TheRPGSite

I was reading tonight about ancient native American culture and it occured to me... I have never heard of an RPG that focused on pre-Columbian America. Am I wrong... is there a product I missed?

Quote from: ZalmoxisI was reading tonight about ancient native American culture and it occured to me... I have never heard of an RPG that focused on pre-Columbian America. Am I wrong... is there a product I missed?

The 2e AD&D settings Maztica was based on it (well, it would technically be right after Columbus arrived, since there is a small Faerûnean presence) and Red Steel/Savage Coast had some stuff inspired by it. I'm about 95% certain there's also some GURPS stuff, but then again there's GURPS stuff about everything.

But I'm not aware of any RPGs that are all about the early Americas, no.

Quote from: Harry JoyNot counting Maztica?
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maztica

No... I should have been more specific. I was referring to the Native Americans of North America. I also know that there have been a few settings set in the "wild west" that feature plains indians. What I am asking though is whether or not there has been a game focusing on native North Americans, outside of the context of how they interacted with Europeans.

Quote from: ZalmoxisNo... I should have been more specific. I was referring to the Native Americans of North America. I also know that there have been a few settings set in the "wild west" that feature plains indians. What I am asking though is whether or not there has been a game focusing on native North Americans, outside of the context of how they interacted with Europeans.

If I'm not mistaken there was a Known World Gazetteer inspired by Native American culture. I doubt there was much realistic focus on their culture..seeing how there were elves and dwarves in their part of the world (I think) :)

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Harry JoyThat means you must invent it.

Well, I have been looking into the mound builder cultures (started with me looking into Cahokia, which I hope to see this summer). Being from the southeastern US, I have long been intrigued by the natives from that region as well. I may take a crack at it. Don't know whether it would be better to make it a "historically accurate" RPG or integrate elements of fantasy (real magic, real fantastic creatures from native american myth, and so on). The fact no one seems to have done it yet does pique my interest. :)

Quote from: ZalmoxisDon't know whether it would be better to make it a "historically accurate" RPG or integrate elements of fantasy (real magic, real fantastic creatures from native american myth, and so on). The fact no one seems to have done it yet does pique my interest. :)

You may want to check out "The Atruaghin Clans" - http://www.waynesbooks.com/Gazetteer.html
for some ideas. Like I said not really a serious study of Native American culture, but perhaps you could get some ideas...or not :)

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RYou may want to check out "The Atruaghin Clans" - http://www.waynesbooks.com/Gazetteer.html
for some ideas. Like I said not really a serious study of Native American culture, but perhaps you could get some ideas...or not :)

Regards,
David R

I'll definitely check that out. :)

The more I read about it, the more I am warming to the idea.

It's a good idea.  It might be easier to go with a fantasy version, so you don't get bogged down in historical details. Something along the lines of what Nyambe did with Africa.

The gods/spirits would be very interesting.  Older versions of Deities and Demigods had a section on Native Americans that might be helpful to browse at.

Post whatever you come up with. Having read your work before, I'm sure it would be interesting :)

Regards,
David R

It's intriguing to me because, frankly, I don't know a heck of a lot about native americans. It would be a good learning experience for me. Plus, there is very little available by way of popular culture with regards to native americans, except as they relate to interaction with Europeans. Much of it would be pretty straight-forward, as far as game design goes. I am leaning towards having magic use available, but in such a way that it could also be left out if desired... whether or not you want a "shaman" character to have "real" magic is up to you. The supernatural beings would be done in a similar way, so that if you desired to run it purely historical (that is, as far as we know) you could. The opportunities for long-range adventuring might be limited though, as the native americans of this period seem to have been pretty sedentary. That said, their trade networks were often very extensive, so there might be some leadway there in making realistic adventuring classes.

Quote from: David RPost whatever you come up with. Having read your work before, I'm sure it would be interesting :)

Regards,
David R

Thanks for that, and you can be sure I will post it here. All of you have been a big help to me.

I think the Aztecs and similar groups sometimes had influence extending into the southwest.  It wouldn't be hard to turn them into villains for a campaign seed - empire looking for conquests and slaves for sacrifice.

The 13th century might make a good time frame because, from my limited memory, there was lots of chaos around then.  IIRC, that's when the builders of the Cahokia mounds went into decline and the Anasazi dwellings were abandoned.  Small cities were being abandoned.  The cause was probably climate change but it would be easy to add a spiritual/magical element behind the climate change.

Quote from: ZalmoxisI am leaning towards having magic use available, but in such a way that it could also be left out if desired... whether or not you want a "shaman" character to have "real" magic is up to you. The supernatural beings would be done in a similar way, so that if you desired to run it purely historical (that is, as far as we know) you could.

I like this idea. There could be two kinds of adventures using the same characters - one set in the real world, one set in the dream/spirit world. That way you could have a kind of fantasy game (mythic creatures,magic) in one world and something grounded more in reality in the other.

QuoteThe opportunities for long-range adventuring might be limited though, as the native americans of this period seem to have been pretty sedentary. That said, their trade networks were often very extensive, so there might be some leadway there in making realistic adventuring classes.

Also don't forget their interactions with other tribes which would involve a lot of politics. I think it would depend where you set this concept. I would think that there is some scope for exploration - finding new camp ground in fertile lands, running away from other tribes etc.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: NicephorusI think the Aztecs and similar groups sometimes had influence extending into the southwest.  It wouldn't be hard to turn them into villains for a campaign seed - empire looking for conquests and slaves for sacrifice.

Yes. What I am doing right now is trying to get a feel for the timeframes; the actual, historical ones. Cause what I want to do here, and something I did not do in my Phydea setting, is nail down the time period to a given century. Whereas Phydea was a fantasy/alternate history, I think doing this one as something more grounded in a specific timeframe would be more desirable. Something I have not decided yet is the extent I want to play around with history... something you are alluding to. For example, what if the Aztecs really did expand further north, coming into conflict with groups in Louisiana, Texas and the southwest? What if the natives of the caribbean went to war with coastal groups in Florida and Georgia? What if the groups from eastern North Carolina unified into a single tribe, embraced the mound culture, and became a rival of Cahokia?

QuoteThe 13th century might make a good time frame because, from my limited memory, there was lots of chaos around then.  IIRC, that's when the builders of the Cahokia mounds went into decline and the Anasazi dwellings were abandoned.  Small cities were being abandoned.  The cause was probably climate change but it would be easy to add a spiritual/magical element behind the climate change.

The 13th century does seem to be rich in information.

Quote from: ZalmoxisWell, I have been looking into the mound builder cultures (started with me looking into Cahokia, which I hope to see this summer). Being from the southeastern US, I have long been intrigued by the natives from that region as well. I may take a crack at it. Don't know whether it would be better to make it a "historically accurate" RPG or integrate elements of fantasy (real magic, real fantastic creatures from native american myth, and so on). The fact no one seems to have done it yet does pique my interest. :)

I'd love to see something along the lines of the old 2E green historical D&D books for Native America. That way you could give the historical information and also include near-historical and fantasy options as well.

Quote from: AcinonyxI'd love to see something along the lines of the old 2E green historical D&D books for Native America. That way you could give the historical information and also include near-historical and fantasy options as well.

That's what I am leaning towards. I'm going to use the same rules I used for the Phydea setting (pseudo-True20), maybe modified. I'm going to focus on the height of the mound-builder culture, and how it interacted with their neighbors. It will also be possible for there to be conflcits between them and central american/other cultures.

FR was supposed to have had some north american style native americans, but i don't think that has ever been developed beyond a strongly-hinted rumor.

Quote from: BOZFR was supposed to have had some north american style native americans, but i don't think that has ever been developed beyond a strongly-hinted rumor.

No doubt it will come out right before I get done. :heh:  I gotta say, doing this will not be easy, especially as I am trying to be as accurate as possible. But it will be fun. I'm already really into it. :)

Quote from: Zalmoxis;16872I was reading tonight about ancient native American culture and it occured to me... I have never heard of an RPG that focused on pre-Columbian America. Am I wrong... is there a product I missed?

I realize that I am 13 years late to the party, but I am currently working on rules for a North American Pre-European TTRPG, I am, in respect to Native Americans, not using exact nations but nations inspired by the historical. Not being born into the culture I do not wish to cause insult anyone by any well meaning mistake. I would be happy to get feedback and share opinions on the subject.

Here are some published products

Ehdrigohr (Fate)
Totems of the Dead (Savage Worlds)

Also tangential, but there are the story games _How We Came To Live Here_ and _Ganagakok_. Here's a BGG list of Native-American-related RPG products, though it's mostly about post-colonial times or parallels.

https://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/47332/native-american-rpg-resources

I ran for a while an alternate-history campaign set in the Hudson River valley with Icelandic settlers along with native Algonquin and Haudenosaunee.

Re: Cahokia...  Mississippian culture is intriguing, but not well understood - particularly in the height of the civilization (roughly 1000-1200, as I recall). That can be good for fantasy, but it lacks familiarity to most players - which means it can lack some of the archetypes they identify with. I chose going with the Hudson River valley because Hiawatha, Iroquois, Mohicans, and others are at least roughly familiar to players from stories and film.

Having a big London-size city in pre-Colombian North America is alien to most players despite being true - which makes it undeniably cool, but also hard for players to get a handle on playing, particularly when we know so little about the culture.

Quote from: L.W.Pickett;1077230I realize that I am 13 years late to the party, but I am currently working on rules for a North American Pre-European TTRPG, I am, in respect to Native Americans, not using exact nations but nations inspired by the historical. Not being born into the culture I do not wish to cause insult anyone by any well meaning mistake. I would be happy to get feedback and share opinions on the subject.

Hate to say it. But this wont save you. You have to remember these SJWs are insane. You cannot appease them. You cannot win except by making your game as you want it. Not as you think will please some bigots and lunatics.

You use real tribes and locales? You monster! That is appropriation!
You use made up names and locales? You monster! That is exclusionism AND appropriation!
You replace them with Dinosaurs... You monster! That is exclusionism AND appropriation AND whitewashing as you are obviously not a velociraptor!

Oh and we are on to your dirty little secret that the lemurs the velociraptors are struggling against are really representations of the oppressed black minority and your dinosaurs are the priviliged white males!

I'd love to say any of this is an exaggeration. But in the last two years alone all of the above have been levelled at games at some point, and more.

Quote from: L.W.PickettI realize that I am 13 years late to the party, but I am currently working on rules for a North American Pre-European TTRPG, I am, in respect to Native Americans, not using exact nations but nations inspired by the historical. Not being born into the culture I do not wish to cause insult anyone by any well meaning mistake. I would be happy to get feedback and share opinions on the subject.

Quote from: Omega;1077255Hate to say it. But this wont save you. You have to remember these SJWs are insane. You cannot appease them. You cannot win except by making your game as you want it. Not as you think will please some bigots and lunatics.

You can't please everyone, certainly - but more importantly, don't suck! Regardless of whether anyone hears about it and is offended, make a game that is up to your own ethical standards and treats the subject and people the way you'd want to be treated.

There was also Northern Crown (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Crown_(roleplaying_game)), from the D20 glut.

Quote from: jhkim;1077248Having a big London-size city in pre-Colombian North America

Any useful non-internet sources you could point folk at, for reading more about this?

I'll take online too, I suppose, but would prefer dead tree.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1077287Any useful non-internet sources you could point folk at, for reading more about this?

I'll take online too, I suppose, but would prefer dead tree.

Possible he refers to Cahokia

https://www.livescience.com/22737-cahokia.html (https://www.livescience.com/22737-cahokia.html)

And there is also Chan Chan in South America which was pretty large and looks downright alien in its design in places.

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/12/13/chan-chan-the-largest-pre-columbian-city-in-the-americas/ (https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/12/13/chan-chan-the-largest-pre-columbian-city-in-the-americas/)

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1077287Any useful non-internet sources you could point folk at, for reading more about this?

I'll take online too, I suppose, but would prefer dead tree.

EDITED TO ADD: Yeah, I was referring to Cahokia - since in post #5, the OP poster zalmoxis said that he was inspired by a visit there.

The best reading I had on the subject was a survey book called 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, by Charles Mann.

https://smile.amazon.com/1491-Revelations-Americas-Before-Columbus/dp/1400032059/ref=smi_www_rco2_go_smi_g3905707922?_encoding=UTF8&%2AVersion%2A=1&%2Aentries%2A=0&ie=UTF8

It's not about Mississippian culture, but rather about revising views of pre-Columbian civilizations all over North and South America. I found it to be fascinating topics, and engagingly written.

I've browsed some books about Mississippian civilization at the library, but nothing that particularly grabbed me. Below is a rendition of Cahokia, by the way - the largest city in North America north of Mexico in its time, and arguably larger than London at the time (though admittedly, London of 1200AD was nothing like Rome or Constantinople).

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3217[/ATTACH] (https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/herald-review.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/6/3d/63d1ac10-055f-512e-9a07-38318637b2b3/5a74cd2ab17ee.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C833)

13 years and nobody mentions GURPS Aztecs?
 http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/Aztecs/

and then there is Design Mechanism with Mythic Aztecs for their Mythras game, not out yet but Ken St. Andre is writing it!
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/designmechanism/press-release-ken-st-andre-to-write-mythic-aztecs--t2816.html

Quote from: worrapol;107731813 years and nobody mentions GURPS Aztecs?
 http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/Aztecs/

and then there is Design Mechanism with Mythic Aztecs for their Mythras game, not out yet but Ken St. Andre is writing it!
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/designmechanism/press-release-ken-st-andre-to-write-mythic-aztecs--t2816.html

GURPS Aztecs is good, but in Post #3, the OP specified that he was looking for North American, not Central or South American.

And of course there is that set of articles in Dragon way back.

I'm not trying to appease anyone just showing my understanding of the culture is not from the inside, and that I will make my fair share of mistakes. I've seen to damn many times when instead of correction there is attack. I want correction if I make a mistake, I want to learn from them. Case in point, I want to get feed back on the concept of have skill and attribute advancement tied to how honorably or dishonorably the skill was used to gain the improvement. This tied to a concept that I have seen in a number of tales of people slowly descending into deformed or monstrous creatures as they gained dishonor.

Just research these peoples as honestly as you can and make sure people are having fun at your table. :) The self-righteous will forever be offended, high off their self-righteousness (the most addicting drug known to humankind. Yes, worse than cocaine, heroin, nicotine, adrenaline, and sugar,). You do you with positive intention in your heart and an openness to adjust from suggestions, with an eye to your own setting coherency.

North America has an enormous amount of diversity of indigenous traditions and adaptations to the environment. Biggest suggestion: Let the Land's Terrain Shape Who Is Present and Why. That way avoids making your Native American populations a monoculture pastiche of Great Plains culture. :)

Quote from: Opaopajr;1077383North America has an enormous amount of diversity of indigenous traditions and adaptations to the environment. Biggest suggestion: Let the Land's Terrain Shape Who Is Present and Why. That way avoids making your Native American populations a monoculture pastiche of Great Plains culture. :)

Especially when Eastern Woodland Culture was far more interesting. :p

Quote from: L.W.Pickett;1077230I realize that I am 13 years late to the party, but I am currently working on rules for a North American Pre-European TTRPG, I am, in respect to Native Americans, not using exact nations but nations inspired by the historical. Not being born into the culture I do not wish to cause insult anyone by any well meaning mistake. I would be happy to get feedback and share opinions on the subject.

That is the danger of writing about a culture that still exists. It is really possible to upset people.

Although I don't know a great deal about Native American cultures, what I do know is that they were incredibly varied and different. People from an East Coast culture would have very different beliefs and practices to people of the Great Plains or West Coast. Their deities are different, how they interact with those deities are different, whether they farm, fish or hunt is different, their languages are different and so on. It might be better to concentrate on one place and perhaps one or two Tribes/Nations/Peoples.

Is Poverty Point closer to your neck of the woods? (NE Louisiana). That would be a cool site to visit.

I must say, I have been fascinated by the woodland-period "interaction spheres" for a long time; Adena, Hopewell, "Mississippian," etc. No interest in them as rpgs per se, but I do understand the appeal.

 If you really wanted to get into it, it might start getting a bit Tekumel-like, with clans and kinship and the whole social game. Not that that would be a downside from my point of view. Anyway, interesting idea, good luck with it!

Quote from: L.W.Pickett;1077368I want correction if I make a mistake, I want to learn from them. Case in point, I want to get feed back on the concept of have skill and attribute advancement tied to how honorably or dishonorably the skill was used to gain the improvement. This tied to a concept that I have seen in a number of tales of people slowly descending into deformed or monstrous creatures as they gained dishonor.

This isn't about Native Americans per se, but I've never liked any of the honor systems that are I've seen for East Asian settings. Yes, honor is important in the stories of East Asian cultures - but honor and virtue are important in the stories of *all* cultures. I haven't seen this sort of thing for European cultures.

Quote from: jhkim;1077394I haven't seen this sort of thing for European cultures.

...this might sound weird, but I think that may be because most TTRPGs are made in the West, and there might be an implicit assumption regarding Western cultural values?

If you grew up in the US or Europe, you've probably been exposed to how medieval societies worked, at least in broad strokes. Given that most D&D games are set in that kind of setting, the European understanding of honor might be a foregone conclusion, so nobody felt the need to spell it out.

East Asian settings then get special treatment, because the expected readership probably has much less exposure to how that works, and it's sufficiently different from the European model that it warrants extra attention?

Quote from: jhkim;1077394This isn't about Native Americans per se, but I've never liked any of the honor systems that are I've seen for East Asian settings. Yes, honor is important in the stories of East Asian cultures - but honor and virtue are important in the stories of *all* cultures. I haven't seen this sort of thing for European cultures.

Doesn't Pendragon have Glory points? But I agree, certainly when it comes to D&D type games I have no idea why east-Asian settings merit an Honour score and a Republican Rome or Saxon England setting does not.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1077406If you grew up in the US or Europe, you've probably been exposed to how medieval societies worked, at least in broad strokes. Given that most D&D games are set in that kind of setting, the European understanding of honor might be a foregone conclusion, so nobody felt the need to spell it out.

That doesn't feel exactly right. A US-written pseudo-medieval setting like Forgotten Realms seems culturally far closer to 20th-21st century USA (with a bit of the 19th century Old West) than to any part of medieval Europe. British stuff, while grittier, tends to a Monty Python & the Holy Grail 'JCR-Marxist' view of the Middle Ages, and is only very superficially more realistic. Neither show much internal aspect on the medieval mindset or even an early-modern mindset. And this doesn't bother anyone. I don't know why more settings don't take the typical Anime approach to fantasy Japan and do basically the same thing.

Better have a thick skin, man.  Not being a Native American yourself, it doesn't matter if you were raised on the rez, married to the direct descendant of Chief Joseph and possessed by the spirit of Sitting Bull, you're going to have hordes of White Bred rich people screaming for your scalp, literally in this case.

Making it non-historical so as not to give offense, worst move ever.
1. You've already shown you're vulnerable to the charges they're going to level.
2. By not using real Tribes, you're erasing them, whitewashing our attempts at Genociding the Native Tribes and culturally appropriating them all at the same time.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1077411screaming for your scalp, literally in this case

Uh, literally? You do mean figuratively, right?

In any case, sure if you're looking to publish, best not to go there. I'll agree with that. But if you are inspired with some ideas for your home game, then yeah, why not?

Quote from: Zirunel;1077428Uh, literally? You do mean figuratively, right?

In any case, sure if you're looking to publish, best not to go there. I'll agree with that. But if you are inspired with some ideas for your home game, then yeah, why not?

No, considering the level of actual violence the Leftist Religious Fanatics are willing to commit lately in response to perceived "verbal violence", I meant that 100% literally...as in people may attempt to physically hurt him.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1077406East Asian settings then get special treatment, because the expected readership probably has much less exposure to how that works, and it's sufficiently different from the European model that it warrants extra attention?

I think it more serves to over-emphasize honor, as is done in a lot of media stereotypes. The vast majority of the honor mechanic systems in games like Bushido and Oriental Adventures could be applied directly to a European setting. I don't think the mechanical system does anything to make cultural differences more understandable - because even the standard honor things that are normal for Europeans become strange and clunky when put into a point system like this.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1077431No, considering the level of actual violence the Leftist Religious Fanatics are willing to commit lately in response to perceived "verbal violence", I meant that 100% literally...as in people may attempt to physically hurt him.

Violent leftist religious fanatics.....okay.

I have to say, I think your fears may be a little overblown, but maybe things are different where you live. And maybe where the OP lives, I dunno.

Quote from: Zirunel;1077494Violent leftist religious fanatics.....okay.

I have to say, I think your fears may be a little overblown, but maybe things are different where you live. And maybe where the OP lives, I dunno.

It's cute that you live in a bubble.  Visit Portland, OR.  The violent leftist religious zealots have a nice black-on-black uniform, complete with facemasks, and regularly assault those they disagree with in the name of anti-fascism.  It's not overblown, it's real.

What about the 2 games I mentioned. They're 2 published games that already did the work for you.

Quote from: kythri;1077497It's cute that you live in a bubble.  Visit Portland, OR.  The violent leftist religious zealots have a nice black-on-black uniform, complete with facemasks, and regularly assault those they disagree with in the name of anti-fascism.  It's not overblown, it's real.

Greetings!

You're quite right, Kythri. What has been going on in Portland, Oregon is insane, and a shameful travesty. You have armed bands of violent, Communist thugs marching in the streets, performing vandalism against businesses and attacking innocent people. Meanwhile, the city and state government does nothing.

Why are there not lawsuits being filed? Why aren't there FBI teams making raids against these jackasses, and crushing them? Why are we not hearing of law and order being restored, and these barbarians being charged in court and sent to prison? Why are there not strong investigations being conducted of their families and associaates, and investigations into those people and organizations funding them, and giving them aid and cover? Why are people not having rallies publicly denouncing these bastards, and demanding that the government put the fear of God into these scum?

I would like to see the great strength of the government brought down on them relentlessly, stomping on them like a boot crushing a cockroach. The innocent and good citizens of Oregon deserve justice, law, and order. Citizens of Oregon should not have to live in fear of these Communist terrorists. The Federal government has also declared that Antifa is a domestic terrorist organization.

These people are traitors to our country, and vicious criminals.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1077510Why aren't there FBI teams making raids against these jackasses, and crushing them?

SHARK

Possibly because they are dealing with the sources (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/homegrown-terrorists-2018-were-almost-all-right-wing/581284/) of the more lethal threats?

QuoteFrom 2009 through 2018, right-wing extremists accounted for 73 percent of such killings, according to the ADL, compared with 23 percent for Islamists and 3 percent for left-wing extremists.

This doesn't negate the obligation for local law enforcement to do its job of course.

Quote from: kythri;1077497It's cute that you live in a bubble.  Visit Portland, OR.  The violent leftist religious zealots have a nice black-on-black uniform, complete with facemasks, and regularly assault those they disagree with in the name of anti-fascism.  It's not overblown, it's real.

You are surely right that I live in a bubble. We all do, in bubbles of various sizes and types.

Pretty sure my not-living-in-constant-fear-of-violent-leftist-religious-zealots bubble is far vaster than your little cringing-in-terror-in-Portland bubble, but there you go. I don't know Portland, and there may be other fearful terror-stricken bubbles around too.

In the meantime, yet another gaming thread descends into outrage politics. Great.

Greetings!

I think the cultures and environment of the Eastern Woodlands tribes makes for a very interesting campaign. You have many diverse cultures, as well as some difference in terrain types. Besides prevailing dense forests, there are also hills, mountains, enormous lakes and rivers, coastal lands, and even marshes. Toss in various powerful tribal confederations, lots of wild animals, and it serves very well. In addition, of course, Vikings and prehistoric animals may exist, as well as mound-building giants, which use stone fortifications. I think the Native American environments are very interesting, and have long been ignored within the larger hobby.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: S'mon;1077407

Quote from: jhkim;1077394This isn't about Native Americans per se, but I've never liked any of the honor systems that are I've seen for East Asian settings. Yes, honor is important in the stories of East Asian cultures - but honor and virtue are important in the stories of *all* cultures. I haven't seen this sort of thing for European cultures.

Doesn't Pendragon have Glory points? But I agree, certainly when it comes to D&D type games I have no idea why east-Asian settings merit an Honour score and a Republican Rome or Saxon England setting does not.

I'd argue that honor is part of the system in Pendragon. In addition to the aforementioned Glory, Loyalty to one's Liege and Love of Family are passions that everyone gets. Honesty and Pride are traits that everyone has. These are all tracked and measured in the system. Seems like honor gets covered by multiple aspects of what having honor and behaving honorably mean.


It would really, really be nice if folks would keep their political hysteria out of this forum. There is a separate place here for that stuff.

Quote from: Bren;1077521I'd argue that honor is part of the system in Pendragon. In addition to the aforementioned Glory, Loyalty to one's Liege and Love of Family are passions that everyone gets. Honesty and Pride are traits that everyone has. These are all tracked and measured in the system. Seems like honor gets covered by multiple aspects of what having honor and behaving honorably mean.


It would really, really be nice if folks would keep their political hysteria out of this forum. There is a separate place here for that stuff.

Greetings!

Certainly, honour was as important to many European cultures as it was in any Eastern Asian society. Pendragon and ancient Rome make that very clear. The Germanic Saxons, the Vikings, and the Celts all had societies which heavily revolved around honour, dignity, prestige, and reputation.

With Native Indian tribal societies, while not necessarily possessing the more urbanized aspects of an honour-focused society, the Indian tribes also embraced honour, prestige, dignity and reputation in many ways that affected the society, as well as the individual in powerful ways. The Native Americans had warrior societies and warrior brotherhoods that were very focused on honour and prestige, for example.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Zirunel;1077518In the meantime, yet another gaming thread descends into outrage politics. Great.

Thank you for your contribution to doing so.

Quote from: SHARK;1077520Greetings!

I think the cultures and environment of the Eastern Woodlands tribes makes for a very interesting campaign. You have many diverse cultures, as well as some difference in terrain types. Besides prevailing dense forests, there are also hills, mountains, enormous lakes and rivers, coastal lands, and even marshes. Toss in various powerful tribal confederations, lots of wild animals, and it serves very well. In addition, of course, Vikings and prehistoric animals may exist, as well as mound-building giants, which use stone fortifications. I think the Native American environments are very interesting, and have long been ignored within the larger hobby.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Played with in the 2007 film, Pathfinder, where a Viking boy is left behind after a raid on Native American settlements.

Quote from: SHARK;1077520Greetings!

I think the cultures and environment of the Eastern Woodlands tribes makes for a very interesting campaign. You have many diverse cultures, as well as some difference in terrain types. Besides prevailing dense forests, there are also hills, mountains, enormous lakes and rivers, coastal lands, and even marshes. Toss in various powerful tribal confederations, lots of wild animals, and it serves very well. In addition, of course, Vikings and prehistoric animals may exist, as well as mound-building giants, which use stone fortifications. I think the Native American environments are very interesting, and have long been ignored within the larger hobby.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

And back on track! Thanks for that. Not being facetious either.

Norse elements might be a bit of a stretch outside the far, far northeast, and I think the OP was specifically interested in the new world before any European contact at all, but that said, I think you're right that the early contact period might have a lot going for it, a lot of changes, a lot of uncertainty...a period of flux that might offer much to youngsters in search of adventure.

Quote from: Zirunel;1077539And back on track! Thanks for that. Not being facetious either.

Norse elements might be a bit of a stretch outside the far, far northeast, and I think the OP was specifically interested in the new world before any European contact at all, but that said, I think you're right that the early contact period might have a lot going for it, a lot of changes, a lot of uncertainty...a period of flux that might offer much to youngsters in search of adventure.

Methinks you're not aware of Vinland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinland). That was long before the European contact of the 15th century.

Quote from: Zirunel;1077539And back on track! Thanks for that. Not being facetious either.

Norse elements might be a bit of a stretch outside the far, far northeast, and I think the OP was specifically interested in the new world before any European contact at all, but that said, I think you're right that the early contact period might have a lot going for it, a lot of changes, a lot of uncertainty...a period of flux that might offer much to youngsters in search of adventure.

Greetings!

Very fascinating! In addition, since the Vikings were not super-advanced, their would be a closer technological proximity. I've read snippets of things that while the Vikings were certainly impressive, and seemed to have inspired wondrous mythology amongst the Native people, when push came to shove, the Native Indians evidently gave the Vikings serious military problems. Various archeologists have found remains of Viking settlements that otherwise appear to have simply been annihilated by the Native Indians. There is also some indication that the *Vikings* themselves suffered from diseases. There doesn't appear to be a disease impact on the Native Indians coming from the Vikings, in contrast to the impact of European settlement and invasion several centuries later. So, the relations between the Native Indians and the fierce Vikings seems to have been predominantly hostile and warlike. However, and there always seems to be a *however*:)--there have been anthropological sketches done where Native elders and shamans have maintained that different tribes embraced the Vikings in a very friendly manner, adopting them into their tribes, intermarrying and breeding extensively. Evidently, the Native Indians liked marrying up with tall, hairy blonde foreigners. LOL. If the later European testimony is also considered, more than a few Europeans described the Native Indians as being very beautiful and exotic, especially the women; though European women were no less approving of Native Indian men, describing them as muscular, athletic, masculine, and handsome. Reading from this, it can be imagined that the Viking men and women likely reacted in a similar manner to romantic relations with Native Indian people.

There have also been some anthropologists that have suggested that the Vikings up in Newfoundland and Vinland may have, in fact, travelled and influenced a considerably larger area than was previously thought, including exploring and trading with Iriquois and other Indian peoples in the New York and Great Lakes regions.

Definitely some very cool possibilities! Then, of course, there are various fragments and stories of tribes of Giants--entire tribes of people of immense strength and height, between 7 and 12 feet tall, that had history throughout the Americas. There are also ideas that some prehistoric Ice Age animals may have been surviving in small isolated groups as well.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I am so aware of Vinland. Born and raised in NL. When I say "far, far northeast," that is what I am referring to. And when I say  "early contact period," that is the period I am referring to.

Greetings!

I have another book in my library, 1421: The Year China Discovered America, By Gavin Menzies, where the historian Menzies discusses his research and findings, detailing how a vast Chinese Fleet sailed along the western shores of North and South America. This huge fleet had tens of thousands of sailors, marines, and other crew and specialists. Menzies discusses how *thousands* of Chinese people explored and settled throughout North and South America, contributing through intermarrying, as well as bringing rice and other foods, as well as contributing language to various Native languages. Menzies cites a South American example, of a significant portion of their words in their native language have direct correspondance to words in Mandarin Chinese, the precise language of the Chinese Empire, some 500 years ago. There are also stories of tribes intermarrying with strange, Asian men and women in the regions of Western Canada.

Yeah. 1421, brother! Fantastic stuff!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1077544Greetings!

I have another book in my library, 1421: The Year China Discovered America, By Gavin Menzies, where the historian Menzies discusses his research and findings, detailing how a vast Chinese Fleet sailed along the western shores of North and South America. This huge fleet had tens of thousands of sailors, marines, and other crew and specialists. Menzies discusses how *thousands* of Chinese people explored and settled throughout North and South America, contributing through intermarrying, as well as bringing rice and other foods, as well as contributing language to various Native languages. Menzies cites a South American example, of a significant portion of their words in their native language have direct correspondance to words in Mandarin Chinese, the precise language of the Chinese Empire, some 500 years ago. There are also stories of tribes intermarrying with strange, Asian men and women in the regions of Western Canada.

Yeah. 1421, brother! Fantastic stuff!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Yeah I'm aware of Menzies' book. it caused a brief stir. Archaeologically, there is far less there than meets the eye. But as a hook for a fantasy game, why not!

One of my professors in grad school was big on the whole precolumbian trans-pacific contacts with northwestern South America and Mesoamerica thing. Africans and Olmec, Mayan elephants, Nazca ceramics from China, the whole deal. It all seemed a little dodgy to me, I wasn't sold, but definitely cool and potentially grist for a fantasy mill.

You run through a lot of stuff here! First of all,

Quote from: SHARK;1077542Greetings!
Very fascinating! In addition, since the Vikings were not super-advanced, their would be a closer technological proximity. I've read snippets of things that while the Vikings were certainly impressive, and seemed to have inspired wondrous mythology amongst the Native people, when push came to shove, the Native Indians evidently gave the Vikings serious military problems. Various archeologists have found remains of Viking settlements that otherwise appear to have simply been annihilated by the Native Indians.
SHARK

I am not aware of any archaeological evidence for any First Nations annihilation of Norse settlements (and there aren't many settlements to even look at), although there is saga evidence for conflict for sure.

Quote from: SHARK;1077542Greetings!

Very fascinating! In addition, since the Vikings were not super-advanced, their would be a closer technological proximity.

SHARK

This doesn't negate anything you say, but one of the depressing things about Norse material culture, at least outside of mainland Europe, is how little of it survives archaeologically. A little iron but not much. Mostly nails and rivets, and those are generally rare. Very little ceramic. Wood and textiles survive only in certain conditions. What you're left with is a few non-ferrous metals, jewellery and the like. Even in Iceland, at known Norse habitation sites, one diagnostic feature is the scarcity of artifacts of any sort. Kind of depressing. In any case, it seems to have been a folksy technology and mostly perishable.

Quote from: Zirunel;1077550This doesn't negate anything you say, but one of the depressing things about Norse material culture, at least outside of mainland Europe, is how little of it survives archaeologically. A little iron but not much. Mostly nails and rivets, and those are generally rare. Very little ceramic. Wood and textiles survive only in certain conditions. What you're left with is a few non-ferrous metals, jewellery and the like. Even in Iceland, at known Norse habitation sites, one diagnostic feature is the scarcity of artifacts of any sort. Kind of depressing. In any case, it seems to have been a folksy technology and mostly perishable.

Hrrrmm...? If you are going to GaryCon look me up, I'll tell you the true story about a band of Welsh Celts that settled in the New World on the Ohio River sometime between the 5th and 11th century. I have documented evidence of their presence in the new world including bronze armor, and a most interesting story to tell, which includes a coverup and black op overseen by none other than President Andrew Jackson. They were here. Before Columbus, I have the survey plans done up by an Indiana State Archaeologist, as well as photographs of the location of one of their Original Motte & Bailey style castles, which was torn down in 1838 and the stones were used to build the first railroad bridge across the Ohio River into Louisville from Indiana.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1077558Hrrrmm...? If you are going to GaryCon look me up, I'll tell you the true story about a band of Welsh Celts that settled in the New World on the Ohio River sometime between the 5th and 11th century. I have documented evidence of their presence in the new world including bronze armor, and a most interesting story to tell, which includes a coverup and black op overseen by none other than President Andrew Jackson. They were here. Before Columbus, I have the survey plans done up by an Indiana State Archaeologist, as well as photographs of the location of one of their Original Motte & Bailey style castles, which was torn down in 1838 and the stones were used to build the first railroad bridge across the Ohio River into Louisville from Indiana.

Wow. Yeah, I don't do the con thing. But damn I'd love to hear the story.

I'll be upfront with you, I hold pretty conventional views on these things, so  not sure I could be sold on dark ages Welshman plying the Ohio, but still, there has to be something interesting behind it.

Like the Andrew Jackson part, that might be the most interesting bit! That story sounds like it might be rich rpg fodder right there!

Greetings!

I have also heard continuous speculations about the Phoenicians making seaborne voyages to the Western Hemisphere in Antiquity. Some have said that the Phoenicians explored North America, the Carribean, and South America. Considering that we know for certain that the Phoenicians were the greatest sailors of the age in this period of Antiquity, and that their shipbuilding, navigation, and seamanship skills were unmatched during the ancient world by anyone. The Phoenicians explored most of Africa, Europe, as well as establishing trade colonies in Britain.

In my opinion, while it is *possible* that the Phoenicians explored the North America, I think it is certainly more *plausible* that the Phoenicians explored at least Brazil, and along the north-eastern shores of South America, and perhaps the Carribean, including providing the inspiration in some fashion for the African-looking statues in Central America. This all of course would have occured before 800 BC, some 2800 years ago, before the rise of Greece, Rome, and in the infancy of Carthage. The Phoenicians were not themselves African, as they were Semites. Essentially the Philistines of the Biblical records. However, especially from Phoenician ports and bases in North Africa, it is not unreasonable to assume that there may have been African sailors amongst other ship-crews of their fleets, and also African merchants accompanying the Phoenicians on their disparate sea journeys, particularly throughout the waters of the Western Mediterranean, and African waters. Hence, an exploration fleet making it over the Atlantic to Brazil and the Carribean seems fairly likely. The Phoenicians possessed strong enough sailing vessels, and had the seafaring skills to sail reliably and consistently from North Africa to ports throughout Spain, Northern Europe, and Britain. Such feats allow them to reasonably make the journey westward to Brazil and the Carribean seems to have been within their capabilities.

All interesting potentials for including all kinds of elements within a game campaign.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

So if I were to run a game using the Pottawatomie and with inaccurate information based on bad information by researchers not knowing the difference between the Pottawatomie and Lakota I am not inadvertently insulting both? I don't care about individuals that might be insulted but the, for lack of a better word, spirit of those peoples. And as far as I know I do have native ancestry what I meant to say is that I was not raised in the culture and traditions. I was born into an era when my grandparents were born between 1890 and 1902 and they only had family history that it was (sadly) whispered with shame that one of their ancestors was married to a (Gasp) squaw. I find this appalling but it is what I have. Now I wish to give as respectful of a representation TTRPG as possible and was looking for feedback on the culture and environs and where I can get information with as little post European stink to it, even the published works that I have found, including tales supposedly told by native tellers seem tainted by European influences. Why non-historical? Because it would offend ME to get it wrong not that it would offend others, that it would be as offensive to me as creating a Celtic campaign based on the hundreds of books that all start and end their understanding on the narratives of Caesar. I know that I can't get all the details right, I don't want to have others take my mistakes as gospel truth. The Native Americans, particularly those of the Great Lakes, hold an interest to myself and some of my players. None of us in gaming have first hand knowledge of Dark age or Medieval Europe but game it endlessly, so I want to role play pre European Great Lakes America, a different culture and mindset.

Quote from: L.W.Pickett;1077651Why non-historical? Because it would offend ME to get it wrong not that it would offend others, that it would be as offensive to me as creating a Celtic campaign based on the hundreds of books that all start and end their understanding on the narratives of Caesar. I know that I can't get all the details right, I don't want to have others take my mistakes as gospel truth. The Native Americans, particularly those of the Great Lakes, hold an interest to myself and some of my players. None of us in gaming have first hand knowledge of Dark age or Medieval Europe but game it endlessly, so I want to role play pre European Great Lakes America, a different culture and mindset.

I can understand your reason for wanting to go non-historical, but from my view, I think it's possible to present a historical setting not as the gospel truth - but just as one of many possible takes on the subject. For example, in my Vinland game, I had a bunch of fantasy elements - and further, I explicitly said that I was playing up more the Algonquian vs. Haudenosaunee divide. The scenario was Icelandic settlers allied with various Algonquian tribes - with the Haudenosaunee (known as "redaxes" to the Vinlanders) as the mysterious invaders from the West. So, roughly, the Haudenosaunee were the bad guys (who could have some nobility) while the Algonquians were the good guys (who could be corrupt or flawed).

In general, I prefer historical settings - though I often include fantasy or genre elements. I like the historical aspect because it helps to picture what's there, making things more vivid and real - even if there are fictional / fantasy elements. For example, my Vinland campaign the PCs home was in my home town of Piermont, NY. I could describe the landscape, describe all the places on the geological map, and so forth. For a Cahokia campaign, I could see it being cool to go there, and describe going around the geography of St. Louis.

The trick with the mindset and culture is that it can be very difficult to get into a mindset of a culture about which so little is known. It helps to have some kind of familiar archetypes adapted into the setting. I was talking about the idea with my son, and I thought that I might run a Cahokia campaign with a nod to the Three Musketeers. You've got a big grimy capital city, with nobility and important religion. There must be some sort of elite who were guards for them. Instead of fencing duels, there would be chunkey matches (the super-popular sport which seems central to life there). I think the genre hook helps give the GM and players some idea about what adventures might be like. And having a distinct genre makes it clearer that this is just one take on Cahokia, not a gospel portrayal. A murder mystery set in Cahokia would be played differently, for example.

Quote from: jhkim;1077669I can understand your reason for wanting to go non-historical, but from my view, I think it's possible to present a historical setting not as the gospel truth - but just as one of many possible takes on the subject. For example, in my Vinland game, I had a bunch of fantasy elements - and further, I explicitly said that I was playing up more the Algonquian vs. Haudenosaunee divide. The scenario was Icelandic settlers allied with various Algonquian tribes - with the Haudenosaunee (known as "redaxes" to the Vinlanders) as the mysterious invaders from the West. So, roughly, the Haudenosaunee were the bad guys (who could have some nobility) while the Algonquians were the good guys (who could be corrupt or flawed).

In general, I prefer historical settings - though I often include fantasy or genre elements. I like the historical aspect because it helps to picture what's there, making things more vivid and real - even if there are fictional / fantasy elements. For example, my Vinland campaign the PCs home was in my home town of Piermont, NY. I could describe the landscape, describe all the places on the geological map, and so forth. For a Cahokia campaign, I could see it being cool to go there, and describe going around the geography of St. Louis.

The trick with the mindset and culture is that it can be very difficult to get into a mindset of a culture about which so little is known. It helps to have some kind of familiar archetypes adapted into the setting. I was talking about the idea with my son, and I thought that I might run a Cahokia campaign with a nod to the Three Musketeers. You've got a big grimy capital city, with nobility and important religion. There must be some sort of elite who were guards for them. Instead of fencing duels, there would be chunkey matches (the super-popular sport which seems central to life there). I think the genre hook helps give the GM and players some idea about what adventures might be like. And having a distinct genre makes it clearer that this is just one take on Cahokia, not a gospel portrayal. A murder mystery set in Cahokia would be played differently, for example.

This is very much my mindset, those that have wanted to get involved know that it is based as closely as I can on the natives of the Western Great Lakes region but so much is muddled before the inclusion of Europeans that I find myself having to fill holes and gaps with information from different information even from other language groups of Native Americans and feel more comfortable changing tribal names and the like. I have run a vision quest (an important part of character creation in my game) and the player was thrilled. This player has a little more background in the subject than I did going in and tho the details were not exactly what her native friends had talked of she felt that it "felt" right. This is the most important thing to me so I, as G.M. and designer am happy about that much. What I want is to run a game that is fresh but not to far of the mark of a culture that, although foreign, would not feel alien to the natives of that time and place. I also want to gently nudge the players out of the normal roll play tropes, such as go kill a monster and get treasure, or even trying for what we commonly view as treasure.

This is one of my favorite settings that involves Precolonial America. The only catch is that it has fantasy analogues of Russians, Imperial Chinese, and Norse people.
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/94693/Totems-of-the-Dead-Players-Guide-to-the-Untamed-lands?term=Totems+of+The+Dead (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/94693/Totems-of-the-Dead-Players-Guide-to-the-Untamed-lands?term=Totems+of+The+Dead)

Quote from: arcanuum;1077777This is one of my favorite settings that involves Precolonial America. The only catch is that it has fantasy analogues of Russians, Imperial Chinese, and Norse people.
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/94693/Totems-of-the-Dead-Players-Guide-to-the-Untamed-lands?term=Totems+of+The+Dead (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/94693/Totems-of-the-Dead-Players-Guide-to-the-Untamed-lands?term=Totems+of+The+Dead)

How could you forget the Atlanteans, Amazons, and fantasy Africans?!

Seriously, though, Totems of the Dead is a real gem and one of the best Savage Worlds settings in existence, IMO. It's a shame the line didn't take off and we didn't get more stuff for it.

I just don't think you're going to win the "how do I not insult this culture people are hypersensitive about" game. Case in point: Monte Cook Games (https://www.change.org/p/monte-cool-games-we-the-undersigned-demand-immediate-removal-of-thunder-plains-and-all-related-content-from-all-monte-cook-games-publications-current-and-future-and-request-an-immediate-public-apology-for-harm-done-regardless-of-supposed-intent-fro)

If you want to write anything about Native Americans, start practicing for your apology tour before you write a single word to page. Someone, somewhere will find a way to take offense because it's not about correctness so much as it's about power and victim-hood status.

Quote from: Dracones;1077808I just don't think you're going to win the "how do I not insult this culture people are hypersensitive about" game. Case in point: Monte Cook Games (https://www.change.org/p/monte-cool-games-we-the-undersigned-demand-immediate-removal-of-thunder-plains-and-all-related-content-from-all-monte-cook-games-publications-current-and-future-and-request-an-immediate-public-apology-for-harm-done-regardless-of-supposed-intent-fro)

If you want to write anything about Native Americans, start practicing for your apology tour before you write a single word to page. Someone, somewhere will find a way to take offense because it's not about correctness so much as it's about power and victim-hood status.

So if I were to run a game using the Pottawatomie and with inaccurate information based on bad information by researchers not knowing the difference between the Pottawatomie and Lakota I am not inadvertently insulting both? I don't care about individuals that might be insulted but the, for lack of a better word, spirit of those peoples. And as far as I know I do have native ancestry what I meant to say is that I was not raised in the culture and traditions. I was born into an era when my grandparents were born between 1890 and 1902 and they only had family history that it was (sadly) whispered with shame that one of their ancestors was married to a (Gasp) squaw. I find this appalling but it is what I have. Now I wish to give as respectful of a representation TTRPG as possible and was looking for feedback on the culture and environs and where I can get information with as little post European stink to it, even the published works that I have found, including tales supposedly told by native tellers seem tainted by European influences. Why non-historical? Because it would offend ME to get it wrong not that it would offend others, that it would be as offensive to me as creating a Celtic campaign based on the hundreds of books that all start and end their understanding on the narratives of Caesar. I know that I can't get all the details right, I don't want to have others take my mistakes as gospel truth. The Native Americans, particularly those of the Great Lakes, hold an interest to myself and some of my players. None of us in gaming have first hand knowledge of Dark age or Medieval Europe but game it endlessly, so I want to role play pre European Great Lakes America, a different culture and mindset.

Truly pre-colonial is very hard to get any good info about though. This is because the natives around the Great Lakes didn't write anything down themselves. AFAIK the only pre-Colombian culture of the Americas where you get some half-decent sources would be the Maya in Central America. You could of course take what was written by white Americans and Europeans, throw in some things like myths and oral traditions, and extrapolate from there.

Oh and about the "offensive" bit. Real history or fantasy, it is going to be offensive to some people no matter what you do. I believe there is evidence that the Lakota became plains Indians by massacring whoever lived there before. Native Americans also used to raid each other for women and other "goods". Anybody who tells you that native Americans were more "humane" is either lying or misinformed. But that does not mean that it isn't fun or interesting to use as a setting, far from it.

Quote from: Trond;1077918Truly pre-colonial is very hard to get any good info about though. This is because the natives around the Great Lakes didn't write anything down themselves. AFAIK the only pre-Colombian culture of the Americas where you get some half-decent sources would be the Maya in Central America. You could of course take what was written by white Americans and Europeans, throw in some things like myths and oral traditions, and extrapolate from there.

Well, just to be clear - the local people never wrote anything down themselves in the pre-Columbian period. However, after contact, there is writing from both white authors and native authors who learned Western writing (or in the case of Cherokee, created their own writing). So it's not purely a matter of taking what was written by white authors - though works by white authors certainly outnumber those by native authors.

That's a bit of a technicality, though, for gaming. For game purposes, I think the main thing is just to be roughly close to accurate - and to be playable without falling into major misconceptions.

Regarding the great lakes - while there wasn't writing, the Mississippians did have decorated pottery and copper plates, like those pictured below. There is sometimes the misconception that this sort of art is exclusively mesoamerican, but this art style seems to have originated from Cahokia (which was in modern-day Illinois).

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3228[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Dracones;1077808If you want to write anything about Native Americans, start practicing for your apology tour before you write a single word to page.

Or be prepared to fire back.

Kevin Crawford did a great job with his "fantasy Africa" RPG Spears of the Dawn, and he got shit upon by the Outrage Mob. His reaction? No apologies, just doubled down on his assertion that his work was well researched and excellently done.

Same with RPGPundit when he did his "fantasy India" RPG Arrows of Indra. Of course, Pundy used more colorful language in his responses.

I'm not the audience for a Native American RPG, but nobody should be cowed into not writing one out of fear of screeching internet assholes.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1077996Or be prepared to fire back.

Kevin Crawford did a great job with his "fantasy Africa" RPG Spears of the Dawn, and he got shit upon by the Outrage Mob. His reaction? No apologies, just doubled down on his assertion that his work was well researched and excellently done.

Same with RPGPundit when he did his "fantasy India" RPG Arrows of Indra. Of course, Pundy used more colorful language in his responses.

I'm not the audience for a Native American RPG, but nobody should be cowed into not writing one out of fear of screeching internet assholes.

Absolutely this.

If you do a ill-researched, unsympathetic, sourcebook on the Achaeans, it isn't going to get much pushback for its ethical failings. Because those peoples don't have direct familial or social links to people living today, and the (perceived) negative impact of any systemic oppression has been almost completely diluted over the eons.

That's not the case with multiple peoples living today, not least Native Americans. That doesn't mean one can't do sourcebooks on those peoples, it does mean that onus is on the author to tread extremely carefully.

Quote from: Motorskills;1078142That's not the case with multiple peoples living today, not least Native Americans. That doesn't mean one can't do sourcebooks on those peoples, it does mean that onus is on the author to tread extremely carefully.

Fuck threading carefully.

Research / Write / Prepare to RAIN FIRE DOWN on the SJWs when they open their fucking mouths.

It's not the "Native Americans" who are going to throw a hissy over the RPG. It's gonna be SJW garbage who are overwhelming honky shitbags who are as "Native American" as Elizabeth Warren.

If various bits of Native American culture sounds like awesome campaign fodder, then GO FORTH AND STEAL. Culturally appropriate up the wazoo. But make it interesting and fun at the game table.

I did forget the Fantasy Africans But I was just drawing analogues to Real world historical cultures. Although the Amazons were probably real they aren't like the Amazons in Totems of The Dead.

I feel more people should talk about how I was the guy who mentioned the two actual Native American games. We're not discussing that enough.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;1078210I feel more people should talk about how I was the guy who mentioned the two actual Native American games. We're not discussing that enough.

Talking about the two games or about how it was you that suggested them????

No seriously, I assume the former and I am not familiar with either of the games but you are quite right. You made suggestions that (I'll take your word for it) are totally on point with the OP. Theres been some reference to Totems of the Dead, so some people know that one. Anyway, two games so far: Are they good? Bad? Any other suggestions?

Quote from: PencilBoy99;1077243Here are some published products

Ehdrigohr (Fate)
Totems of the Dead (Savage Worlds)

I've looked over the previews for both of these, but haven't bought them or played them. Does anyone have any experience with them?

They're both very large settings with over a dozen civilizations, which seems like a lot to buy into for a quick game. I would prefer more of an introductory product with a smaller locale, and then introducing the larger world around it later - but that's my usual approach.

Quote from: Motorskills;1078142If you do a ill-researched, unsympathetic, sourcebook on the Achaeans, it isn't going to get much pushback for its ethical failings. Because those peoples don't have direct familial or social links to people living today, and the (perceived) negative impact of any systemic oppression has been almost completely diluted over the eons.

That's not the case with multiple peoples living today, not least Native Americans. That doesn't mean one can't do sourcebooks on those peoples, it does mean that onus is on the author to tread extremely carefully.

Poor choice of example.
Have you ever met anyone from the Balkans? :D

But honestly, you can't win if this is the way you operate. I think it was theQuartering on YouTube who pointed to examples of people complaining about the poor, superficial, treatment of LGBT folks in some games and comics, not knowing that they were written by LGTB people.

I bought them but haven't played them. Both are excellent. If you have specific questions I can open them up and take a look.

If you're interested in learning about Native American mythology in a fun context, let me recommend Coyote Tales (https://www.amazon.com/Coyote-Tales/dp/B009EDCZDO). They're by Jim Byeah, a local (to me) Navajo historian who wrote a bunch of supernatural horror tales featuring Navajo culture and mythology. You can listen to one of them, Love Like Thunder (http://pseudopod.org/2009/11/06/pseudopod-167-love-like-thunder/), for free. He's terrific. Someone should partner with him to write a Dresden Files type RPG featuring Native mythology.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;1078258I bought them but haven't played them. Both are excellent. If you have specific questions I can open them up and take a look.

If you're interested in learning about Native American mythology in a fun context, let me recommend Coyote Tales (https://www.amazon.com/Coyote-Tales/dp/B009EDCZDO). They're by Jim Byeah, a local (to me) Navajo historian who wrote a bunch of supernatural horror tales featuring Navajo culture and mythology. You can listen to one of them, Love Like Thunder (http://pseudopod.org/2009/11/06/pseudopod-167-love-like-thunder/), for free. He's terrific. Someone should partner with him to write a Dresden Files type RPG featuring Native mythology.

Thanks for the link I'll check it out. :)

Quote from: jhkim;1078233I've looked over the previews for both of these, but haven't bought them or played them. Does anyone have any experience with them?

They're both very large settings with over a dozen civilizations, which seems like a lot to buy into for a quick game. I would prefer more of an introductory product with a smaller locale, and then introducing the larger world around it later - but that's my usual approach.

I've glanced at Ehdrigohr but never read it. I'm lukewarm toward Fate and that's kept me from ever giving the game a closer look, but that's a personal preference and nothing to do with the Ehdrigohr's quality. I've heard a few good things but can't really comment myself.

Totems 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.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1078166Fuck threading carefully.

Research / Write / Prepare to RAIN FIRE DOWN on the SJWs when they open their fucking mouths.

It's not the "Native Americans" who are going to throw a hissy over the RPG. It's gonna be SJW garbage who are overwhelming honky shitbags who are as "Native American" as Elizabeth Warren.

If various bits of Native American culture sounds like awesome campaign fodder, then GO FORTH AND STEAL. Culturally appropriate up the wazoo. But make it interesting and fun at the game table.

Quote from: Trond;1078257Poor choice of example.
Have you ever met anyone from the Balkans? :D

But honestly, you can't win if this is the way you operate. I think it was theQuartering on YouTube who pointed to examples of people complaining about the poor, superficial, treatment of LGBT folks in some games and comics, not knowing that they were written by LGTB people.

There will always be idiots that complain about stupid things...a bunch of them post here with regularity. ;)

If you do your research, if you treat the cultural source material with respect, you ARE treading carefully.

I've not read it, but the Holocaust book for Wraith (https://whitewolf.fandom.com/wiki/Charnel_Houses_of_Europe:_The_Shoah) [/I] still gets plenty of positive buzz, two decades on.

It's not rocket science.

Quote from: Motorskills;1078349There will always be idiots that complain about stupid things...a bunch of them post here with regularity. ;)

If you do your research, if you treat the cultural source material with respect, you ARE treading carefully.

I've not read it, but the Holocaust book for Wraith (https://whitewolf.fandom.com/wiki/Charnel_Houses_of_Europe:_The_Shoah) [/I] still gets plenty of positive buzz, two decades on.

It's not rocket science.

Greetings!

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

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  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kfgw79mfgIg)(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/ (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.

Greetings!

A great King was once told, "Look to your defenses, O' King! Enemy Champions gather at your gates!"

The great King calmly laid hold of his glorious and terrible sword. Tightening his grip on the ancient blade, the great King gazed upwards, briefly, before saying simply, "LET THEM COME!"

With that, the great King stalked from his throne room, to the day of battle ahead.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: jhkimYou 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: Brand55;1078477The 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/ (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.

Thanks. I think the very broad focus (plus lack of later supplements) means I'm more tempted to use actual history rather than Totems of the Dead per se for my tastes. But I may well mine it for some ideas. Pterosaur-riding Incans sounds fun, but like you, I'm actually more interested in mound-builders right now.

This thread really has me eager to run a swashbuckling game around classic Cahokia, probably around 1200 - just as the palisade is being built. (Increased political tension.) I may well set up a one-shot - possibly using Savage Worlds - to run at a local convention or group first, and then gauge reaction from there.

Quote from: Motorskills;1078464A 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?

A "good writer"? Good for what? Pleasing the political correctness police?

Fuck that and fuck them.

Writers can either shackle themselves or they can be free to create. Of course, if you're espousing your work as "historical fiction", you should make sure your history is solid, but if you're just "appropriating" concepts from history or cultures to create something fantastical, you owe absolutely zero to historical accuracy, even less to pleasing the PC Police.

So fuck yeah I'm saying that if you're creating a FANTASY FICTION using "racist tropes" is 100% fine. Hell, if I was writing a "historical fiction" or "alt-history fiction" I would damn well become knowledgeable of the "racist tropes" for the era/people I was writing about so understand the perceptions of people during that era, and even weave those tropes into the dialogue.

Thus, I'm 100% in support of an author creating an alien race based solely on "anti-white racist tropes", and their ONLY failing would be in not making that alien race interesting and engaging in their fiction.

Quote from: Motorskills;1078464But 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.

Criticism from who? The Outrage Mob who need their teeth kicked in?

A fantasy RPG deserves praise or criticism based on how it actually plays at the table, not how it pleases the "feels" of online asshats.

An alt-history RPG can absolutely be criticized for its accuracy/sources/depictions. It's a major reason I don't enjoy Deadlands.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1078654Writers can either shackle themselves or they can be free to create. Of course, if you're espousing your work as "historical fiction", you should make sure your history is solid, but if you're just "appropriating" concepts from history or cultures to create something fantastical, you owe absolutely zero to historical accuracy, even less to pleasing the PC Police.

So fuck yeah I'm saying that if you're creating a FANTASY FICTION using "racist tropes" is 100% fine.

I agree that fantasy games shouldn't conform to historical accuracy.

However, fantasy can still reflect real-world trends and values. Many people around here have criticized fantasy games for having too much gender equality and/or LGBT acceptance, for example. Conversely, fantasy can also represent racist values.

I don't agree that racist tropes are 100% fine. For example, consider Sunflower the centaur (https://disney.fandom.com/wiki/Sunflower) from Disney's Fantasia. It's just fantasy, but I think people were justified to be upset at the character. She represents a ton of negative stereotypes about black people. If I were to encounter a character like that in an RPG, even as a fantasy race, I'd have issues with it. I don't want that kind of crap in my game.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1078654A "good writer"? Good for what? Pleasing the political correctness police?

Fuck that and fuck them.

Writers can either shackle themselves or they can be free to create. Of course, if you're espousing your work as "historical fiction", you should make sure your history is solid, but if you're just "appropriating" concepts from history or cultures to create something fantastical, you owe absolutely zero to historical accuracy, even less to pleasing the PC Police.

So fuck yeah I'm saying that if you're creating a FANTASY FICTION using "racist tropes" is 100% fine. Hell, if I was writing a "historical fiction" or "alt-history fiction" I would damn well become knowledgeable of the "racist tropes" for the era/people I was writing about so understand the perceptions of people during that era, and even weave those tropes into the dialogue.

Thus, I'm 100% in support of an author creating an alien race based solely on "anti-white racist tropes", and their ONLY failing would be in not making that alien race interesting and engaging in their fiction.




Criticism from who? The Outrage Mob who need their teeth kicked in?

A fantasy RPG deserves praise or criticism based on how it actually plays at the table, not how it pleases the "feels" of online asshats.

An alt-history RPG can absolutely be criticized for its accuracy/sources/depictions. It's a major reason I don't enjoy Deadlands.

 

You were the one that referenced good writing.

It looks like you believe there is zero daylight between totalitarian shackles and complete freedom to create.

It looks like you believe that inspiration and appropriation are the same thing.

Neither of those is remotely true.

Where we do seem to agree is that making ones work interesting and engaging is critical.

But that's got nothing to do with what the fandom expects to be served up, in fact it's usually the opposite - it's the boundary-pushing works that make use sit and up take notice. None of that needs to be done by shitting on or parasitizing cultures, especially those that have had a raw deal in times past. And at the end of the day, there are relatively few true fantasy RPGs out there, ones that have really started with a clean slate.

Quote from: Motorskills;1078689You were the one that referenced good writing.

It looks like you believe there is zero daylight between totalitarian shackles and complete freedom to create.

It looks like you believe that inspiration and appropriation are the same thing.

Neither of those is remotely true.

Where we do seem to agree is that making ones work interesting and engaging is critical.

But that's got nothing to do with what the fandom expects to be served up, in fact it's usually the opposite - it's the boundary-pushing works that make use sit and up take notice. None of that needs to be done by shitting on or parasitizing cultures, especially those that have had a raw deal in times past. And at the end of the day, there are relatively few true fantasy RPGs out there, ones that have really started with a clean slate.

Greetings!

"Appropriation" is an SJW buzzword that is absolute nonsense. People that sniff and cry and shriek that nonsense are ideological tyrants, attempting to corrupt and censor anyone that they don't like or "approve" of. This is America. Everyone here, as I have said before in a different thread, is a part of everyone else. We all own it, everything, culturally, artistically, philosophically, if not directly at all times through blood heritage. White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American. How many millions of people here, citizens of this country, have some jigsaw-puzzle heritage of one, or more of them, all at once? Anyone who buys into "appropriation" is mentally ill and ideologically corrupt. Either we get to blend and mix and use everything, or just fuck it and burn the place down. Either embrace the American Way, or hit the bricks. People that whine that nonsense need to get a one-way plane ticket to whatever Happy Rainbow Barney paradise that would suit them better. Here, in America, we get to embrace it all, everyone. Anyone trying to keep their toys all to themselves, while playing shrieking mommy-demagogue against anyone they don't like can just circle jerk themselves.

I think "Appropriation" is a fucking control word employed by racist mind-fucked Communists, and the ongoing pushing of the concept is essentially corrupting to the American Way, and needs to be resisted everywhere, and mocked and laughed at relentlessly.

Just my thoughts on "Appropriation."

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I agree with Shark on this one. Cultural appropriation is one of the most sorry excuses I have ever heard for people to cry and whine. Culture is something that is shared between people, by definition, and every culture on the planet has borrowed features from other cultures. For example, if the Japanese are not allowed to express parts of their culture that they borrowed from the Chinese, there'd be virtually nothing left.

You guys are talking completely out of your arse, a simple search will throw up plenty of examples of damaging appropriation. Here's a basic primer (https://www.dailydot.com/irl/what-is-cultural-appropriation/) I found within five seconds.

QuoteFor example, if the Japanese are not allowed to express parts of their culture that they borrowed from the Chinese, there'd be virtually nothing left.

This is such a pisspoor position to take. We're never expected to learn from history, to not repeat mistakes from the past? Nonsense.

We are talking about the development of new RPG products - one of the tools we can use is to look back at earlier iterations, and determine to do better where possible. And ultimately someone that does proper research, even if they are going to use the culture as a springboard for a fantasy RPG, will end up with a better product.

Quote from: Motorskills;1078713You guys are talking completely out of your arse, a simple search will throw up plenty of examples of damaging appropriation.

Nope. Nobody is harmed. People who want to be offended are offended - often on behalf of a culture they don't even belong to. The meme itself is what is harmful.

(I'm willing to consider an exception for use of sacred works - I don't think it should be forbidden, but it is more understandable why people are offended by 'blasphemy'.)

Quote from: Motorskills;1078713You guys are talking completely out of your arse, a simple search will throw up plenty of examples of damaging appropriation. Here's a basic primer (https://www.dailydot.com/irl/what-is-cultural-appropriation/) I found within five seconds.



This is such a pisspoor position to take. We're never expected to learn from history, to not repeat mistakes from the past? Nonsense.

We are talking about the development of new RPG products - one of the tools we can use is to look back at earlier iterations, and determine to do better where possible. And ultimately someone that does proper research, even if they are going to use the culture as a springboard for a fantasy RPG, will end up with a better product.

....and the examples in the link are damaging how? If a white woman wants to wear African clothes, just like many Africans are wearing Western clothes, what's the damage done? It's basically dividing the world into victims and oppressors. This is a ridiculous world view. By obtaining features from other cultures you get progress. No culture ever came up with more than a fraction of its own content, with the exception of a few that were more or less isolated (like Australia, which is why they were still in the stone age when Europeans came there).

Quote from: Trond;1078718....and the examples in the link are damaging how? If a white woman wants to wear African clothes, just like many Africans are wearing Western clothes, what's the damage done? It's basically dividing the world into victims and oppressors. This is a ridiculous world view. By obtaining features from other cultures you get progress. No culture ever came up with more than a fraction of its own content, with the exception of a few that were more or less isolated (like Australia, which is why they were still in the stone age when Europeans came there).

I have no problem with cultures (or individuals) borrowing and adopting elements from other cultures, for the very reasons you state. It's the manner in which it is done that is important, not least avoiding economic harm.

But ultimately it's about respect.

A while back, a neighbourhood kid knew that I travelled around a lot, asked me what language he should learn in high school.  I told to pick one that interested him, it basically didn't matter - the world communicates in English, and Google Translate will get you through the rest. But it was still important to pick one, to help get into the mindsight of another culture. Try the food, view the art, visit the country, speak to the locals. The important thing is to be open-minded - it will be appreciated.

And I stand by that 100%.

Quote from: Motorskills;1078713You guys are talking completely out of your arse, a simple search will throw up plenty of examples of damaging appropriation. Here's a basic primer (https://www.dailydot.com/irl/what-is-cultural-appropriation/) I found within five seconds.



This is such a pisspoor position to take. We're never expected to learn from history, to not repeat mistakes from the past? Nonsense.

We are talking about the development of new RPG products - one of the tools we can use is to look back at earlier iterations, and determine to do better where possible. And ultimately someone that does proper research, even if they are going to use the culture as a springboard for a fantasy RPG, will end up with a better product.

Greetings!

Motorskills, really? Do you honestly believe the jello being pumped in that article you linked?

I looked at your article, and read the whole thing.

Motorskills, that is all SJW feminist racist Communist propaganda! It is an open-ended check for anyone (Except for White people, naturally) to be "offended" by virtually anything someone else does, says, wears, eats, or uses. I learned all of that bullshit in my university classes, especially the classes taught by Liberals, or feminists, naturally, in my required fucking "Women's Studies" class.

Guess what? All of that ideology was Communist bullshit then, and it's Communist bullshit *now*. Nothing has changed. As I said earlier, "Cultural Appropriation" is a SJW buzzword purposely created as a control word by Communists, designed to sow and create division, anger, social chaos, and social dissension at every turn. It is yet another "vehicle" for minorities of whatever stripe, shade or colour to scream, shame, criticize, and complain to white people about *whatever*. Oh, and by the way--also conveniently to also get *paid* by the White man, and suck down some of the profit gravy, if any is made by *whatever* In other words, we're going to dress up being given a shakedown so we can profit, and be able to call it "showing cultural respect."

It is all fucking nonsense, Motorskills. Fucking corrosive, unAmerican nonsense.

I can wear some Mexican shirt if I fucking want to. I get to wear a Mexican peasant hat because I *PAID* for it. It's MINE. I can wear it and enjoy it as much as I want. I don't need to talk about whatever the fuck it's "real" meaning is, or it's "cultural significance", or it's fucking deep spiritual meaningfulness to labradors living in Cabo.

By the way--my MEXICAN GIRLFRIEND bought me a shirt, and a Mexican peasant hat, because she liked the way they looked on me. Amazing how most of the people pushing this mindless bullshit, are, ironically, SJW white people. Most of the special "people of colour" couldn't actually give a fuck.

Ok. Yes, Motorskills, all of that, all of the examples in your article are just examples of how this is an ideological vehicle for control. It's a control word used by Communists, racists, Liberals and SJW's to gain attention; shame and demonize people they don't like; generate profits in the form of bribes and payoffs; spread their hateful ideology to others; constantly sow social dissension and racism towards white people; serves as a constant victimhood banner for them to wave constantly.

I reject "Cultural Appropriation" as an insidious, anti-American control word and form of ideology. It's just wrong, Motorskills, on so many levels.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Motorskills;1078719I have no problem with cultures (or individuals) borrowing and adopting elements from other cultures, for the very reasons you state. It's the manner in which it is done that is important, not least avoiding economic harm.

But ultimately it's about respect.

A while back, a neighbourhood kid knew that I travelled around a lot, asked me what language he should learn in high school.  I told to pick one that interested him, it basically didn't matter - the world communicates in English, and Google Translate will get you through the rest. But it was still important to pick one, to help get into the mindsight of another culture. Try the food, view the art, visit the country, speak to the locals. The important thing is to be open-minded - it will be appreciated.

And I stand by that 100%.

But now you're boiling it down to nothing but basic respect. That is not what most proponents of this way of thinking is talking about, or they are misusing the term. So what if some lady wears a dress with vaguely Chinese patterns? I have lived in three countries, and my wife and I come from totally different cultures (and different continents), and we picked up a thing or two here and there. Just look at the little comic that is shown at the beginning of your link. People who whine about cultural appropriation seem to think that there is some sort of damage done by the posh store selling "culturally appropriated" clothes. BTW the clothing sold by the brown lady is almost certainly made with a mix of techniques and patterns, much of it from the West.

I think there's a game of Bingo going on here. ;)

For the record, I'm against the broad position against cultural appropriation that I've seen. It's based on a parallel to Intellectual Property rights, which I also think are overly broad. Still, I think we should be clear what the supposed problem is.

Quote from: Trond;1078718If a white woman wants to wear African clothes, just like many Africans are wearing Western clothes, what's the damage done? It's basically dividing the world into victims and oppressors. This is a ridiculous world view. By obtaining features from other cultures you get progress. No culture ever came up with more than a fraction of its own content, with the exception of a few that were more or less isolated (like Australia, which is why they were still in the stone age when Europeans came there).

To describe the more narrow cases that people had a problem... For example, Native American crafters often sell jewelry, dreamcatchers, and other items. These have been popular with many consumers both for their style and for their cultural significance. However, markets arose where non-native companies would sell knock-off items that copied the designs, and tried to shut out genuine craftsmen from the market by obscuring or deceiving as to what the real traditions are, and who is selling. This was economically harmful, particularly because selling their traditional crafted items has often been vital to poor native economies.

Emotionally, I can understand this. It irks me to think of traditional craftsmen and other creators struggling to get any sort of recognition or to make a living, while non-native people make a tidy profit off of their faux Native American trinkets and works, claiming to be genuine. A parallel in film is Native American actors who couldn't get any work - even playing Native American parts - when white actors would get Native American parts by falsely claiming ancestry and then making up fake mannerisms and traditions. (I think particularly of the Sicilian-American actor who portrayed dozens of prominent Indian parts including the crying Indian in the "Keep America Beautiful" ads.)

That said, I think this is generalized too far in many descriptions of what wrongful appropriation is.

Quote from: Trond;1078733But now you're boiling it down to nothing but basic respect. That is not what most proponents of this way of thinking is talking about, or they are misusing the term. So what if some lady wears a dress with vaguely Chinese patterns? I have lived in three countries, and my wife and I come from totally different cultures (and different continents), and we picked up a thing or two here and there. Just look at the little comic that is shown at the beginning of your link. People who whine about cultural appropriation seem to think that there is some sort of damage done by the posh store selling "culturally appropriated" clothes. BTW the clothing sold by the brown lady is almost certainly made with a mix of techniques and patterns, much of it from the West.

Greetings!

Indeed, Trond. It isn't boiled down to basic respect. That's otherwise known as "Moving the Goalposts!" :) Who isn't in favour of showing respect to other people and other cultures? That's why I explain that it is a term of social dissension, and control--it's a way of creating problems between groups, where no such problem existed previously. It's an imaginary problem, loaded with ideological buzzwords and ideology to support and define it. At the end of the day, the entire argument has no real basis in reality. Am I making sense, Trond?

I love other cultures, and different peoples. I can speak several foreign languages, or could in the past, LOL--from German, French, Japanese, Latin, and Spanish. Embracing commerce, wearing clothes, eating food, music, hair styles, whatever--it is all to be used, embraced, and celebrated. Someone is only being disrespectful--or villifying--if they are engaged in direct, public vandalism or some other demonstration with the express purpose to denigrate or disparage whatever it is. Even that can be interpreted. To my mind, such an activity would have to be something like that to even qualify as being "disrepectful" or somehow otherwise disparaging.

If I went down to the border below San Diego, and soaked a Mexican flag in gasoline and burned it publicly, I'm not being nice. If I'm at home, and the dogs chewed the shit out of my sister-in-law's Mexican flag she had hanging on her bedroom wall, and I burned the flag in my backyard, I would be showing the flag *respect*. That's just me though.

You know this "Cultural Appropriation" is also bullshit because no one anywhere else in the world even talks about this nonsense. Only here, in America, and usually by white SJW's.

Oh, and Cinco De Mayo? It isn't even a Mexican holiday. It's an Americanized celebration designed, much like St. Patrick's Day, as an excuse to party, eat, and drink. Mexicans celebrate it here in America, and along the border...because yeah, let's PARTY! LOL. Why not? It's always a good thing to party, get together with family and friends, enjoy great food and of course, Mas Cervesa!!! LOL.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Trond;1078733But now you're boiling it down to nothing but basic respect. That is not what most proponents of this way of thinking is talking about, or they are misusing the term. So what if some lady wears a dress with vaguely Chinese patterns? I have lived in three countries, and my wife and I come from totally different cultures (and different continents), and we picked up a thing or two here and there. Just look at the little comic that is shown at the beginning of your link. People who whine about cultural appropriation seem to think that there is some sort of damage done by the posh store selling "culturally appropriated" clothes. BTW the clothing sold by the brown lady is almost certainly made with a mix of techniques and patterns, much of it from the West.

Well, sure, I won't claim to be an expert on this stuff, don't have a degree from University of East Angrier or anything, but the examples that I find nodding at ultimately do result from basic disrespect.

I mean, I'm British, we were global masters at cultural appropriation, we literally dug culture out of the ground and shipped it home. Some of the arguments continue to this day (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elgin_Marbles).

When an American chef in Paris creates a novel fusion dish originating from from Kenyan and Thai ingredients / recipes, he's creating something new, something that positively reflects the culture of all four(?) places. When another chef passes off a street recipe from Caracas as his own, that - forgive the pun - leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

When it comes to RPGs, do the basic research to recognise tropes for what they are, make a conscious decision to use them or not. Maybe hire a region-local artist for one or more of the plates. Maybe get a region-local group to headline a playtest. If they love your effort, great, if they don't, maybe re-think it. I don't see those as shackles, rather the opposite.

Quote from: jhkim;1078737For the record, I'm against the broad position against cultural appropriation that I've seen. It's based on a parallel to Intellectual Property rights, which I also think are overly broad. Still, I think we should be clear what the supposed problem is.


To describe the more narrow cases that people had a problem... For example, Native American crafters often sell jewelry, dreamcatchers, and other items. These have been popular with many consumers both for their style and for their cultural significance. However, markets arose where non-native companies would sell knock-off items that copied the designs, and tried to shut out genuine craftsmen from the market by obscuring or deceiving as to what the real traditions are, and who is selling. This was economically harmful, particularly because selling their traditional crafted items has often been vital to poor native economies.

Emotionally, I can understand this. It irks me to think of traditional craftsmen and other creators struggling to get any sort of recognition or to make a living, while non-native people make a tidy profit off of their faux Native American trinkets and works, claiming to be genuine. A parallel in film is Native American actors who couldn't get any work - even playing Native American parts - when white actors would get Native American parts by falsely claiming ancestry and then making up fake mannerisms and traditions. (I think particularly of the Sicilian-American actor who portrayed dozens of prominent Indian parts including the crying Indian in the "Keep America Beautiful" ads.)

That said, I think this is generalized too far in many descriptions of what wrongful appropriation is.

Greetings!

I agree, Jhkim. That kind of economic action is bullshit, and it is morally wrong for companies to behave that way. However, such should be dealt with in courts. In such circumstances, I hope various Native craftsmen and so on can be treated fairly and appropriately.

That's all part of a narrow application or expression of marketplace dynamics though, Jhkim. It is worlds away from the ideological shaggoth of "Cultural Appropriation."

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1078744I agree, Jhkim. That kind of economic action is bullshit, and it is morally wrong for companies to behave that way. However, such should be dealt with in courts. In such circumstances, I hope various Native craftsmen and so on can be treated fairly and appropriately.

I'm guessing it is totally legal, why would it not be? Even if it wasn't, how is some tribal grandma in the middle of nowhere supposed to fight EvilCorp?

 You agree with me that it is morally wrong, yet you aren't prepared to put some moral weight behind that agreement.

Quote from: Motorskills;1078746I'm guessing it is totally legal, why would it not be? Even if it wasn't, how is some tribal grandma in the middle of nowhere supposed to fight EvilCorp?

 You agree with me that it is morally wrong, yet you aren't prepared to put some moral weight behind that agreement.

It's wrong if they say that it's produced by the tribal grandma when it isn't. I think that could be taken to court. But in the case where the factories play by the rules, I guess what she can do is mark it with "certified handmade by tribal grandma" and hope that some people will prefer that to mass-produced junk. I certainly would, but I know some people who can't tell the difference between jade and plastic.

Quote from: Trond;1078747It's wrong if they say that it's produced by the tribal grandma when it isn't. I think that could be taken to court. But in the case where the factories play by the rules, I guess what she can do is mark it with "certified handmade by tribal grandma" and hope that some people will prefer that to mass-produced junk. I certainly would, but I know some people who can't tell the difference between jade and plastic.

Greetings!

Exactly, Trond. It is not against the law to make some shitty knock-off widget. Just down the road from me, there's a leather shop. The owner, a white man, has been making hand-crafted leather goods for 40 years. Saddles, belts, and so on. A good leather belt from him comes at a considerable price. Across town, I can also get a "leather" belt for far less.

Do you think there is a difference between the two theoretical leather belts? Naturally, the prices for such are starkly different.

I *know* where I want to shop for a good leather belt.:)

Merchants and other craftsmen, whether they are white, brown, yellow or purple need to compete in the marketplace, like everyone else.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Motorskills;1078746I'm guessing it is totally legal, why would it not be? Even if it wasn't, how is some tribal grandma in the middle of nowhere supposed to fight EvilCorp?

 You agree with me that it is morally wrong, yet you aren't prepared to put some moral weight behind that agreement.

Greetings!

"Moral Weight" Motorskills? LOL. Yeah, I put the "Moral Weight" of cold, hard, green *cash* behind my business choices in the marketplace. I don't patronize lousy businesses selling cheap fucking junk. A solid company doing good work, with good customer service, can easily gain my patronage as a loyal customer.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1078756Greetings!

"Moral Weight" Motorskills? LOL. Yeah, I put the "Moral Weight" of cold, hard, green *cash* behind my business choices in the marketplace. I don't patronize lousy businesses selling cheap fucking junk. A solid company doing good work, with good customer service, can easily gain my patronage as a loyal customer.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I'd agree with you except for the fact that it isn't just quality we are talking about. Trond makes the reasonable argument about labelling (albeit you then can get into some rather contentious territory (https://www.classiclinesdesign.com/scotch-cheddar-parma-ham-champagne-cornish-pasty/)).

Ultimately EvilCorp has other commercial options, tribal grandma probably doesn't.

My point is that we, the 'market', can do more than just speak with our own wallets, we can put pressure on EvilCorp to do the right thing, and suggest to other people not to purchase from EvilCorp (https://mrrobot.fandom.com/wiki/E_Corp).

Quote from: Motorskills;1078759I'd agree with you except for the fact that it isn't just quality we are talking about. Trond makes the reasonable argument about labelling (albeit you then can get into some rather contentious territory (https://www.classiclinesdesign.com/scotch-cheddar-parma-ham-champagne-cornish-pasty/)).

Ultimately EvilCorp has other commercial options, tribal grandma probably doesn't.

My point is that we, the 'market', can do more than just speak with our own wallets, we can put pressure on EvilCorp to do the right thing, and suggest to other people not to purchase from EvilCorp (https://mrrobot.fandom.com/wiki/E_Corp).

Greetings!

Good, Motorskills. What you are talking about, however, has far more to do with Business Law, and commerce courts. Beyond the specific companies involved, whether Evilcorp and Tribal Grandma, *most* of any such dispute is still the province of a court of law.

In such cases, as I mentioned, I would hope that justice and law would prevail.

None of those kinds of cases though, have anything to do with "Cultural Appropriation." There is no relevance or merit what so ever about a white girl wearing dreadlocks. Or an Asian girl wearing those things that not only give them blue or green eyes, but make their eyes round like white people, instead of slanted. Or a white girl choosing to wear some ancient Chinese dress style for her high school prom. Or Taco fucking Bell making and selling terrible Mexican food that most Mexicans laugh at and ridicule mercilessly, with lots of eye-rolling and shrieks of laughter. (Even though they eagerly patronize and eat at Taco Bell, just like millions of Americans everywhere. :)) It also doesn't have jack to do with some game designer or author making up some quasi-Native American fantasy culture to go into an RPG book.

Real Business fraud or Business copyright, logo, whatever advertising and marketing violations should be fully dealt with in a court of law. On one hand, in Business, you potentially have legitimate breaches of law, and such should be addressed. On the other hand, you have ideological tyranny and control words designed to gain attention, power, and extorted wealth to some, while demonizing and villifying the target group.

Ultimately, that is why "Cultural Appropriation" is nonsense, and should be defeated at every opportunity, whenever Liberals try and bring that out into the situation. Liberals and SJW's need to be mocked ruthlessly, and shamed for being morons, Communists, and UnAmerican. At best, innocent Liberals have been duped into being Communist shills by embracing this stupid ideological vehicle by their True Red Masters that spoon feed them drivel and keep them sucking on the tit of identity politics, socialism, and collectivism.

As to what, beyond our dollars, your assertion that we can do *more*? Hmmm...I've always known that *money* talks, Motorskills. Money, Profits and Losses statements are what companies *hear* and tend to overwhelmingly hear the *loudest*. After all, when enough customers refuse to shop at Evilcorp, Evilcorp goes bankrupt, and everyone loses their jobs, including the executives. Owners of stupid companies and businesses go fucking bankrupt all the time, because they don't really know how to run a company properly. Beyond choosing where we spend our money, and provide our loyal patronage, I suppose you can write a company a letter, or make a phone call to the owner/president/whoever executive. Beyond that, what more would you as an individual do? And alongside that, with a legitimate business law dispute, no one cares what you or I think. We are not members of the cases in question, we have no legal standing, and it is none of our business.

Ever seen Gordon Ramsey? He goes into failing restaurants, and tears these morons down. It's funny as hell watching these corner-cutting, microwave-using restaurant owners have emotional breakdowns from getting schooled by Ramsey. Still, many businesses fail and go bankrupt, whether they are restaurants, bookstores (Hi, Borders Books! I used to love you!) or record/music/book stores, like Tower Books/Records. Banks and so on. No one is immune. Be stupid, produce shitty products, disrespect your customers--and you will eventualy be sitting at the local park, unemployed.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1078755Greetings!

Exactly, Trond. It is not against the law to make some shitty knock-off widget. Just down the road from me, there's a leather shop. The owner, a white man, has been making hand-crafted leather goods for 40 years. Saddles, belts, and so on. A good leather belt from him comes at a considerable price. Across town, I can also get a "leather" belt for far less.

Do you think there is a difference between the two theoretical leather belts? Naturally, the prices for such are starkly different.

I *know* where I want to shop for a good leather belt.:)

Merchants and other craftsmen, whether they are white, brown, yellow or purple need to compete in the marketplace, like everyone else.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Not sure about those purple people, Shark.  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=El65C0u_J3U)  :D

Quote from: Trond;1078747It's wrong if they say that it's produced by the tribal grandma when it isn't. I think that could be taken to court. But in the case where the factories play by the rules, I guess what she can do is mark it with "certified handmade by tribal grandma" and hope that some people will prefer that to mass-produced junk. I certainly would, but I know some people who can't tell the difference between jade and plastic.

The "certified handmade by tribal grandma" implies that there is some sort of legal certification of authenticity, and in general, there isn't such a thing. Creating such a certification is something people who complain about appropriation often call for - i.e. separating appropriated culture from genuine culture. Without a legal framework like this, it's not illegal to make inaccurate claims about your heritage. To take a specific example, the actor Iron Eyes Cody played tons of Indian parts for decades (until his death in the 1990s) claiming to be Indian, when actually he was Sicilian-American. It would have been bad publicity for him, but I don't think anyone could legally sue him for that.

But to get this back on topic, I don't think the core of this is likely to matter for a game or published work with an American Indian setting. The main thing is not pretending authentic American Indian-ness. I doubt most people is advocating for anything like that. I recall a story game called "Bone White, Blood Red" which came under criticism at some point - but it was thick with pretentious pseudo-authentic sounding text.

Quote from: jhkim;1078767The "certified handmade by tribal grandma" implies that there is some sort of legal certification of authenticity, and in general, there isn't such a thing.

Not exactly. I used "tribal grandma" instead of a name of a person. I don't think you can authenticate something being made by, say, Native Americans as such.

Quote from: jhkimThe "certified handmade by tribal grandma" implies that there is some sort of legal certification of authenticity, and in general, there isn't such a thing.

Quote from: Trond;1078778Not exactly. I used "tribal grandma" instead of a name of a person. I don't think you can authenticate something being made by, say, Native Americans as such.

I think that fits with my point though, right? i.e. A dream catcher could be "certified handmade by Lilly Standing Bear" - but even if that meant anything at all, Lily Standing Bear could be the pen name of a Vietnamese worker in some big city sweatshop, who assembles dream catchers according to written instructions from provided parts.

Quote from: jhkim;1078788I think that fits with my point though, right? i.e. A dream catcher could be "certified handmade by Lilly Standing Bear" - but even if that meant anything at all, Lily Standing Bear could be the pen name of a Vietnamese worker in some big city sweatshop, who assembles dream catchers according to written instructions from provided parts.

Even if there's an actual person by that name making the same thing?

Quote from: SHARK;1078693"Appropriation" is an SJW buzzword that is absolute nonsense.

Right you are. Here's an excellent example from Playboy Magazine (in an article about Ariana Grande) showing the typical context of use of that phrase:

QuoteHence why I felt betrayed and hurt after watching her continue her pattern of appropriating black and Asian cultures with 7 rings only to then reach across the aisle to play nice with noted racist, misogynist, homophobe and transphobe Piers Morgan. If she's going to advocate for feminism as part of her brand or headline Manchester Pride, Grande has a duty to check her privilege as a cisgender white woman and to use her international platform responsibly.

I think I mentioned this before: Playboy has become a feminist magazine. The ridiculous thing is, of course, that many feminists see them as the enemy. :D

https://www.playboy.com/read/in-which-we-remember-ariana-grande-is-white

Apologies in advance if this has been mentioned in the thread before, but Dragons Conquer America is an RPG based on (an obviously fictionalised) version of the time period when Conquistadores began arriving in Mesoamerica. It looks pretty cool (I backed it on Kickstarter ages ago), so would recommend checking it out if you're after some of that Aztec goodness.

Witch Hunter: The Invisible World portrayed the Aztecs as an evil nest of terror and dark magics. It also portrayed the various North American native peoples as largely "good guys" in the battle against evil magic even though they were oft at odds with the Europeans (for all the obvious reasons). I don't know how well that portrayal went over.

Quote from: OmSwaOperations;1079210Apologies in advance if this has been mentioned in the thread before, but Dragons Conquer America is an RPG based on (an obviously fictionalised) version of the time period when Conquistadores began arriving in Mesoamerica. It looks pretty cool (I backed it on Kickstarter ages ago), so would recommend checking it out if you're after some of that Aztec goodness.

It had not been mentioned. It looks interesting, though the OP wanted pre-Columbian and North American (rather than Mesoamerican). Do you have the full game yet? I was impressed that the Quickstart guide is 113 pages and fully illustrated - with what seems like complete rules and a sample adventure. Here's the main page:

https://burning-games.com/dragons-conquer-america/

However, the link to the quickstart is currently broken on there, so I had to search it separately:

https://www.rpgnow.com/product/221127/Dragons-Conquer-America-The-Coatli-Stone-Quickstart

Quote from: HappyDaze;1079222Witch Hunter: The Invisible World portrayed the Aztecs as an evil nest of terror and dark magics. It also portrayed the various North American native peoples as largely "good guys" in the battle against evil magic even though they were oft at odds with the Europeans (for all the obvious reasons). I don't know how well that portrayal went over.

A common popular notion is that the Aztecs were the bad guys of the New World. It's also an extremely stupid and ill-informed notion. But if someone wants to create a game setting like that, it only means I either won't want to run their game as written - i.e. I will remove the Evil Aztecs™ from the setting - or won't even bother buying it. No reason for any outrage.

Quote from: 3rik;1079387A common popular notion is that the Aztecs were the bad guys of the New World. It's also an extremely stupid and ill-informed notion.

What was the reality?

Quote from: S'mon;1079401What was the reality?

Human sacrifice and cannibalism on a mass scale.  Obviously not the bad guys, sheesh. :D

Quote from: S'mon;1079401What was the reality?

The Mayans and the Olmec, practiced human sacrifice as well, and sacrificed their best warriors and leaders of their enemies as well as themselves. They also took slaves in large numbers, from the Aztec as well as other central American tribes. The Inca were very warlike, and made war on many of the central American and Amazonian Tribes, and did not take prisoners and sacrifices, but instead demanded tribute from the conquered tribes which were then transported to their cities. The Inca only settled in high inaccessible cities in the Andes after the Spanish Invasion. They made almost continuous  war on the Aztec and the Maya. That was the reality.

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

Yes. And theyve been trying, and succeeding, in exterminating each other since long before europeans set foot on the land.

I suggest you go and read some proper books on the subjects.

(https://i.imgur.com/ZgwIASL.gif)

Quote from: 3rik;1079492I suggest you go and read some proper books on the subjects.

(https://i.imgur.com/ZgwIASL.gif)

We have. The Aztecs were among the most brutal people right up there with e.g. the Assyrians and Romans, plus the human sacrifice part. Of course no people were ever like evil orcs, but if you want a group of "bad guys"  (same way the Spanish are frequently "bad guys" in pirate settings) then the Aztecs are as good as any. So what exactly is the misinformation being spread here?

Edit: has been a while since I read up on this so I looked it up. First thing that popped up was this:
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/aug/26/science/sci-aztec26

I think there is an aspect of underlying power dynamics, in some examples of cultural appropriation.

The reason that people get upset about mainstream America making Native American things is because native tribes were cheated a lot by the immigrant US government and that imbalance has never been fully addressed. It's not just intellectual property rights.

It's like St Patrick's day is not seen as cultural appropriation because Ireland is a free country. If the UK was still occupying Eire and making green hats and all that shit on St Patrick's day then it would probably cause a lot more controversy. A larger group taking the culture of a dominated group and turning it into consumer trinkets or co-opting it so it becomes a part of the larger group's story is a way of slowly eroding the identity of the smaller group.

The communist party in China wants to select the next Tibetan Dalai Lama. They are probably also spreading propaganda in Tibet about how Tibet is part of Chinese history. After enough time the smaller community is just fully absorbed into the larger one. East Asia is filled with examples of this, but because we learn more about Western history and culture these discussions are mostly about the US.

And we are used to the stuff that has already happened. We don't think about Celtic culture as an oppressed group in the UK nowadays, but I'm sure a Celtic tribe vying against Romans would have fought really hard to keep their rituals secret, and for their communities to stick together.

Specifically in the Native American case I can see why people have strong opinions about it.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1078440If 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.

And not just that. Even if you are "Native" then odds are you will get lambasted for being the wrong nation. And better yet. Eventually you wont be "Native enough" and are raked over the coals for appropriation crimes against humanity.

Quote from: Zirunel;1078511

Quote from: Motorskills;1078398I 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.

Nope. Even today most native americans are still divided into nations. Before it was torn down a few years ago they held an annual meeting at the Thunderbird Hotel in Minnesota. Which bemusingly allways co-incided with a convention I attended each year.

Quote from: SHARK;1078729I reject "Cultural Appropriation" as an insidious, anti-American control word and form of ideology. It's just wrong, Motorskills, on so many levels.

Its not just anti-american. It is anti-everyone. Its segregation on a monsterous level. Whats next? Mixed race marriages banned because its appropriating or erasing their culture. Welcome back Miscegenation!

Back on topic. Such as it was...

to the OP. How far back were you planning to set things? Pre-Colonial? Further? Ice Age? Stone Age?

Quote from: Verdant;1079534I think there is an aspect of underlying power dynamics, in some examples of cultural appropriation.

The reason that people get upset about mainstream America making Native American things is because native tribes were cheated a lot by the immigrant US government and that imbalance has never been fully addressed. It's not just intellectual property rights.

Thing is. The native americans were cheating, and more often murdering eachother long before europeans got on the scene. Whole nations were exterminated just because they had a rep of being dishonest or treacherous. Yes. The NA people got mistreated massively. But they mistreated eachother massively. The advent of eurpoeans was just a new form of the same ol same ol.

History that far too often gets swept under the rug so the big victim card can be played ad nausium instead of addressing issues external and internal in a more coherent manner. And even just a few years ago theres been external troubles here and there.

Back on topic.
If you are going to have a NA themed setting then you have to accept that its going to end up looking alot like a fantasy game setting with alot of warring and genociding and slavery going on unless you water it down to little more than just another NA cliche.

Think about the WHY of your settings cultures acting as they do. Why does the River-Runs-Red nation periodically sweep through the area from the west and do their damndest to genocide the region. But never settle it after? Why do the Green Coyote peoples have such a reputation for treachery and backstabbing? Are the Black Heron tribes really as good of diplomats as everyone believes?

Another thing to consider is economy. Trade was a big thing for some tribes. Who is trading what with who? Does anyone else covet those resources?

Does anyone have a monopoly on a particular skillset?

Even something as simple, yet not, as how mobile a tribe or nation is can have a large impact on setting and gameplay.

Quote from: Omega;1079574Thing is. The native americans were cheating, and more often murdering eachother long before europeans got on the scene. Whole nations were exterminated just because they had a rep of being dishonest or treacherous. Yes. The NA people got mistreated massively. But they mistreated eachother massively. The advent of eurpoeans was just a new form of the same ol same ol.

History that far too often gets swept under the rug so the big victim card can be played ad nausium instead of addressing issues external and internal in a more coherent manner. And even just a few years ago theres been external troubles here and there.

Back on topic.
If you are going to have a NA themed setting then you have to accept that its going to end up looking alot like a fantasy game setting with alot of warring and genociding and slavery going on unless you water it down to little more than just another NA cliche.

Think about the WHY of your settings cultures acting as they do. Why does the River-Runs-Red nation periodically sweep through the area from the west and do their damndest to genocide the region. But never settle it after? Why do the Green Coyote peoples have such a reputation for treachery and backstabbing? Are the Black Heron tribes really as good of diplomats as everyone believes?

Another thing to consider is economy. Trade was a big thing for some tribes. Who is trading what with who? Does anyone else covet those resources?

Does anyone have a monopoly on a particular skillset?

Even something as simple, yet not, as how mobile a tribe or nation is can have a large impact on setting and gameplay.

Greetings!

You make some excellent points, Omega! You know, white people get blamed for genocide against the NA so much, but not merely blamed, but *villified* even today, constantly. Well, too fucking bad, you know? It is so easily forgotten, as you pointed out, NA tribes *routinely* slaughtered each other, and genocided entire tribes. Their old, their men, children over the age of 14 were all commonly hunted down, and killed, leaving only the children under about 14 and the *women* to be enslaved, and "married" into the tribe. Yeah, foreign women were also *lower than fuck* on the tribal pecking order. Foreign tribe women were expected to shut the fuck up, fuck constantly, and breed. And work, and do what everyone told her to do. The man who captured her could beat her senseless if he wanted to--but he often didn't need to do so. There were always a gang of 6, 8 or a dozen of his tribal women that would catch her, and beat the fuck out of her with sticks and whips, over and over again, and made sure she *knew* her status was to be a good slave to everyone. So, yeah, foreign women taken captive learned very quick to keep their mouth's shut, fuck and breed, and get real happy with working like a slave for the rest of her life.

This was routine practice throughout the NA tribes. A foreigner could, after many years of slavery, breeding, and absolute obedience and loyalty, potentially look forward to being formally adopted into the tribe as a member, from which their social status would then be officially changed, and they would then enjoy a better life as a member of the tribe. That wasn't always guaranteed, however, and while it was possible for both male and female foreigners, it was in many ways easier for foreign women. Depending on the tribe in question, the chieftain, the elders, who the foreign slave's master was, and the tribe's status and political situation. All of those factors played a role in whether or not a foreign captive's status amongst the tribe would change, and how fast it would do so.

Entire tribes were annihilated by other NA tribes long before they ever set eyes on a white European. Some tribes were more peaceful, while others were especially feared near and far for their ferociousness in war and conquest, like the Iroquois, the Cherokee, Sioux, Commanche, Apache, and Pawnee, for example. Down in the marshes of Florida and Georgia, the Seminole tribes had reputations for not being especially expansionist, but crazy vicious if you fucked with them. Many tribes walked carefully around the Seminoles, for example. NA tribes had learned to respect the Seminole's territory, and not to provoke them. The United States Army fought a crazy, savage war against the Seminoles for a good number of years. The Seminole tribes resisted bitterly, fighting every step of the way, for every yard of marsh and swamp.

In any campaign using such a primitive, tribal environment embracing NA themes, the entire environment should be, like many of the colonial ambassadors remarked at the time, a bewildering patchwork of competing tribes, some eager for peace and trade, while others are savage, and hungry for war and blood. With many lying somewhere in between, and politically influenced by their own chieftain, elders, or councils of women, or their shamans. Then you also had a keen sense of cultural awareness and racial consciousness. There were some traditionalist tribes for example, that would make war on and slaughter lesser tribes that they felt were "too much in love with the white man; or too much in love with the ways of the white man." Such other tribes were also often punished for not being sufficiently zealous about keeping the ancient tribal customs and traditions. Then of course, there were inter-tribal civil wars, between half a tribe that remained traditional, independent, and rejected anything to do with white culture; while the other half of the tribe viewed themselves as "progressive" and "open-minded". These "race traitors", "tribal traitors", "compromisers", etc, were often eager to interbreed with the white people as well, and eagerly adopted white culture, religion, clothing, and of course, guns. Naturally, the white society--and the U.S. Army watched for such inter-tribal conflicts, and readily made political and military moves to exploit them to the fullest advantage.

Even without foreign, white invaders and colonizers, a NA tribal environment should be vibrant and complex, with numerous economic and cultural rivalries, as well as bitter tribal hatred and racism, often going back for generations into the past. Interestingly, in many tribes, the women were very eager to torture foreign prisoners captured in war. The tribes often enjoyed hearing the prisoners scream in agony as the women tortured them, and the tribes enjoyed watching it all as a form of entertainment, but also as a way of honouring the prisoners, with seeing how much pain they could heroically endure before dying, thus giving them greater honour at death, and a more celebrated afterlife in the spirit world.

Isn't that gratifying to know, just before the women torture you with tongs, scrapers, and fire, that they are *honouring* you, and that if you endure having your body torn to pieces slowly, and roasted in fire, you too, will be rewarded in the afterlife! :)

Ah, yes. A happy, wondrous, "Garden of Eden"!!:) Such a campaign would be awesome fun!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Yup, for instance the Sioux (Lakota/Dakota) hadn't actually been plains Indians that long, they had massacred the previous plains Indians and taken their place. I think this happened during the time when Westerners were exploring the Americas and it is in the historical record.  
Wow, I did not know about the women doing the torturing, Shark, do you have any sources on that?

Several Native Americans tribes were big into torture in general. Even self-torture. I think Sitting Bull did rituals like that. It was supposed to induce a trance, but probably also to show that you're "the man". Similar things are found all the way down to South America (see, bullet ant rituals, Maya self torture, etc.). Also, if your do that sort of thing to yourself, and expect tribe members to do it, imagine how you treat a captured enemy. Pretty nasty.

Also, on the women; one of the main reasons for tribes raiding each other was often to capture women. They say that the Comanche had a rise in population due to several successful raids on others after they started using horses.

One annoying thing that I noticed when reading a book about Jedediah Smith, the explorer: the author only ever made a moral judgement of white people. If some idiot white person attacked the Indians for no reason he was sure to point out how morally despicable this was. But the Indians would sometimes literally raid the whites for their women, and at one point they tried to massacre the whole expedition because they offended their chief (oh, and one Indian randomly shot arrows into their horses simply because he felt angry about a trade deal). No moral statements whatsoever, in fact the whites "should have known better" etc. I would have preferred no moral lessons whatsoever, or maybe just the of the main character if the author really feels inclined to dissect his personality.

Quote from: Omega;1079570Nope. Even today most native americans are still divided into nations. Before it was torn down a few years ago they held an annual meeting at the Thunderbird Hotel in Minnesota. Which bemusingly allways co-incided with a convention I attended each year.

For sure. Actually, the possible modern exception I was thinking of isn't political, but rather, the recent cultural syncretism that has led some First Nations people to adopt cultural practices they did not traditionally have, e.g. The spread of dreamcatchers, sweetgrass ceremonies, etc.

Quote from: Omega;1079574Thing is. The native americans were cheating, and more often murdering each other long before europeans got on the scene. Whole nations were exterminated just because they had a rep of being dishonest or treacherous. Yes. The NA people got mistreated massively. But they mistreated eachother massively. The advent of eurpoeans was just a new form of the same ol same ol.

Quote from: SHARK;1079587You make some excellent points, Omega! You know, white people get blamed for genocide against the NA so much, but not merely blamed, but *villified* even today, constantly. Well, too fucking bad, you know? It is so easily forgotten, as you pointed out, NA tribes *routinely* slaughtered each other, and genocided entire tribes. Their old, their men, children over the age of 14 were all commonly hunted down, and killed, leaving only the children under about 14 and the *women* to be enslaved, and "married" into the tribe. Yeah, foreign women were also *lower than fuck* on the tribal pecking order. Foreign tribe women were expected to shut the fuck up, fuck constantly, and breed. And work, and do what everyone told her to do. The man who captured her could beat her senseless if he wanted to--but he often didn't need to do so. There were always a gang of 6, 8 or a dozen of his tribal women that would catch her, and beat the fuck out of her with sticks and whips, over and over again, and made sure she *knew* her status was to be a good slave to everyone. So, yeah, foreign women taken captive learned very quick to keep their mouth's shut, fuck and breed, and get real happy with working like a slave for the rest of her life.

This was routine practice throughout the NA tribes.

SHARK, this is a load of ignorant crap. There are essentially no traditions common throughout the North American tribes. No place was a violence-free utopia, but there were different ways of conducting warfare and different ways of social organization.


I know best the Eastern Woodlands tribes. (I ran a campaign and several one-shots set in an alternate history where Icelandic settlers mixed with locals in the Hudson River Valley area.) Algonquian-speaking tribes like the Lenape would indeed raid and take captives, but they did not have slaves. Foreign women and children who were captured and adopted were of roughly the same status as ordinary tribe members. We have multiple accounts of Europeans taken captive and adopted who did not want to be rescued - like Mary Campbell, Jonathan Alder, and Eunice Williams. There was nothing like a slave class. These people would raid and fight - but they did not enslave, and didn't do anything like genocide.

The Haudenosaunee (also called Iroquois) were the enemy in my game. At the time, they were more warlike - and also had more brutal traditions of torture and cannibalism. They still didn't have a slave class, though, and though aggressive and violent - I wouldn't put their overall body count as any worse than the medieval Europeans. (Though methods differed.)


The closest I can think of to SHARK's description is an account of capture by the Comanche - like Rachel Plummer's account. That was in the 1800s, though, after centuries of European contact and in the midst of war with the whites. That account is not necessarily representative of pre-Columbian culture or of how they treated each other. i.e. It may well have been anti-white bias rather than typical treatment. Indeed - Rachel's account included that her treatment vastly improved when she fought back against the women who tormented her and demonstrated bravery, after which she was given more respect.

Slavery did exist in North America. I know that the Northwest Indians did have a significant slave class which was hereditary. I can't think of anything that I would call genocide. It may have happened - but it certainly wasn't something that routinely occurred throughout the continent.

Quote from: jhkim;1079651SHARK, this is a load of ignorant crap. There are essentially no traditions common throughout the North American tribes. No place was a violence-free utopia, but there were different ways of conducting warfare and different ways of social organization.


I know best the Eastern Woodlands tribes. (I ran a campaign and several one-shots set in an alternate history where Icelandic settlers mixed with locals in the Hudson River Valley area.) Algonquian-speaking tribes like the Lenape would indeed raid and take captives, but they did not have slaves. Foreign women and children who were captured and adopted were of roughly the same status as ordinary tribe members. We have multiple accounts of Europeans taken captive and adopted who did not want to be rescued - like Mary Campbell, Jonathan Alder, and Eunice Williams. There was nothing like a slave class. These people would raid and fight - but they did not enslave, and didn't do anything like genocide.

The Haudenosaunee (also called Iroquois) were the enemy in my game. At the time, they were more warlike - and also had more brutal traditions of torture and cannibalism. They still didn't have a slave class, though, and though aggressive and violent - I wouldn't put their overall body count as any worse than the medieval Europeans. (Though methods differed.)


The closest I can think of to SHARK's description is an account of capture by the Comanche - like Rachel Plummer's account. That was in the 1800s, though, after centuries of European contact and in the midst of war with the whites. That account is not necessarily representative of pre-Columbian culture or of how they treated each other. i.e. It may well have been anti-white bias rather than typical treatment. Indeed - Rachel's account included that her treatment vastly improved when she fought back against the women who tormented her and demonstrated bravery, after which she was given more respect.

Slavery did exist in North America. I know that the Northwest Indians did have a significant slave class which was hereditary. I can't think of anything that I would call genocide. It may have happened - but it certainly wasn't something that routinely occurred throughout the continent.

Greetings!

"A load of ignorant crap." You are delusional, Jhkim. The various Indian tribes did have slaves. Throughout the south-eastern United States, there were many examples of the Cherokee, Choktaw, Crow, amongst others that were known to own slaves. Whites, blacks, Indians, whoever. They fucking did have slaves. You need to get out of your Liberal utopian bubble and read more. I've read more than one source which described many of the tribes of the southeast having slaves. They did have slaves. You're wrong, Jhkim. The Apache also are known to have had slaves, along with the Commanche, and others. Again, you need to read more if you don't believe that NA tribes had slaves. White settlers, explorers, soldiers, as well as Indian sources, and Spanish sources describe Indian tribes having slaves.

I've read of many testimonies where foreign captives were not treated well initially. They were low status, and there were social pecking orders imposed by other members of the tribe, especially the tribal women, against foreign women, for example. When such captives were adopted into the tribe, indeed, their social status within the tribe changed for the better. I also note that more than a few white captives later on willingly became members of whatever tribe, and did not wish to return to live in white society. Again, though, many captives also faced torture, harsh treatment, low status and discrimination amongst various tribes, at least until they were officially married or adopted into the tribe. I've read several instances where white men were captured and were not treated sweetly at all. The treatment varied from region to region, and tribe to tribe. If you think the NA were sweet and peace-loving you need to read more, because they weren't.

Yes, there were different styles and approaches to warfare and social organization. I never said there wasn't. The Indians did wipe out other tribes, and absorb them. This was apparently fairly common. This reality goes back in North America from the earliest days of European contact with Indians, and knowledge gained from them. Again, read more. The Sioux forced other tribes out when they moved from Minnesota and Michigan into the northern Great Plains. The Commanche wiped out weaker tribes, as did the Apache. I don't remember the names of the top of my head, but various Indian tribes in California and the North-West also crushed and absorbed weaker tribes. Again, broaden your reading. Not all Indian tribes did this, but it seems to have been common reality amongst Indian tribes, long before Europeans arrived on the scene.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: jhkim;1079651SHARK, this is a load of ignorant crap. There are essentially no traditions common throughout the North American tribes. No place was a violence-free utopia, but there were different ways of conducting warfare and different ways of social organization.


I know best the Eastern Woodlands tribes. (I ran a campaign and several one-shots set in an alternate history where Icelandic settlers mixed with locals in the Hudson River Valley area.) Algonquian-speaking tribes like the Lenape would indeed raid and take captives, but they did not have slaves. Foreign women and children who were captured and adopted were of roughly the same status as ordinary tribe members. We have multiple accounts of Europeans taken captive and adopted who did not want to be rescued - like Mary Campbell, Jonathan Alder, and Eunice Williams. There was nothing like a slave class. These people would raid and fight - but they did not enslave, and didn't do anything like genocide.

The Haudenosaunee (also called Iroquois) were the enemy in my game. At the time, they were more warlike - and also had more brutal traditions of torture and cannibalism. They still didn't have a slave class, though, and though aggressive and violent - I wouldn't put their overall body count as any worse than the medieval Europeans. (Though methods differed.)


The closest I can think of to SHARK's description is an account of capture by the Comanche - like Rachel Plummer's account. That was in the 1800s, though, after centuries of European contact and in the midst of war with the whites. That account is not necessarily representative of pre-Columbian culture or of how they treated each other. i.e. It may well have been anti-white bias rather than typical treatment. Indeed - Rachel's account included that her treatment vastly improved when she fought back against the women who tormented her and demonstrated bravery, after which she was given more respect.

Slavery did exist in North America. I know that the Northwest Indians did have a significant slave class which was hereditary. I can't think of anything that I would call genocide. It may have happened - but it certainly wasn't something that routinely occurred throughout the continent.

Yeah, pretty much all of this. I mean, I am on board with a setting that isn't just peaceful oneness with nature. A boring and B way off the mark. But the whole First Nations were literally Hitler line is way overheated.

Slavery, sure, as noted a formal institution in the Pacific NW. Torture by the ladies, sure, among Iroquoians. But you can hardly mash it all up as "First Nations Culture."

 Also, particularly in the contact period in the NE, the historical accounts are very much of a particular time. Communities decimated by disease (and, sure, by warfare too), essentially it's a time and a place of refugee populations on the move. No precedent, no rules, and the experiences of refugees fleeing to neighbours ran the gamut. Kindness, acceptance, indifference, cruelty, exploitation. Everything that a caravan of DPs might experience in Europe after WWII.

As for the Aztec, yes human sacrifice was widespread in the region, almost universal, but they took it to a whole new level.

As for the Inca, no they did not war with the Aztec and the Maya. Northern Ecuador was as close as they got.

Quote from: Zirunel;1079663Yeah, pretty much all of this. I mean, I am on board with a setting that isn't just peaceful oneness with nature. A boring and B way off the mark. But the whole First Nations were literally Hitler line is way overheated.

Slavery, sure, as noted a formal institution in the Pacific NW. Torture by the ladies, sure, among Iroquoians. But you can hardly mash it all up as "First Nations Culture."

 Also, particularly in the contact period in the NE, the historical accounts are very much of a particular time. Communities decimated by disease (and, sure, by warfare too), essentially it's a time and a place of refugee populations on the move. No precedent, no rules, and the experiences of refugees fleeing to neighbours ran the gamut. Kindness, acceptance, indifference, cruelty, exploitation. Everything that a caravan of DPs might experience in Europe after WWII.

As for the Aztec, yes human sacrifice was widespread in the region, almost universal, but they took it to a whole new level.

As for the Inca, no they did not war with the Aztec and the Maya. Northern Ecuador was as close as they got.

Greetings!

Good stuff, Zirunel. I agree.

However, I don't believe that Native Americans were like Hitler. I have read through many books over the years, that various Indian tribes from all over the place conquered, and absorbed smaller, weaker tribes. Evidently, this was a routine reality from coast to coast. I don't have any problem accepting such practices as a reality. It is a normal social and military process found throughout European history, as well as Africa, Asia, and South American peoples. Why would people in North America be any different? From all of the many books I have read over the years, the Indian tribes in North America were not any different from peoples everywhere else in the world, throughout history.

I don't think that is some kind of radical or shocking position to take. It seems to line up just fine with human nature, you know?

And yeah, you're right. I don't recall ever reading that the Incas had any contact with the Aztecs either.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1079660"A load of ignorant crap." You are delusional, Jhkim. The various Indian tribes did have slaves. Throughout the south-eastern United States, there were many examples of the Cherokee, Choktaw, Crow, amongst others that were known to own slaves. Whites, blacks, Indians, whoever. They fucking did have slaves. You need to get out of your Liberal utopian bubble and read more. I've read more than one source which described many of the tribes of the southeast having slaves. They did have slaves. You're wrong, Jhkim. The Apache also are known to have had slaves, along with the Commanche, and others. Again, you need to read more if you don't believe that NA tribes had slaves. White settlers, explorers, soldiers, as well as Indian sources, and Spanish sources describe Indian tribes having slaves.

I already gave examples of Indian tribes having slaves. What I disagree with is that the Apache and Comanche hundreds of miles and centuries later somehow applies to people like the pre-contact Lenape. What you're doing is going through dozens of societies thousands of miles apart over centuries to find examples of slavery or other bad things.  You then applying it to claim generic "North American Indian" behavior. It's like throwing together the Spanish Inquisition, the Mongol Invasions, and the Cathar heresy - and saying that all this was what Europeans routinely did.

I stand by my description of the pre-contact Lenape. They did not have slaves, nor did any of their neighbors. They would be brutal during raids, but eventually treated their captives well. In my RPG setting, it was one of the contrasts of the vikings with the locals that the vikings had slaves and the locals did not.

If I were to run a game set in the Pacific Northwest, then this would be different. The locals would have a large class of hereditary slaves, and a vastly different culture.

Quote from: SHARK;1079660Yes, there were different styles and approaches to warfare and social organization. I never said there wasn't. The Indians did wipe out other tribes, and absorb them. This was apparently fairly common.

SHARK, here's what you wrote:

Quote from: SHARKForeign tribe women were expected to shut the fuck up, fuck constantly, and breed. And work, and do what everyone told her to do. The man who captured her could beat her senseless if he wanted to--but he often didn't need to do so. There were always a gang of 6, 8 or a dozen of his tribal women that would catch her, and beat the fuck out of her with sticks and whips, over and over again, and made sure she *knew* her status was to be a good slave to everyone. So, yeah, foreign women taken captive learned very quick to keep their mouth's shut, fuck and breed, and get real happy with working like a slave for the rest of her life.

This was routine practice throughout the NA tribes.

You claim that this was a routine practice throughout the NA tribes. That is a ginormous pile of bullshit.

Quote from: jhkim;1079668I already gave examples of Indian tribes having slaves. What I disagree with is that the Apache and Comanche hundreds of miles and centuries later somehow applies to people like the pre-contact Lenape. What you're doing is going through dozens of societies thousands of miles apart over centuries to find examples of slavery or other bad things.  You then applying it to claim generic "North American Indian" behavior. It's like throwing together the Spanish Inquisition, the Mongol Invasions, and the Cathar heresy - and saying that all this was what Europeans routinely did.

I stand by my description of the pre-contact Lenape. They did not have slaves, nor did any of their neighbors. They would be brutal during raids, but eventually treated their captives well. In my RPG setting, it was one of the contrasts of the vikings with the locals that the vikings had slaves and the locals did not.

If I were to run a game set in the Pacific Northwest, then this would be different. The locals would have a large class of hereditary slaves, and a vastly different culture.



SHARK, here's what you wrote:



You claim that this was a routine practice throughout the NA tribes. That is a ginormous pile of bullshit.

Greetings!

Ah, I see, Jhkim. Fair enough then, I apologize for over generalizing. It wasn't a routine practice throughout the NA tribes. It was a routine practice with *some* NA tribes.:)

The point I was making was that the Indian tribes were *not* some peaceful, hippy utopia. That's been a common motif of white academics particularly over recent decades--and that narrative, often pushed by Liberal professors even in college, let alone high school and junior high school, is just historical revisionist Liberal bullshit, Jhkim. I've also found that same syrupy narrative promoted by Liberal authors of many history books, and it's entire nonsense. Yes, it pisses me off immensely. I find it to be not merely overstatement, or wishful thinking, or misinterpretation--but a willful, and purposeful distortion of facts and evidence in order to fabricate their mushy, fraudulent narrative and racist, anti-white, self-loathing worldview. I believe it is intellectually fraudulent and dishonest, and shameful.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Trond;1079642Yup, for instance the Sioux (Lakota/Dakota) hadn't actually been plains Indians that long, they had massacred the previous plains Indians and taken their place. I think this happened during the time when Westerners were exploring the Americas and it is in the historical record.  
Wow, I did not know about the women doing the torturing, Shark, do you have any sources on that?

Several Native Americans tribes were big into torture in general. Even self-torture. I think Sitting Bull did rituals like that. It was supposed to induce a trance, but probably also to show that you're "the man". Similar things are found all the way down to South America (see, bullet ant rituals, Maya self torture, etc.). Also, if your do that sort of thing to yourself, and expect tribe members to do it, imagine how you treat a captured enemy. Pretty nasty.

Also, on the women; one of the main reasons for tribes raiding each other was often to capture women. They say that the Comanche had a rise in population due to several successful raids on others after they started using horses.

One annoying thing that I noticed when reading a book about Jedediah Smith, the explorer: the author only ever made a moral judgement of white people. If some idiot white person attacked the Indians for no reason he was sure to point out how morally despicable this was. But the Indians would sometimes literally raid the whites for their women, and at one point they tried to massacre the whole expedition because they offended their chief (oh, and one Indian randomly shot arrows into their horses simply because he felt angry about a trade deal). No moral statements whatsoever, in fact the whites "should have known better" etc. I would have preferred no moral lessons whatsoever, or maybe just the of the main character if the author really feels inclined to dissect his personality.

Greetings!

You're right, my friend. The Sioux tribes were originally tribes that lived in the forests of Minnesota, and I think parts of Michigan. They then migrated into the northern Great Plains. Yeah, I don't recall their arrival in the Northern Plains being very sweet and nice, either. They crushed and absorbed smaller tribes during their migration, and later on as well, as they established a growing position of power and dominance throughout the northern Great Plains. It's kind of interesting to think that there was a time when the Sioux didn't ride horses, huh? :) Very different imagery there, for certain! And yes, that migration I think occured just as the Europeans were settling in North America, so sometime in the 1600's. It's wierd to then see American soldiers fighting the Sioux some 200 years later, as "Lords of the Plains" in the 1800's. LOL.

Yeah, I can't give you chapter and verse on the customs of women torturing captives. I've read a good number of sources over the years that have described the custom, and also how brutal they could be, especially amongst the Iroquois, Cherokee, and Pawnee. Later, of course, or rather, further *west*, I've read that some of the Apache, and Commanche in the American south-west had some horrific customs of torture, often supervised by their women. I also recall that some tribes in the Pacific North-west may also have appointed such gruesome tasks to their women.

I should note, however, that the various Native American tribes were not *monolithic* at all, and were wildly diverse. There were some Indian tribes, for example, that were in California, and the Pacific North-west, that were very peaceful, even placcid. The Nez Pierce, of Idaho, Oregon, and I think parts of Nevada--the Nez Pierce were well-known for being noble, kind, good-natured, and very peaceful. They even had adopted and embraced Christianity, brought to them *peacefully* too, by the way, through fur trappers and traders, long before the Nez Pierce War which broke out between the Nez Piece and the United States in the late 1800's. That episode in America's expansion westwards was, I have to say, an epic clusterfuck of absolute greed and stupidity on America's part. All because American settlers wanted the Nez Pierce land, and because Mining companies I think, had discovered gold and silver in the region, and pushed the American government to "Save them from the Red Savages." Yeah. Right. So, the U.S. Army moved in, and crushed the Nez Pierce, who reluctantly, but valiantly, stood up for themselves and sought to defend themselves. We even have Nez Pierce records--as some of them spoke English fluently, and their perspectives were recorded--they were basically saying, "American Government, WTF?" Seeing that the U.S. government had a history--at the time--of being friends with the Nez Pierce tribes, and also allies. I remember reading that Nez Pierce warriors had volunteered and helped America as warriors, scouts, and interpreters, in America's wars against violent and warlike Indian tribes of the local region, in years prior to the Nez Pierce War. Then, all of that was somehow conveniently forgotten by the U.S. President and American Generals in the Theater at the time of the outbreak of war. Pretty fucking sad, honestly.

It's a good thing we didn't exterminate the Nez Pierce. They survived the war, and eventually stabilized themselves while living in Indian Reservations established by the U.S. government, and as I recall, are quite prosperous and successful today. I know there is an extensive Indian population and presence throughout the state of Idaho, right here, today. I think that's pretty cool. So fucked up though, the bullshit and tragedy they had to suffer through back in the day. It's a similar kind of betrayal and bloodlust the U.S. had for the Cherokee tribes, as well. After fighting the colonies for generations of bitter warfare, the Cherokee learned English, adoted white dress, and even had Christianity. The Cherokee had their own civilized towns, too, as well as system of schools and law. The Cherokee even took their land case to the U.S. Supreme Court at the time, in the early 1800's. The U.S. said too bad. The Cherokee own the best land, and have the best corn, squash, beans and other farms, as well as the best forests full of good animals. The white people demand that they have it, and fuck the Indians. So, the government organized the Trail of Tears, where the Cherokee tribes were marched at bayonet point from the Carolinas and Georgia, their ancestral homelands forever, to the fucking shitty deserts of the Oklahoma territory. The Cherokee were basically told, either get your shit, and march, or you die. That's fucking monstrously tragic and fucking evil, too. Ultimately, however, it is what we did to the Native American tribes one after another, from the beginning.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1079672Ah, I see, Jhkim. Fair enough then, I apologize for over generalizing. It wasn't a routine practice throughout the NA tribes. It was a routine practice with *some* NA tribes.:)

Cool. Glad we got past that point.

Quote from: SHARK;1079672The point I was making was that the Indian tribes were *not* some peaceful, hippy utopia. That's been a common motif of white academics particularly over recent decades--and that narrative, often pushed by Liberal professors even in college, let alone high school and junior high school, is just historical revisionist Liberal bullshit, Jhkim. I've also found that same syrupy narrative promoted by Liberal authors of many history books, and it's entire nonsense. Yes, it pisses me off immensely. I find it to be not merely overstatement, or wishful thinking, or misinterpretation--but a willful, and purposeful distortion of facts and evidence in order to fabricate their mushy, fraudulent narrative and racist, anti-white, self-loathing worldview. I believe it is intellectually fraudulent and dishonest, and shameful.

I agree that American Indians were not some peaceful hippy utopia, and that is a narrative one sometimes finds. However, it is also common to find revisionist narratives of the opposite - inventing faults or over-broad generalizations to justify white action, or skipping over much of what whites did. For decades, American history textbooks have often peddled a lot of the latter. It was certainly true in my textbooks when I was growing up.

The more subtle misconception that bugs me a lot is the vision that nothing happened in America until the Europeans invaded. In the history of Europe, students read about the rise and fall of empires. How advances came and went, going into dark ages and so forth. In the Americas, they just read about a single snapshot of how a people lived when the Europeans encountered them - as if nothing changed until Europeans came along. That was still very common in the textbooks when my son went to school.

Quote from: jhkim;1079694The more subtle misconception that bugs me a lot is the vision that nothing happened in America until the Europeans invaded. In the history of Europe, students read about the rise and fall of empires. How advances came and went, going into dark ages and so forth. In the Americas, they just read about a single snapshot of how a people lived when the Europeans encountered them - as if nothing changed until Europeans came along. That was still very common in the textbooks when my son went to school.

Partly that's due to lack of information. Partly it's because history is traditionally taught as the history of a people - in America's case, the British settlers/conquerors of North America. Other people are bit players in the Heroic Narrative. The traditional expectation was that any people from other cultures allowed to join the core people would integrate and come to see that people's saga as their own. Obviously the ideology of Multiculturalism tries to put a stop to such notions.

Quote from: S'mon;1079747Partly that's due to lack of information.

If by "America" we mean USA, then in my opinion, it is hugely because of lack of information. If you want info on what was going on at the same time as, say, Medieval times in Europe, then there are literally no written sources. It's even more difficult than trying to study the history of, say, the Minoans (because the Minoans left behind more figurative art and a few of their symbols have been deciphered). Now, in Central America the picture is a bit different.

It's not that different down south. Precontact, you have the Classic Mayan inscriptions (dynastic propaganda, which at least gives some actual names, dates and events) and not much more. Interpretation of iconography is pretty darn good at least for the Andean region, Mesoamerica and the Intermediate Area. There's far more there than has been teased out from Minoan imagery.

It's not that so little is known, it's that the record is archaeological rather than documentary. That gives you trends and processes, measured in scales of centuries, but little or nothing on specific individuals or specific events.

There has long been a tendency to interpret this with the aid of the (more detailed) ethnographic record, and while that is not totally a bad thing, it does kind of encourage a view of stasis and continuity. And it denies First Nations peoples the sort of dynamic history we know they have. There has been a lot of change over the millennia.

Excessive ethnographic analogy and extrapolating from the present to the past fell somewhat out of favour in academia quite a while ago, but oddly enough, in recent years it is very much back. Driven partly by First Nations themselves, who seek to gain more ownership of their past by emphasizing connection and continuity. E.g. "Our traditional knowledge is the best way to interpret how our ancestors lived 7,000 years ago because we are the same people living as we always have." Thus it becomes unfashionable to look at change in the past, however profound. Ultimately it deprecates learning about the past at all: if everything has always been the same, why bother. And ironically, it is now First Nations themselves denying themselves a dynamic past. Oh well.

Quote from: Zirunel;1079803It's not that so little is known, it's that the record is archaeological rather than documentary. That gives you trends and processes, measured in scales of centuries, but little or nothing on specific individuals or specific events.

There has long been a tendency to interpret this with the aid of the (more detailed) ethnographic record, and while that is not totally a bad thing, it does kind of encourage a view of stasis and continuity. And it denies First Nations peoples the sort of dynamic history we know they have. There has been a lot of change over the millennia.

On the scale of schoolbooks, though, they generally don't teach the archeological record of change. The comparative lack of data - like names and dates of leaders - shouldn't mean that we convey a verifiably false view, that there weren't dynamic changes like the rise and fall of cities and civilizations. We should at least convey what is known.

History shouldn't be about memorizing names and dates anyway. If there is less data, we should still convey what data we have. As a parallel, it would be nonsensical to not teach astronomy because the interior of stars and black holes aren't as well understood as chemicals here on Earth. Instead, we take a wider view, and teach what we do know - while acknowledging that we still have a lot to learn about astronomical bodies.

Apropos of the OP, who was interested in the medieval city of Cahokia, I think it's a major gap that it's very existence is nearly unknown to most people, when we've been studying it for decades.

Quote from: jhkim;1079815On the scale of schoolbooks, though, they generally don't teach the archeological record of change. The comparative lack of data - like names and dates of leaders - shouldn't mean that we convey a verifiably false view, that there weren't dynamic changes like the rise and fall of cities and civilizations. We should at least convey what is known.

History shouldn't be about memorizing names and dates anyway. If there is less data, we should still convey what data we have. As a parallel, it would be nonsensical to not teach astronomy because the interior of stars and black holes aren't as well understood as chemicals here on Earth. Instead, we take a wider view, and teach what we do know - while acknowledging that we still have a lot to learn about astronomical bodies.

Apropos of the OP, who was interested in the medieval city of Cahokia, I think it's a major gap that it's very existence is nearly unknown to most people, when we've been studying it for decades.

No argument from me. Just look at all the people who say "little is known." Yes it's a shame it isn't more widely taught.

And now the History Channel is mostly just reality TV, it's hard to even learn it from television.

Quote from: jhkim;1079815Apropos of the OP, who was interested in the medieval city of Cahokia, I think it's a major gap that it's very existence is nearly unknown to most people, when we've been studying it for decades.

Re Cahokia, it's the biggest for sure, and impressive. If it's moundbuilders you're after, there are many other sites in the region that might inspire. All smaller, some much older. Also in the SE, where I believe the OP is from.

Quote from: Zirunel;1079820Re Cahokia, it's the biggest for sure, and impressive. If it's moundbuilders you're after, there are many other sites in the region that might inspire. All smaller, some much older. Also in the SE, where I believe the OP is from.

Moundville is one of those sites, near Tuscaloosa, and it's pretty cool.  Even after being forced to go like every school kid in the area.  It was a center of worship and has some neat artifacts.

Quote from: jhkim;1079651Slavery did exist in North America. I know that the Northwest Indians did have a significant slave class which was hereditary. I can't think of anything that I would call genocide. It may have happened - but it certainly wasn't something that routinely occurred throughout the continent.

Some of that used to be taught in NA and local history in my home town and I know some Great Lakes NA folk who still gold grudges against this or that western tribes for things done long ago. Others seemed fairly blase about it. Probably due to the span of time. And yes slavery did happen as some NA tribes were selling slaves to europeans same as some african tribes were. I guess it is one way to really get rid of someone without killing them.

The fascinating thing about so many tribes is the rich political intrigues, diplomacies, and dealings that went on and that we know now only fragments of. That and just how civilized some tribes were while others were not. And how they interacted too. Just in the Great Lakes region alone there was alot going on.

Then add to that the fact that animals back then were vastly more dangerous and it can make for a grand setting to explore. And that isnt even touching on anything supernatural.

Quote from: Zirunel;1079817No argument from me. Just look at all the people who say "little is known." Yes it's a shame it isn't more widely taught.

And now the History Channel is mostly just reality TV, it's hard to even learn it from television.

PBS used to have some really nice historical pieces on various regions back in the 70s. Wish I could remember what they were called.

And I miss the original Discovery Channel as it used to be a great source of all manner of historic, documentive, and scientific shows.

And yeah the History Channel started to change more and more for the worse.

Quote from: Omega;1080141PBS used to have some really nice historical pieces on various regions back in the 70s. Wish I could remember what they were called.

And I miss the original Discovery Channel as it used to be a great source of all manner of historic, documentive, and scientific shows.

And yeah the History Channel started to change more and more for the worse.

Too right. PBS still does the odd thing, joint ventured with NatGeo or the Beeb or both but yeah, pretty slim pickings.

Quote from: Omega;1079968Some of that used to be taught in NA and local history in my home town and I know some Great Lakes NA folk who still gold grudges against this or that western tribes for things done long ago. Others seemed fairly blase about it. Probably due to the span of time. And yes slavery did happen as some NA tribes were selling slaves to europeans same as some african tribes were. I guess it is one way to really get rid of someone without killing them.

The fascinating thing about so many tribes is the rich political intrigues, diplomacies, and dealings that went on and that we know now only fragments of. That and just how civilized some tribes were while others were not. And how they interacted too. Just in the Great Lakes region alone there was alot going on.

Then add to that the fact that animals back then were vastly more dangerous and it can make for a grand setting to explore. And that isnt even touching on anything supernatural.

Cool to hear, Omega.

So, if someone were running a game set in Cahokia, what part would be most interesting to you?  I am now thinking of having a game set in a version of Cahokia with a swashbuckling theme, where the PCs are members of a force of royal guards parallel to musketeers. It would be set around 1200, just as the palisades are being erected and there is growing danger of assault from enemy forces. So there would be some missions out to deal with problems, plus probably some political intrigue in the big city. I think I will have a religious figure parallel to Cardinal Richelieu in opposition to the king and queen, who runs the Chunkey games. And there would be Chunkey matches instead of duels.

Another thing to consider are traditions, customs and especially taboos.

Some tribes had taboos against for example how your shadow fell in things. Others had areas that were avoided because they were home to the "little people". Or a certain way food was cooked. WHO was cooked. (Some tribes did eat fallen foes.) Or even how the dead were handled. Some tribes were really intent on not allowing their dead to fall into enemy hands. Others had special procedures for the dead.

Quote from: jhkim;1080169So, if someone were running a game set in Cahokia, what part would be most interesting to you?

A city based campaign could go about anywhere really. Theres likely to be some political jockying and possibly some religious jockying too. How is the population supported? Farmmands? Trade? If trade. How secure are the trade routes?

Theres also the land itself. How hostile is it? Are there wolves, boar or bears in the area? An organized pack of the larger wolves can be a serious threat. A bear, especially the bigger ones like a grizzly can be devastating if they get on the rampage. Or are all the threats from people, either internal or external?

Depending on how "realistic" you wanted to be, animals maybe pose little threat. Even the Pleistocene megafauna were no match for ordinary humans. Maybe if you were alone and it was a surprise encounter things could get hairy, but otherwise I think you'd have to fantasy it up a bit.

Now if the animal wasn't really an animal, but a transformed shaman with human intelligence, flight, and maybe other magical powers, then that might be a whole 'nother thing.

In fact, if I was interested in a First Nations rpg, I might well go for a bitter rivalry between two shamans as the basic framework to hang the whole thing on, especially at the outset. One shaman from the PCs own village (or city compound/neighbourhood if you are going Cahokia), and the other: more powerful and hostile.

Quote from: Zirunel;1080295Depending on how "realistic" you wanted to be, animals maybe pose little threat. Even the Pleistocene megafauna were no match for ordinary humans. Maybe if you were alone and it was a surprise encounter things could get hairy, but otherwise I think you'd have to fantasy it up a bit.

Your idea of "realistic" is unrealistic.

And we are not talking about hunting game. We are talking about mostly predators as a viable threat that may be the ones doing the hunting. Bows and arrows, or spears may not necessarily stop some of the larger animals on the first, second or even third hit. And considering how fast some can move. One or two may be all you get. And that isnt even getting to pack hunters. Depending on the animal. It is one thing to put an arrow into something that doesnt know you are there. And a very different matter to do that if said beast is bearing down on you chooses to attack when you are unarmed or unprepared. About the same difference as with a person. Except some animals may have natural advantages not the least of which is speed.

Dragon Magazine way back had at least one article on the subject as well.

Quote from: Omega;1080334Your idea of "realistic" is unrealistic.

And we are not talking about hunting game. We are talking about mostly predators as a viable threat that may be the ones doing the hunting. Bows and arrows, or spears may not necessarily stop some of the larger animals on the first, second or even third hit. And considering how fast some can move. One or two may be all you get. And that isnt even getting to pack hunters. Depending on the animal. It is one thing to put an arrow into something that doesnt know you are there. And a very different matter to do that if said beast is bearing down on you chooses to attack when you are unarmed or unprepared. About the same difference as with a person. Except some animals may have natural advantages not the least of which is speed.

Dragon Magazine way back had at least one article on the subject as well.

Dragon Magazine. Okay.

Yes some animals are dangerous. the risks are non-zero. Bears, wolves, cougars, wolverines. People have been attacked and injured, even killed. Polar bears are especially dangerous. But I'll say it again. If you are in even a small party, and you don't take the animal by surprise, you are a) unlikely to be attacked in the first place, and b) more than capable of fending it off until it disengages, or even killing it, especially if you have any implements that extend your reach (not necessarily formal weapons, I have seen shovels used successfully to drive a bear away)

it takes knowledge and skills to actually kill them, but First Nations peoples knew how to handle these animals, and don't forget, all of these animals were actively and eagerly hunted, if not for meat (bears) then for hides, organs, bones, claws, or teeth. So we kind of are talking about hunting game.

Quote from: Omega;1080334Your idea of "realistic" is unrealistic.

And we are not talking about hunting game. We are talking about mostly predators as a viable threat that may be the ones doing the hunting. Bows and arrows, or spears may not necessarily stop some of the larger animals on the first, second or even third hit. And considering how fast some can move. One or two may be all you get. And that isnt even getting to pack hunters. Depending on the animal. It is one thing to put an arrow into something that doesnt know you are there. And a very different matter to do that if said beast is bearing down on you chooses to attack when you are unarmed or unprepared. About the same difference as with a person. Except some animals may have natural advantages not the least of which is speed.

Dragon Magazine way back had at least one article on the subject as well.

Greetings!

I used to have a friend of mine that was an experienced big-game hunter. Every year, he would take a hunting trip to Africa. He explained that unlike the vast majority of animals here in North America, which tend to run away from hunters during a confrontation, he said that animals in Africa are far more aggressive, and extremely dangerous. He further explained that many animals in Africa, for example, Elephant, Rhino, Hippo, Water Buffalo, Lion, Wild Boars, amongst others, when they are shot, instead of fleeing, they customarily charge you, enraged, seeking to kill you and take you out with them, even if they are likely to die. He recounted several stories of such animals trampling, goring, or biting members of the hunting expedition.

I would think that when hunting Pleistocene Mega animals, that they would have a similar aggressive response.

Interestingly, of all animals in the world, in current times, Hippos kill and eat more people than any other animal. I saw figures that said Hippos kill over 1200 people every year. Hippos are known to be absolutely fearless. I also saw a video of a large crocodile approaching a young Wildebeast trying to swim to shore in an African river. The nearby Hippo didn't like it, and was pissed off that the Crocodile was entering the area. The Hippo went all slow at first towards the Crocodile, then rushed the Crocodile in a blur of water, biting the Crocodile and throwing the Crocodile around like a helpless, ragdoll. LOL. The Crocodile was huge, too. The Crocodile never knew what hit him, with the Hippo chomping him like a fucking train! The Hippo stood there, looking at the Wildebeast, who scampered gratefully to the safety of the riverbank.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1080349I would think that when hunting Pleistocene Mega animals, that they would have a similar aggressive response.

Maybe. Certain of them might. And yet humans enthusiastically sought them out and killed them anyway. And without guns, just atlatls and spears.

Humans are real good at this stuff.

African animals co evolved with humans. That is why they are far more dangerous to humans than animals in the rest of the world. Where Humans mostly wiped out the megafauna once they got there.

I would run a fantasy Pleistocene game with aggressive megafauna, but in a true historical North America game they would be literally easy meat.

Quote from: S'mon;1080382African animals co evolved with humans. That is why they are far more dangerous to humans than animals in the rest of the world. Where Humans mostly wiped out the megafauna once they got there.

Yup, yup. That's why some archaeologists and anthropologists have come to term the fauna of Africa as "the living Pleistocene." The animals that evolved with humans to survival were the ones that were aggressive enough to keep us mostly in check. It's almost like off-the-charts aggression was an evolutionary adaptation to our threat level... :o

Quote from: jhkim;1080169Cool to hear, Omega.

So, if someone were running a game set in Cahokia, what part would be most interesting to you?  I am now thinking of having a game set in a version of Cahokia with a swashbuckling theme, where the PCs are members of a force of royal guards parallel to musketeers. It would be set around 1200, just as the palisades are being erected and there is growing danger of assault from enemy forces. So there would be some missions out to deal with problems, plus probably some political intrigue in the big city. I think I will have a religious figure parallel to Cardinal Richelieu in opposition to the king and queen, who runs the Chunkey games. And there would be Chunkey matches instead of duels.

The sources on that culture is full of analyses of human sacrifice, which was apparently done on a rather grand scale, at least sometimes. Would you include this? It would almost seem odd not to mention it.

Quote from: Trond;1080396The sources on that culture is full of analyses of human sacrifice, which was apparently done on a rather grand scale, at least sometimes. Would you include this? It would almost seem odd not to mention it.

I can't answer for jhkim, but if it were me, I certainly would. In fact, I would likely highlight it in some way. Not only is it consistent with evidence, it's also dramatic, and in some cases rather mysterious. Drama and mystery are good things in an rpg.

Quote from: Zirunel;1080398I can't answer for jhkim, but if it were me, I certainly would. In fact, I would likely highlight it in some way. Not only is it consistent with evidence, it's also dramatic, and in some cases rather mysterious. Drama and mystery are good things in an rpg.

And it could also add another good thing that I have found to be very effective in RPGs: horror and dread :)

Quote from: Trond;1080404And it could also add another good thing that I have found to be very effective in RPGs: horror and dread :)

Yeah totally. Unless your group are Tekumel players, in which case performing human sacrifice may just be their day job, what they do at the temple between adventures. Also known as a "long rest."

Quote from: SHARK;1080349Greetings!

I used to have a friend of mine that was an experienced big-game hunter. Every year, he would take a hunting trip to Africa. He explained that unlike the vast majority of animals here in North America, which tend to run away from hunters during a confrontation, he said that animals in Africa are far more aggressive, and extremely dangerous. He further explained that many animals in Africa, for example, Elephant, Rhino, Hippo, Water Buffalo, Lion, Wild Boars, amongst others, when they are shot, instead of fleeing, they customarily charge you, enraged, seeking to kill you and take you out with them, even if they are likely to die. He recounted several stories of such animals trampling, goring, or biting members of the hunting expedition.

I would think that when hunting Pleistocene Mega animals, that they would have a similar aggressive response.

Interestingly, of all animals in the world, in current times, Hippos kill and eat more people than any other animal. I saw figures that said Hippos kill over 1200 people every year. Hippos are known to be absolutely fearless. I also saw a video of a large crocodile approaching a young Wildebeast trying to swim to shore in an African river. The nearby Hippo didn't like it, and was pissed off that the Crocodile was entering the area. The Hippo went all slow at first towards the Crocodile, then rushed the Crocodile in a blur of water, biting the Crocodile and throwing the Crocodile around like a helpless, ragdoll. LOL. The Crocodile was huge, too. The Crocodile never knew what hit him, with the Hippo chomping him like a fucking train! The Hippo stood there, looking at the Wildebeast, who scampered gratefully to the safety of the riverbank.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

There was an African lion hunt video where a group of several men, professional hunters and native guides armed with rifles, wounded a lion and were trailing it, only to come upon their own tracks...the lion was hunting them.  Eventually cornering it, it charged, wounded, and every man fired, missing, except the one guy the lion charged, who got a lucky shot off.  The lion dropped dead a foot away from the guy like something out of a movie.

Sure, a group of Zulu hunters, with spears, possibly would have been in less danger, but the speed and strength of an enraged animal cannot be understated.

We know, generally speaking, man wins through intelligence, what we don't know is how many got maimed or killed in the process.  There's a reason for using a Buffalo Jump instead of a spear formation. :D

Quote from: jhkimSo, if someone were running a game set in Cahokia, what part would be most interesting to you?

Quote from: Omega;1080262A city based campaign could go about anywhere really. Theres likely to be some political jockying and possibly some religious jockying too. How is the population supported? Farmmands? Trade? If trade. How secure are the trade routes?

Theres also the land itself. How hostile is it? Are there wolves, boar or bears in the area? An organized pack of the larger wolves can be a serious threat. A bear, especially the bigger ones like a grizzly can be devastating if they get on the rampage. Or are all the threats from people, either internal or external?

From what I understand, the population is supported by surrounding farmlands growing corn - supplemented by fishing, hunting, berry-picking, etc.  Still, there would also be a trade network - particularly along the Mississippi. In the time period I'm thinking of, though, there were palisades being built around Cahokia - so it was apparently threatened by large-scale warfare or at least raids.

So I'd have a threatening enemy country - probably with religious differences - on the borders. I'm thinking trade down south, and threatening Northmen of some sort - likened to vikings, since they have a less urban culture and are probably raiding on the fringes of the city-state's territory.

I'd keep odd animal encounters in mind for occasional spice - but usually I find human enemies are more interesting than the local animals (bears and wildcats) unless we go into fantasy. There could be a killer bear scenario with supernatural overtones, like werewolf stories. Also, that could be like "Brotherhood of the Wolf" and maybe its a person driving or imitating a bear.

Quote from: Trond;1080396The sources on that culture is full of analyses of human sacrifice, which was apparently done on a rather grand scale, at least sometimes. Would you include this? It would almost seem odd not to mention it.

Yes, there seems to have been a mass sacrifice done upon the death of a king, with coordinated burial. The changing over of a king to a new king might be something to have happen at the start of the campaign. I like the idea of a young new king and queen, with an older scheming religious advisor (i.e. the Richelieu figure). Having a huge burial ceremony with sacrifices might help connect the game to archeology, which sounds like a good connection to emphasize at the start.

Of course it would have to be fictionalized since anthropologists don't know the true significance - but I'd probably make it similar to what was done by Chinese emperors, giving them a bunch of servants in the afterlife via burial.

Outside of the campaign-starting incident, though, I don't think sacrifice will come up. Cahokia wasn't like Aztecs and their constant raids and sacrifices. The victims weren't even outsiders - they were locals, though possibly peasants or slaves - which would fit with the Chinese emperor model.

Quote from: jhkim;1080869Yes, there seems to have been a mass sacrifice done upon the death of a king, with coordinated burial. The changing over of a king to a new king might be something to have happen at the start of the campaign. I like the idea of a young new king and queen, with an older scheming religious advisor (i.e. the Richelieu figure). Having a huge burial ceremony with sacrifices might help connect the game to archeology, which sounds like a good connection to emphasize at the start.

Of course it would have to be fictionalized since anthropologists don't know the true significance - but I'd probably make it similar to what was done by Chinese emperors, giving them a bunch of servants in the afterlife via burial.

Outside of the campaign-starting incident, though, I don't think sacrifice will come up. Cahokia wasn't like Aztecs and their constant raids and sacrifices. The victims weren't even outsiders - they were locals, though possibly peasants or slaves - which would fit with the Chinese emperor model.

Cool. Given what appears to be different residential "wards," especially outside the palisade, and the hints of genetically or ethnically diverse population, I'd be tempted to make Cahokia a diverse and maybe factionalized city (e.g. most inhabitants may be "locals" in the sense of being long-term residents, but need not all be of ethnically local descent), but yeah, Cahokia is so unique there are a lot of ways to run with it.

Quote from: jhkim;1080869Yes, there seems to have been a mass sacrifice done upon the death of a king, with coordinated burial. The changing over of a king to a new king might be something to have happen at the start of the campaign. I like the idea of a young new king and queen, with an older scheming religious advisor (i.e. the Richelieu figure). Having a huge burial ceremony with sacrifices might help connect the game to archeology, which sounds like a good connection to emphasize at the start.

GM: "OK folks, the king is dead, and his family has put YOU in charge of finding the most beautiful virgins to sacrifice and follow him in the afterlife. This is a great honor, how do you go about this task?"

Players:  :eek:  :eek:   :eek:

Quote from: Trond;1081027GM: "OK folks, the king is dead, and his family has put YOU in charge of finding the most beautiful virgins to sacrifice and follow him in the afterlife. This is a great honor, how do you go about this task?"

Players:  :eek:  :eek:   :eek:

Yeah, I expect that would go over about as well as being called on to be medieval European torturers.

Some historically accurate details don't go over well with most players. It's one thing to establish that elements like slavery, torture, and sacrifice exist in the setting - it's another to have the player characters recruited to being an active part of them. Personally, I've had PCs with some historical attitudes - like my Agrikan priest in Harn who was enthusiastic about ritual torture - but that is very rare among players in my experience.

So I would keep things like that in the background. We establish that it exists, but it's not detailed in play.

Quote from: jhkim;1081102Yeah, I expect that would go over about as well as being called on to be medieval European torturers.

Is not that a job upgrade in the original Warhammer FRP? :cool: