Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2023, 01:03:50 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 02, 2023, 07:18:23 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 02, 2023, 07:11:46 PM
I'm actually more curious as to how he handles the human sacrifice.  Considering how integral it was to Incan religion and culture, it must be hard to present it in a way that stays true to the culture, but also fits modern sensibilities...

This is why MY Mayan inspired High Fantasy game isn't "Historically Accurate". So I don't really care about staying true to the culture of my ancestors, real history or anything.

Likewise, my current campaign is high fantasy, and is roughly as accurate to the historical Incan Empire as D&D is to historical Europe. I have elves, dwarves, and dragonborn running around with wizards composing spells on quipu, etc. It's clear that it isn't historically accurate.

I've run some near-historical campaigns in the past (often with some supernatural elements), but I've generally avoided subjects of rape, slavery, and human sacrifice in games. For example, I had a viking alternate history game where human sacrifice would have been plausible given historical practice - but it didn't seem like it would be fun for the players. So I didn't include it.

Only the bad guys do those things, I always fade to black sex and rape would be implied never shown (described) if the table is an adult one. Slavery and Human sacrifice are also often included as something the bad guys do but never really described in full.

The players WANT TO be the heroes (unless you're playing bad guys or murderhobbos), and to be a hero means there must be villains, and villains have to be Evil.

But to each his own, that's just how I do things.

Quote from: jhkim on January 30, 2023, 06:26:04 PM
In my game last night, I conclude that I messed up by my own standards. When going into the vampire's ruined lair, I included a banshee. It was reskinned to relate to an Incan myth, but a player commented that the banshee broke his sense of culture since he felt concept was too tied into Irish myth. In retrospect, I agree with him.

Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2023, 01:03:50 AM
Likewise, my current campaign is high fantasy, and is roughly as accurate to the historical Incan Empire as D&D is to historical Europe. I have elves, dwarves, and dragonborn running around with wizards composing spells on quipu, etc. It's clear that it isn't historically accurate.

What?  So your player can handle elves, dwarves, dragonborn, but banshees are a bridge too far?  Are you playing with the princess from "the Princess and the Pea"?  This does not compute.  Either you are striving for an Incan flavor, or you're not.  The idea that an elf is culturally appropriate for an Incan adventure, but human sacrifice isn't, uses a definition of "culture" that isn't normal to the English language.  Sounds more like Coyote and Crow garbage, where the people who wrote it want some fantasy projection where the culture they are aping is nothing like the actual culture as it existed.  It sounds more like Incan black-face than Incan "culture"...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 03, 2023, 05:55:30 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 30, 2023, 06:26:04 PM
In my game last night, I conclude that I messed up by my own standards. When going into the vampire's ruined lair, I included a banshee. It was reskinned to relate to an Incan myth, but a player commented that the banshee broke his sense of culture since he felt concept was too tied into Irish myth. In retrospect, I agree with him.

Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2023, 01:03:50 AM
Likewise, my current campaign is high fantasy, and is roughly as accurate to the historical Incan Empire as D&D is to historical Europe. I have elves, dwarves, and dragonborn running around with wizards composing spells on quipu, etc. It's clear that it isn't historically accurate.

What?  So your player can handle elves, dwarves, dragonborn, but banshees are a bridge too far?  Are you playing with the princess from "the Princess and the Pea"?  This does not compute.  Either you are striving for an Incan flavor, or you're not.  The idea that an elf is culturally appropriate for an Incan adventure, but human sacrifice isn't, uses a definition of "culture" that isn't normal to the English language.  Sounds more like Coyote and Crow garbage, where the people who wrote it want some fantasy projection where the culture they are aping is nothing like the actual culture as it existed.  It sounds more like Incan black-face than Incan "culture"...

I disagree that there is a binary either fully-flavored or not-at-all. European-based high fantasy like Tolkien and D&D are very far from historical Europe, but there are still additions that some people feel are opposed to the cultural flavor. For example, few people complain that D&D druids don't engage in human sacrifice, despite that being historical fact for real-world Europe. On the other hand, some people say that the monk doesn't fit in with the other classes, or that the Tabaxi and other supplemental races don't fit.

Tolkien isn't falsely aping Anglo-Saxon culture. He's deliberately created a fantasy that reflects some parts of Anglo-Saxon culture, but not all.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 03, 2023, 01:58:36 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2023, 01:03:50 AM
I've run some near-historical campaigns in the past (often with some supernatural elements), but I've generally avoided subjects of rape, slavery, and human sacrifice in games. For example, I had a viking alternate history game where human sacrifice would have been plausible given historical practice - but it didn't seem like it would be fun for the players. So I didn't include it.

Only the bad guys do those things, I always fade to black sex and rape would be implied never shown (described) if the table is an adult one. Slavery and Human sacrifice are also often included as something the bad guys do but never really described in full.

The players WANT TO be the heroes (unless you're playing bad guys or murderhobbos), and to be a hero means there must be villains, and villains have to be Evil.

Whoops. I misspoke there. I do have villains and monsters engage in human sacrifice. I meant on the PCs side. i.e. I've run a number of games where the PCs are vikings, but I don't have their side engage in human sacrifice even though that was something historical vikings did.

Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2023, 06:56:26 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 03, 2023, 05:55:30 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 30, 2023, 06:26:04 PM
In my game last night, I conclude that I messed up by my own standards. When going into the vampire's ruined lair, I included a banshee. It was reskinned to relate to an Incan myth, but a player commented that the banshee broke his sense of culture since he felt concept was too tied into Irish myth. In retrospect, I agree with him.

Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2023, 01:03:50 AM
Likewise, my current campaign is high fantasy, and is roughly as accurate to the historical Incan Empire as D&D is to historical Europe. I have elves, dwarves, and dragonborn running around with wizards composing spells on quipu, etc. It's clear that it isn't historically accurate.

What?  So your player can handle elves, dwarves, dragonborn, but banshees are a bridge too far?  Are you playing with the princess from "the Princess and the Pea"?  This does not compute.  Either you are striving for an Incan flavor, or you're not.  The idea that an elf is culturally appropriate for an Incan adventure, but human sacrifice isn't, uses a definition of "culture" that isn't normal to the English language.  Sounds more like Coyote and Crow garbage, where the people who wrote it want some fantasy projection where the culture they are aping is nothing like the actual culture as it existed.  It sounds more like Incan black-face than Incan "culture"...

I disagree that there is a binary either fully-flavored or not-at-all. European-based high fantasy like Tolkien and D&D are very far from historical Europe, but there are still additions that some people feel are opposed to the cultural flavor. For example, few people complain that D&D druids don't engage in human sacrifice, despite that being historical fact for real-world Europe. On the other hand, some people say that the monk doesn't fit in with the other classes, or that the Tabaxi and other supplemental races don't fit.

Tolkien isn't falsely aping Anglo-Saxon culture. He's deliberately created a fantasy that reflects some parts of Anglo-Saxon culture, but not all.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 03, 2023, 01:58:36 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2023, 01:03:50 AM
I've run some near-historical campaigns in the past (often with some supernatural elements), but I've generally avoided subjects of rape, slavery, and human sacrifice in games. For example, I had a viking alternate history game where human sacrifice would have been plausible given historical practice - but it didn't seem like it would be fun for the players. So I didn't include it.

Only the bad guys do those things, I always fade to black sex and rape would be implied never shown (described) if the table is an adult one. Slavery and Human sacrifice are also often included as something the bad guys do but never really described in full.

The players WANT TO be the heroes (unless you're playing bad guys or murderhobbos), and to be a hero means there must be villains, and villains have to be Evil.

Whoops. I misspoke there. I do have villains and monsters engage in human sacrifice. I meant on the PCs side. i.e. I've run a number of games where the PCs are vikings, but I don't have their side engage in human sacrifice even though that was something historical vikings did.

Vikings fuck yeah! Although that's an ocupation and not a race, nationality or ethnicity, but we do understand what we mean.

Feathered serpent riding vikings double fuck yeah. Triple if they also use their feathered serpents to pull their longships.

The Mummy is not an 'Egyptian Monster' - it's a European/American monster representing the colonialist tomb robber's fear of the tombs they're looting. This trope works equally well in any other setting where there are tomb robber PCs. You see very similar in Norse tales of ancient tombs, inspiring Skyrim's Draugr.

Quote from: S'mon on February 04, 2023, 05:26:25 AM
The Mummy is not an 'Egyptian Monster' - it's a European/American monster representing the colonialist tomb robber's fear of the tombs they're looting. This trope works equally well in any other setting where there are tomb robber PCs. You see very similar in Norse tales of ancient tombs, inspiring Skyrim's Draugr.

I agree about the origin. But a mummy is still intended to have Egyptian feel. If one were to use a D&D mummy or mummy lord for a Norse tomb, there could be problems in fit. Attacking with rotting fists would seem odd given that Norse nobles were buried with their weaponry, as would the sandstorm ability of a mummy lord.