Would you buy/play a blatantly racist or sexist campaign setting?
- Thread starter Fred Delles
- Start date
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. No, Fred did not raise this question. If it has not been clearly raised before, I will try to now: How does a society determine what is acceptable or unacceptable, in this case applied to the publication of d20 campaign settings, if the criteria for acceptability is that the subject matter does not offend anyone, and this particular society is ruled by the thought that each person has the ability to deem a product offensive, and therefore unacceptable? In such a scenario, everything could offend anyone, and their reasons for such offense are untouchable, because, as stated before, everything is relative to that individual.
If, due to rampant relativism, things lose their inherent moral value (Good or Evil), then acts of racism and bigotry cease to be Evil acts. Saving a child from an oncoming car at the risk of your life ceases to be a Good act. They cease to be so because those terms lose their meaning; they mean nothing when everyone has their own definition and criteria. If words lose their meaning, communication becomes impossible, and everything becomes higgledy piggledy.
Yes, everything becoming higgledy piggledy is an extreme case. But it follows from the statement of "evil (or EVIL or Evil) is OK because it doesn't bother me." Once something is OK to me, in a relative sense, it ceases to be evil. Who is to say whose definition of evil is the correct one?
I think it is a very bad, and dangerous, thing.
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. No, Fred did not raise this question. If it has not been clearly raised before, I will try to now: How does a society determine what is acceptable or unacceptable, in this case applied to the publication of d20 campaign settings, if the criteria for acceptability is that the subject matter does not offend anyone, and this particular society is ruled by the thought that each person has the ability to deem a product offensive, and therefore unacceptable? In such a scenario, everything could offend anyone, and their reasons for such offense are untouchable, because, as stated before, everything is relative to that individual.
If, due to rampant relativism, things lose their inherent moral value (Good or Evil), then acts of racism and bigotry cease to be Evil acts. Saving a child from an oncoming car at the risk of your life ceases to be a Good act. They cease to be so because those terms lose their meaning; they mean nothing when everyone has their own definition and criteria. If words lose their meaning, communication becomes impossible, and everything becomes higgledy piggledy.
Yes, everything becoming higgledy piggledy is an extreme case. But it follows from the statement of "evil (or EVIL or Evil) is OK because it doesn't bother me." Once something is OK to me, in a relative sense, it ceases to be evil. Who is to say whose definition of evil is the correct one?
I think it is a very bad, and dangerous, thing.
Can I play in a game that contains the following?
Racism? Yes, characters can always have a variety of motivations, if you play a setting based on the victorian age a certain degree of racism from the standpoint of the white man's burden is natural.
Sexism? Yes, see above, in certain settings equality between the sexes is out of place.
Ultra-violence? Puh-lease how many games don't involve splatter-punk elements?
Slavery? Very much part and parcel of historical and psuedo-historical settings.
Sadism and Torture? Pretty much off camera and largely restricted to villians and anti-heroes but occasionally the temptation to do evil to prevent evil has come into place.
Don't get me wrong I don't intentionally go out of my way to shock people (CoC excepted) but in a mature setting very few things are off limits. I'm comfortable using vile things to illustrate evil but it needs to be done in moderation and to emphasize a point rather than just be mentioned in passing.
For instance I could concievably have CoC game where the investigators travel to a country where a ethnic minority is being exterminated ala Nazi Germany or numerous other examples. A mythos plot could easily fit within those settings but I think it would be irresponsible to use the mythos to explain away the Holocaust etc. Humans don't need mythos reasons to be evil. What I would try to emphasize is that the veneer of civilization is in fact often just a veneer and that we as a species are not that far removed from the alien evil of the mythos.
Racism? Yes, characters can always have a variety of motivations, if you play a setting based on the victorian age a certain degree of racism from the standpoint of the white man's burden is natural.
Sexism? Yes, see above, in certain settings equality between the sexes is out of place.
Ultra-violence? Puh-lease how many games don't involve splatter-punk elements?
Slavery? Very much part and parcel of historical and psuedo-historical settings.
Sadism and Torture? Pretty much off camera and largely restricted to villians and anti-heroes but occasionally the temptation to do evil to prevent evil has come into place.
Don't get me wrong I don't intentionally go out of my way to shock people (CoC excepted) but in a mature setting very few things are off limits. I'm comfortable using vile things to illustrate evil but it needs to be done in moderation and to emphasize a point rather than just be mentioned in passing.
For instance I could concievably have CoC game where the investigators travel to a country where a ethnic minority is being exterminated ala Nazi Germany or numerous other examples. A mythos plot could easily fit within those settings but I think it would be irresponsible to use the mythos to explain away the Holocaust etc. Humans don't need mythos reasons to be evil. What I would try to emphasize is that the veneer of civilization is in fact often just a veneer and that we as a species are not that far removed from the alien evil of the mythos.
Viktyr Gehrig
First Post
Emiricol said:
Xenophobia that leads your culture to shoot people in their sleep, without provocation, because they're close to your lands is Evil.
The distinctly racist attitudes towards Humans in several campaign settings are pretty obvious, too. Dragonlance is about the most blatant, though even Forgotten Realms shows strong signs of it.
Now, you don't suppose they just walk away from all the treasure on the people they shot down, do you?
Emiricol
Registered User
We here in the US don't allow "adventurers" (say, a guy with a nice tank, another with a flame thrower, and some guy with a MiG) to waltz through our country on their way to fight bandits in Canada. We (and any country) would forcibly prevent that, and if they did not heed us, they'd be attacked. Their tank and plane would probably not be mailed to their wife and kid in Europe, or wherever. That's not evil, really. At least not in the horrible racist/sexist way the post originator was discussing.
Per your example, going outside your country's borders to loot and kill WOULD be evil. Can you imagine if the Marines stormed Tiajuana or Vancouver and killed everyone there? Ugh. In the FR, there are elves who fit this bill. They are generally considered evil - an example of pride carried too far. You can almost see the little swastikas on those elves' armbands...
Per your example, going outside your country's borders to loot and kill WOULD be evil. Can you imagine if the Marines stormed Tiajuana or Vancouver and killed everyone there? Ugh. In the FR, there are elves who fit this bill. They are generally considered evil - an example of pride carried too far. You can almost see the little swastikas on those elves' armbands...
Zander
Explorer
I have bought a "blatantly racist or sexist campaign setting."
I have Fantasy Wargaming by Bruce Galloway which is an RPG not a wargame despite its title. It's set in medieval Europe with magic thrown in. Christians can use magic, but not well. If you want a character who's decent in magic, you'll have to play a Jew (or a Muslim). Obversely, if you want to play a warrior, you can forget about playing a Jew. Thoughout most of medieval Europe, Jews were forbidden from wearing armour or owning weapons.
I don't think the game is particularly offensive. If anything, this differentiation adds an interesting dimension to the game. In this regard, it's similar to the setting in the novel Ivanhoe by Sir Walter Scott. The milieu is racist (actually ethnicist) and the choices open to the characters are limited by their religio-ethnic group, but the characters themselves do not have to be social bigots. Having said that, I wouldn't pernalise a player in Fantasy Wargaming for playing a character who was prejudiced. It would add to the realism.
As for the issue of sex and strength, I think female PC's should have the same strength distribution as males (i.e. 4d6 drop the lowest). But, for ordinary NPC's, men should be significantly stronger than women on average. This allows for exceptionally strong women, without assuming that men and women are equally strong overall.
I have Fantasy Wargaming by Bruce Galloway which is an RPG not a wargame despite its title. It's set in medieval Europe with magic thrown in. Christians can use magic, but not well. If you want a character who's decent in magic, you'll have to play a Jew (or a Muslim). Obversely, if you want to play a warrior, you can forget about playing a Jew. Thoughout most of medieval Europe, Jews were forbidden from wearing armour or owning weapons.
I don't think the game is particularly offensive. If anything, this differentiation adds an interesting dimension to the game. In this regard, it's similar to the setting in the novel Ivanhoe by Sir Walter Scott. The milieu is racist (actually ethnicist) and the choices open to the characters are limited by their religio-ethnic group, but the characters themselves do not have to be social bigots. Having said that, I wouldn't pernalise a player in Fantasy Wargaming for playing a character who was prejudiced. It would add to the realism.
As for the issue of sex and strength, I think female PC's should have the same strength distribution as males (i.e. 4d6 drop the lowest). But, for ordinary NPC's, men should be significantly stronger than women on average. This allows for exceptionally strong women, without assuming that men and women are equally strong overall.
I have played in campaigns that are vile enough to make the BOVD run off with its tail (pointed natch) between its proverbial legs
Slavery, Murder, Sexism, Torture you name it we have had it it in game
Heck we have had Boy Brothels (not when I ran though eeew) Torture of Children (only once, the players crossed the invisible line and that campaign died) Sex Slaves (when I was young
) and worse
I can't say I enjoy that sort of thing in games so, while its not realitic I sanitized most of it out along with Graphic Sex and Ultra Violence
Its a bit PC, sure but its more fun for me. I want adventure not Realism...
As far as buying a setting with some of those elements?
Sure.
Heck I plan on picking up Perils of Gor
I can rule Zero what I don't like and the Gor supplement will likley some raidable bits
In the game I was last playing in, Pyrates of Glorianas Second Reign (or something) we had Nationalism, Sexism, Racism and a shocking amount of Anti Catholic bigotry.
Heck our partys Assassin/Rogue/Twin Rapier Twink Ranger had species enemy "Catholics" which was alllowed on anyone who displayed any Catholic traits.
This bothered me mainly because they players had a touch of that attitude IRL, that was the problem not the roleplaying
it wasn't enough to spoil the game as long as it was kept in character only. The real bigotry OTOH
The campaign died of other causes. I say good riddance.
On the whole the various real world uglies really aren't much worse than the fact that many D&D partys are an unwholesome combo of Grave Robber and Home Invasion Robber
Not all of them, heck not most of them.
Still there are plenty of "They are just Orcs Lets Kill em and take their stuff" attitude out there for me to have commented "
Substitute your favorite minority for Orc" and reframe, the thought makes me a little creepy actually
Since we are all adults who can seperate fantasy from reality this isn't a problem howver just to spare my SAN I am not allowing evil characters without forwarning
Slavery, Murder, Sexism, Torture you name it we have had it it in game
Heck we have had Boy Brothels (not when I ran though eeew) Torture of Children (only once, the players crossed the invisible line and that campaign died) Sex Slaves (when I was young
) and worseI can't say I enjoy that sort of thing in games so, while its not realitic I sanitized most of it out along with Graphic Sex and Ultra Violence
Its a bit PC, sure but its more fun for me. I want adventure not Realism...
As far as buying a setting with some of those elements?
Sure.
Heck I plan on picking up Perils of Gor
I can rule Zero what I don't like and the Gor supplement will likley some raidable bits
In the game I was last playing in, Pyrates of Glorianas Second Reign (or something) we had Nationalism, Sexism, Racism and a shocking amount of Anti Catholic bigotry.
Heck our partys Assassin/Rogue/Twin Rapier Twink Ranger had species enemy "Catholics" which was alllowed on anyone who displayed any Catholic traits.
This bothered me mainly because they players had a touch of that attitude IRL, that was the problem not the roleplaying
it wasn't enough to spoil the game as long as it was kept in character only. The real bigotry OTOH
The campaign died of other causes. I say good riddance.
On the whole the various real world uglies really aren't much worse than the fact that many D&D partys are an unwholesome combo of Grave Robber and Home Invasion Robber
Not all of them, heck not most of them.
Still there are plenty of "They are just Orcs Lets Kill em and take their stuff" attitude out there for me to have commented "
Substitute your favorite minority for Orc" and reframe, the thought makes me a little creepy actually
Since we are all adults who can seperate fantasy from reality this isn't a problem howver just to spare my SAN I am not allowing evil characters without forwarning
Shard O'Glase
First Post
Re: 10 month - 100 post anniversary! Yay
Yeah I've seen so much of that in this thread.
OK this is a big pet peeve of mine, but I see way to many times when someone says I hate X, I think it sucks, what you said sucks is dumb etc. The answer isn't no it isn't here's why, or good for you our opinions differ, it's always some lame free speach bit about how your oppresing my rights. Yeah expressing my opinion on your opinion is violating your free speach rights I'm opressing you. Same thing here. I think virutally universally everyone here on the NO side has said they wouldn't want to play it, they wouldn't buy it, and they woudln't like it. But they haven't said a publisher doesn't have the right to print it.(and i'm sure a post or two might be different but those would be the exception and Buttercups post certainly wouldn't fall into that category)
Felix said:
Yeah I've seen so much of that in this thread.
OK this is a big pet peeve of mine, but I see way to many times when someone says I hate X, I think it sucks, what you said sucks is dumb etc. The answer isn't no it isn't here's why, or good for you our opinions differ, it's always some lame free speach bit about how your oppresing my rights. Yeah expressing my opinion on your opinion is violating your free speach rights I'm opressing you. Same thing here. I think virutally universally everyone here on the NO side has said they wouldn't want to play it, they wouldn't buy it, and they woudln't like it. But they haven't said a publisher doesn't have the right to print it.(and i'm sure a post or two might be different but those would be the exception and Buttercups post certainly wouldn't fall into that category)
Similar Threads
- Locked
