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

[RSKennan]

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

Boy, that's sounding alot like an aguement over on RPG.net right now...

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

Well, there is at least one real world religion that says that Native Americans were "cursed" with dark skin for refusing said religion. It's a slippery slope. Intraspecies Racism (among humans) will never occur in my games. Nationalism, sure, but never Racism.

 

[RSKennan]

Let me qualify the above by saying that maybe, just maybe, at some later date I might feel differently about addressing the topic, but it would only appear in my game as something that needs to be destroyed. For now, though, I'll admit I'm very uncomfortable with the subject, and play the game to escape such real world evils. To me this is not hypocrisy, just personal taste. Nor does it make another group "racist" if they have the psychic wherewithal to handle the topic in a mature way. I admit I don't.


It's becoming PC to bash those whose beliefs are considered PC. It's just another bandwagon hopping excercise if you ask me. My beliefs are what they are, even when they go out of style.

This and the above statement go for the opression of women as well.

 

[Kilmore]

Well, I have to admit, it would be a huge turn-off for me.

Certainly I would consider anything that states "women are such and such and people of this ethnic race get a minus to such and a bonus to another thing in this setting because that's the way they are in real life" to be utter garbage.

I would return the book to the store, get my money back, inform the store manager of what kind of trash has infiltrated his shelves (I would have to assume that the manager is unaware of the contents of the book), and put the word out on the enworld boards.

Now if there were differences solely based on campaign considerations, such as the types of magic of men and women in WOT, that would be different. I would even accept "in this country, they treat women like crap." because that's unfortunately a distinction that sets real world cultures apart.

 

[Larry Fitz]

The question was "Would you buy/play a blatantly racist or sexist campaign setting?" not "Would you buy/play a campaign setting with racist or sexist elements to be overcome?" The difference is obvious and is really the crux of what most people are saying here. A racist/sexist campaign setting is one which includes certain biases about characters based on OOG racism and/or sexism. That's the one where women and men are given different modifiers to various attributes OR different Minimums/Maximums in attributes (like in 1st Edition), or different HUMAN races are given the same treatment for arbitrary and derogatory purposes. A campaign with racist or sexist obstacles to overcome is one where different cultures have different biasesthat PC's need to cope with and/or overcome. Such as an Amazon-like culture considering men inconsequential, or a swarthy tribal culture considering light skin to be a sign of evil due to the resemblance to undead. Publications that endorse racism, misogyny or intolerance are not allowed to taste the sweet ambrosia that pours forth from my wallet. Publications that show a game world as diverse and interesting as the real world do get my ducats.

 

[Buttercup]

... but you cannot ban things simply because it may be upsetting; ban it because it is presented in an untasteful way.

Perhaps you missed the thrust of my argument:

DnD has captial "E" evil. It has banal evil. Evil runs the gamut in DnD. And yet "Social Injustice" is barred. Absurd. Not confronting the issue will not make it go away.

No, I didn't miss anything. I don't believe I ever suggested anything should be barred or banned. I said that I understood why Necromancers were largely considered ok, while real world injustices were largely considered out of bounds. I didn't tell anyone how to think, or how to play.

Let me see if I can be more clear. I, personally, would not purchase nor play in a blatantly racist or sexist campaign setting. Nor would I purchase, nor play in, a campaign setting that is too close to real world ugliness, such as Afghanistan D20. I play to escape from the nastiness of real life, not to confront or work through my or my players' real world issues. Perhaps others like that sort of thing, but I don't. So I wouldn't spend time or money on it.

 

[Buttercup]

It's becoming PC to bash those whose beliefs are considered PC. It's just another bandwagon hopping excercise if you ask me. My beliefs are what they are, even when they go out of style.

Thanks for summing up something that has been gnawing on me for some time. Not necessarily here at EN World, but in general these days in the US.

 

[Gez]

I don't have troubles with a campaign setting that feature racist and sexist peoples. To the contrary, it add realism and verisimilitude to the world. A setting without shortsightedness would break the suspension of disbelief.

However, what you meant was about game settings that are themselves racist or sexist, i.e. settings written by shortsighted pigs who can't know how to temper their idiocy.

Then, of course not. I don't want to give my money to people who promote dangerous (and plain dumb) ideas.

 

[Buttercup]

Is evil (or EVIL or Evil) OK as long as it doesn't bother me? Apparently so.

You say that like it's a bad thing?

 

[LostSoul]

I probably would play in a game setting that was racist and sexist. Especially if the focus was on the PCs as the underclass. That would make for an interesting setting.

Would I buy it, though? Only if the setting were interesting. Which is my criteria for any setting, and the reason I've passed on other "safe" settings before.

 

[Gez]

To put it in another way:

Let's take two campaign settings. Both features blue-eyed, blond-haired, fair-skinned elves that consider themselves the only true sentient race, the rightful ruler of all creation; and who treat all other peoples, even fellow elves of other subraces, to be just barely talking cattle.

These nazi elves are unbearable racist bastards. Quite a common archetype, isn't it ?

In setting A, they are described as such, and their given alignment is clearly labelled as evil. Player characters are not expected to be from that race.

In setting B, their alignment is chaotic good, the background explains that they are "justified" in their attitude, several rules are introduced in order to back their pretention of being übermenschen (well, überelfen); and player characters are expected to be these racist elves and go on racist crusades.



Setting A is OK, although cliché, setting B is just right out.



That's, IMHO, the difference between a setting that feature racism and a setting that is racist.