| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m hoping this thread looks real silly in two months when the Mwangi book drops, but I wanted to get this off my chest: is anyone else a little bewildered by the presentation of the Bekyar ethnicity?
For the unfamiliar, they’re an ethnic group of Mwangi humans (contrast with the Zenj, Bonuwat, and Mauxi) who are most notable for... taking slaves and demon worship. I believe the majority we’ve seen over the years are devout followers of Anghazan, while almost every mention of them inevitably mentions their proclivity for slavery. The Slithering, a recent adventure, names the former slave market of Kibwe after them, and says most fled the city after slavery was outlawed, feeling “betrayed.”
Where things get hairy is that this is never presented as an organization - never a specific Bekyar cult or slaver concern - but as something innate to the ethnicity itself. 2e has a Background for being a “Bekyar Redeemer,” admitting and reinforcing mechanically that a Bekyar who isn’t evil and monstrous is unique enough to be a character’s defining history. This all feels weird in the context of the last few years of talk around groups like orcs and drow, and exponentially moreso over been a black human ethnic group.
Am I alone on this? Is there nuance somewhere that I’m just not seeing? They feel like a relic from the nastiest “Darkest Africa” pulp fantasies, yet they seem to have gotten into the 2e lore remarkably intact.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see the Bekyar as occupying a similar narrative space as Chelaxians or Nidalese. The Bekyar Redeemer background you mentioned establishes nuance and lets players know that Bekyar are not 'Always Evil'. The regional backgrounds Atteran Rancher, Chelish Rebel, or Child of Westrown serves a similar purpose for PCs from Cheliax or Nidal.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see the Bekyar as occupying a similar narrative space as Chelaxians or Nidalese. The Bekyar Redeemer background you mentioned establishes nuance and lets players know that Bekyar are not 'Always Evil'. The regional backgrounds Atteran Rancher, Chelish Rebel, or Child of Westrown serves a similar purpose for PCs from Cheliax or Nidal.
Sure, but there’s a world of difference between nations in Fantasy Europe being evil compared to an /ethnicity/ in Fantasy Africa being evil. Between leaning heavily on fraught, racist tropes - the Bekyar quite literally being a cruel, demon-worshipping tribal people straight out of the pages of some pulp rag - and the greater peril in assigning evil to a people, rather than an organization/state/faith.
Bekyar Redeemer is, quite literally, doing “one of the good ones.” I loathe that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, relatively little has been written about the Bekyar compared to either Chelaxian or Nidalese. So brief summaries of “isolationist demon-worshipping raiders and slavers” are all we have. Such descriptions about the Nidalese or Cheliax would be similarly reductionist.
“The Bekyar embrace the practice of juju, which consists of equal parts political maneuvering and communing with spirits known as wendo. They also worship demon lords such as Angazhan, Dagon, and Zura.”
“Like Cheliax and Nidal far to the north, the Bekyar people chose wicked routes to power to survive harsh times. They embraced the worship of demons and hostile spirit beings, and created a mercenary society that prizes strength and survival at all costs. Aggressive conquerors and slavers, most Bekyar are shunned by other Mwangi.”
The text itself draws parallels between the Bekyar and Cheliax/Nidal. Cheliax and Nidal are evil because an organization (House Thrune/Black Triune and the Umbral Court) with ties to evil deities(Asmodeus/Zon-Kuthon) controls the nation-state. The political elite are Evil but their subjects are mostly Neutral. Perhaps the Bekyars’ situation is similar.
IMHO Inner Sea Races portrayed the Bekyar and the other Mwangi people responsibly. I expect the Bekyar to remain evil overall, but I reckon LOME will add some nuance, similar to what "Nidal, Land of Shadow" accomplished.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's the main issue, lack of detail and nuance.
As y'all point out Cheliaxians/Nidalese aren't evil, the respective country is, not the ethnicity.
Then with the Bekyar all (which is little) information given thus far ties into the ethnicity itself and how they're evil, not a specific organization or country populated by the Bekyar, which is... not good
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have patience, folks. The book is near.
Just knowing it was thought about is a very powerful relief.
For what it's worth, the Character Guide seems to portray them in a somewhat less negative light, though they're only described briefly. I do agree that the concept could use some adjustment and added nuance.
Guess we'll have to wait and see what Mwangi Expanse has to say about it...
I mean, it would be incredibly problematic if all the human peoples of the Mwangi expanse were portrayed as victims of slave trading from the north and from the East as well. Part of the issue seems like the Mwangi expanse is not itself a place where politics are tied as closely to attempts to create nation states and are much more communitarian, based on cultural or even ancestral identity.
Looking for an explicitly economic, political, or a traditionally structured religious organization to be responsible for slavery as potentially a cultural practice within a region is its own kind problematic reductionism too.
Golarion, being a world where good and evil exist as absolutes, makes the inclusion of the kind of slavery as a cultural practice, that has historical roots in many different places on earth, a lot more problematic positioning when you, rightfully, want to label violent and coercive labor practices on the Evil pole of the Good and Evil spectrum.
It will be a complicated transition to make , from portrayals of the Mwangi Expanse from a colonial Heart of Darkness positioning, to a more complex and post colonial perspective. I am also excited to see how the folks at piano have handled it.
With the book in folks’ hands, I wanted to cautiously revive this thread; how do people feel about the writeup the Bekyar received?
A friend with the book passed me the section, and while I think it’s alright (they’re a culture of ruthless pragmatists, up to and including fiendish pacts), I can’t help but feel like the lack of discussion on slavery is kind of a miss for me. For as long as we’ve had the Bekyar, slaving has been presented as their defining trait, yet this writeup gives a single off-hand mention that others find it “barbaric,” which leaves me unsatisfied.
They ultimately still end up coming across as an antagonistic ethnicity, which is a concept I’m going to rankle with inherently. I would love to hear from others on this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think they are any more Antagnoistic than Chelaxian, Gebian, Mordant Spire Elves, or Mammoth Kings. They represent a less pleasant group and culture within the expanse but not inherently evil just pragmatic, power-hungry, and focused on survival against invaders.
I do think that the term ethnicities was wrongly applied to these groups. They don't seem to be ethnic groupings but rather socio-cultural groupings more akin to nationalities than anything else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think also, that we rarely get an internal perspective of who's definition of the culture that is. Like we mostly get groups presented to us through the lens of the powerful people at the top of a society, and their ideals. Most of the Taldan-speaking people are poorer folk and laborers, but we're told in the CRB: "Renowned as artisans, scholars, and soldiers, Taldans have spread throughout Avistan, as the empire of Taldor once spanned almost half of the northern continent."
RPG books are rarely going to provide the really deep nuance of internal differences on what aspects of society people actually associate with on an individual level, etc.
But every society contains multitudes who agree and disagree with the prevailing social mores set by the ruling classes to different degrees and in different areas.