Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Differences of thought can be good when you need to come up with solutions to problems. Then you have a higher chance of finding a solution if not everyone has the same view on things. Here the important part is that people have different views and life experiences so they actually view things from different angles. You are more likely to have these differences in view and thought if you have a group with diverse background, not all one sex and also differences in age and sexuality. But it isn't a guarantee. A group of 20 people that are all upper class and went to the same university and studied the same thing and now are hired at the same company can look very diverse on the outside but actually be much less different on the inside when it comes to thought than a group of what at a first glance just looks like 20 straight white dudes. If those guys were from different countries and they were anything between dirt poor and rich and had various different jobs before ending up at the same company they might only look alike but be very different in where it matters for the creative aspect of the job.

But outside of that differences are mostly neutral at best and can often be a negative. When all you need is cohesion and not creative thought then differences usually just divides people. Especially when it comes to culture. Most people can and do come to accept or ignore things as different skin color, gender or sexuality so it isn't a problem in society. But it is much harder if there are vastly different cultures. Like most workplaces aren't really multicultural even if there are a lot of different cultures presented among the people working there. It is usually just one work culture that everyone follows. It wouldn't really work if the southern europeans came to work at 9. Took a couple of hours break at the middle of the day and then worked in the evening while the north europeans show up at 7 or 8 and went home when the others came back to work. Or some just refuses to show up without using their vacation days cause they have a special holiday in their home country. Or some people smoke indoors cause that is what they grew up with. Not to mention more political topics on how different cultures may view minorities and such or just actual politics. Open authoritarian communists and fascists might not get a long well in the workplace with anyone. The more alike people are the easier it usually is to keep things going. White flight and willingness to pay taxes for social programs for example show that diversity isn't really helping a population stay together.

We shouldn't exclude people just because they might be different than us but the motto "diversity is our strength" is total bs and isn't really true anywhere in the world and the opposite is more what the reality is like. We should take pride though in that we as humans in the west have come far enough that we can work around the problems with diversity and accept others. Everyone is an individual after all and should be treated as such. We should be careful so we dont look too much at what groups or identity people have that we end up going too far and get more divided by focusing in on it. If the differences matters we give it weight and it can divide. If we don't care about those differences, in a negative or positive way, then those differences cant be used to divide us.

Some work ofc needs to be done to help minorities and groups that have had various kinds of oppression against them but as soon as they are starting to get solved and are getting accepted we need to tone it down and let it go. There are a lot of people that dont want the things to be "solved" since their identity or living hinges on there being an injustice they can work to fix. Like some of the race hoaxes in the US (just look at Jussie smolett and the BLM funders). They want to keep us divided to use it for their own goals.

For fantasy games and models, diversity can also open up new myths and legends to mine.

Not calling anyone out here, but genuinely how many of us can name 6 mythical creatures from Africa? Or non-deity mythical creatures from the Indian Sub-continent?

Understandably in the west, we have a good understanding of European Myths. And that’s reflected in the geek games (Vampires, Werewolves, Fae etc). But other than Ancient Egypt (Mummies, and even then that’s a 1900’s type mythos from movies)? It’s…basically Japanese stuff like Kitsune, thanks to how well anime was received in the West.

There are many, many other cultural mythos to be mined for inspiration.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
For fantasy games and models, diversity can also open up new myths and legends to mine.

Not calling anyone out here, but genuinely how many of us can name 6 mythical creatures from Africa? Or non-deity mythical creatures from the Indian Sub-continent?

Understandably in the west, we have a good understanding of European Myths. And that’s reflected in the geek games (Vampires, Werewolves, Fae etc). But other than Ancient Egypt (Mummies, and even then that’s a 1900’s type mythos from movies)? It’s…basically Japanese stuff like Kitsune, thanks to how well anime was received in the West.

There are many, many other cultural mythos to be mined for inspiration.

For sure. In creativity aspects I think its a good idea with more diversity. So much more interesting myths and legends that could be taken for inspiration. But I think it is still important to clarify we need those thoughts and ideas, not necessarily people from those areas. Someone born there but haven't engaged with it isn't more likely to help diversifying in this aspect than someone not from there but who got interested and traveled there to learn more.

I am reading mostly Japanese, Korean or Chinese fantasy stuff the last few years just because how different they are from modern western media in almost all aspects. Wouldn't mind have a wealth of novels available from other parts of the world in the fantasy genre that in turn is as different but in another direction.

I’d disagree that having a Creative of those countries/cultures isn’t a boon.

Whilst far from a buff, being a Scot, I’m going to have more of a passing knowledge of Scottish Folklore than someone born and raised in England, provided neither of us have formally studied it, or made a particular effort to delve into it.

So yes, you’re right. You don’t need someone from Nigeria to translate Nigerian folklore into Your Thing.

But, I would argue (sadly without evidence) that a Nigerian Creative, having grown up with that folklore as part of their cultural background may have interesting and unique takes on how to translate it.

That Fantasy and SciFi is kind of lacking in non-Western folklore is kind of evidence for that. Well I say evidence. Let’s be honest Anecdote is probably the correct term for it.

I’d love to learn more about lesser known folklore from anywhere. I’m utterly indiscriminate when I’m indulging in my Fortean Passions. But the fact remains the lesser known is predominantly non-European.

For clarity, this isn’t an attempt to paint anyone as racist here. It is what it is, and I’m not ascribing motive to it.

Someone who grew up in it and is interested/knowledgeable about the subject is probably preferable to someone who is from outside the culture but have otherwise the same interest/knowledge since they should understand more of the nuances and their importance just from being steeped in to it. More likely but not a guarantee since sometimes being in a culture makes you blind to some of its particularities that an outsider might be able to more easily notice and describe,

I am just saying that someone born in the culture isn't necessarily better than someone not born in it just based on birth place. Many other factors are more important but if all the others are close to equal than the place of birth(or more like place of growing up) can matter and be the deciding factor. But even then it is a huge difference if they grew up in a more traditional family that actually shared those stories or if they instead grew up in an upper class family/culture/area that instead focused on trying to be more western and "successful" in that way and thus had forsaken parts of their own culture on the way. Then that person might not be more capable than someone from an entirely different culture.

It can matter and it can not. We should be careful to put too much thought in to some of these characteristics since assuming stuff depending on them is an easy way to stop treating people as individuals and instead like groups or stereotypes.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’d disagree that having a Creative of those countries/cultures isn’t a boon.

Whilst far from a buff, being a Scot, I’m going to have more of a passing knowledge of Scottish Folklore than someone born and raised in England, provided neither of us have formally studied it, or made a particular effort to delve into it.

So yes, you’re right. You don’t need someone from Nigeria to translate Nigerian folklore into Your Thing.

But, I would argue (sadly without evidence) that a Nigerian Creative, having grown up with that folklore as part of their cultural background may have interesting and unique takes on how to translate it.

That Fantasy and SciFi is kind of lacking in non-Western folklore is kind of evidence for that. Well I say evidence. Let’s be honest Anecdote is probably the correct term for it.

I’d love to learn more about lesser known folklore from anywhere. I’m utterly indiscriminate when I’m indulging in my Fortean Passions. But the fact remains the lesser known is predominantly non-European.

For clarity, this isn’t an attempt to paint anyone as racist here. It is what it is, and I’m not ascribing motive to it.

Its interesting that you bring up non-European folklore. One of the big appeals to me when reading a lot of fantasy and science fiction is recognizing the familiar tropes from folklore I've grown up with. I'm quite familiar with Scottish, Greek, Roman and Egyptian folklore and I have often found myself missing that familiarity when I've read something drawing on a different mythical source.

Anansi Boys by Neil Gaiman and The Burning City by Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle come to mind mind discussing non-European folklore in modern fantasy as the only ones I've gotten along well with, and both have a decidedly Western bent.

It is a bit harder at first but if you read enough about it and perhaps also do some wiki reading about certain topics you will after a while become familiar with it as well.

I missed a lot of hints and apparently obvious troupes the first time I read wuxia/xianxia novels. (chinese martial art fantasy)
I didn't understand motivations, humor or culturally significant things but after having read enough the things slowly just becomes a part of your knowledge and you don't even need to think about why anymore, you just know it. But it could easily turn someone off from the entire thing. I was luckily bored with western fantasy at the time and even though I didn't have a good grasp about things it was still intriguing enough for me to continue.

I can now read wuxia novels that subvert troupes and stereotypes without getting lost since I recognize them all and understand why it is funny or clever. My favorite novel is that way and if I had started my journey with it I would have thought it was complete trash without having learned the myths and culture. Having read japanese and korean manga/novels before did help a bit though since a lot of their culture and mythology has roots in the chinese counterpart so some of it you can get for free that way.

True, it would be great if things didn't have to be made up. I liken this latest discussion akin to the origins lore of the Dark Angels.

On one hand I'd love to other less represented cultures, but not if it means they're going to be misrepresented somehow.

 Adeptekon wrote:
True, it would be great if things didn't have to be made up. I liken this latest discussion akin to the origins lore of the Dark Angels.

On one hand I'd love to other less represented cultures, but not if it means they're going to be misrepresented somehow.

Like how Space Wolves pretty badly misrepresents "Viking" culture?

Oh, yes, Caucasian cultures also get misrepresented in games. Anyone remember the recent manufactured outrage over Oriental Adventures for D&D? It was all stereotypes and distortion of medieval Oriental culture? Does anyone think the base game was an accurate representation of medieval European culture? Of course not! It was played with and altered and generally distorted... for more dramatic gameplay. Just like Oriental Adventures did for far Eastern cultures.

That's what fantasy gaming IS. It may draw inspiration from reality, but it is NOT reality and should not be mistaken for such.

But when you get that sort of manufactured outrage when a game company TRIES to include elements of a different, rarely explored culture, you actively discourage OTHERS from including different, rarely explored cultures.

In other words, if you want more inclusion, you've got to play fair with those who actually try to do it.

Hands up who argued any of that?

Anyone?

No?

Dust.

Dust?

No?

Anyone?

No?

Anyone?

Dust.

It’s a valid point of course. And indeed amply demonstrates, and supports my argument.

As someone born and raised in the U.K., and a Nerd, I have a surface level of knowledge of Norse Mythology.

I can name various Norse Gods, just as I can name various Greek Gods. I can even roughly describe certain of the associated myths. But not because I’ve ever studied or particularly read up on them. Rather, it’s more Cultural Osmosis. Clash of the Titans, Jason and the Argonauts, Gladiator, Spartacus (TV Series), Vikings, Thor etc etc.

All sources, however fast and loose, which at least expose me to historical pantheons and give me something to key to. Stargate SG1 did something for non-western pantheons, but outside of Lord Yu they were pretty much one and done cameos.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Hands up who argued any of that?

Anyone?

No?

Dust.

Dust?

No?

Anyone?

No?

Anyone?

Dust.

It’s a valid point of course. And indeed amply demonstrates, and supports my argument.

As someone born and raised in the U.K., and a Nerd, I have a surface level of knowledge of Norse Mythology.

I can name various Norse Gods, just as I can name various Greek Gods. I can even roughly describe certain of the associated myths. But not because I’ve ever studied or particularly read up on them. Rather, it’s more Cultural Osmosis. Clash of the Titans, Jason and the Argonauts, Gladiator, Spartacus (TV Series), Vikings, Thor etc etc.

All sources, however fast and loose, which at least expose me to historical pantheons and give me something to key to. Stargate SG1 did something for non-western pantheons, but outside of Lord Yu they were pretty much one and done cameos.

Maybe try to focus less on being melodramatic looking for straw men that don’t exist and more on points being made.

Adeptekon stated that more representation of different cultures in 40k would be a good thing but not if they were “misrepresented.” Adeptekon also alluded to the Deathwing origin story that incorporated Native American/indefinite people’s culture into the iconography and color scheme of the Deathwing and how some objected to how it wasn’t an accurate depiction of any actual indigenous culture.

Vulcan responded by making the point that none of the setting is an accurate depiction of any real life culture. It’s all fictional, none of it is real nobody is supposed to believe it’s real. Space Wolves aren an accurate portrayal of Norse culture. In WFB Kislev wasn’t an accurate depiction of Poland or Rus or Mongolia. Ghazghkull isn’t an accurate depiction of the Thatcher government. GW makes fictitious games containing plenty of parody and satire but none of it is real nor should it be taken as such. If people want GW games to have more diversity in its models, factions, etc then good faith efforts made by GW (or any other game company) should be welcomed and not held to accuracy standards that shouldn’t be applied. 40k, AOS and the rest aren’t historical games it’s all make believe.

 Vulcan wrote:
Anyone remember the recent manufactured outrage over Oriental Adventures for D&D?

But when you get that sort of manufactured outrage when a game company TRIES to include elements of a different, rarely explored culture, you actively discourage OTHERS from including different, rarely explored cultures.

You, uh, used the term "manufactured outrage" twice there, which is at least once too many, probably twice.

I actually didn't remember the controversy, but a little bit of digging seems to be that Daniel Kwan, a games designer and diversity consultant, objected to WOTC selling the pdf of the original 1980s Oriental Adventures. His comment "Assuming positive intent, Oriental Adventures and similar products aren’t written with racist or malicious intent, but rather through the misguided appreciation of cultural tropes,” Kwan says. “The resulting content lacks nuance, context, and can be harmful when used to create an ‘other’ in a product that was originally designed to serve as an escapist fantasy for white people.” He later said that he didn't want the book banned, just felt that continuing to sell it unannotated was inappropriate.

So, yes, there are people who think selling (checks notes) 30+ year old source books written with all of the sophistication you'd expect from the mid 80s is cringey. And they (checks notes again) made a nuanced and rational argument.

Oh no!

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Hands up who argued any of that?

Anyone?

No?

Dust.

Dust?

No?

Anyone?

No?

Anyone?

Dust.

It’s a valid point of course. And indeed amply demonstrates, and supports my argument.

As someone born and raised in the U.K., and a Nerd, I have a surface level of knowledge of Norse Mythology.

I can name various Norse Gods, just as I can name various Greek Gods. I can even roughly describe certain of the associated myths. But not because I’ve ever studied or particularly read up on them. Rather, it’s more Cultural Osmosis. Clash of the Titans, Jason and the Argonauts, Gladiator, Spartacus (TV Series), Vikings, Thor etc etc.

All sources, however fast and loose, which at least expose me to historical pantheons and give me something to key to. Stargate SG1 did something for non-western pantheons, but outside of Lord Yu they were pretty much one and done cameos.

Maybe try to focus less on being melodramatic looking for straw men that don’t exist and more on points being made.

Adeptekon stated that more representation of different cultures in 40k would be a good thing but not if they were “misrepresented.” Adeptekon also alluded to the Deathwing origin story that incorporated Native American/indefinite people’s culture into the iconography and color scheme of the Deathwing and how some objected to how it wasn’t an accurate depiction of any actual indigenous culture.

Vulcan responded by making the point that none of the setting is an accurate depiction of any real life culture. It’s all fictional, none of it is real nobody is supposed to believe it’s real. Space Wolves aren an accurate portrayal of Norse culture. In WFB Kislev wasn’t an accurate depiction of Poland or Rus or Mongolia. Ghazghkull isn’t an accurate depiction of the Thatcher government. GW makes fictitious games containing plenty of parody and satire but none of it is real nor should it be taken as such. If people want GW games to have more diversity in its models, factions, etc then good faith efforts made by GW (or any other game company) should be welcomed and not held to accuracy standards that shouldn’t be applied. 40k, AOS and the rest aren’t historical games it’s all make believe.

You make good points.

But I’ll counter with “one man’s satire is another man’s racism”.

No. I’m not going to define, or even attempt to define where such borders may or may not exist. Outside of my own life and life experiences. Which so far haven’t been touched upon, so let’s not let that detain us further.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Vulcan responded by making the point that none of the setting is an accurate depiction of any real life culture. It’s all fictional, none of it is real nobody is supposed to believe it’s real. Space Wolves aren an accurate portrayal of Norse culture. In WFB Kislev wasn’t an accurate depiction of Poland or Rus or Mongolia. Ghazghkull isn’t an accurate depiction of the Thatcher government. GW makes fictitious games containing plenty of parody and satire but none of it is real nor should it be taken as such. If people want GW games to have more diversity in its models, factions, etc then good faith efforts made by GW (or any other game company) should be welcomed and not held to accuracy standards that shouldn’t be applied. 40k, AOS and the rest aren’t historical games it’s all make believe.

Well.... it's telling when some of the cultures are a little more accurate than others, though, right?

The ultramarines use of greco-roman themes is pretty consistnet and accurate, with legit roman numerals being used. They're also literally the guys on the poster, their territory is widely known as the best place to live, and

The Space Wolves viking/nordic elements are pretty rich, in that Fenris could more or less pass for a nordic myth. The Space Wolves themselves obviously are not a carbon copy of their homeworld, but their names and stories indicate a pretty solid understanding of nordic culture.

White scars... have moustaches, ride horses/bikes, and call their captains "khan." So, a little less in depth there. I will say the modern Khan is a more interesting model

Deathwing literally just had some feathers. That's about it.

On the flip side, Salamanders have black skin (for reasons) but their culture is not terribly based on any one historical culture.

Blood Angels have a vampiric curse that they actively work against, and their culture is not really classic eastern european. they're just space dudes that have a blood cult that sometimes results in becoming a vampire.

When it's really clear that some cultural inspirations are based on deeper and more involved study, and others are based on stereotypes or superficial facts, you can kind of pick that apart.

As a Catholic I'm offended by the ecclesiarchy and the black templars

 Polonius wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Vulcan responded by making the point that none of the setting is an accurate depiction of any real life culture. It’s all fictional, none of it is real nobody is supposed to believe it’s real. Space Wolves aren an accurate portrayal of Norse culture. In WFB Kislev wasn’t an accurate depiction of Poland or Rus or Mongolia. Ghazghkull isn’t an accurate depiction of the Thatcher government. GW makes fictitious games containing plenty of parody and satire but none of it is real nor should it be taken as such. If people want GW games to have more diversity in its models, factions, etc then good faith efforts made by GW (or any other game company) should be welcomed and not held to accuracy standards that shouldn’t be applied. 40k, AOS and the rest aren’t historical games it’s all make believe.

Well.... it's telling when some of the cultures are a little more accurate than others, though, right?

The ultramarines use of greco-roman themes is pretty consistnet and accurate, with legit roman numerals being used. They're also literally the guys on the poster, their territory is widely known as the best place to live, and

The Space Wolves viking/nordic elements are pretty rich, in that Fenris could more or less pass for a nordic myth. The Space Wolves themselves obviously are not a carbon copy of their homeworld, but their names and stories indicate a pretty solid understanding of nordic culture.

White scars... have moustaches, ride horses/bikes, and call their captains "khan." So, a little less in depth there. I will say the modern Khan is a more interesting model

Deathwing literally just had some feathers. That's about it.

On the flip side, Salamanders have black skin (for reasons) but their culture is not terribly based on any one historical culture.

Blood Angels have a vampiric curse that they actively work against, and their culture is not really classic eastern european. they're just space dudes that have a blood cult that sometimes results in becoming a vampire.

When it's really clear that some cultural inspirations are based on deeper and more involved study, and others are based on stereotypes or superficial facts, you can kind of pick that apart.

Blood Angels are 'Interview with a Vampire' emo vampires.

Deathwing actually had a lot more background, including cultural stuff, holy symbols etc., much has been stripped / not repeated over the years, probably out of (imho misplaced) sensibilities - 'a bunch of feathers' is all that remains, but there has been more.

As for the Greco-Roman fetishism: that's something that comes more or less naturally to people that graduated from the british school system before ca. the 1990s - the british system had a huge hard-on for Rome and Ancient Greece, and only dropped compulsory education in Latin&Greek in favour of modern secondary languages in the 1980s. Tests in Latin&Greek were an entry requirement for many university degrees until the mid-1960s, when that started to gradually change.

It seems like a pretty straightforward case of:

“I can write a slur about my people, and Those Other people can write a slur about themselves. So, when I write a slur about Those Other people, how am I suddenly the bad guy?”

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It seems like a pretty straightforward case of:

“I can write a slur about my people, and Those Other people can write a slur about themselves. So, when I write a slur about Those Other people, how am I suddenly the bad guy?”

It get's a bit more complicated once it becomes a corporation making jokes about people - if you want to avoid all possibility for controversy and all possible controversies little opportunity for satire remains, and what remains possible quickly becomes stale and formulaic. Ultimately, it's best (again, for a 'faceless corporation' type of actor, not necessary for individual, identifiable artists) to refrain from it in general and pursue other avenues of comedy.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But I’ll counter with “one man’s satire is another man’s racism”.

Francois Truffeut allegedly said that “There’s no such thing as an anti-war film.” Essentially, that no matter how one tries to show that war is terrible, some people will watch it and decide that it looks fun.

The same can be said of a lot of racial satire. Some people watched "all in the family" and related to Archie, in the same way they laughed along with the racist townfolk in Blazing Saddles. There is actually research (well, Malcolm Gladwell said there was research, so who knows) that even when people are the target of the satire, rather than change their behavior, they can laugh and move on.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It seems like a pretty straightforward case of:

“I can write a slur about my people, and Those Other people can write a slur about themselves. So, when I write a slur about Those Other people, how am I suddenly the bad guy?”

I think that, broadly speaking, people can play with stereotypes of groups they belong to because the context is usually much more positive. Every group has a pretty rich history of self satire, and most groups makes jokes about themselves that they would often be offended by if an outsider made. And this goes beyond race or even religion. Think of your career, or even your hobby. I have a buddy who posts his painted warhammer stuff on facebook with a joke about "virginity confirmed." However, it would be pretty offensive if somebody who didn't play Warhammer said "that's only for virgins."

Likewise, a movie like Friday, if written and directed by people who were not black, would be scrutinized for it's portrayal of drug use and crime in a way that it's not since it's based on the writers experience. If Curb your enthusiasm was warped just a tiny bit, it could read as deeply antisemetic. So, context matters!

Laughing Man wrote:

Voss wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
A society isn't past its diversity issues until it normalizes seeking diversity not because it is good but because it is better. Which is to say, rather than seeking diversity because it is the 'right thing to do' society would be seeking diversity because diverse groups are more effective.

Put differently, people need to transition from seeing their differences as flaws to seeing their differences as assets.

I'd argue that thinking of 'differences as assets' is part of the problem, that the differences are a commodity that lead to an advantage or disadvantage. I'd rather than people think of differences as unimportant, at the same level as wearing a grey shirt or having a buffalo wings rather than honey glazed. Unremarkable and unimportant, and so not something kick people down for.

Which would be good, except there's a very large portion of society that DOES see differences as a thing to kick people for. Recognizing differences not only helps in that diverse perspectives provide new and creative ways to approach problems that you might otherwise not know are there, but lets society better serve groups that are disadvantaged by structural (and plain ol') racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.. "Race blindness" does nothing but advantage racists.

I'm well aware of the former. I'm objecting to 'difference as assets' because I've had real life interactions with people who described their admiration for farm equipment in terms of how many people with darker skin it could replace. Except it wasn't phrased that kindly (you can probably fill in the word that was actually used).

With that context, does it explain why 'differences as assets' and 'effectiveness' squicks me the hell out?

Klickor wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
For fantasy games and models, diversity can also open up new myths and legends to mine.

Not calling anyone out here, but genuinely how many of us can name 6 mythical creatures from Africa? Or non-deity mythical creatures from the Indian Sub-continent?

Understandably in the west, we have a good understanding of European Myths. And that’s reflected in the geek games (Vampires, Werewolves, Fae etc). But other than Ancient Egypt (Mummies, and even then that’s a 1900’s type mythos from movies)? It’s…basically Japanese stuff like Kitsune, thanks to how well anime was received in the West.

There are many, many other cultural mythos to be mined for inspiration.

For sure. In creativity aspects I think its a good idea with more diversity. So much more interesting myths and legends that could be taken for inspiration. But I think it is still important to clarify we need those thoughts and ideas, not necessarily people from those areas. Someone born there but haven't engaged with it isn't more likely to help diversifying in this aspect than someone not from there but who got interested and traveled there to learn more.

I am reading mostly Japanese, Korean or Chinese fantasy stuff the last few years just because how different they are from modern western media in almost all aspects. Wouldn't mind have a wealth of novels available from other parts of the world in the fantasy genre that in turn is as different but in another direction.

40k has always touched the surface of other cultures yet has never really dived in fully. T'au for example are inspired by the Japanese yet it never seems to fully lean into the Heian period look or culture. It needs to start doing this to prevent the style of the game from getting stale

Tsagualsa wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It seems like a pretty straightforward case of:

“I can write a slur about my people, and Those Other people can write a slur about themselves. So, when I write a slur about Those Other people, how am I suddenly the bad guy?”

It get's a bit more complicated once it becomes a corporation making jokes about people - if you want to avoid all possibility for controversy and all possible controversies little opportunity for satire remains, and what remains possible quickly becomes stale and formulaic. Ultimately, it's best (again, for a 'faceless corporation' type of actor, not necessary for individual, identifiable artists) to refrain from it in general and pursue other avenues of comedy.

Good point.

On that? I urge serious caution. Because the line between source, inspiration and caution is a fine one.

That is not to say it can’t be done. But it needs to be done right. If you’re lifting/borrowing/however you want to phrase it? You need to make sure you’re not doing said source a disservice.

Hence it loops back to “At least hire a relevant cultural consultant, so you don’t end up being a dick despite best intentions”

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On that? I urge serious caution. Because the line between source, inspiration and caution is a fine one.

That is not to say it can’t be done. But it needs to be done right. If you’re lifting/borrowing/however you want to phrase it? You need to make sure you’re not doing said source a disservice.

Hence it loops back to “At least hire a relevant cultural consultant, so you don’t end up being a dick despite best intentions”

I refer the Doc to Chakotay (whose only redeeming features was not being Harry or Tom and taking one for the team whatever Tyrant Janeway was in heat)

Apologies, but I’ve had a bit to drink (knocked off work at 10am), so not sure if you’re ribbing me or agreeing?

But for now, a neutral standpoint?

I’d rather a cack result *with* relevant advisories than a simply Cack Result.

On I'm all for a bit of research into any culture being portrayed but its best to get some one with proper creditably rather than bs peddlers or those funts from Cracked else you get the Chakotay isse or worse jarring modern ideals in historical shows

But to spiral back to the point, well sort of anyhoo, one of my constant bugbears is the apparent lack of google fu amongst the squeak wheels, as most things can be easily traced back to sources, heck I recall someone claiming how original the IOM;'s Inquistoin was, with nay a clue about Nemesis or the lads nobody expects

Also, in Dakka’s current diversity three?

EID MUBARAK to our Muslim chums, and their nearest and dearest!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On that? I urge serious caution. Because the line between source, inspiration and caution is a fine one.

This speaks alot to what GW needs to focus on. Not only will having a more culturally grounded and historically based army make the game more interesting -as well as increasing world building- it will also bring lots of new players into the hobby, whether they are history buffs of other cultures or people who just appreciate the look of these cultures.

I wouldn’t guarantee lots of new players as such. But it wouldn’t hurt recruitment any.

Because whilst diversity is a good thing, it’s not in itself going to guarantee an expanded player base - only encourage it.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I wouldn’t guarantee lots of new players as such. But it wouldn’t hurt recruitment any.

Because whilst diversity is a good thing, it’s not in itself going to guarantee an expanded player base - only encourage it.

I'm not talking just about representation but also talking about how having many different cultures increases aesthetic as well as allows for history buffs to get more into the hobby, it could also increase the amount of people who get into the hobby for painting the models.