Accidental Survivors: the Modern Gaming Podcast

[Urizen]

oooh.. Military episode.. ROCK!

Hey are you able to track how many downloads of your podcast you get?

 

[FraserRonald]

Hey are you able to track how many downloads of your podcast you get?

Yep. Right now, the number of downloads of Episode 1 has topped 170 while Ep 2 is almost 80. Not up there in the Dragon's Landing Inn level, but a nice start. Hopefully, we'll continue to grow as we build a body of work and word gets out there.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

It's available through the iTunes directory, so I've subscribed. I do most of my podcast listening via the 'pod in the car during my weekly trips out of town, so this coming week I'll give 'er a listen.

--fje

 

[C. Baize]

So... I'm about a third of the way through the first one, and I have a criticism.
Not a critique, but criticism.

While talking about the new "Wickerman" movie, you guys kinda push the misconception that modern pagans are weird or scary.
We're really not.
Chances are that you know several modern pagans and have no idea they're pagan. Except for the very few idiots who go around with a chip on their shoulders being in-your-face confrontational without provocation (which you find in ANY demographic), we're everyday normal folks who hold normal jobs, raise families, and simply live normal lives.
For myself, that portion of the podcast struck me as incredibly stupid, or at the very least stereotypically ignorant, and furthering an ignorant stereotype.

I'll step off the soapbox at this point. Take it for what it's worth.

 

[FraserRonald]

While talking about the new "Wickerman" movie, you guys kinda push the misconception that modern pagans are weird or scary.
We're really not.
Chances are that you know several modern pagans and have no idea they're pagan. Except for the very few idiots who go around with a chip on their shoulders being in-your-face confrontational without provocation (which you find in ANY demographic), we're everyday normal folks who hold normal jobs, raise families, and simply live normal lives.
For myself, that portion of the podcast struck me as incredibly stupid, or at the very least stereotypically ignorant, and furthering an ignorant stereotype.

I can only speak for myself, but I certainly did not intend to push that misconception, nor--in my opinion--did I. I also did not intend to dissect the movie, which discussing paganism as a misunderstood religion would have been. The fact is that the badguys in "The Wickerman" are neo-pagans. Stupid, but there you have it. I don't know if it got editted out--and it likely was--but we made quite a few jokes about "those d#mn neo-pagans!" which was as far as we were going in regards to criticizing the choice for badguys.

Given that, we also didn't discuss the fact that not all casino owners are laundering money for terrorists/hostile government intelligence agencies, or that not all hitmen are cool tough-guys with hot girlfriends, or that not all Thai businessmen steal elephants. I'm sorry that you were offended, but our goal was to look at those movies from a game perspective, rather than dissect their societal impact.

If that sounds snide, I apologize, but while what I said on the podcast may have been incredibly stupid or incredibly ignorant, I don't believe it would be either of those for the reason you cite. While I did not intend to offend sensibilities, I don't believe that what I or my co-hosts said in that podcast should be enough to offend.

 

[C. Baize]

I can only speak for myself, but I certainly did not intend to push that misconception, nor--in my opinion--did I. I also did not intend to dissect the movie, which discussing paganism as a misunderstood religion would have been. The fact is that the badguys in "The Wickerman" are neo-pagans. Stupid, but there you have it. I don't know if it got editted out--and it likely was--but we made quite a few jokes about "those d#mn neo-pagans!" which was as far as we were going in regards to criticizing the choice for badguys.

Given that, we also didn't discuss the fact that not all casino owners are laundering money for terrorists/hostile government intelligence agencies, or that not all hitmen are cool tough-guys with hot girlfriends, or that not all Thai businessmen steal elephants. I'm sorry that you were offended, but our goal was to look at those movies from a game perspective, rather than dissect their societal impact.

If that sounds snide, I apologize, but while what I said on the podcast may have been incredibly stupid or incredibly ignorant, I don't believe it would be either of those for the reason you cite. While I did not intend to offend sensibilities, I don't believe that what I or my co-hosts said in that podcast should be enough to offend.

*shrug*
To each their own.
I'm not particularly thin-skinned, and I wasn't necessarily offended (nor am I easily offended). But the tone of what I heard came across as I said in the previous post. As I said, though: take it for what it's worth. If the feedback has no value to you, then there you have it. If the feedback has value to you, then there you have it.
Perhaps it wasn't your intent to further an ignorant stereotype, but whoever said, "Well what about the theme of a community of neo-Pagans threatening good honest folk? Would you put that in your campaign?" to which the other two people agreed, well.. that's what I mean by furthering an ignorant stereotype. (just listened to the portion again to make sure I didn't mis-hear or misunderstand what was said, that's word for word)
I'm not trying to be a jerk, here, and I'm not looking for any apologies, or anything like that, this just happens to touch on a pet peeve of mine. I'm also not saying that the podcast is without value as a gaming resource. Just consider what it would sound like by substituting the term "neo-Pagan" with any other real-world religious (or for that matter racial) demographic. For instance, how would this have sounded?
"Well what about the theme of a community of Mormons threatening good honest folk? Would you put that in your campaign?" and it being met with agreement.
Or:
"Well what about the theme of a community of Jews threatening good honest folk? Would you put that in your campaign?" and it being met with agreement.
Or perhaps:
"Well what about the theme of a community of Muslims threatening good honest folk? Would you put that in your campaign?" and it being met with agreement.
Maybe:
"Well what about the theme of a community of Sikhs threatening good honest folk? Would you put that in your campaign?" and it being met with agreement.

Can you understand where the potentially marginalized demographic is still marginalized, regardless who it is?
And sure, this comes to mind because it's folks of my persuasion mentioned. But the way it was put forth, it would have been someone else if not me, were any other demographic substituted.

Again... take it for what it's worth.
Words have impact and all we know of a person's beliefs is what we hear. Don't believe me? Ask Mel Gibson or the Pope.

 

[FraserRonald]

*shrug*
To each their own.
I'm not particularly thin-skinned, and I wasn't necessarily offended (nor am I easily offended). But the tone of what I heard came across as I said in the previous post. As I said, though: take it for what it's worth. If the feedback has no value to you, then there you have it. If the feedback has value to you, then there you have it.

Saying that our statements were “stupid” or “ignorant” makes me believe that a certain amount of offense was taken, as well as being offensive in and of themselves. I have difficulty with criticism couched in those terms, hence my initial reply. But I think I understand better to what you are referring, so I'd like to address this.

Perhaps it wasn't your intent to further an ignorant stereotype, but whoever said, "Well what about the theme of a community of neo-Pagans threatening good honest folk? Would you put that in your campaign?" to which the other two people agreed, well.. that's what I mean by furthering an ignorant stereotype. (just listened to the portion again to make sure I didn't mis-hear or misunderstand what was said, that's word for word)

You didn't mishear anything. We were after all, discussing a movie that had a clan of neo-pagans threatening innocents. Were we discussing “Kingdom of Heaven,” I might have said the same thing about Christians, and I likely would have used a similar statement: “Well what about the theme of a community of Christians threatening good honest folk? Would you put that in your campaign?” And I would imagine the answer would have been pretty much the same, based on the approach of the movie.

Granted, I didn't come out and say “Not that there's anything wrong with neo-Pagans, because there are many religions considered neo-Pagan, and none of those that I know of practice human sacrifice.” I had hoped that the audience would understand that we are talking in game terms, similar to the approach taken by “Blood & Relics,” a books that also looked at religion in gaming. Perhaps I missed it, but was there a Christian uproar as the book pushes misconceptions about the Christian religion? I know I didn't find it offensive as I understood it was a game product.

I found “The Da Vinci Code” offensive, but for other reasons completely!

I'm not trying to be a jerk, here, and I'm not looking for any apologies, or anything like that, this just happens to touch on a pet peeve of mine. I'm also not saying that the podcast is without value as a gaming resource. Just consider what it would sound like by substituting the term "neo-Pagan" with any other real-world religious (or for that matter racial) demographic. For instance, how would this have sounded?
"Well what about the theme of a community of Mormons threatening good honest folk? Would you put that in your campaign?" and it being met with agreement.
Or:
"Well what about the theme of a community of Jews threatening good honest folk? Would you put that in your campaign?" and it being met with agreement.
Or perhaps:
"Well what about the theme of a community of Muslims threatening good honest folk? Would you put that in your campaign?" and it being met with agreement.
Maybe:
"Well what about the theme of a community of Sikhs threatening good honest folk? Would you put that in your campaign?" and it being met with agreement.

It might be a pet peeve of yours, but terms like “incredibly stupid, or at the very least stereotypically ignorant” aren't going to help foster dispassionate discussion.

Part of the problem is that the term “pagan” is very non-specific, I would say generic. I didn't say “Well what about the theme of a community of Wiccans threatening good honest folk?” or “What about the theme of a community of Taara Religionists threatening good honest folk?” or “What about the theme of a community of Unitarian Universalists threatening good honest folk?”

The term pagan simply means a non-Abrahamic religion (meaning not following the shared traditions of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims), and therefore does include the Sikhs (as well as Hindus and, technically, even Buddhists!). So rather than relating neo-pagan to Islam, it would be closer to saying “monotheists.” That's why I wasn't particularly careful about its use (other than trying to point to a less than serious approach by including the term “good honest folk,” which I didn't think anyone could take seriously).

Would I use a similar statement if we were talking about “the Siege?” Yeah, I likely would, but I think our approach would have been more careful. But if I had said “What about the theme of a community of monotheists threatening good honest folk?” I don't think we would have felt restrained in any way.

Can you understand where the potentially marginalized demographic is still marginalized, regardless who it is?
And sure, this comes to mind because it's folks of my persuasion mentioned. But the way it was put forth, it would have been someone else if not me, were any other demographic substituted.

As a Christian, I am part of a demographic that is regularly ridiculed or stereotyped in the media. But, see, Christian is a pretty wide term. While possibly numerically superior in adherents, Christianity as a term does not cover the wide variety and disparate practices that the term Pagan does. Still, if someone in their game podcast mentioned the theme of a group of apocalyptic Christian survivalists threatening good honest folk, I can't say that I would be offended. While the podcasters might be pushing a stereotype of weird or scary fringe Christians, I think that could make a viable game.

Again... take it for what it's worth.
Words have impact and all we know of a person's beliefs is what we hear. Don't believe me? Ask Mel Gibson or the Pope.

I certainly hope words have an impact. I'm a writer after all. Still, I don't believe our discussion of using generic neo-Pagans matches the utterances to which you refer. Basically, any discussion of any villain is going to impact on some individuals.

I guess it boils down to you believe that any mention of bad pagans furthers discrimination against all religions that might be considered under that term, and I believe that using umbrella terms like pagan, monotheistic, or even totalitarian doesn't increase the discrimination against religions or individuals that might or might not be considered by some to be covered by those terms. I would add that I would hope our audience is smart enough to make the differentiation between evil pagans in games and normal followers of those religions that would be covered by the term pagan.

Finally, I would say that if there is any group on the face of the planet outside of adherents of paganism that would not fall into stereotyping paganism, it would be gamers. I've actually only met individuals who have self-identified as pagans through gaming.

 

[C. Baize]

Saying that our statements were “stupid” or “ignorant” makes me believe that a certain amount of offense was taken, as well as being offensive in and of themselves. I have difficulty with criticism couched in those terms, hence my initial reply. But I think I understand better to what you are referring, so I'd like to address this.

[nit]I did caveat that with "for myself, that portion of the podcast struck me as"[/nit]
And no. I actually wasn't offended, but simply wanted to call attention to the way it came across to me. And I'm glad you understand better where I'm coming from. As a pagan, however, it's in my mind how these things come across. In real life, I have to deal with people thinking that adherents of my religion are neo-Nazis because of the symbolism used by the Nazis, thus it is usually in my mind, and it's a near-constant battle. I only want you to realize where I'm coming from. I'm honestly not offended, but I'd rather err on the side of combatting ignorance than spreading it. I discussed this very subject with another author I edit for, while editing his product. I didn't consider it a "huge uproar" then, and nor do I now. And honestly, including any demographic in your game is your prerogative. Gods know I've done things in game that would be pretty controversial in a conversation or public broadcast, and thus I'm not in any way confused as to the separation between gaming and reality. The only real point there is when you put your words out for public dissemination, someone is likely to either take offense, or call you to task on something. There's quite simply no pleasing everyone.

You didn't mishear anything. We were after all, discussing a movie that had a clan of neo-pagans threatening innocents. Were we discussing “Kingdom of Heaven,” I might have said the same thing about Christians, and I likely would have used a similar statement: “Well what about the theme of a community of Christians threatening good honest folk? Would you put that in your campaign?” And I would imagine the answer would have been pretty much the same, based on the approach of the movie.

Which would also irritate, honestly.
I think there's one word that could make the whole thing correct.
"Extremist"
Believe it or not, my goal is not being a jerk or anything like that. It's more to educate on how easy it is to mean one thing and say something completely different. I've been on both sides of that problem, myself. I would be quite hesitant to talk about a community of people threatening good honest folk, unless they were definitely bad guys in toto. KKK, Black Panthers, Aztlan, Stormfront, Al-Qaeda, etc... for real world types. I wouldn't hesitate to discuss extremists of any group because there's no question that you're talking about the lunatic fringe, but when the contrasting antagonist/protagonist demographics are neo-Pagans and good honest folk.... well... I honestly hope you can see the problem from my perspective.

It might be a pet peeve of yours, but terms like “incredibly stupid, or at the very least stereotypically ignorant” aren't going to help foster dispassionate discussion.

Perhaps not, but they do let you know exactly how I feel about it.

Part of the problem is that the term “pagan” is very non-specific, I would say generic. I didn't say “Well what about the theme of a community of Wiccans threatening good honest folk?” or “What about the theme of a community of Taara Religionists threatening good honest folk?” or “What about the theme of a community of Unitarian Universalists threatening good honest folk?”

Certainly. But, as I said, I also wouldn't contrast Christians with good honest folk, or Jews with good honest folk, or Muslims with good honest folk. That contrast is what furthers the ignorant stereotype. Most adherents of all those religions ARE good honest folk. It's the extremists that are the problem. Honestly, as you're a Christian, would you want folks thinking of all Christians as book burning, bible thumping, snake handling, clinic bombing extremists who cause all those around them a great deal of discomfort by their very presence? As Paganism of any stripe is only just coming back out of the shadows, relatively speaking, we (Pagans) need to nip the negative stereotypes in the bud whenever we encounter them.

The term pagan simply means a non-Abrahamic religion (meaning not following the shared traditions of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims), and therefore does include the Sikhs (as well as Hindus and, technically, even Buddhists!). So rather than relating neo-pagan to Islam, it would be closer to saying “monotheists.” That's why I wasn't particularly careful about its use (other than trying to point to a less than serious approach by including the term “good honest folk,” which I didn't think anyone could take seriously).

Enh... I could go into the definition(s) of Paganism but as a modern interpretation, I'll take it as you've put it. Though, really, in the modern sense, a Pagan is a polytheist, normally which would exclude most Buddhists and Sikhs that I've known. But that's a whole other discussion. As for the "good honest folk" portion, it's that very contrast that is the real root of my problem with the whole thing.

Would I use a similar statement if we were talking about “the Siege?” Yeah, I likely would, but I think our approach would have been more careful. But if I had said “What about the theme of a community of monotheists threatening good honest folk?” I don't think we would have felt restrained in any way.

Why more careful if you were talking about "The Siege"?

As a Christian, I am part of a demographic that is regularly ridiculed or stereotyped in the media. But, see, Christian is a pretty wide term. While possibly numerically superior in adherents, Christianity as a term does not cover the wide variety and disparate practices that the term Pagan does. Still, if someone in their game podcast mentioned the theme of a group of apocalyptic Christian survivalists threatening good honest folk, I can't say that I would be offended. While the podcasters might be pushing a stereotype of weird or scary fringe Christians, I think that could make a viable game.

Ah. But there's the rub. There's a difference between:
"A community of Christians threatening good honest folk."
And:
"A community of apocalyptic Christian survivalists threatening good honest folk."
I'm certain you can see it.

One denotes your average everyday Christian and the other denotes the lunatic fringe.
Really.. if you'd said, "Well, what about the theme of a community of separatist neo-Pagan survivalists...." or "... extremist neo-Pagan separatists..." or any of a number of other caveats... there would have been no question in anyone's mind.

I certainly hope words have an impact. I'm a writer after all. Still, I don't believe our discussion of using generic neo-Pagans matches the utterances to which you refer.

Only because Pagans are not a politically vocal force, and the podcast wasn't broadcast or discussed in the kind of circulation that the other folks' were.

Basically, any discussion of any villain is going to impact on some individuals.

Now you've gotten my point. To a point.
Any discussion of any villain based on real world average folks is going to have an impact on some individuals. Neat thing about discussing the lunatic fringe of any group, though, is that few people (if any) in those groups consider themselves the lunatic fringe.

I guess it boils down to you believe that any mention of bad pagans furthers discrimination against all religions that might be considered under that term, and I believe that using umbrella terms like pagan, monotheistic, or even totalitarian doesn't increase the discrimination against religions or individuals that might or might not be considered by some to be covered by those terms. I would add that I would hope our audience is smart enough to make the differentiation between evil pagans in games and normal followers of those religions that would be covered by the term pagan.

I don't consider any mention of bad pagans to be discrimination by any stretch of the imagination. I do consider contrasting neo-Pagans to good honest folk to be a marginalization of good honest Pagans (and not the lunatic fringe... they deserve all the bad press they bring upon themselves).

Finally, I would say that if there is any group on the face of the planet outside of adherents of paganism that would not fall into stereotyping paganism, it would be gamers. I've actually only met individuals who have self-identified as pagans through gaming.

While I have not a single doubt that's true, I know many Pagans who wouldn't knowingly be caught dead in the same room as a gaming book because of the negative stereotype, but then, I'm active in that community and thus my experience with them covers a very broad spectrum ranging from the average good honest Pagan, to the lunatic neo-Nazi, to the lunatic eco-Nazi, from the ultra-conservative to the ultra-liberal and all shades between.

 

[Mordus]

Pagan, Christians, Zealots OH MY!

I have one thing to say: start a new thread!

Seems like this conversation about spiritual focus and the manner of discussing it, has taken a life of its own. I would start a new thread stating:

I have an issue, this is what it is, and here is a link to my reasons...answer there if you will, if not, I will take that as indifference or acceptance. Either way, just my 2 cents!

I have to be honest, I have no right to comment either way for the podcasters or the podcast-listeners. I can't seem to listen to the podcast from work...something about me having to get my Admistrator to permit that function...MEH! So will have to give it a listen from home one of these days!

Anyways, feel free to continue the commentary, as this is getting kind of funny...but it doesn't really seem to Pro or Con the actuall production or topics in the podcast, but rather the tone or inclination of the speakers.

Me? I am just a Soverign without a throne, so gonna keep floating along speaking up when not required to!

Mordus

 

[FraserRonald]

Yep, no good can come from pursuing this further. I just want to point out that no matter what qualifiers are attached, derogatory statements remain derogatory. When counselling others about their language, it may help if one does the same.

There, I've said my piece. I've stated my thoughts on this, and I don't think further rebuttals will be profitable, so I'm going to leave it at that.