Would you buy/play a blatantly racist or sexist campaign setting?

[maddman75]

Re: More Devil's Advocacy

maddman75:
That story, which I am familiar with as one of Lao Tsu's, serves to show that the consequences of an action or an event cannot be considered when determining the morality of the act.

I could quote Kant to the effect that all acts have inherent morality, and an rational moral system should be based not on consequences, but rather the will of the actor.

Or you could quote Dejardennes. Good acts are comitted by Good men. Evil acts are comitted by Evil men.

Or you could display the Hindu virtues of Ekantavada and Syedvada. Namely, no single perspective is wholly true and all perspectives are true to an extent.

Take your pick.

The story you present is a good one, but I think here misapplied. Why must we base morality on consequences? Especially considering we don't know what those consequences will be.

Ought racist/sexist material be published?

The answer for all the possible systems you presented all come back to "it depends."

For Kant, what is the intention of the author? If it is to create and interesting place for people to play, then it is good. If it is to promote RL agendas of suffering then it is evil.

For Dejardennes, a very similar conclusion. What is the nature of the publisher? (I find this reasoning rather circular -- good acts are those done by good men? and vice versa for evil?)

For the Hindu virtues, well with that philosophy and position you want to take is perfectly valid.

My opinion is that an RPG cannot be 'good' or 'evil'. It is just an object, and could possilby be used for either, but most likely will only be a diversion. So I see no reason for stopping them from being published.

 

[Felix]

I was glossing Kant. He gives his categorical imperitave, disturbingly similar to the Golden Rule, which can then be dissected into parts to determine the morality of an action.

I agree about Dejardennes. It is rather circular. I was just presenting ethical options.

Regardless, thank you for answering my question concicely. I don't want to lead this topic further astray by asking another question, so I'll sit back and relax.

Unless called out that is.

 

[Desdichado]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Would you buy/play a blatantly racist or sexist campagin setting?

Anyhow, as for the dark elves having black skin... yes, evolution would say they would have white... but understand, the whole dark skin thing isn't natural. It's a curse. I don't think evolution really effects curses

It's also a red hering. Dark skin could evolve as a camouflage device.

 

[WizarDru]

Would I buy such a book with such element represented as part of the setting? Yes. Would I buy such a book where the rules mechanics endorsed such elements? No. Should publishers have the right to publish either kind (represented versus endoresed)? Yes.

Saying that, in country X, the nobility views Y as Z, is a setting choice. Saying that, in D&D, anyone who chooses to play a female character suffers -4 to Strength, is a poor rules choice. Forget, for a moment, the actual racist/sexist views, and take note that these views automatically create an imbalance in the rules. Yes, women are generally less strong than men...that isn't the issue. The issue is whether Red Sonja is generally stronger than the average commoner 1. It seems ridiculous to judge such things by what the average person is like, when the "average" character is a hero, even at 1st level. D&D (and most RPGs) are not reality simulators, and shouldn't even be viewed as such. The abstracts of such concepts as combat and damage alone should illustrate that an amount of suspension of disbelief is required for ANY amount of gaming to take place.

I would also disagree that Murder, torture and rape for pleasure are more embraced than racism or sexism. Most D&D violence is abstract to begin with, and the murder and torture elements are usually little more graphic than an Agatha Christie mystery. They take place, but I've never met someone who plays out a rape or torture session (and quite honestly would have no desire to play with someone who did). The violence is on a par with the LotR movies...present, occasionally mildly graphic, but usually not explicit or lingered upon.

Most people who play D&D have no more interest in actually slaying evil clerics in a graphic fashion than players of Risk have about visiting the horrors of war on a global scale. Bringing unpleasant elements into what is, for many, a pleasant distraction, seems inappropriate. Does that mean that it can't be used as an effective game element? No. But it does mean that many gamers are either uncomfortable or downright revolted by some subject material. While some may view D&D as some sort of obscure performance art, others enjoy it as a diversion from exactly those kind of unpleasant topics, and do not wish to see them in their games. Just because horrible things like murder, crib death, and rape occur in the real world does not mean that every game benefits from their presence.

 

[Felix]

If anyone was unclear as to what my whole point was in raising that question, it was to show that racist/sexist campaign settings should not be banned and should not be published simply because the material is bigoted, or percieved as bigoted. One must look at the motives behind it. As the true motive is difficult, if not impossible, to divine, it should be allowed.

I am aware that nobody said it shouldn't be allowed; I took the feat Pre-emptive Strike.

Back to work.

 

[Buttercup]

Re: 10 month - 100 post anniversary! Yay

It is a bad thing. It is bad because it is inconsistent. What bothers you might not bother me. What doesn't bother either of us might bother that guy over there. The inherent "OK"ness of a thing becomes lost in relativism.

This is not necessairly a problem when you consider only the individual. And Buttercup is answering the first question posed, namely, "What would your reaction be to this kind of product?" By doing so she (it is a she, right?) is confining herself to her individual opinion. No problem.

The problem occurs when labels such as "acceptable for printing" or "socially injust" are applied to a relativist society, which is what Elder-Basilisk is warning against.

further comments snipped for brevity's sake

Well you know, I thought we were talking about 1. a game and 2. our personal opinions. How did that morph into questions of "acdeptable for printing" and so forth?

 

[DragonSword]

Hmm...

What you've got to remember is that it is just a 'fantasy' game.

DragonSword

 

[Patrick-S&S]

Your comments?

Yes I would and I do. I mean after all it is a game, and like with a movie I do not get affected. My players have portrait all kinds of characters over the years, some even more nasty than this. They are normal people with wives and kids so like many actors on screen playing the worst swines, they are just like that, acting and having fun. You can have fun being evil, you just need to keep it separated from real life. I see no problem with it.

 

[kenjib]

I'm amazed that racism and sexism are more taboo than rape, torture, and murder for pleasure.

They are not. I haven't seen that asserted anywhere. If a game came out which actively endorsed the rape, torture, and murder of innocent people for pleasure, I would most certainly not support such a game either.

As with most people here, games with these elements are fine. Racist and sexist cultural elements in context are perhaps even to be expected in a living, breathing, game world. However, every fantasy world has a moral framework, whether or not anyone chooses to acknowledge it. If this moral framework endorses these activities, then I the game is morally offensive to me (I don't speak for anyone else of course) and I will not support it. If it presents these activities are part of the world in a negative fashion than I think including these things is just fine. Furthermore, I would argue that including these things in a neutrally historical manner also implicitly portrays them in a negative fashion, because most of us inherently view this historical conditions as negatives. Furthermore a more impartial handling allows us to apply our own morality to it, satisfying people of all sorts.

So, they are only a problem to me when presented in a positive manner and/or are actively endorsed and supported by the system.

kenjib:
My example of a necromancer stealing souls was the first example of Evil in DnD that came to mind. No, it does not have a big real world effect.

And yes, people are sensitive to recism and sexism.

Some folks are sensitive to the presence of demon summoning spells in games that their children play. I refer to the attack on DnD by those religious folks who think our hobby is a corrupting influence. I do not endorse their opinion, merely cite the fact that in regard to a demonic prescence in DnD, some people are very, very upset.

I can argue that my wizard casting demon summoning spells is an in-game issue that does not contaminate the rest of my life.

Similarly, can not someone make the argument that role playing a racist is an in-game issue that doesn't spill out into their life?

Sure you can make those arguments and that's fine. That doesn't at all contradict my argument though, which is that creating a game system that inherently supports and reinforces racism and sexism is not something I would support. You've gone off on a tangent.

Your new example of demon summoning doesn't really hold up. First of all, the D&D game is a game biased towards heroes, and the demons and evils they are supposed to overcome. As I've said above, it's fine with me to include racism in the same light as long as it's okay with everyone else I'm playing with. Second, the people you mention who are upset by demon summoning do not play the game precisely because of this, so they have spoken in the same manner that I would against a racist or sexist game. This is the same thing I'm saying. If the game supports things I find offensive, I won't support it.

Because those who tie D&D to demon worship are a minority in our society (compared to people who disapprove of racism and sexism) this does not currently impact the market to a point where the publishers are influenced -- although this did happen in the 80's. The problem with what happened in the 80's was that the influence was directed not only from a vocal minority, but from a vocal minority who did not play the game effecting a market that did not include anyone in that vocal minority. By comparison, not including racism and sexism is a trend pressed by a majority at large that is also the majority of the playing population.

Also, like Buttercup, I've never said anything about banning. In fact, the people who don't like demon worshipping (who, conveniently, you mentioned as a foil to myself) are the ones who advocate banning.

 

[Felix]

Buttercup:
We are still talking about a game. These are my personal opinions. The question of wether the game we are talking about should be printed morphed out of my reaction to your use of the word "indecent". Hey, conversation flows. When dialogues become static they fall off the first page.

kenjib:

Originally posted by kenjib
Also, like Buttercup, I've never said anything about banning.

I have already stated, quite clearly, twice, that I understand none of you had said it. I was the one who first mentioned banning, arn't I? I mentioned it beacuse of Buttercup's choice of the word "indecent" on her first post to this thread.

Also by kenjib
...the people who don't like demon worshipping ... are the ones who advocate banning.

And I think these people have a fundamentally flawed view. I do not like their advocacy of banning DnD. When I see a word like indecent used in the context of people percieving that their problems are being made light of, my knee jerk reaction is to think that this line of thought might support censorship movements such as the Anti-demon folks. No, you didn't say it. But the same language is used by folks trying to get DnD banned.

Look, good for you if you don't want it at your table and therefore don't buy it. That's just fine. I just wanted to squash any attempt to use the popular opinion of indecency to promote censorship. Like I said, Pre-emptive Strike.

Third time's the charm
Your new example of demon summoning doesn't really hold up. First of all, the D&D game is a game biased towards heroes, and the demons and evils they are supposed to overcome.

Ok, DnD heros fight for Good (unless they're Evil) in a world fraught with the terrors of demons.
DnD heros fight for Good (unless they're Evil) in a world fraught with the terrors of bigots.
What, exactly, doesn't hold up?