Quote from: SHARK;1078362Greetings!

Interesting. What about artists insistence that they can do whatever they want with whatever stories, depictions, icons of any culture, any religion, at any time? Artistic lisence allows them to distort, mangle, and twist anything they want for the purpose of creative expression.

Likewise, well, what happens when YOU think you are treating cultural source material X just fine--but a radical element of Purple people scream and are having a hissy fit? Some of these elements insist that only their own fucked up political and ideological lens can be used to view and and interpret their *culture*. No other kind of interpretation is permitted.

Honestly, on the surface, with legitimate concerns, I have sympathy towards whatever native culture. However, there is such nonsense going on with this stuff, it leaves me skeptical. No one seems to give a goddamn how whatever *artists* treat White culture, or Christianity, for example. If the subject material is White, or Christian, authors, directors, artists, etc. can depict you in whatever ridiculous manner, and it is always hailed as "Brilliant", "Imaginative", and "Bold". I think much of the outrage, is drummed up by SJW's and shaped towards their typical shrieking cries. It's always something. There's always something "deeply troubling" and "deeply offensive" about this book, that game, this clothing, or that team name. Whaa, Whaa, Whaa the SJW's are always sobbing and shrieking about something.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I always give a side-eye when "White culture" is referenced, I don't think it exists. (There is German, Irish, Canadian, South African, etc, heritage - all distinct and flavourful).

Your point about Christianity is an interesting one though, and it has merit to an extent. I think the limiting factors are the ubiquity, dominance, and (sadly) the legacy of harm.

As to your general point about artistic freedom, I'd point you in the direction of this (entertaining!) interview of Ricky Gervais, who is an outspoken proponent of free speech, happy to cause offence and discomfort, yet is also adamant that there is a time and place for his material.

Ultimately context matters.

Quote from: Motorskills;1078370I always give a side-eye when "White culture" is referenced, I don't think it exists. (There is German, Irish, Canadian, South African, etc, heritage - all distinct and flavourful).

Does Native American culture exist? Or Indian culture (from India)?

Quote from: Trond;1078375Does Native American culture exist? Or Indian culture (from India)?

Greetings!

Exactly, Trond! There's White culture, with distinct variations--American, German, British, Irish, etc. The same thing applies with Native American, Indian, and so on. I have always thought it was an easy concept to grasp, you know? LOL.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Trond;1078375Does Native American culture exist? Or Indian culture (from India)?

I think (modern) American culture exists, and I think there are regional flavours of that (some of which are essentially Caucasian).

Based on my direct experience in India and with Indians, it's equivalent.

Quote from: Motorskills;1078386I think (modern) American culture exists, and I think there are regional flavours of that (some of which are essentially Caucasian).

Based on my direct experience in India and with Indians, it's equivalent.

You're avoiding the whole question. I asked about Native Americans. And people from the Indian region speak languages that aren't even remotely related, and have different religions. Still, there are overall similarities, which make people speak of Indian culture.

The definition of a culture is a bit wishy-washy though, so if you think that there is no such thing as Native American culture, then sure, maybe you could say that there is no White culture either. But I think many people would disagree.

Quote from: Trond;1078392You're avoiding the whole question. I asked about Native Americans. And people from the Indian region speak languages that aren't even remotely related, and have different religions. Still, there are overall similarities, which make people speak of Indian culture.

The definition of a culture is a bit wishy-washy though, so if you think that there is no such thing as Native American culture, then sure, maybe you could say that there is no White culture either. But I think many people would disagree.

Hopefully I answered your other question to your satisfaction? Yes, ultimately "India" is a political distinction, but it goes way beyond that - just find Indian cricket on the TV sometime, there's something unified going on there, definitely cultural.

Does Native American culture exist - I think so, though I wouldn't claim to be qualified on the historical, political, geographical and other ramifications of that answer. If someone of Lakotan descent told me that it was wrong to lump all tribes under that banner, I'd be fine with that, and try to absorb the knowledge for next time.
Canada uses the term First Nations, but I don't know if that is mostly a political distinction or something that is useful culturally as well.
So like I said above  - which SpinachCat hated - tread carefully, if you are going to produce a work of entertainment.

I also agree that "culture" has fuzzy boundaries. I recognise European, British, English, London as having cultural characteristics distinct from American, French, Scottish, and Mancunian characteristics. But I don't see much that is inherently White about any of those. A Black British person could tick all of those boxes while also celebrating a (say) Jamaican or Nigerian heritage, and still not making it fundamentally racial.

But maybe I'm looking at it wrong? And I'll grant that just because you almost don't identify as "White American" in polite company, rather simply "American", doesn't mean you couldn't. But calling for White History Month tends not to end well either, right?

Quote from: Brand55;1078307Totems of the Dead is quite possibly my favorite Savage Worlds game (the additional rules are fantastic), and by extension one of my favorite games out there in general. The setting is recognizably North American in inspiration but there are a number of twists, not the least of which is the dark sword and sorcery veneer the setting gets in how magic is handled and the monsters it uses. Doing bad things with magic causes corruption and can lead a character on the path to becoming an evil NPC. There are tons of character options from more than a dozen cultures. Along with numerous native tribes including fantasy Amazon warrior women and shapeshifting skinwalkers, you've got versions of African, Chinese, Russian, Norse, and Atlantean settlers/invaders showing up all over the map. Plus the not-Aztecs are getting ready to kick off an invasion of their own. Everywhere you look there's the potential for conflict of some sort.

The game is split into two books, and there's a gazetteer breaking the setting down into smaller regions. The GM's book has a lot of enemies plus some "Savage Tales," short adventures for each of the regions you can flesh out and use. That would be a good place to start. I find the best option is actually to treat the game more like a sandbox. Come up with a map and an introductory tale to get the ball rolling, and then let things progress from there. The thing to remember is that not all of the cultures are going to be present (at least in significant numbers) in any given area, so you can easily narrow down where you want things to happen and that will cut the options down to 3 or 4 groups.

It sounds cool. Still, for my personal tastes, the huge number of cultures and inspirations seems like more of a negative. It seems to me like it can't treat any of them in detail. My favorite original-for-RPG fantasy setting is Harn - which focuses on a single island in detail. The wider world, Lythia, exists - but it's there for context and expansion and travel, while Harn is the detailed center. I've never really gotten into bigger fantasy worlds with wide variety like Forgotten Realms. (I had games technically set there, but the setting didn't matter much.)

Obviously, this is a your-mileage-may-vary thing, but that's my take on things.

You mention the different invaders to the land, and the non-Aztecs (who from context sound like they are the evil empire of the setting). Can you comment on the different native cultures? Which are the most detailed and interesting?

Quote from: SHARK;1078362Likewise, well, what happens when YOU think you are treating cultural source material X just fine--but a radical element of Purple people scream and are having a hissy fit? Some of these elements insist that only their own fucked up political and ideological lens can be used to view and and interpret their *culture*. No other kind of interpretation is permitted.

I was running a game set in 1920s Haiti at a local convention, and I remember someone got upset that it was disrepectful of Vodou beliefs. I responded back that it wasn't, and made my case. In this case, I didn't change anything or apologize. As it turns out, when I ran the game again the following year, the person who first complained played in it and had a good time.

On the other hand, sometimes I mess up - and I'll take people's feedback into account and change things. (I changed the title of a recent game I was running based on feedback, for example.)

These days, there is plenty of outrage from both the left and the right. I don't think one should listen to anything simply because it's outrage - but conversely, sometimes there are things that are wrong. One should still listen to and engage with other political sides. Succumbing to any outrage is bad, but so is living in an echo chamber where you never hear complaints.

Quote from: Trond;1078392You're avoiding the whole question. I asked about Native Americans. And people from the Indian region speak languages that aren't even remotely related, and have different religions. Still, there are overall similarities, which make people speak of Indian culture.

The definition of a culture is a bit wishy-washy though, so if you think that there is no such thing as Native American culture, then sure, maybe you could say that there is no White culture either. But I think many people would disagree.

I would say there is no such thing as Native American culture. I'll buy that there is Indian culture and Chinese culture since those are unified countries with close contact and exchange between different regions, even though different languages are spoken. But saying that Inuits and Incans have a shared culture seems senseless to me. They are thousands of miles apart with no contact or trade.

Quote from: jhkim;1078399I would say there is no such thing as Native American culture. I'll buy that there is Indian culture and Chinese culture since those are unified countries with close contact and exchange between different regions, even though different languages are spoken. But saying that Inuits and Incans have a shared culture seems senseless to me. They are thousands of miles apart with no contact or trade.

There's definitely a Han Chinese culture IMO. There is a sort of elite national Indian culture, but there is only very loosely a shared culture of Tamils and Punjabis and Bengalis, say. Like saying Greeks and Irish and Finns have a shared European culture; perhaps even less.

Quote from: S'mon;1078432There's definitely a Han Chinese culture IMO. There is a sort of elite national Indian culture, but there is only very loosely a shared culture of Tamils and Punjabis and Bengalis, say. Like saying Greeks and Irish and Finns have a shared European culture; perhaps even less.

Obviously, it's really a multi-dimensional spectrum where cultures have degrees of relation to each other on different fronts, rather than a binary of whether there is one culture or not. Certainly the Chinese culture is much more unified than Indian culture. India at least has been unified politically for two centuries, and despite many differences, there is a sense of common national identity - plus many shared cultural identities, like epics, art, and so forth.

By comparison, different Native Americans haven't had anything close to even that degree of unity. So I'm pretty firm in saying that overall Native American culture isn't really a thing.

Quote from: Motorskills;1078349If you do your research, if you treat the cultural source material with respect, you ARE treading carefully.

If any author thinks they can appease the SJW garbage, they're dead wrong...unless they're in the SJW preferred circle, and that only lasts until the next round of Purity Bingo. Regardless of your research or "respect", the Outrage Mob can always find fault. In fact, regardless of your research and respect, just not being "Native American" is enough to disqualify any author from even being "allowed" to write such a RPG.

Also, "historically accurate" isn't any measure of fiction. Whenever you take history and weave it into fiction (a book, a movie, a game), plenty of facts are going to get flushed, sidelined, or warped for the sake of the fiction.

Cool shit doesn't get made when "threading carefully". Authors need to gun their engines, take their creativity in any desired direction, and be ready to mow down their critics, because if the author's stuff is any good, pleasing their fandom is ALL that matters.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1078440because if the author's stuff is any good, pleasing their fandom is ALL that matters.

It depends what you mean, to me those two things don't automatically equate. A quick trawl on google for "Native American tropes", "racist tropes", (etc) shows all sorts of things that a good writer could easily avoid, but are you arguing that a writer should include them anyway if the fandom has come to expect it?

I do agree that historically accurate =/= good fiction. But equally, slapping the label "fantasy RPG" on something doesn't make it immune from criticism about the way it is drawing from its source terrain.

Quote from: jhkim;1078399It sounds cool. Still, for my personal tastes, the huge number of cultures and inspirations seems like more of a negative. It seems to me like it can't treat any of them in detail. My favorite original-for-RPG fantasy setting is Harn - which focuses on a single island in detail. The wider world, Lythia, exists - but it's there for context and expansion and travel, while Harn is the detailed center. I've never really gotten into bigger fantasy worlds with wide variety like Forgotten Realms. (I had games technically set there, but the setting didn't matter much.)

Obviously, this is a your-mileage-may-vary thing, but that's my take on things.

I do understand that. The longest campaign I've run in the last decade or so was set in Hellfrost, which focuses in on one continent and gives a ton of detail. Not quite to Harn levels, but still far higher than most games out there. That's why I said it was a real shame that TotD never took off. We only got one PDF supplement adding detail to one of the groups. It wasn't huge, but if even that much had been added to all of the others it would have been amazing. But we still have the broad strokes to work with for each grouping -- food, names, architecture, alliances, cities/locations, festivals, gods, that sort of stuff. It gives a GM a pretty good starting place to begin adding more details.

Quote from: jhkim;1078399You mention the different invaders to the land, and the non-Aztecs (who from context sound like they are the evil empire of the setting). Can you comment on the different native cultures? Which are the most detailed and interesting?

The Maztlani Empire (not-Aztecs) is probably one of the more "evil" groups in the setting along with some of the Atlanteans, but that's mostly because they're among the most warlike and they heavily practice human sacrifice and cannibalism. Not the sort of stuff most PCs will want to partake in. You could still do a game set there, though. Here's a short thread where some people listed some of the groups available and which real-world inspirations were tied to each: https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/totems-of-the-dead-which-cultures-are-influenced-by-which-real-world-cultures.596769/

For my own part, I'm probably most interested in the Eastern Woodlands tribes purely because of my own family history and interest in mound culture as well as the southern empires. Doing something with a fantasy version of Cahokia brings to mind so many possibilities. Probably the two most fleshed-out societies are the Maztlani (not-Aztec) and Yaurcoan (not-Incan) Empires. A lot of details are pulled straight from history, if slightly tweaked here and there, and then you get the fantastical mixed in like the fact that the Yaurcoan elite have managed to master and ride a group of pterosaur-like creatures.

And the books don't shy away from the fact that we're just getting the broad view of things. Your character might fall into the "Eastern Woodlands Tribesman" category at character creation, but that gets further divided into north and south and from there the book mentions how there are actually dozens of distinct tribal cultures that make up each of those categories.

Quote from: Motorskills;1078398Canada uses the term First Nations, but I don't know if that is mostly a political distinction or something that is useful culturally as well.
/QUOTE]

The Canadian term "First Nations" does not have a substantially different meaning than "native American," but note the plural. I think that's a useful difference. In the singular ( e.g. Such-and-such First Nation) it refers to a particular band, or its governing chief and band council. In the plural it just refers to indigenous peoples in general, but there is no implication that the different First Nations are somehow same-ish. They are different nations. Some share a lot culturally, especially with their neighbours, and especially in the same language families, but any two might share very little culturally. And why should they? Leaving aside the Inuit, who really are a whole 'nother thing (and moving beyond Canadian boundaries a bit), the cultural similarities between say, northern Athapaskan- speakers in the western subarctic and, modern (or ancient) Maya in the Petén, or Desana-speakers in the Colombian upper Amazon are maybe slightly nonzero, but pretty darn vanishingly small.

I think jhkim is right, there is no (single) "native American culture."

Actually, there may be an exception in the modern era, but if you are talking precontact/early contact (which I think we are) then it doesn't really apply.

Quote from: Motorskills;1078370Your point about Christianity is an interesting one though, and it has merit to an extent. I think the limiting factors are the ubiquity, dominance, and (sadly) the legacy of harm.

Saying Christianity has a legacy of harm is a very slanted viewpoint. It's akin to treating Native American culture solely in the noble savage, can do no wrong, limelight. All cultures have had their positives and negatives, primarily because human beings from all faiths and cultures can suck and do harm, no matter how noble the belief system.

Christianity in recent times was one of the longest running civil rights movement experienced by mankind. Abolishment of slavery, women's right to vote, temperance, even native american rights were all rooted Christian movements before the US was even founded. And the ideas of modern western democracy and individual rights had their seeds in the Christian movements of early reformations created by the invention of the printing press and everyone having access to bibles.

You're probably not familiar with any of that though because there's a real bias today in presenting those stories.

Quote from: Dracones;1078538Saying Christianity has a legacy of harm is a very slanted viewpoint. It's akin to treating Native American culture solely in the noble savage, can do no wrong, limelight. All cultures have had their positives and negatives, primarily because human beings from all faiths and cultures can suck and do harm, no matter how noble the belief system.

Christianity in recent times was one of the longest running civil rights movement experienced by mankind. Abolishment of slavery, women's right to vote, temperance, even native american rights were all rooted Christian movements before the US was even founded. And the ideas of modern western democracy and individual rights had their seeds in the Christian movements of early reformations created by the invention of the printing press and everyone having access to bibles.

You're probably not familiar with any of that though because there's a real bias today in presenting those stories.

I'm familiar with those, and more. I actually have family in the 'trade'.

I'm also familiar with the Crusades, the eradication of the Cathars, the deaths of 3000 people in Northern Ireland, the persecution of Galileo, and more.

But that stuff wasn't the legacy of harm I was referring to. Rather it is the more recent history, the industrial-scale enabling of child abuse, and the issues relating to GLBT acceptance, etc. Pointing to good deeds of the past doesn't give a pass for the failings of today, and it is those kinds of things that drive resentment.

So while overall I think Christianity is an enormous force for good in the world, that doesn't matter much to an individual that has suffered at the hands of those professing to be servants of Christ.