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

[kenjib]

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?

I'm fine with a setting where heroes fight against bigotry. I already said that in one of the sentences that you clipped when you quoted me.

I'm not fine with a setting where the bigotry is built into the setting in such a manner it is advocated and encouraged.

Do you see the difference? It all depends on how the developer implements it, and the fine details.

 

[Buttercup]

Felix, my choice of the word 'indecent' was perhaps a poor one, especially since it made you equate my comments with the folks who advocate banning D&D, or anything else for that matter.

Let me spell out my thoughts on the point more completely. Let us say, just for example, that your gaming group included a black man whose father had been lynched. Throwing white against black, real world, KKK type racism into your game in that circumstance would indeed be indecent, in the sense that no decent person would do that to a friend. It's analagous to including rape in a game where one of the players was a rape victim.

In the online campaign I used to run, half-elves were the product of a deliberate breeding program, and were sold by the thousands as slaves in the past. Half-elven culture was still dealing with these issues, and many half elves still refused to do any sort of manual labor, since it reminded them of the bad old days. I guess that setting was ok for me because half-elves don't exist, because the slavery wasn't still going on, and because it was generally acknowledged to have been a Bad Thing.

 

[fusangite]

I'm very impressed with Buttercup's comments here. In my experience, the most severe damage dealt by the "political correctness" debate is that framing things in this way has meant that so-called conservatives now feel they have license to be rude to people.

Once upon a time, being conservative meant practicing etiquette, politeness and respect. Now, people who call themselves conservative feel they have license to be rude and offensive to people because to do otherwise would be "politically correct."

I'm a politically liberal, socially conservative guy. It is my social conservativism not my political liberalism that makes me avoid language that is hurtful to those around me.

There is no fantasy game that can completely avoid being racist or sexist; we, and our games are the products of the society in which we are situated. What we can avoid is running games and purchasing materials that are hurtful to others.

 

[jhanzur]

I know plenty of women who are well stronger than the guys I know. I daresay the girls I know, for their stature, are far stronger than the guys I know. More endurance and stamina too.

I believe you. I used to live in Auburn, hehe.

 

[The Sigil]

So, why bother publishing something that could just ruin your reputation in such a market that is very hard to survive in?

If a publisher believes it will turn a profit, it will be published, regardless of how you or I or anyone else feels about that. Someone, somewhere will publish it. The answer is simple: money.

Same for racist. As for "racist", I mean between nationalities similar to real-life nationalities (blacks, Jews, etc.), not humans/elves/dwarves. Thankfully, no examples.

I'm not sure I quite follow you here - are you talking about "in-game" racism (e.g., between elves and dwarves in classic D&D) where each race considers itself superior to all other races? I can deal with that - because I think it's *gasp* fairly normal. After all, for me to have a normal, healthy self-esteem, I should look at what I am and what I believe as basically "good" - and that includes my race. I guess I should reverse the question - do I believe <insert your own ethnicity here> is intrinsically WORSE than <insert any other ethnicity>. The answer is hopefully no - if you do, you're liable to have huge self-esteem problems. That doesn't necessarily mean you have to think you're BETTER - you can think we're all EQUAL, but let's face it, by and large, each of us tends to be pretty pleased by who we are and considers most of the qualities that make us up - including, unfortunately, ethnicity, to be "good" and in general "superior" qualities. Ugly but true.

Can I deal with a game where individuals and/or races espouse such beliefs? Absolutely... because they're REALISTIC.

Can I deal with a game where the game mechanics support such beliefs? Absolutely - if you play D&D where creatures have multiple Hit Dice and ECLs you already do!

Can I deal with a game where the writing style is hostile to a certain race/gender/whatever OUTSIDE of illustrating the examples above? Probably not.

In other words, I am okay with a book/game that depicts and even that stats such things. I have more trouble with a book that ADVOCATES such things (see the difference)?

If the book says, "Women are trollops meant only as objects for pleasing men," I MAY have a problem with that. If this sentence is found in describing the views of a culture, or as the motivation for a character, I absolutely do not have a problem with it. Even if such association is implied, I am okay with it. If the sentence is not so qualified and is stated as a statement of "real world" fact, I DO have a problem with it. If the sentence/viewpoint is glorified (and not solely in context of a particular fantasy culture), I have a problem with it, even if it does "belong to a culture."

It's the old question of "depicting" versus "advocating." I am fine with depicting distasteful acts (in a tasteful manner). I am not fine with depicting distasteful acts in a distasteful manner (such as "in gory detail") and am even less fine with advocating distasteful acts. To me, racism and sexism are distasteful. Since the question asked, "would you" my opinion is a valid premise to work from for sake of this argument - so long as we are ONLY talking about me.

IOW, I can discern when such attitudes are "part of a setting" and "advocating real-world beliefs and actions" - the former are fine, the latter are not. In the same way, I can tolerate things that I personally find repugnant - drug use, slavery, abuse, and so forth - provided that they generally occur "off-screen" in the game and are not glorified (IMO, putting these types of things "on-screen" is almost always de facto glorification - which is why, for instance the BoVD bothers me, while the Principalities of Glantri Gazetteer - where dwarves (my favorite race) and clerics are ridiculed and hated due to the societal constraints - does not bother me - the hatred is done mostly "off camera" and certainly isn't statted out in gory detail - I felt the BoVD was there to glorify evil even if it is "just for DMs" because it encourages putting it in the spotlight). But I'm getting off topic here, so I'll shut up. I hope I have made my point clear.

Elder Basilisk's point is well-taken: "I can deal with some evil, but only that which does not hit close to home for me" is a legitimate response, but understand what hits close to home for you does not hit close to home for others. Hopefully my comments about "depicting" vs. "advocating" are applicable regardless of what particular acts you personally find distasteful. I hope we all are mature enough to cope with a "tasteful depiction" of items we find "evil" --- but it is assumed that "untasteful depiction" and "advocation" will by default tread upon sensibilities.

The question then becomes, I guess, where is the line. IMO, it's like pornography - nude does not equal porn, nor does porn equal nude. The only definition that I can give of where the line between "tasteful depiction" and "not" is that "It cannot be qualitatively expressed, but is recognized when seen" - and the line may move slightly from person to person.

--The Sigil

 

[Felix]

kenjib:
So then the demon summoning example works? It would unless you're fine with material which advocates the real-world pursuit of magic power to summon demons, and I don't think you do. What doesn't hold up?

Buttercup:
I honestly didn't equate your word choice with anything, nor thought you were a censorship crusader; I did recognized that the same term is used by pro censors. Like I said, I didn't want anyone to take a cue off of your post so I pre-empted.

I was distressed at your opinion concerning the relativity of Evil, but that's a seperate discussion entirely.

I agree about the lynched father's son and KKK campaign; it would be in the worst taste.

Sounds like your setting could be interesting. You have a good time running it?

So we have our culprits: my censorship paranoia, and your unfortunate word choice. No worries, luv.

 

[kenjib]

kenjib:
So then the demon summoning example works? It would unless you're fine with material which advocates the real-world pursuit of magic power to summon demons, and I don't think you do. What doesn't hold up?

Reread my post.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

If someone wants to publish an rpg that is blatantly racist, I say go for it. The Bill of Rights gives them this right. Good luck selling it, though.