaging aspects of cultural appropriation are:

1. The taking of culture without consent. This one's tricky, because you can't ask A Culture for permission, and Individuals are bound to disagree.
I think the important thing is to make an attempt. Don't just dive in without ANY other perspective beside your own.

2. The lack of acknowledgement. Which...I'm not entirely sure how to handle in terms of a work of fiction. If people were to ask me, I would absolutely be all "yep, those guys are french knights like Sir Arthur Pendragon and those people over there were inspired by a mix of Eastern European and Louisiana cajun", but outside of that? Putting acknowledgements right into the text feels clunky and weird.
White Wolf Games puts sources of inspiration at the beginning of each of their books; to show where they got their ideas and to give us places to go for inspiration ourselves. Maybe something like that would be cool.

3. The lack of proper research. If you're going to include a culture that's sort of medeival Russian or a religion that takes its cues from Hatian voodoun, do some research. How much inevitably varies. But make an attempt.

4. The taking of creative liberties. This wouldn't be a problem if people didn't do the first three things. But when you don't seek out a more accurate perspective, don't acknowledge your sources and don't really know what you're talking about yourself, the altered, fantasy-worthy version has the potential to give people the entirely wrong idea about real-world cultures and practices. And that can be extremely damaging.
The wendigo is a great example of this. The actual wendigo story does not involve a flying, footless zombie-ghost with a deer head. But some guy heard some stuff, wrote a short story with some alterations which inspired a movie that took his version as a fact and altered it further...fast forward to The Incredible Hulk fighting a guy called The Wendigo.
Then you consider how the native tribes of North America were subjected to literal and cultural genocide and how their people are struggling to pass on their traditions to the next generation...and suddenly, misrepresenting what is a very serious, very important piece of a culture's spiritual beliefs is basically an attack on the culture itself.

[Neriathale]

Quixote wrote:

A lot of good points here.

2. The lack of acknowledgement. Which...I'm not entirely sure how to handle in terms of a work of fiction. If people were to ask me, I would absolutely be all "yep, those guys are french knights like Sir Arthur Pendragon.

By saying that King Arthur Pendragon was French you are massively disresopecting my British culture and the protagonist of our national myth. The French are our hereditary enemies and have been for centuries.

I'm not that fussed about it really, but inthe context of this conversation I felt it worth pointing out :).

[PossibleCabbage]

Like one thing that works is to not take from one real culture, but take things from several different ones that work together in order to create the impression you want to take.

Like my setting's orcs are very different from most fantasy orcs, and to seed the orc culture I borrowed from Ancient Greece, Modern Germany, 15th century Mongolia, and the artistic preferences of the Islamic world. To wit, Orcs are passionate about abstract and academic issues, are forward thinking to get over the shame they have about their ancestors misdeeds, are culturally tolerant in a pragmatic way but have a deep sense of honor and honor based ritual, and prefer abstract geometric art and eschew depictions of individuals.

Don't do "what if fantasy Egypt" so much as "what if Fantasy Egypt was in Tenochtitlan?"

[Quixote]

Neriathale wrote:

By saying that King Arthur Pendragon was French you are massively disresopecting my British culture and the protagonist of our national myth. The French are our hereditary enemies and have been for centuries.

Excellent example!

I remember reading something--I believe it was a sort of biography on J.R.R. Tolkien--stating that the King Arthur legend was originally a French story, later adopted by the English (hence why most of the knights and other characters have Frech names), or something in that vein.
Looking into it now, I see that it's hardly anything so straightforward. I'll have to take a closer look at some point, but it looks like, at the time, French was the established courtly language, even in England?

PossibleCabbage wrote:

...one thing that works is to not take from one real culture, but take things from several different ones that work together in order to create the impression you want to take...Don't do "what if fantasy Egypt" so much as "what if Fantasy Egypt was in Tenochtitlan?"

Absolutely. I don't think I've ever just copy/pasted a whole culture into a fantasy setting. Blending a few different societies together can result in interesting new concepts that are still recognizable. But I think you still need to tread with care; if I say my demon-worshipping werewolf pirates are a blend of Norse, Germanic and Gaul, I may well offend three different groups of people.

Moreover, if I take a single piece of a culture and grossly misrepresent it, that can still cause issues.

[Zepheri]

Well say, like the case of the Devi Satan before the creation of the Christianity the devil was considered a creature of evil and an angel; during the days of Constantine he wants to create a United kingdom of Christianity but to not leaving out other religions that are in his domain so he mix all religion and create the image of the devil we all know today " the devil of Babilonia whit the trident of Poseidon"

[Scavion]

Quixote wrote:

4. The taking of creative liberties. This wouldn't be a problem if people didn't do the first three things. But when you don't seek out a more accurate perspective, don't acknowledge your sources and don't really know what you're talking about yourself, the altered, fantasy-worthy version has the potential to give people the entirely wrong idea about real-world cultures and practices. And that can be extremely damaging.
The wendigo is a great example of this. The actual wendigo story does not involve a flying, footless zombie-ghost with a deer head. But some guy heard some stuff, wrote a short story with some alterations which inspired a movie that took his version as a fact and altered it further...fast forward to The Incredible Hulk fighting a guy called...

Wendigo seems fairly faithful to me at least. Is the Wendigo not a supernatural spirit that represents murder, greed and cannibalism? It's a bit disheartening to hear such rigid opposition to people borrowing old myths and breathing new life into them for their own stories. I would have never have read into the history of the myths behind an absurd number of creatures had that not been the case.

[Yakman]

personally, I'm fine with it. It's a fantasy world. If anything works to tell a compelling story, then whatever. Appropriate away.

I've been haphazardly working on a Starfinder homebrew campaign based on the California Gold Rush. I'm viciously appropriating from a variety of cultures, peoples, persons, etc., with an aim to tell a space-transplanted western centered in the events of that time and place.

[Quixote]

Yakman wrote:

personally, I'm fine with it. It's a fantasy world. If anything works to tell a compelling story, then whatever. Appropriate away.

Sorry, I don't mean to offend, but have you read the whole thread, or just the first post? What definition of "cultural appropriation" are you working under?

I don't think anyone here is claiming that borrowing from real-world cultures is wrong; that can be a way to honor and celebrate those peoples. It's only with a lack of perspective/acknowledgement/research/accuracy where things become harmful.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

Maybe he's talking about the yellow orcs of Mystara, described as having dull yellow skin and ratlike or pekinese-like faces. That's not in itself a problem in my book, except that the 'proper name' of one is "orcus canis oriensis". (Not to be confused with "Goblinus Oriensis", goblins with yellow skin, black hair and who usually wear large, slightly conical hats.)

Or maybe he's just saying there's nothing wrong with using unpleasant stuff in service of a setting and story.

Quixote wrote:

Neriathale wrote:

By saying that King Arthur Pendragon was French you are massively disresopecting my British culture and the protagonist of our national myth. The French are our hereditary enemies and have been for centuries.

Excellent example!

I remember reading something--I believe it was a sort of biography on J.R.R. Tolkien--stating that the King Arthur legend was originally a French story, later adopted by the English (hence why most of the knights and other characters have Frech names), or something in that vein.
Looking into it now, I see that it's hardly anything so straightforward. I'll have to take a closer look at some point, but it looks like, at the time, French was the established courtly language, even in England?

Short version, Arthur is English and always has been, but much of the Arthurian mythos is French in one way or another.

An excellent and entertaining introduction to the whole mess.

[Quixote]

Yakman wrote:

Making a foreign culture more exotic than it actually is, and fantasizing aspects of it, is probably a sufficient, if poor definition.

It can create a lot of problems in the real world. But if my magic dice table game does it to orcs? Eh. Whatever. So long as it tells a good story, I am down.

A useful term and definition, to say the least.

I'm not sure about "ugly stereotypes" in the name of a compelling/good story, though. I mean sure, you could tell a good story with all sorts of questionable, offensive or unethical elements to it. But do you *need* to? Is that the *only* way to tell your story, or could you find more stable ground to use as your platform?
It's hard, because cultural appropriation is already rather nebulous and intangible; it needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. But to then add the even more ill-defined concepts of "good story" and "bad story"? Those waters are muddy to the point that no one can navigate them.

I don't think it's wrong to describe certain peoples as having certain real-world racial traits; that would imply that simply having X hair or Y eyes or Z skin was somehow bad. It's the association of X hair with A behavior or Y eyes with B flaws that's a problem. If your orcs are bloodthirsty, dumb AND associated with a real-world culture, that's a problem. Same as if your dwarves are greedy and stubborn or if your elves are snobbish and delicate. But I guess that's more just like...avoid saying this whole group of people over here tend to have personalities with these traits over there? But then, that's a fairly significant portion of what makes dwarves/elves/whatever unique from humans...

I dunno. I guess I still feel like, if you make an effort to broaden your perspective, acknowledge your source, do your research and be open about any creative licenses you took, you should be largely okay?

[Yakman]

Quixote wrote:

Yakman wrote:

Making a foreign culture more exotic than it actually is, and fantasizing aspects of it, is probably a sufficient, if poor definition.

It can create a lot of problems in the real world. But if my magic dice table game does it to orcs? Eh. Whatever. So long as it tells a good story, I am down.

A useful term and definition, to say the least.

I'm not sure about "ugly stereotypes" in the name of a compelling/good story, though. I mean sure, you could tell a good story with all sorts of questionable, offensive or unethical elements to it. But do you *need* to? Is that the *only* way to tell your story, or could you find more stable ground to use as your platform?
It's hard, because cultural appropriation is already rather nebulous and intangible; it needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. But to then add the even more ill-defined concepts of "good story" and "bad story"? Those waters are muddy to the point that no one can navigate them.

I don't think it's wrong to describe certain peoples as having certain real-world racial traits; that would imply that simply having X hair or Y eyes or Z skin was somehow bad. It's the association of X hair with A behavior or Y eyes with B flaws that's a problem. If your orcs are bloodthirsty, dumb AND associated with a real-world culture, that's a problem. Same as if your dwarves are greedy and stubborn or if your elves are snobbish and delicate. But I guess that's more just like...avoid saying this whole group of people over here tend to have personalities with these traits over there? But then, that's a fairly significant portion of what makes dwarves/elves/whatever unique from humans...

I dunno. I guess I still feel like, if you make an effort to broaden your perspective, acknowledge your source, do your research and be open about any creative licenses you took, you should be largely okay?

i probably shouldn't have said 'lean into ugly stereotypes.' I should've said 'orientalize.' The blanket - 'my orcs are really those shady [real world human group], so GO RIGHT AHEAD AND KILL THEM' - is an ugly thing. That's low-brow Harry Turtledove and worse stuff, and quite frankly, is super lame and awful.

But if you say 'this is an orc. it's green. it's not a person. And it [insert awful trope] so you can go kill it,' then that's a little different.

So let's say there's a historical lie which was told to slander or 'other' a given ethnic group in the real-world. A lot of those... embellishments... make for pretty good plot hooks. If you take those lies, as awful as they are, and stick them on a fantasy race which is a caricature of [insert ethnic group who was slandered here] I would say that's a) lazy and; b) racist.

But if you myth it up, and incorporate it into your story, AND stay away from other associated stereotypes, you can effectively use these slanders, embellishments, stereotypes, whatever, as plot hooks or setting features in your game.

So... let's say that I say in my game, 'Orcs are cheap.' OK. I can use all sorts of miserly tropes, from Dickens to Shakespeare to Disney to my wife or that time someone at the table had alligator arms and have fun with it.

If I say in my game, 'Orcs are cheap AND they all have [insert ethnic group here] names,' now that's just straight wrong.

[Scott Wilhelm]

Quixote wrote:

I'm not sure about "ugly stereotypes" in the name of a compelling/good story, though. I mean sure, you could tell a good story with all sorts of questionable, offensive or unethical elements to it. But do you *need* to?

Nope.

Quixote wrote:

Is that the *only* way to tell your story, or could you find more stable ground to use as your platform?

I don't know about "more stable," but there are a lot of options.

What if there is no racial hatred in the evil overlord's imperialistic incursions? What if he just says,

refreshingly honest tyrant wrote:

You are all lovely people, but I really want to impose a genocidal slavery on all of you to extract your wealth down to exploiting your last dying breath in labor while my own citizens take over your farmland to produce more wealth for themselves and for me.

You could deal with all supernatural, psychological, or ecological problems: natural disasters, big monsters, ghosts and demons.

Quixote wrote:

cultural appropriation... needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

I agree.

Quixote wrote:

I don't think it's wrong to describe certain peoples as having certain real-world racial traits;

If your fantasy people have nothing in common with your players' experiences, it will be hard for them to relate with your fantasy world.

Quixote wrote:

that would imply that simply having X hair or Y eyes or Z skin was somehow bad. It's the association of X hair with A behavior or Y eyes with B flaws that's a problem.

Separate but equal?

Quixote wrote:

If your orcs are bloodthirsty, dumb AND associated with a real-world culture, that's a problem. Same as if your dwarves are greedy and stubborn or if your elves are snobbish and delicate. But I guess that's more just like...avoid saying this whole group of people over here tend to have personalities with these traits over there? But then, that's a fairly significant portion of what makes dwarves/elves/whatever unique from humans...

Your story can be about navigating cultural differences like what are elven views on land ownership, and for some people what you would consider to be good manners they would consider to be insincerity. Then maybe you can have cultures have strong folkways about body parts and fluids. Some real world cultures have strong views about feet and spittle. It seems like every culture thinks fart jokes are funny. I guess you could play with that in some kind of abstract way: the Goblins can't seem to stop staring at your pinkie-fingers, or the Ogres keep pointing at their heads: make a Perception Check of 15, and you realize that they all have their hair parted on the right, and Gartham, and Moira, you don't.

Quixote wrote:

I dunno. I guess I still feel like, if you make an effort to broaden your perspective, acknowledge your source, do your research and be open about any creative licenses you took, you should be largely okay?

I think so, too.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

Short version, Arthur is English and always has been,

Correction:

Arthur was British, fighting against the proto-English.

[Ryan Freire]

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

What if there is no racial hatred in the evil overlord's imperialistic incursions? What if he just says,

refreshingly honest tyrant wrote:

You are all lovely people, but I really want to impose a genocidal slavery on all of you to extract your wealth down to exploiting your last dying breath in labor while my own citizens take over your farmland to produce more wealth for themselves and for me.

Mostly because capitalism and colonialism doesn't really work without an "other". The society GETS to the point where they are ok with genocidal slavery because the people being genocidally enslaved have to be viewed as lesser beings worthy of their place.

[thorin001]

Ryan Freire wrote:

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

What if there is no racial hatred in the evil overlord's imperialistic incursions? What if he just says,

refreshingly honest tyrant wrote:

You are all lovely people, but I really want to impose a genocidal slavery on all of you to extract your wealth down to exploiting your last dying breath in labor while my own citizens take over your farmland to produce more wealth for themselves and for me.

Mostly because capitalism and colonialism doesn't really work without an "other". The society GETS to the point where they are ok with genocidal slavery because the people being genocidally enslaved have to be viewed as lesser beings worthy of their place.

Marxism doesn't really work without an "other". It views anyone who is successful as other and in need of destruction "for the good of the people". And they rapidly get to the point where they are okay with genocidal slavery because the people being genocidally enslaved "have it coming".

[dunelord3001]

Overall a non-issue. Unless you're doing something really crazy like making a Monster based off of racial stereotype or something it's just a case of you can't please everybody all the time.

[PossibleCabbage]

You can definitely please the 4-5 people who are playing at your table though.

[ErichAD]

dunelord3001 wrote:

Overall a non-issue. Unless you're doing something really crazy like making a Monster based off of racial stereotype or something it's just a case of you can't please everybody all the time.

The problem there is that racial stereotypes are pretty generic. The default racist stereotype has: bad teeth, tiny eyes, poor hygiene, is oddly hairy, technologically backward, weak, lazy, and wears a funny hat or hair style. If you want that collection of features, you better make them naked.

Honestly, if you take the Paizo goblin and slap an ethnically unique costume on him, he's going to look like a racist caricature.

[Davor Firetusk]

Or maybe it saves the thread? The not so subtle point is that the act of defining a culture gets to a human universal (citations available if you'd like) of defining the us and them. I'd also posit that any reasonable reading of history will show that who actually qualifies as having relative power is fairly changeable in many instances. Further the definition of appropriation posted could be accurately applied to what most would regard as relatively trivial examples (I can post one if someone really wants). A better solution is to focus not on the using or representing of a culture at all. Is what you are doing exploitative in general? Is it mocking or inauthentic? There are any number of meaningful questions a person can ask of their work using more commonly understood concepts that will be much more helpful.

[dunelord3001]

ErichAD wrote:

dunelord3001 wrote:

Overall a non-issue. Unless you're doing something really crazy like making a Monster based off of racial stereotype or something it's just a case of you can't please everybody all the time.

The problem there is that racial stereotypes are pretty generic. The default racist stereotype has: bad teeth, tiny eyes, poor hygiene, is oddly hairy, technologically backward, weak, lazy, and wears a funny hat or hair style. If you want that collection of features, you better make them naked.

Honestly, if you take the Paizo goblin and slap an ethnically unique costume on him, he's going to look like a racist caricature.

If you look at an inhuman monster and know that in context it is an inhuman monster and you start thinking how that means somebody is a racist you're the one with the problem.

[avr]

If the inhuman monster has some very human attributes then it's not all that inhuman. If those attributes are associated with a group of humans often discriminated against then it's not all that long a bow to draw to say that actually, you are a racist. You might be unthinking rather than actively hostile but that doesn't make that untrue.

[ErichAD]

dunelord3001 wrote:

ErichAD wrote:

dunelord3001 wrote:

Overall a non-issue. Unless you're doing something really crazy like making a Monster based off of racial stereotype or something it's just a case of you can't please everybody all the time.

The problem there is that racial stereotypes are pretty generic. The default racist stereotype has: bad teeth, tiny eyes, poor hygiene, is oddly hairy, technologically backward, weak, lazy, and wears a funny hat or hair style. If you want that collection of features, you better make them naked.

Honestly, if you take the Paizo goblin and slap an ethnically unique costume on him, he's going to look like a racist caricature.

If you look at an inhuman monster and know that in context it is an inhuman monster and you start thinking how that means somebody is a racist you're the one with the problem.

While that's one option, it's also possible that the viewer expects vile human caricatures to be targeted at one specific group or another because they commonly see that group being targeted by that type of racist caricature. They could also have a really low opinion of the author that causes them to see bad behavior where none exists. Really there's many possible ways to get to the erroneous conclusion that a caricature is specific rather than generic.

I'm not saying that those types of characters shouldn't be created. I'm a fan of vile human caricatures, but I also don't think people should be surprised when that type of character is interpreted in ways they don't expect. I also agree that if you see these generic human caricatures and frequently think of the same group, then you should consider whether or not you have a problem.

[Artofregicide]

Awareness is really the solution to the OP's topic. You can dodge even unintentionally veering into offensive territory without making everything bland and featureless. If you want to create a society that has aspects of any particular culture, actually research that culture instead of using cheap stereotypes.

As for the newer topic, instead of arguing political and economic theory along with identify politics like adults why can't we discuss why there isn't a Daemon centric AP? They're clearly the best outsiders, even Marx and Keynes thought so.

[Sara Marie]

The way we see things represented to us in media arts, including movies, tv, books, and roleplaying games, informs and shapes our views on ourselves and others, sometimes in very subconscious ways. Creative outlets like story-based, narrative games can contain all sorts of symbolism that acts as a mirror of how we see ourselves, the world around us, and all of the people who exist in it with us.

Cultural appreciation is not the same thing as cultural appropriation. If you are not aware of what either of these terms refers to, please find one of the many sources online that can help clarify these terms for you. For these discussions, posts that immediately dismiss the concerns of others as being overly sensitive, or of the issues not existing, are not helpful or productive.

Remember, the games and groups we each are part of are not singularly representative of all games and all groups. If you and your gaming groups have not faced or discussed cultural appropriation, that does not mean that other people and other gaming groups have not dealt with this as a problem.

[Kitty Catoblepas]

Sara Marie wrote:

The way we see things represented to us in media arts, including movies, tv, books, and roleplaying games, informs and shapes our views on ourselves and others, sometimes in very subconscious ways. Creative outlets like story-based, narrative games can contain all sorts of symbolism that acts as a mirror of how we see ourselves, the world around us, and all of the people who exist in it with us.

That's kind of the problem, though, even when we're trying to be "good" about potrayal of cultures that are not our own. The world has changed a lot, and consequently our fantasy RPGs are a reflection of the modern world, most often with a thin veneer of Western culture streched out over a 5000 year period, broken into pieces, and assembled into a fun, accessible mosaic. And adding other cultures seems only natural if you want to be more inclusionary and expand your RPG world.

But this turns into "defaultism" and "exoticism" where the improperly portrayed cultures in the base game come across as familiar, inviting, and fun and the faithfully portrayed cultures come across as rigid, alien, unfriendly or even wrong. Or worse, it turns cultures into designated enemies when the values of 500 or 1000 years ago clash with modern sensibilities, even when we're trying to be sensitive and avoid this very outcome.

My opinion which nobody asked for is that erring on the side of fun, accessible and modern is generally better than erring on the side of accurate-but-jarring, and that modern movies produced by the culture you're including are probably a better source to emulate than straight historical fact.

And I do agree that you should research at least enough to be able to identify a sensitive subject in a modern environment (and, indeed, your group of gamers).

[Rysky]

There's no "conflating" or "separate issues".

Sara Marie wrote:

The way we see things represented to us in media arts, including movies, tv, books, and roleplaying games, informs and shapes our views on ourselves and others, sometimes in very subconscious ways. Creative outlets like story-based, narrative games can contain all sorts of symbolism that acts as a mirror of how we see ourselves, the world around us, and all of the people who exist in it with us.

[Cavall]

Treating something made up clearly based on racist caricatures as a non issue allows for grooming and propaganda. There is a clear cross over and groomers would have you believe there is not