Concerns about the new Selunari

I really, really REALLY appreciate all the open response that has come down from staff members and leaders of this community. I understand all the hard work that has gone on too help adjust the new race packet to ensure that respect is given and shown and that we can continue to be a leader in the larp community and I am grateful of this hard work to help correct the issues of the old race name.

My intention of the post was to bring to light concerns that any nonlarper could find, should they be doing a little research, between these similarities of real world and game world.

I know these changes to the race packet were made because of cultural controversy about the term gypsy and I just wished to bring forward what I had found. I didn't want some one to come forward later and say "That sounds too Arabic." or "They look like Hindu women." and then have to watch the volunteer staff have to a) pull out their hair and b) go through more hard work to make more changes.

Also I am an avid proponent of transparency in group dynamics and as all I heard about, before and after the owners symposium, about the race packet was unclear. I did my own research on the subject. I found what I found and had concerns about it. I didn't see anything on these forums about the new race and the only change was on the Alliancelarp.com page. The fact that these leaders have come forward and given explanation and advice about my post has been very helpful and again I really appreciate this help.

I wish to make one suggestion though? Is it possible to have a list of these Team leaders and/or ways to contact, posted and pinned on these forums or maybe through a contact page of some sort on the National webpage? That way, some one doesn't have to try and PM too many people or get frustrated at trying to find the right person.

Again, Thank you ( BIG thank you) for all the work that has been done.
 
The packet teams are temporary, and their role is to draft the packet as instructed by the owners. They will not be taking direct feedback from the general playerbase. The best route is to get a chapter owner to bring your concerns to the ownership as a group. The discussion has already begun at that level to assess the concerns brought up her and assess if changes need to be made. The identity of every chapter owner is a matter of public record, here on the website.
 
Hard work appreciated. I haven't read the entire description yet, but my curiosity is piqued. My only concern is that the new race is a makeup race (spirit gum is definitely a form of makeup given that some people are allergic to it), where the previous race wasn't. I suspect the owners considered this and have implemented a reasonable solution. In fact, based on past experience I have with rules changes of this nature, I am not concerned at all. But, if somehow this fact slipped the mind of the owners, I definitely wanted to raise the point before it was too late to say anything.

Finally, I can honestly say that this race interests me more than the gypsy race ever did, due to certain cultural expectations of gypsy.

-MS
 
I wanted to say that I really appreciate how civil this thread has been.

I also really appreciate how much work the Selunari team has put into the new packet, and the willingness of people who can see behind the curtain to respond to these concerns with data from their painstaking research to alleviate them.
 
In order to help with the Telephone issue, you can review the actual requirement on the alliance website under races. As to the gems, they are defined as below. Note aside from the "forehead" requirement there is no requirement as to exact placement or number.

The one physical marker that ties all Selunari together is the large gems that grow from their foreheads (must be at least the size of a US penny). Some Selunari possess only one gem, while others may have two, three or even more.
 
Yeah, maybe no requirement for the forehead. As far as I can tell there is no reason why that needs to be a thing. Like it or not it does have religious symbolism. You can't just say "Oh, we don't mean it that way so that makes it okay." It is literally the same argument we just had over the gypsies.

So I guess it's not okay to offend some people but it's okay this time?
 
Just for the sake of things that we all occasionally need to reread :

Alliance Rulebook said:
One of the quickest ways to get your character history rejected is to draw too heavily on religion or religious themes. Many people decide to name their characters after obscure pagan gods or lightly gild a myth for their character histories. This is not appreciated, and sometimes it can be offensive. The Alliance attempts to remain religion free as much as possible, and we do not wish to add elements that would offend anyone. This is especially problematic, for many people consider much of folklore to be fair game, but unknowingly and ignorantly trod over religions that are actively practiced (in particular paganism) because they mirror fantasy gaming. While it’s less likely to cause a problem in a tabletop game, with more people playing in a LARP you have to keep in mind there are more things that can be offensive to a larger number of players.
Click to expand...

I don't really read what little we know about this race as religious, and am waiting eagerly for an actual race packet. It will help me determine what is going to happen with my Gypsy or if I need to regret not putting my blankets this year on an alt. :) That said, it is always good that we remember our goals in how we come at this game. This is very definitely something we as players should consider when deciding costuming and mannerisms for our characters.

I have the utmost assurance that the upcoming Selunari race packet will not be overtly religious, but until it is in our hands we cannot really make plans on how to treat the concept. Especially with these things going live in game, as they obviously have given encounters this weekend with players who were at the National.
 
Steven universe
Raven
Warlock
Archmage
Eureka Seven
The Vision
Sailor Moon


^all pop culture fantasy content where there is a character or characters present with gems on the forehead. In multiple different ways. And looked at, some do directly evoke the same visual as Bindi but have nothing to do with the real world religious practice (not discounting the third eye symbolism, but thats a real common thing not just unique to hinduism) nor are generally accused of cultural appropriation based on that. They are simply gems. On the forehead. Because visual storytelling, merchandise, it looks cool- that kind of thing.

Its a shiney thing, on a bodypart. We could go all day about different things that have religious symbolism to different cultures or people and at the end of it, if each concept is discounted based on 'It looks like XYZ' , ya basically end up with nothin to work with- in the end, Simpsons did it.
 
Last edited:
satsukirebel said:
Yeah, maybe no requirement for the forehead. As far as I can tell there is no reason why that needs to be a thing. Like it or not it does have religious symbolism. You can't just say "Oh, we don't mean it that way so that makes it okay." It is literally the same argument we just had over the gypsies.

So I guess it's not okay to offend some people but it's okay this time?
Click to expand...

Note: I am trying to respond gently here, but I tend to write very academically, which comes off as harsh. I do not intend to be harsh.

This is not the same argument.

The Gypsy race used a name that is literally a derogatory slang for a specific real world race (and has always been a derogatory term). It then compounded the problem by defining much of the race on stereotypes that have long been held for that race and by using real world terminology that accurately describes the race. None of this was done to intentionally insult or be cruel (the internet didn't exist in the late 80s and people, in general, simply weren't aware how insulting some of this stuff was). But, the race as presented was as insulting to people of Romani origin as if there was a race called the Redskins that always had animal names and whooped in circles around fires as the main form of celebration.

The Selunari are not clearly based off of any single race, religion, or mythos. Instead, it appears to be derived from a variety of concepts that includes, I suspect, Romani, eshu, and similar wanderers / travelers / merchants. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if Dune mythology was partially used. The stone growing out of the forehead personally reminds me more of "The Last Unicorn" than anything else, and given how much some of our players love that movie (including our recently retired Chairwoman), I wouldn't be surprised if that was the inspiration.

But, inspiration aside, perception is important. And, if the text said "center of forehead" I would agree that perception would outweigh intent here. It doesn't. The forehead is a big place. I can have a gemstone on each temple. I can have a gemstone over and under my left eye. I can have a cluster of gemstones in a smiley face on my forehead (okay, that is a bit ridiculous and anachronistic). The point is, only the gemstone in the exact center of the forehead creates the perception problem and that isn't required. The example picture shows that and also happens to be a picture of someone in Asian style dress. That picture shouldn't be the example picture. I support any attempt to replace it. But the rules really don't create that problem, especially since the rest of the information about the race really doesn't even suggest Hindi in any way.

Honestly, if any race should be looked at with a side eye at this point, it is probably Hobling. As a few friends have pointed out, it has a lot of Jewish stereotypes. But that is another discussion for another time at best and another thread at worst. For now, I truly feel comparing the Selunari gem to the entirety of the Gypsy race is comparing apples to orange sports cars.

-MS
 
I believe the only reason that players are reading into the "forehead" requirement as "center of forehead," is due to the example photo that was provided.

There's no requirement listed that seems to indicate that the center of the forehead is mandatory placement.

While it's true that an individual player could certainly make the gem look like a Bindi, it seems to also indicate that players can absolutely make it look like broken MWE horns that happened to turn into freaking emeralds.

So.

I think this race is both fantastic and not at all derogatory of any particular heritage/religion.

Thanks to those who worked so hard to develop it!
 
I want to make sure that I'm up with the appropriate fashion trends for this race, and thus I have a question about the intent of the description that the gem should be "about the size of a US penny."

Is the intention that one single gem should be that size, as pictured in the lovely photo on the website? I've already started incorporating bindis into my make-up for playing this race. Would a complex gemmed piece that is, overall, about that size be acceptable, such as this available on Amazon?

http://www.amazon.com/Ornament-Fore...464897559&sr=8-18-spons&keywords=bindis&psc=1

Thanks,

Trace Moriarty
Denver
 
Hi Trace!

Please note that the wording says "at least" for sizing, not "about". Larger/more complex constellations of gems is perfectly reasonable.

Thanks,
Bryan Gregory
 
Polare said:
Hi Trace!

Please note that the wording says "at least" for sizing, not "about". Larger/more complex constellations of gems is perfectly reasonable.

Thanks,
Bryan Gregory
Click to expand...

For clarification's sake, Bryan, I believe Trace is asking if a single gem must be at least the size of a penny, or that the combined gems must equal the size of at least a penny?

Example: Can I have three gems -smaller- than a penny, but overall cover more surface area than a penny?
 
Draven, you're picking up most of what I'm putting down -- more on point, in the sort of let's call it "snowman" configuration of the example I linked on Amazon, where it is one connected piece, that is collectively the size of a penny -- is that cool?

(As opposed to either many tiny gems, not connected -- Or one big penny gem, and others in addition if you wish.)

Thanks again!

T$
 
At least one gem must be at least the size of a US penny. Additional gems may be smaller, but you must have at least one large one.

I'm glad you're excited about the creative potential of the prosthetic! We are in the process of taking additional photos for the website, and the art in the race packet will show several more examples.
 
Guess I need a bigger gem since Sparrow already wore one. :) So far I like how it's coming along.

Vicki
 
As someone who has played a gypsy for over two decades, I feel that such a change is necessary and has nothing to do with racist reasons. All individual races should at a distance be able to be recognized by a distinguishing physical feature and costuming and an interesting accent didn't always cut it. I'm not sure my old, wrinkled forehead can keep a penny sized gemstone glued there - and I think tying one on would look more like an ornamental head band than a gemstone lodged in my skin.. But I love challenges and it makes me think of other things to do and try. Even have plans to create a light up one or a full set of stones on my bald head. :)
 
Last edited:
Aengus Óg said:
My intention of the post was to bring to light concerns that any nonlarper could find, should they be doing a little research, between these similarities of real world and game world.
Click to expand...

I'd like to point out - as kindly as I can, mind you, since this is text - that there are multiple other races (for example: Dark Elves, based on Eastern/Asian cultures), and some Barbarians (I've seen some Pacific-Islander versions, some Cossack versions, Mongolian versions, etc.), among others, that mirror or mimic other real-world cultures.

So I ask - out of simple curiosity - what sets the Selunari apart for you from these other Alliance races which are based on real-world cultures?

Should we take out all references to all real-world cultures and people? Should we remove the ability to marry in-game because that is historically a wholly religious construct?

The responsible question, it seems, is how far do we want to take all this? Yes, we absolutely want to be as respectful as we possibly can toward everyone, but how far does that go? Why change Selunari and not Dark Elf? Why leave Dwarf unchanged?

Just trying to understand the mode of thinking and the process, and thinking out loud a little. Thoughts/comments (PM's) welcome.
 
In fairness, the Dark Elves aren't, per the rulebook, based on an asian culture. That's just something the players have gone with. The race packet in fact leans a lot more heavily on R.A. Salvatore.

Same for Barbarians. More Howard than American Indian.

You'd be a lot more on point if say, Barbarians were required to wear elaborate feathered headdresses, or hoblings' sideburns were replaced with yarmulke.

As far as in-game marriage goes, think about it for a moment. The state of marriage is, modernly, a civil construct which isn't really offensive. However can you think of any way you could do an in-game wedding ritual that wouldn't stand a fair chance of stepping on someone's beliefs?

Better to avoid such things than try and spin them and hope no one is deeply offended.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top