I've been making some monsters based on myths, legends, and folklores. I was wandering if any other people had some ideas as I've burned myself out trying to make a Wendigo. If you have a good one just post the name and if you want a small description of it. I'll try to make the best version of it I can and post a reply with the finished monster in case you want view it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Monster Fact of the Day: Tarrasque
Tarrasque's have a magical regeneration and are able to reflect spells back at its enemies
Praise Jeff with Your Hole Heart and Soul with the Sign ofDoomJOY to Come!!!!!
I would highly recommend against making a statblock for that particular folkloric creature, as Indigenous North American peoples have repeatedly asked that this highly taboo being stop being appropriated by outsiders for exoticism and/or shock value. It is so taboo among many Northeastern tribes that they even ask that you not say its name.
I've got no opinion on the issue of culture-specific taboos. We should always be respectful of folks of different cultural backgrounds. But that this entity is locked down to outsiders is not settled among the First Nations. Consider that this book was written by one of their community, and this movie won awards at this festival, which has featured at least one other movie covering these entities. In fact, folks in the Indiginous community have leveraged the popular appeal of these entities into statements on economics, environmentalism, and politics.
But I will say that the concept of obsessive cannibalism isn't specific to any one culture or folklore.
I'll be honest, Most if not all the well known Mythical creatures have appeared in D&D at some point in the last 50 years. ie Wendigo were in 3rd edition:
I would highly recommend against making a statblock for that particular folkloric creature, as Indigenous North American peoples have repeatedly asked that this highly taboo being stop being appropriated by outsiders for exoticism and/or shock value. It is so taboo among many Northeastern tribes that they even ask that you not say its name.
While appropriation is something to think about, and be mindful of. Most creature in D&D are based on various cultural folklore being made into game rules. As a Jew I'm not upset about the use of Golem. Now I can not speak for Native Americans and the Wendigo, but I should point out the mythology for them is similar to many northern hemisphere creatures and myths. So making something based on the idea of a medium sized humanoid cannibal spirit creature (fey) isn't a problem. As that describes a lot of creatures.
Wendigos are from Algonquin (Omàmiwinini) lore. I have never seen or heard of any of them asking for "outsiders" to not discuss or "appropriate" the Wendigo. This appears to be just one of those internet comment (urban) legends. As such, the OP should feel no pressure to refrain from using the Wendigo. Just like anybody can use a Werewolf, Vampire or Zombie in their fiction, regardless of culture, ethnic background or personal beliefs.
That being stated, when starting a new campaign with people you haven't played before, it's always a good idea to get to know what everyone is comfortable with and if there are any specific taboos that should be avoided.
In response to the thread's intent, there are plenty of compilations of folk lore monsters widely available already so you don't have to worry about burning yourself out over it.
I've got no opinion on the issue of culture-specific taboos. We should always be respectful of folks of different cultural backgrounds. But that this entity is locked down to outsiders is not settled among the First Nations. Consider that this book was written by one of their community, and this movie won awards at this festival, which has featured at least one other movie covering these entities. In fact, folks in the Indiginous community have leveraged the popular appeal of these entities into statements on economics, environmentalism, and politics.
But I will say that the concept of obsessive cannibalism isn't specific to any one culture or folklore.
It's not a settled issue, but it is a highly contentious one. Just because someone else has used it should not be taken as permission for anyone who wants to do so.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I've got no opinion on the issue of culture-specific taboos. We should always be respectful of folks of different cultural backgrounds. But that this entity is locked down to outsiders is not settled among the First Nations. Consider that this book was written by one of their community, and this movie won awards at this festival, which has featured at least one other movie covering these entities. In fact, folks in the Indiginous community have leveraged the popular appeal of these entities into statements on economics, environmentalism, and politics.
But I will say that the concept of obsessive cannibalism isn't specific to any one culture or folklore.
It's not a settled issue, but it is a highly contentious one. Just because someone else has used it should not be taken as permission for anyone who wants to do so.
I don't claim to have answers here. It's hard to take a stand, because the folklore belongs to all of the Algonquin people, not just the ones who want to gatekeep.
A hypothetical: suppose one group of Jewish people decide that the dybbuk is a taboo, and the rest see it as a story to be shared. Which group has the right to decide whether the stories will be told? Consider also Christians and demons. Muslims with djinn.
Well, for starters, most of the people writing D&D, at least at the beginning, were Christian or brought up as such so there's no basis for claiming cultural appropriation. Same goes for Muslims, since djinn, ghouls, and other creatures from Arabic (and Persian) lore predate Islam and also entered into European lore more organically over more than one thousand years of contact between the cultures. Same largely goes for Jewish lore.
With the indigenous peoples of North America, there's two major issues that are different: an attempt to destroy their beliefs on a scale that not even the Jewish people suffered prior to the 20th Century, and the rampant use of their lore and beliefs for sensationalism and exoticism that has persisted into recent history. That makes it generally a much thornier subject.
That doesn't really address my point. I'm not arguing that something is or is not cultural appropriation. I'm saying that within the communities in question, there is disagreement about what conduct comprises appropriation, and it's not clear which party within that community has the right to decide for the whole.
It now occurs to me that we're wayyy off topic here...
The point is that your examples were very different situations from what was being discussed and as such did not constitute good analogies. Cultural appropriation is a very difficult subject with a lot of complex arguments and nuance that a few random people on the internet really aren't going to be able to give a good answer about. But context matters. Context matters a lot, in fact.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
That's still not really addressing my core point, which I suspect we would actually agree on. Simply put: it is not clear what constitutes cultural appropriation if the group to whom a cultural touchstone belongs does not have a consensus on whether that touchstone is, in fact, taboo. Specifically, it is not clear which subgroup of the Algonquin people has the right to determine whether the use of the aforementioned entity is appropriative because they disagree internally. That's all.
I am not saying that the hypotheticals are true cases of appropriation.
I am not saying that this disagreement gives outsiders free reign to use that cultural touchstone.
But back to the topic:
OP, make literally any of the "myth units" from Age of Mythology!
I would highly recommend against making a statblock for that particular folkloric creature, as Indigenous North American peoples have repeatedly asked that this highly taboo being stop being appropriated by outsiders for exoticism and/or shock value. It is so taboo among many Northeastern tribes that they even ask that you not say its name.
What an interesting conundrum: Should I - a total and utter agnostic - respect the superstitions of others enough to not even speak about them? Should they respect my agnosticism to not try and force their superstitions on me? Propably, the obligation goes both ways - if one exists. Right?
Luckily I have no idea what creature you're speaking of, but I suppose it's the one the OP mentions. If so, by now I think the cat is sufficiently out of the bag that's it's safe to say it isn't getting back in. But anyways I'm more interested in the principle of the matter: Should a small minority really dictates what the majority are allowed to speak about?
I mean, from a democratic point of view, the answer is obvious: Of course not.
But then there's the question of ... I'm going to say just common courtecy. Say someone I know believes in, and is terrified of, the The Blabber Beast. I, on the other hand, have no vested interest of any kind in The Blabber Beast. Since it has a zero value for me, and a high negative value for my friend - would it really be too much to ask that I don't mention it?
In cases like these, I like the principle of asking both sides to please just play nice. My friend in the above example should respect that I don't believe in the Blabber Beast - and I should respect my friends views enough to not mention The Blabber Beast ...... around him.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
The point is that your examples were very different situations from what was being discussed and as such did not constitute good analogies.
They were actually the same situation as being discussed and were great analogies. The people who created D&D were Americans. The United States of America is the result of a melting pot of different cultures. Which means the heritage of the creators of D&D is both the North American folklore as well as European folklore. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that it's ok to "appropriate" some Asian mythos while saying other mythos isn't ok.
It should be noted that the idea of "Cultural Appropriation" is a relatively new idea. It simply didn't exist when D&D mythos was being created.
IMO the more you're just taking the general traits of a creature/figure as opposed to the larger cultural context around it, the less of an issue it is. If you're just using Wendigo as "monster that can form as the result of a 'natural curse' when someone commits cannibalism", then you're just using one name with a decent amount of pop culture recognition for a trope that crops up all over the world. Now, if you start elaborating on the nature and origin of the curse based on Indigenous American beliefs and particularly if you start tinkering with parts of that to fit your setting, then you're getting into appropriation, and especially if you are presenting this modified representation as the Wendigo from those stories rather than a creature that in a wholly separate setting that just so happens to be called the same thing. Like, when JKR said that in her setting stories of skinwalkers were just Indigenous Americans misrepresenting/misunderstanding what Animagi were, that understandably got some significant backlash for casually rewriting the history and lore of another culture. Although, at the same time I do feel like an alt-history fantasy of "our world but with some kind of magic being present throughout history" does allow for some of that- particularly if the setting just has magic and fantastic living creatures without major spiritual/theological implications rather than going more deeply into an "all the myths are true" iteration, but even then tossing that out as a sort of factoid over social media outside of the stories themselves isn't a great idea.
TLDR: I don't think incorporating some of the superficial characteristics of a creature from another belief system is a serious faux pas if it's being divorced from the belief system in the new work, but the more elements of the belief system you bring into play, the less appropriate it is to take something out of context or modify it, particularly without understanding what connotations those modifications would have towards its original source.
ill be honest cultural appropriation has always confused me, considering nothing in todays age is an original concept (yeti vs sasquatch as an example) its all human culture anyway and personally think it should be shared, recognized and preserved to prevent it from disappearing in later years
in saying that be respectful about it, do it justice and dont half-arse it if your concept isnt going to hold true and embody whatever creature it was/is - then probably best to give it a different name and move away from the original
I've been making some monsters based on myths, legends, and folklores. I was wandering if any other people had some ideas as I've burned myself out trying to make a Wendigo. If you have a good one just post the name and if you want a small description of it. I'll try to make the best version of it I can and post a reply with the finished monster in case you want view it.
Monster Fact of the Day: Tarrasque
Tarrasque's have a magical regeneration and are able to reflect spells back at its enemies
Praise Jeff with Your Hole Heart and Soul with the Sign of
DoomJOY to Come!!!!!I would highly recommend against making a statblock for that particular folkloric creature, as Indigenous North American peoples have repeatedly asked that this highly taboo being stop being appropriated by outsiders for exoticism and/or shock value. It is so taboo among many Northeastern tribes that they even ask that you not say its name.
I've got no opinion on the issue of culture-specific taboos. We should always be respectful of folks of different cultural backgrounds. But that this entity is locked down to outsiders is not settled among the First Nations. Consider that this book was written by one of their community, and this movie won awards at this festival, which has featured at least one other movie covering these entities. In fact, folks in the Indiginous community have leveraged the popular appeal of these entities into statements on economics, environmentalism, and politics.
But I will say that the concept of obsessive cannibalism isn't specific to any one culture or folklore.
I'll be honest, Most if not all the well known Mythical creatures have appeared in D&D at some point in the last 50 years. ie Wendigo were in 3rd edition:
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Wendigo
They also appear in the SRD material used in Pathfinder 1st ed.
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/wendigo/
Hopefully these can help you make a 5th ed translation.
While appropriation is something to think about, and be mindful of. Most creature in D&D are based on various cultural folklore being made into game rules. As a Jew I'm not upset about the use of Golem. Now I can not speak for Native Americans and the Wendigo, but I should point out the mythology for them is similar to many northern hemisphere creatures and myths. So making something based on the idea of a medium sized humanoid cannibal spirit creature (fey) isn't a problem. As that describes a lot of creatures.
Wendigos are from Algonquin (Omàmiwinini) lore. I have never seen or heard of any of them asking for "outsiders" to not discuss or "appropriate" the Wendigo. This appears to be just one of those internet comment (urban) legends. As such, the OP should feel no pressure to refrain from using the Wendigo. Just like anybody can use a Werewolf, Vampire or Zombie in their fiction, regardless of culture, ethnic background or personal beliefs.
That being stated, when starting a new campaign with people you haven't played before, it's always a good idea to get to know what everyone is comfortable with and if there are any specific taboos that should be avoided.
In response to the thread's intent, there are plenty of compilations of folk lore monsters widely available already so you don't have to worry about burning yourself out over it.
It's not a settled issue, but it is a highly contentious one. Just because someone else has used it should not be taken as permission for anyone who wants to do so.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I don't claim to have answers here. It's hard to take a stand, because the folklore belongs to all of the Algonquin people, not just the ones who want to gatekeep.
A hypothetical: suppose one group of Jewish people decide that the dybbuk is a taboo, and the rest see it as a story to be shared. Which group has the right to decide whether the stories will be told? Consider also Christians and demons. Muslims with djinn.
That doesn't really address my point. I'm not arguing that something is or is not cultural appropriation. I'm saying that within the communities in question, there is disagreement about what conduct comprises appropriation, and it's not clear which party within that community has the right to decide for the whole.
It now occurs to me that we're wayyy off topic here...
The point is that your examples were very different situations from what was being discussed and as such did not constitute good analogies. Cultural appropriation is a very difficult subject with a lot of complex arguments and nuance that a few random people on the internet really aren't going to be able to give a good answer about. But context matters. Context matters a lot, in fact.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
That's still not really addressing my core point, which I suspect we would actually agree on. Simply put: it is not clear what constitutes cultural appropriation if the group to whom a cultural touchstone belongs does not have a consensus on whether that touchstone is, in fact, taboo. Specifically, it is not clear which subgroup of the Algonquin people has the right to determine whether the use of the aforementioned entity is appropriative because they disagree internally. That's all.
I am not saying that the hypotheticals are true cases of appropriation.
I am not saying that this disagreement gives outsiders free reign to use that cultural touchstone.
But back to the topic:
OP, make literally any of the "myth units" from Age of Mythology!
What an interesting conundrum: Should I - a total and utter agnostic - respect the superstitions of others enough to not even speak about them? Should they respect my agnosticism to not try and force their superstitions on me? Propably, the obligation goes both ways - if one exists. Right?
Luckily I have no idea what creature you're speaking of, but I suppose it's the one the OP mentions. If so, by now I think the cat is sufficiently out of the bag that's it's safe to say it isn't getting back in. But anyways I'm more interested in the principle of the matter: Should a small minority really dictates what the majority are allowed to speak about?
I mean, from a democratic point of view, the answer is obvious: Of course not.
But then there's the question of ... I'm going to say just common courtecy. Say someone I know believes in, and is terrified of, the The Blabber Beast. I, on the other hand, have no vested interest of any kind in The Blabber Beast. Since it has a zero value for me, and a high negative value for my friend - would it really be too much to ask that I don't mention it?
In cases like these, I like the principle of asking both sides to please just play nice. My friend in the above example should respect that I don't believe in the Blabber Beast - and I should respect my friends views enough to not mention The Blabber Beast ...... around him.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
They were actually the same situation as being discussed and were great analogies. The people who created D&D were Americans. The United States of America is the result of a melting pot of different cultures. Which means the heritage of the creators of D&D is both the North American folklore as well as European folklore. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that it's ok to "appropriate" some Asian mythos while saying other mythos isn't ok.
It should be noted that the idea of "Cultural Appropriation" is a relatively new idea. It simply didn't exist when D&D mythos was being created.
IMO the more you're just taking the general traits of a creature/figure as opposed to the larger cultural context around it, the less of an issue it is. If you're just using Wendigo as "monster that can form as the result of a 'natural curse' when someone commits cannibalism", then you're just using one name with a decent amount of pop culture recognition for a trope that crops up all over the world. Now, if you start elaborating on the nature and origin of the curse based on Indigenous American beliefs and particularly if you start tinkering with parts of that to fit your setting, then you're getting into appropriation, and especially if you are presenting this modified representation as the Wendigo from those stories rather than a creature that in a wholly separate setting that just so happens to be called the same thing. Like, when JKR said that in her setting stories of skinwalkers were just Indigenous Americans misrepresenting/misunderstanding what Animagi were, that understandably got some significant backlash for casually rewriting the history and lore of another culture. Although, at the same time I do feel like an alt-history fantasy of "our world but with some kind of magic being present throughout history" does allow for some of that- particularly if the setting just has magic and fantastic living creatures without major spiritual/theological implications rather than going more deeply into an "all the myths are true" iteration, but even then tossing that out as a sort of factoid over social media outside of the stories themselves isn't a great idea.
TLDR: I don't think incorporating some of the superficial characteristics of a creature from another belief system is a serious faux pas if it's being divorced from the belief system in the new work, but the more elements of the belief system you bring into play, the less appropriate it is to take something out of context or modify it, particularly without understanding what connotations those modifications would have towards its original source.
ill be honest cultural appropriation has always confused me, considering nothing in todays age is an original concept (yeti vs sasquatch as an example)
its all human culture anyway and personally think it should be shared, recognized and preserved to prevent it from disappearing in later years
in saying that be respectful about it, do it justice and dont half-arse it
if your concept isnt going to hold true and embody whatever creature it was/is - then probably best to give it a different name and move away from the original
This thread has been completely derailed and as such will be locked
Find my D&D Beyond articles here