Would you buy/play a blatantly racist or sexist campaign setting?
- Thread starter Fred Delles
- Start date
Shard O'Glase:
I understand that Buttercup does not fall into that category.
I was trying to express my opinion that ideas like this
Regardless, my question about legitimizing published material was an honest one. The title of the thread is "Would you buy/play a blatantly racist or sexist campaign setting?" Consice answers to that question are "Yes" or "No", no explanation needed. I'm trying to initiate a conversation over wether people should buy/play racist or sexist campaign settings, and what their reasoning is.
Truly, I do not know how to answer my own question. I do not know how a relativist society can define and apply abstract thoughts like acceptability when universals such as "Good" or "Bad" are thrown out of the window by relativity. Seriously, if anybody knows, I'd like to hear.
Granted, an answer will be reviewed, debated and argued, but that's the point of writing on messageboards, right?
[EDIT] I want to make the distinction between a company's right to publish, and the moral judgement therein: Ought they publish?
I understand that Buttercup does not fall into that category.
I was trying to express my opinion that ideas like this
are problematic beacuse they are inconsistent. And this inconsistentcy, while not exhibited to a great degree on this thread, can be damaging.
Regardless, my question about legitimizing published material was an honest one. The title of the thread is "Would you buy/play a blatantly racist or sexist campaign setting?" Consice answers to that question are "Yes" or "No", no explanation needed. I'm trying to initiate a conversation over wether people should buy/play racist or sexist campaign settings, and what their reasoning is.
I thought I was trying to get people to exercise their free speach by exercising my own, and I don't know if the above statement was sarcasm or in ernest. Buttercup said something I disagree with and I responded. Where is the lame free speach bit?
Truly, I do not know how to answer my own question. I do not know how a relativist society can define and apply abstract thoughts like acceptability when universals such as "Good" or "Bad" are thrown out of the window by relativity. Seriously, if anybody knows, I'd like to hear.
Granted, an answer will be reviewed, debated and argued, but that's the point of writing on messageboards, right?
[EDIT] I want to make the distinction between a company's right to publish, and the moral judgement therein: Ought they publish?
Last edited:
RSKennan
Explorer
Re: 10 month - 100 post anniversary! Yay
Ideas have no inherent qualities. We apply meaning to them. Everything is relative, otherwise everyone with a modicum of intellegence would agree on so-called "moral issues". No one is saying that these themes should be "banned", just that we don't want to deal with them in our games. Others can do what they want, and no one is trying to stifle anyone else's opinions. It's just that placing them in a game context seems to trivialize them.
Unapologetically, yes. The violence in my games rarely gets as descriptive as you're implying, however. The violence in most of my games is no more real than in a PG-13 movie.
Exactly.
I suppose I agree with you on this point. But it was never implied that censorship should be in place. I think the market would take care of itself if anyone published a game with built in racism.
Consider this; several ancient cultures took part in human sacrifice that they believed was for the greater good. It gave them peace to know that they were continuing the cycle of life, and this helped the culture hold itself together. We call that evil, and yet we still sacrifice a few for the good of the many- it's called capital punishment. (Which I disagree with BTW)
There is no absolute ruler to measure anything in this universe of ours, why should it be any different for human experience? If such a system were game mechanincs, it would be called "broken" in a second.
For the purposes of a game, we pretend that "Good" and "Evil" have a real meaning, based on an absolutist viewpoint, which is nothing more than a convieninece, and just as self inconsistent as any relativist view.
No one's definition is correct. The emperor wears no clothes.The sky is not falling.
[Edited for typos]
Felix said:
Ideas have no inherent qualities. We apply meaning to them. Everything is relative, otherwise everyone with a modicum of intellegence would agree on so-called "moral issues". No one is saying that these themes should be "banned", just that we don't want to deal with them in our games. Others can do what they want, and no one is trying to stifle anyone else's opinions. It's just that placing them in a game context seems to trivialize them.
Elder Basilisk said:
Unapologetically, yes. The violence in my games rarely gets as descriptive as you're implying, however. The violence in most of my games is no more real than in a PG-13 movie.
Felix said:
Exactly.
Felix said:
I suppose I agree with you on this point. But it was never implied that censorship should be in place. I think the market would take care of itself if anyone published a game with built in racism.
Good and Evil are like the word "Pretty". They describe a personal opinion that has everything to do with personal taste. Basically, anything that is believed beneficial "to me or my society" is deemed good, and anything that is not is deemed evil.Felix said:
Consider this; several ancient cultures took part in human sacrifice that they believed was for the greater good. It gave them peace to know that they were continuing the cycle of life, and this helped the culture hold itself together. We call that evil, and yet we still sacrifice a few for the good of the many- it's called capital punishment. (Which I disagree with BTW)
There is no absolute ruler to measure anything in this universe of ours, why should it be any different for human experience? If such a system were game mechanincs, it would be called "broken" in a second.
For the purposes of a game, we pretend that "Good" and "Evil" have a real meaning, based on an absolutist viewpoint, which is nothing more than a convieninece, and just as self inconsistent as any relativist view.
Felix said:
No one's definition is correct. The emperor wears no clothes.The sky is not falling.
[Edited for typos]
Last edited:
When asked about this, the Buddha told the following story.
"Once there was a wise farmer. One day, his only horse ran away. He would now have no way to plow his fields. His neighbor came over to console him on his bad luck.
The farmer just said "Who can say what is good and what is bad?"
The next day, the farmer's horse returned, along with ten wild horses following it. He was now the richest man in the village. His neighbor came over to congradulate him on his good fortune.
The farmer just said "Who can say what is good and what is bad?"
A couple days later, the farmer's son was trying to break one of the new horses to the saddle. The boy fell from the horse and broke his leg. Again, the neighbor came to console the wise farmer.
The farmer just said "Who can say what is good and what is bad?"
The next day the King's men came through the village. They were going to war, and all the young men had to go and fight. But the farmer's son was exepted, since he was hurt. The neighbor once again came to congradulate the wise farmer.
The farmer just said "Who can say what is good and what is bad.""
All actions have consequences, and us unelightened folk cannot percieve what ends may come.
Racism used to oppress people and maintian power is bad. Racism used in a novel, movie, or roleplaying game to illustrate a point and enlighten its viewers/players is good.
So is racism good or bad?
Shard O'Glase
First Post
Felix said:
I was repllying in general to this, with my rant "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"
Given the context of everything else it seemed to me rightly or wrongly(not knowing your intent just my impresion of what you were implying) that you were implying we were straying into this ground by saying this crap sucks, I wouldn't play in a worldlike X.
As for the distinction between the right and ought, therin lies my pet peeve, because when ever someone questions the ought to part they frequently are decried as bad because they are attmepting to take away the right.
So right well yeah they obviously have and should have the right.(I'm against the recent turns in law that made the hitmans guide and anarchist cookbook illegal in USA)
Ought to, so are so many shades of racism and sexism and how it is portratyed it is hard to say this is the line you crossed it, you ought not t ahve published it sleaze trader.
Personally I think it comes down to tone, when the world is becoming preachy and preachng that racism/sexism is fine and dandy I think it's sleaze, if it is a desriptive text of the culture in that world it is merely a world I wouldn't enjoy playing in as much as others.
The problem with this discussion is that what we are really discussing is not whether games/books are racist or sexist but rather how and to what degree they are racist or sexist. Ultimately, the line we draw is an arbitrary one.
I would not buy the Gor books or game. However, I'm an avid fan of Tolkien. Being a person who is about 32% Black, I find the books a little hard to take from time to time -- essentially, all people with Asian or African features are primitive and/or evil in the Tolkien universe. Most of my Jewish friends have given up on the Star Trek universe as a result of the creation of the Ferengi but others have not even though they acknowledge the species is basically how medieval Europeans imagined Jews to be, from nature to physical features, right down the to teeth.
I think this discussion cuts right to the heart of why we play RPGs and why we read fantasy -- the settings the sci-fi and fantasy genres create allow us to play with issues of sex and race in ways that we couldn't in a more "realistic" genre. I think it is good for there to be an outlet where people can play with these issues in a non-upsetting or less upsetting way.
The last campaign I ran could have been viewed as quite racist by Native Americans, although others might have really enjoyed it. The same is true of a previous campaign and how it might have made women feel. But these games allowed me and my players to examine issues of race and gender because they were taken outside of the modern world and placed in a sci-fi or fantasy context.
Further back in the thread, one poster made the excellent point that virtually all RPGs allow us to play with violence in ways that we could not in a "modern" story. I think RPGs play an important social role precisely because they allow us to be veiled murderers, racists, etc.; violence, racism and sexism, while bad social forces, are traits inherent in all of us to one degree or another and it would be a terrible social development if we abolished all outlets for them because they would assert themselves more strongly in our ordinary lives.
That stated, I think that there is a difference between running games where a particular gender or race faces social repression and games wherein the rules are stacked against an individual of that gender or race. I'm never in favour of D20 rules which award a particular group an overall negative bonus (sure, give women a -2 STR but make those points up somewhere else). My feeling is that granting an overall negative to a particular group is just another way of the DM saying "you can't play this type of character."And I, myself, find outright prohibition easier than a numerical disincentive.
I would not buy the Gor books or game. However, I'm an avid fan of Tolkien. Being a person who is about 32% Black, I find the books a little hard to take from time to time -- essentially, all people with Asian or African features are primitive and/or evil in the Tolkien universe. Most of my Jewish friends have given up on the Star Trek universe as a result of the creation of the Ferengi but others have not even though they acknowledge the species is basically how medieval Europeans imagined Jews to be, from nature to physical features, right down the to teeth.
I think this discussion cuts right to the heart of why we play RPGs and why we read fantasy -- the settings the sci-fi and fantasy genres create allow us to play with issues of sex and race in ways that we couldn't in a more "realistic" genre. I think it is good for there to be an outlet where people can play with these issues in a non-upsetting or less upsetting way.
The last campaign I ran could have been viewed as quite racist by Native Americans, although others might have really enjoyed it. The same is true of a previous campaign and how it might have made women feel. But these games allowed me and my players to examine issues of race and gender because they were taken outside of the modern world and placed in a sci-fi or fantasy context.
Further back in the thread, one poster made the excellent point that virtually all RPGs allow us to play with violence in ways that we could not in a "modern" story. I think RPGs play an important social role precisely because they allow us to be veiled murderers, racists, etc.; violence, racism and sexism, while bad social forces, are traits inherent in all of us to one degree or another and it would be a terrible social development if we abolished all outlets for them because they would assert themselves more strongly in our ordinary lives.
That stated, I think that there is a difference between running games where a particular gender or race faces social repression and games wherein the rules are stacked against an individual of that gender or race. I'm never in favour of D20 rules which award a particular group an overall negative bonus (sure, give women a -2 STR but make those points up somewhere else). My feeling is that granting an overall negative to a particular group is just another way of the DM saying "you can't play this type of character."And I, myself, find outright prohibition easier than a numerical disincentive.
AngelTears
First Post
Fred Delles said:
I went back and thought I would respond to the original question. The thread seems to be devolving into a discussion of Good and Evil. I disagree with them on major points, but since religious discussions are not allowed I wil abide by that ruling.
First off about publishing; you can create a work that is morally upsetting . Will it sell most likely better then most other games? Most likely it will. Is it morally right? That depends on whom you are selling the game to. Adults for instance will have a different interpretation of what is acceptable then children.
As for playing such games, I think that is upto the players. If they feel uncomfertable in what is being done then I think they should bow out.
I can't but help think of the sex industry vs teen magazines. Most cover the same topics, just from different angles.
-Angel Tears
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?
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?
Shard O'Glase:
So long as posters abide by board decorum, I think it can be very productive.
And no, I wasn't accusing anyone of "This stuff sucks" syndrome. At least, I hadn't yet.
You folks seem too smart to do something as silly as that.
This is what makes this kind of discussion so lively!By Shard
Ought to, so are so many shades of racism and sexism and how it is portratyed it is hard to say this is the line you crossed it, you ought not to have published it sleaze trader.
So long as posters abide by board decorum, I think it can be very productive.And no, I wasn't accusing anyone of "This stuff sucks" syndrome. At least, I hadn't yet.
You folks seem too smart to do something as silly as that.Similar Threads
- Locked
