PDA

View Full Version : Discrimination as a Setting Element



gom jabbarwocky
2014-12-18, 08:04 PM
Lately, I've been running a superheroes game wherein there is a notable portion of the general public who express discrimination against meta- and transhuman people (like in X-Men). In the last session that I ran, one of the PCs (a very visibly non-baseline human) asked some paramedics to ride in the ambulance with an injured friend to the hospital. The paramedics refused.

As the GM, roleplaying this really rubbed me the wrong way. It got me thinking that I've never really done that in all my years of gaming - even in settings where prejudice exists, I can't recall ever really digging into it. When it come down to brass tacks, what it really comes down to is that roleplaying bigotry of that kind just isn't fun. It's not like I'm pretending that it doesn't exist in reality, I would just rather that in my escapism it's not something I have to deal with. But it still feels, I don't know... dishonest?

I'm curious as to how other people deal with this in games where it is or could be relevant. Does anyone here have any stories of steampunk games that openly dealt with racist motivations for colonialism? Or Call of Cthulhu games that have acknowledged the role of misogyny in 1920s culture? Fantasy games that have dug into the racial strife between elves and dwarves? I'm curious to how it was handled (or conspicuously not handled) or how this can be shown in a game without it detracting from the good clean fun we all show up for.

Tengu_temp
2014-12-18, 08:21 PM
In general, before you introduce discrimination that also takes place in real life - sexism, racism, etc - make sure everyone at the table is comfortable with that. This includes yourself. If there's at least one person who'd rather not deal with that in their pretendy fun games, then don't include it. Do note that this is about settings, not characters - unless someone is really uncomfortable with that, it's okay to have an NPC who looks down on women, for example, as long as it's obvious this guy is a jerk and the PCs are not supposed to like him.

You can be more lenient with fantastical discrimination - against mutants, or robots, or orcs - and discrimination that doesn't really exist in real life anymore, like nobles looking down on commoners. Here, the default assumption is that the players are comfortable with that, and you don't have to make sure they are. Still, if someone expresses their discomfort, drop it anyway.

I never really played any games where real life bigotry was a big setting element, but I did play and run a few with fantastical discrimination. The most notable was a Megaman-inspired game where some humans were suspicious and prejudiced against robots. And everyone in the party was a robot.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-12-18, 08:32 PM
I can see how someone of strong moral character could have serious trouble doing that sort of thing. Personally, while I find it reprehensible on a moral and intellectual level, I also grew up in small towns in the deep south where it is stunningly common. Consequently I developed more than a little tolerance as a necessity for getting along in society. Thanks to that and, if I do say so myself, some decent acting skill I'm able to set aside my own distaste and portray it with frightening (to me) accuracy.

Of course, I also play Evil as pretty damn dark and Good as moral exemplars too. The key, IMO, is being able to set aside yourself and lock into your mind "it is the character's beliefs and outlook, not my own." While that's not an acceptable excuse for players being jerks it's a decent rationalization for the DM if, and this is a hell of a big "if," the players are comfortable exploring this darker aspect of the human(oid) condition. If playing a racist (or any other character of reprehensible outlook) makes you or your players too uncomfortable you should feel absolutely free to white-wash that aspect of -any- setting, your own or a published one, completely out of the game.

Bigotry, rape, murder, arson, and jaywalking are all things that happen, period. That doesn't mean they are things that have to happen in your game.

Grinner
2014-12-18, 08:43 PM
But it still feels, I don't know... dishonest?

...I'm curious to how it was handled (or conspicuously not handled) or how this can be shown in a game without it detracting from the good clean fun we all show up for.

It's just not who you are. I've heard it said that a person's writing, from what they write about to how they write about it, says a lot about the person. I find it not surprising then that a lot of modern fantasy tends to be a veneer of medievalism draped over modern values; the divine right of kings just doesn't register as a thing of importance to most people these days.

The best advice I can give is that if you don't enjoy working with it, don't bother with it.

Kitten Champion
2014-12-18, 08:55 PM
One of my previous settings had fantastical discrimination as a major element. Essentially your socio-economic status in the world is roughly related to how purely human you are, where the majority of people in the setting are hybridized to some degree. Most of those braving the frontier in the setting, including some of the PCs, do so because their prospects in the civilized areas of the continent are fairly grim. Some are trying to find their place in the world, others to send money back to their families which depend on them, and still others simply can't stand the air of contempt city life has for them.

It's interesting to have when the players are into it and can find relevant ways to incorporate it into their character, since discrimination can shape a person's life and their underlying motivations in innumerable ways even when it's not brazen. In fact, on the whole the characters' experience wasn't too dissimilar from a more egalitarian and harmonious setting, but it was always acknowledged that their immediate milieu existed in intentional contrast to the rest of the world and part of why - however inhospitable and dangerous it may be - it should be cherished and defended.

TheCountAlucard
2014-12-18, 10:08 PM
I'm curious as to how other people deal with this in games where it is or could be relevant. Does anyone here have any stories of steampunk games that openly dealt with racist motivations for colonialism? Or Call of Cthulhu games that have acknowledged the role of misogyny in 1920s culture? Fantasy games that have dug into the racial strife between elves and dwarves? I'm curious to how it was handled (or conspicuously not handled) or how this can be shown in a game without it detracting from the good clean fun we all show up for.I'm gonna talk for a bit about Exalted, a setting where kung-fu heroes beat up gods.

Despite the "tyrannosaurs in F-14s" meme, the setting's got its fair share of elements that ground it somewhat in human stories. This includes sexism and bigotry, easy violence and fear.

It's often not even a "white vs. black" kind of bigotry either - usually "black vs. slightly different shade of black" suffices. It's a setting that hasn't had nationalism yet, or one where a thousand years passed since it died. Adjacent city-states erect walls to protect themselves from raiders, and the notion that "we're all Greeks together!" is outright laughable. The satrapies of the great empire at the center of the world don't feel they owe the Realm any loyalty; they pay tribute because the Dragon-Blooded would wipe out their "barbarian" culture should they refuse.

The default assumption is that when you sit down to play Exalted, you're playing a once-mortal hero, uplifted by the highest of gods, and turned loose in a world where the greatest empires have demonized you for the last two thousand years.

So, needless to say, there's a lot of xenophobia and racism and sexism going on. But a bunch of pulp-fantasy heroes have just gotten loose in it, and with their might, these god-kings stand in a position to shake things up. Now is a time for change.

This is the tale of the Exalted - what legends will they tell of your deeds?

jedipotter
2014-12-19, 12:54 AM
, what it really comes down to is that roleplaying bigotry of that kind just isn't fun. It's not like I'm pretending that it doesn't exist in reality, I would just rather that in my escapism it's not something I have to deal with. But it still feels, I don't know... dishonest?

Fantasy games that have dug into the racial strife between elves and dwarves? I'm curious to how it was handled (or conspicuously not handled) or how this can be shown in a game without it detracting from the good clean fun we all show up for.

All the times. It is a very defining element of my games. And no, I never ask any player what they think about it. It's rare I even tone it down to make someone not-happy.

So, first off, it's a role playing game. So it's not like checkers, it has role playing in it. And good and evil and a simulated game world. And even more so, there needs to be conflict. So there will be ''bad'' things.

Second, you need people to understand that they, the real person, should not react at all to things in the game world. The game world is for the characters. A lot of actors do this....read some biographies. It's amazing how you can watch a actor play a role, but then read in reality how against that they really are in real life. Wonder why they even play the role? For fun (and a paycheck). Want a great example: Steven Cobert.

Third, when a player has a character react to the game world, they should play the character and not play as themselves. Now it's fine if the character shares a view or two, but they should not be a carbon copy of the player. And even if the player is of such an extreme view that they feel they can't even sort of pretend for a second, they can still play it off as something that simply does not effect their character.

Fourth, you might note it's impossible to have any sort of conflict in a role playing game that does not bother someone. Nothing. Even the classics like ''a kidnapped princess'' or ''a serial killer on the loose''. But it gets kind of odd how some people cherry pick bad things. Killing is ok, but something else is not......and why?

Fifth, you take the good with the bad. You can't really have good without bad. If good guys defeat bad people that do nothing bad....it's a pointless, hollow victory. You can't have a great good character, unless that character defeats real evil.




I'm way, way, way over the top on any sort ''bad'' that can be done in games.....but I've never had a person walk out of a game because of it and only a couple complaints from time to time(and, oddly, people are more bothered by the little things like a drow slave taking non lethal damage from a hot iron poker, then things like having a poor soul good mad when his mind is ripped apart.)

Though I'm a card carrying member of the free pass guild too........

Frozen_Feet
2014-12-19, 06:59 AM
Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single setting where discrimination didn't occur. It's kind of a genre staple for fantasy games. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FantasticRacism) In my experience, having a fantastic, fictional conflict at the center of a setting tends to divert attention from and reduce impact of those conflicts that also occur in real-life. As noted, "Black and white lived in perfect harmony and ganged up on green."

That said, I've played games where actual, really existing lines of discrimination were center to the plot. Those tended to primarily be historical or hard sci-fi games (such as Twilight 2000). In such games, I would've been more offended by lack of discrimination, as for those genres the attention to detail trumps all appeals to political correctness. I've had fun playing the daughter of conservative French family in the 17th century.

Tengu_temp
2014-12-19, 08:27 AM
Fourth, you might note it's impossible to have any sort of conflict in a role playing game that does not bother someone. Nothing. Even the classics like ''a kidnapped princess'' or ''a serial killer on the loose''. But it gets kind of odd how some people cherry pick bad things. Killing is ok, but something else is not......and why?

Because there are people who had unpleasant experiences with stuff like sexual harassment or bigotry, and many of of them would rather not deal with that **** in their fun escapist games. Is it that hard to understand? You're lucky enough that your group is comfortable with everything you throw at them (except those few complaints you mentioned - did you listen to them and stop putting such things in your game, or did you decide "**** it, I'll do what I want, the players should toughen up"?), but not all players are.

Mastikator
2014-12-19, 08:44 AM
I can see how someone of strong moral character could have serious trouble doing that sort of thing.[snip]

I'm sorry, but what? It's not real, it's make belief, what does real world morality have to do with make belief? Is it evil to draw a picture of murder? Is it evil to depict murder in a movie or book? Is it evil to have murder in an RPG?
Evil in the same way that murder is evil in reality that is. Thinking it is not evil in the same way as doing it.

You can think it's not fun all you want, that's your prerogative, but it's not immoral to depict immoral things in an RPG.

Frozen_Feet
2014-12-19, 09:00 AM
Because there are people who had unpleasant experiences with stuff like sexual harassment or bigotry, and many of of them would rather not deal with that **** in their fun escapist games. Is it that hard to understand?

This is a point that's been brought up in multiple previous threads, and yes, it IS hard to undertand in addition to coming off as being a stick in the mud.

Why? It has to do with nature of humor. (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/uploads/BVTheory.jpg) Jedipotter is, for once, completely right. In order for there to be comedy, in order for there to be any sort of fun or interesting story, there needs to be that tinge of discomfort. The humor emerges from realizing the barb is said with good intent - in other words, the sayer is "not really meaning it".

Well. The premise of RPGs is that you're a) doing it with your friends and b) it's a game, hence from the get-go "not real". The barb is aimed by fictional people at other fictional people in order to drive a story - this is the default assumption.

There's also the fact that humor is a coping mechanism. Plenty of people with unpleasant experiences make fun of said experiences via, say, RPGs, to make their own existence more tolerable. So when someone goes "I'd rather not deal with that" or worse, throws a hissy-fit, it's majorly awkward for everyone else involved. It robs everyone else of the potential catharhic experience.

Themrys
2014-12-19, 10:25 AM
Lately, I've been running a superheroes game wherein there is a notable portion of the general public who express discrimination against meta- and transhuman people (like in X-Men). In the last session that I ran, one of the PCs (a very visibly non-baseline human) asked some paramedics to ride in the ambulance with an injured friend to the hospital. The paramedics refused.

As the GM, roleplaying this really rubbed me the wrong way. It got me thinking that I've never really done that in all my years of gaming - even in settings where prejudice exists, I can't recall ever really digging into it. When it come down to brass tacks, what it really comes down to is that roleplaying bigotry of that kind just isn't fun. It's not like I'm pretending that it doesn't exist in reality, I would just rather that in my escapism it's not something I have to deal with. But it still feels, I don't know... dishonest?

I'm curious as to how other people deal with this in games where it is or could be relevant. Does anyone here have any stories of steampunk games that openly dealt with racist motivations for colonialism? Or Call of Cthulhu games that have acknowledged the role of misogyny in 1920s culture? Fantasy games that have dug into the racial strife between elves and dwarves? I'm curious to how it was handled (or conspicuously not handled) or how this can be shown in a game without it detracting from the good clean fun we all show up for.


I make very strong distinctions between fantasy bigotry (which can be fun) and real-life bigotry (which is not fun).

Discrimination of nonhumans? Absolutely okay, and a nice opportunity to explore how real-life racism works without really replicating it. Also, it can be fun, if it is far enough removed from real life.

On the other hand, I have no desire whatsoever to roleplay a victim of misogyny. I AM already victimized by misogyny in real life. It is not escapism if it reminds me of real life. Also, even kicking the asses of bigots ingame gets old very soon, when the bigotry is realistic, because in that case you can't win. (Unless you roleplay a revolution, that is.)

I once had a GM who didn't get that roleplaying bigotry is not fun, and tried to insert misogyny into a setting where it had no place, and finally railroaded our characters into the part of the setting where misogyny did exist in that setting. Needless to say, I was not amused.

If you want to use discrimination as a setting element, ask the players. All of them, and preferably via separate e-mail, so that no one ever knows who the "spoilsport" was ... although in a group with only one woman, it may be kind of obvious who voted against the sexism. Still.

TheCountAlucard
2014-12-19, 11:02 AM
Fourth, you might note it's impossible to have any sort of conflict in a role playing game that does not bother someone.If, and only if, you don't talk about exactly these sorts of issues with the players beforehand. As it so happens, if you know what your players' triggers are, it's pretty damned easy to avoid setting them off.


But it gets kind of odd how some people cherry pick bad things. Killing is ok, but something else is not......and why?They probably had it happen. One's opinion on something can very well change after experiencing it oneself. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but am I accurate in presuming that in your life, your experience in being the direct victim of sexual assaults, domestic abuse, kidnappings, grievous injuries, robberies/muggings, et cetera., is minimal?

To whit, "you just had to be there."

LibraryOgre
2014-12-19, 11:43 AM
Racism is a pretty big element in Hackmaster; two of the races (half-orcs and half-hobgoblins) are pretty discriminated against in civilized areas, and another (grel) only avoid it because they can be mistaken for elves or half-elves.

goto124
2014-12-19, 11:47 AM
Escapism can mean different things to different people. One female might want to avoid the topic of sexism altogether, another woman might want to be a powerful warrior who easily beats up any lechers. Again, ask the players individually first.

I wouldn't mind seeing discrimination done to NPCs as flavor, such as watching an dwarf get made fun of by elves, or a sprite getting bullied by a larger race. The real problem would be having it done to PCs, and restricting what they can or cannot do.

If racism is to affect the PCs significantly, it would have to be written well, to pose a good challenge to the players. However, if done badly, it could be too difficult and convulted, making the PC feel as if he* was getting railroaded hard. Also applies to sexism, of course.

*'He' refers to males, females, sexless, etc, and is not meant to be sexual discrimination.

Vitruviansquid
2014-12-19, 11:59 AM
Ehhh, I think it's less that some players can handle ____ as a setting element and others can't, and more that some GM's can make ____ as a setting element tasteful and others can't.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-12-19, 01:35 PM
I'm sorry, but what? It's not real, it's make belief, what does real world morality have to do with make belief? Is it evil to draw a picture of murder? Is it evil to depict murder in a movie or book? Is it evil to have murder in an RPG?
Evil in the same way that murder is evil in reality that is. Thinking it is not evil in the same way as doing it.

You can think it's not fun all you want, that's your prerogative, but it's not immoral to depict immoral things in an RPG.

Good thing I didn't say there was anything immoral about portraying racism in fantasy.

Racism, however, is immoral on a fundamental level and it's not difficult to empathize with someone being uncomfortable with portraying an outlook they find detestable. The fact that it's racism between pointy ears and green skins can mitigate that for some people and the fact that those racial stereotypes are often accurate helps even more but it's -still- racism. It's judging another intelligent being based entirely on outward appearance that hit has no control over.

It's perfectly understandable how someone could have a problem with that even if you or I don't.

jedipotter
2014-12-19, 02:51 PM
{Scrubbed}

Sith_Happens
2014-12-19, 02:51 PM
Ehhh, I think it's less that some players can handle ____ as a setting element and others can't, and more that some GM's can make ____ as a setting element tasteful and others can't.

This, although part of "making it tasteful" is knowing how far you can go without crossing the line, which varies from player to player so the two factors do in fact have an important overlap.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-12-19, 04:10 PM
But that is like saying Guardians of the Galaxy was a raciest movie. Ronain sure hated Xandar. The Ravagers are always joking about eating just Peter the only human. No one treats Rocket very well through out 2/3's of the movie.

Or going back to Lord of the Rings is raciest.

I haven't seen guardians of the galaxy but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see huge amounts of fantastic racism. Lord of the rings certainly had it in spades.

That doesn't make them racist movies. It -does- mean that a number of otherwise good characters had a character flaw common amongst their settings. I've known a number of people that were decent men and women that had this particular character flaw. Hell, I'm related to a few of them. That doesn't make racism any more morally acceptable.

The difference between a racist work, a work that has racism as a central theme, and a work that features racism is in how it is portrayed and whether the characters examine it, laud it, or simply accept it. In lord of the rings and, I'll hazard a guess here, guardians of the galaxy, the racism is there but glossed over, at least for the most part, and accepted for being fantastic racism instead of racism more easily related. The characters make a racist comment or two and then it's ignored by just about everyone in the story, or maybe one character has a minor side dialogue or monologue to expand their characterization and relatability to the audience.

It's much less instinctive to put yourself in the frame of reference of a little racoon dude or an elf than a human of your own ethnicity. As for the racism leveled at the one human character in gaurdians, most people simply write it off as "They're monsters that don't exist. Who cares."

You want a work that has racism, amongst other things, as a theme, check out Roots. For a racist work, albeit tongue-in-cheek racism, check out Don't be a Menace..., featuring the Wayans brothers. There are too many works with racism in them, but without highlighting it, to even try to name.

Jay R
2014-12-19, 05:04 PM
I've recently has the opposite experience. I started a game in which all characters started from the same village. One player wanted to play a half-elf that had been born to an unwed mother after she went out in the woods alone, and the PC grew up ostracized by everyone, especially the village priest. I kept trying to tell him that I already know about the priest, and he isn't evil, but I never really got through. Eventually, I told him that his grandfather kept him away from the priest, and told him the priest hated him.

Many episodes later, he still believes that the priest was discriminatory.

NichG
2014-12-19, 06:06 PM
The difficult thing about including discrimination as a setting element is that its hard to make it feel nuanced. You usually end up with the 'elves and dwarves tease each-other' style, the 'goblins are Always Evil so its okay to kill them on sight' style, or the 'everyone who isn't a PC is a racist idiot' style. As far as immersion, none of those are really going to make the players feel and understand what it's like to come from and live in a society where a particular kind of racism is just taken for granted. So it doesn't actually end up making the game more subtle or nuanced or realistic, it just ends up being a bit of a cliche.

If you really wanted to do it right - that is, do something that really immerses players in a setting with real discrimination - you'd have to figure out a way to present things so that the players themselves are induced to develop a particular discriminatory outlook without realizing at all that that's what it is. The racists in the setting aren't going to be thinking to themselves 'gee, we're really racist jerks', they're going to be thinking 'That time last spring when three of our kids disappeared, there was a caravan of Silverhairs passing through town.' or 'Those Koryar-folk can absorb a fraction of the remaining years from anyone around them who dies before their time. I heard that one of them killed a bunch of kids down in Tradesport so he could extend his own life.', or they're going to treat 'the holy book says that those who live beneath the earth are evil' at the same level as 'the holy book says that demons are bad', and things like that.

Out of the three sort of cliche forms, the 'goblins are Always Evil' one is the closest to that if you just tweak it to 'goblins are Always Evil... except when they're not'. But players are going to be very used to that as a cliche (Drizzt, paladins falling for killing goblin children, etc) so it's going to have almost no impact - it's too easily spotted and players are just too used to it. Even if you make there be some demon who is actually a good person, and the whole 'lower planes are evil' is just a giant racist lie, its just going to feel sort of forced because it's too familiar.

Instead, you'd have to do something a lot more subtle - you have to create the underlying reasons for the origins of discrimination in the game, without ever giving them name or stating them directly. Fear of the unknown, fear of the 'other', shifting alliances leading to people looking for commonalities to cling to, behavioral assumptions that are built into a society but which the 'others' society doesn't follow, etc. And a good dose of ignorance and misinformation.

Scipio_77
2014-12-19, 06:13 PM
Have to admit I have run some fairly "mature" campaigns, but I have never really thought about introducing discrimination no.. except in it's more cliche flavors. I guess it is one of those uncomfortable aspects you tend to avoid maybe without realizing it.

Still, I think as a storyteller it is always good to remember that the best story isn't always the story people want to hear; Anne Frank being a classic example.

Mastikator
2014-12-19, 06:31 PM
Good thing I didn't say there was anything immoral about portraying racism in fantasy.

Racism, however, is immoral on a fundamental level and it's not difficult to empathize with someone being uncomfortable with portraying an outlook they find detestable. The fact that it's racism between pointy ears and green skins can mitigate that for some people and the fact that those racial stereotypes are often accurate helps even more but it's -still- racism. It's judging another intelligent being based entirely on outward appearance that hit has no control over.

It's perfectly understandable how someone could have a problem with that even if you or I don't.

Perhaps in the same way that someone who has lost their loved ones in a car accident would have a problem with playing GTA, but that's personal reasons, not because of a "strong moral character". It's because you're still dealing with that pain. Same for discrimination.

Themrys
2014-12-19, 07:13 PM
If you really wanted to do it right - that is, do something that really immerses players in a setting with real discrimination - you'd have to figure out a way to present things so that the players themselves are induced to develop a particular discriminatory outlook without realizing at all that that's what it is.

Sadly, I don't think it's a real challenge to make players develop a discriminatory outlook. I am a bit pessimistic there.

Try to create a setting where humans, or straight white dudes are discriminated against, and wait for them to realize what it is. I think there is more of a learning experience in that.

@Mastikator: The difference being that more than half of the population in my country have experienced discrimination, and for the US, the numbers are even higher, so it is not as personal, strictly speaking, like having lost someone in a car accident.
And not wanting to include discrimination as GM who has not personally experienced negative discrimination is more like not wanting to play GTA against a person whose loved ones you caused to die in a car accident, even if only indirectly, for example by investing in the car company who produced the faulty seatbelts. It can have something to do with a strong moral character. (Of course, you could just belong to the majority or minority that is discriminated against in the setting. Which have less to do with morals, and more with a healthy sense of self-preservation.)

Tengu_temp
2014-12-19, 07:34 PM
This is a point that's been brought up in multiple previous threads, and yes, it IS hard to undertand in addition to coming off as being a stick in the mud.

Why? It has to do with nature of humor. (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/uploads/BVTheory.jpg) Jedipotter is, for once, completely right. In order for there to be comedy, in order for there to be any sort of fun or interesting story, there needs to be that tinge of discomfort. The humor emerges from realizing the barb is said with good intent - in other words, the sayer is "not really meaning it".

Well. The premise of RPGs is that you're a) doing it with your friends and b) it's a game, hence from the get-go "not real". The barb is aimed by fictional people at other fictional people in order to drive a story - this is the default assumption.

There's also the fact that humor is a coping mechanism. Plenty of people with unpleasant experiences make fun of said experiences via, say, RPGs, to make their own existence more tolerable. So when someone goes "I'd rather not deal with that" or worse, throws a hissy-fit, it's majorly awkward for everyone else involved. It robs everyone else of the potential catharhic experience.

Meh. Excuse. Sorry, but when one of your players asks you not to have sexism/racism/etc in the game, because it makes them uncomfortable, in almost every case any response other than "sure, that won't happen again, sorry about that" is being a jerk.

Also, in that last paragraph, are you really advocating the "if something in the game makes you uncomfortable, just sit there and suck it up so you won't make things awkward for everyone else" stance? Because that's really, really bad advice, man. That's pretty much the opposite of what you're suppose to do. Don't throw a fit, stay polite, but don't sit there and be quiet about something that bothers you, either.


This is why I have a fairly strict vetting process for people to join my game. I can spot people that have had ''unpleasant experiences'' and simply not have them join my game.

That's such a bizarre reason to ban someone from joining your game that I'd have a few harsh words about it, but I get the feeling you're doing these people a favour.

jedipotter
2014-12-19, 07:42 PM
That's such a bizarre reason to ban someone from joining your game that I'd have a few harsh words about it, but I get the feeling you're doing these people a favour.

What is even more amazing.....by just saying ''My game does not use the Tome of Battle'', has the people that have something, to simply ban themselves. It's a win win.

tensai_oni
2014-12-19, 07:44 PM
{Scrubbed}


Are you saying that people who have had bad experience in their life simply CHOSE them? That because of life choices they have made, they encountered those and otherwise they would have surely avoided them?

You should be ashamed of yourself.

No, really. I mean it. You should be ashamed of your post in particular and your naively offensive stance on existence in general.

You have lived a lucky life of not having to be on the receiving end of anything horrible, and you call that luck being smart and making good choices. I call bull****, good sir. Bull****. It was just that, luck. You didn't choose crap. You were just lucky. You think people who are mugged or harassed CHOSE to be?

Go to someone who suffered from discrimination, racism, sexism, go to a rape survivor or someone who was mugged or forced into prostitution. Tell them that you believe their circumstances were just a result of bad decisions they've made in life. Come on, do it. And then tell me what their response was.

Sith_Happens
2014-12-19, 07:46 PM
That's such a bizarre reason to ban someone from joining your game that I'd have a few harsh words about it, but I get the feeling you're doing these people a favour.

I'm actually with jedipotter on this one. If there's a specific sort of game you want to run, by all means tell potential players that if they have a problem with it then their best recourse is to not join. Sure it can come off as insensitive when the sticking point is a contentious theme of some sort and their problem with it is personal in nature, but there's other games out there they'll probably have a much better time in anyways.

Premier
2014-12-19, 07:47 PM
Perhaps not entirely relevant to the OP's central point, but I don't think the ambulance car situation was a very good example of racism. Maybe it's different in some places, but where I live - in real life -, no friend or family member can travel in the ambulance car, full stop. Which makes perfect sense: an extra traveller would just get in the way inside an already crowded compartment and quite possibly actively harm the situation if they freak out if and when the patient's condition takes a turn for the worse.

So, realistically, whether the PC was visibly a mutant or not should be completely irrelevant.

Tengu_temp
2014-12-19, 08:11 PM
I'm actually with jedipotter on this one. If there's a specific sort of game you want to run, by all means tell potential players that if they have a problem with it then their best recourse is to not join. Sure it can come off as insensitive when the sticking point is a contentious theme of some sort and their problem with it is personal in nature, but there's other games out there they'll probably have a much better time in anyways.

The way I see it, rather than banning people outright for such reasons, it's better to warn them. "Are you sure you want to join this historically accurate game taking place in XIX century England, with all the racism and sexism that entails?" - and if they're still sure they do, then they can't complain you didn't warn them! This is actually one of those rare examples when it's okay to brush off a player's complaints, because they had a fair warning beforehand and knew what they're getting into.

jedipotter
2014-12-19, 08:31 PM
{Scrubbed}

Kelb_Panthera
2014-12-19, 08:35 PM
Perhaps in the same way that someone who has lost their loved ones in a car accident would have a problem with playing GTA, but that's personal reasons, not because of a "strong moral character". It's because you're still dealing with that pain. Same for discrimination.

It's not a matter of experiencing discrimination making you feel uncomfortable portraying it, in most cases anyway, but that discrimination based on anything but merit is inherently immoral by the standards of most societies and people who identify themselves strongly by their moral outlook can find portraying immoral behavior uncomfortable. Believe it or not some people actually find portraying lethal combat uncomfortable, or thievery, or any of a number of other behaviors.

That doesn't make portraying any of these behaviors immoral or wrong but it's not hard to empathize with these people and they're under no obligation whatsoever to portray those things if doing so makes them uncomfortable.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-12-19, 08:39 PM
{Scrubbed}

This is grossly oversimplified.

Simply choosing to live in a safer place doesn't guarantee that nothing bad will happen to you, it only reduces the odds. For that matter, choosing where to live isn't necessarily a choice for most people until they reach adulthood and even then choosing to move from where you've grown up to somewhere else is no simple matter.

I'm rapidly approaching utter certainty that you don't have much in the way of empathy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empathy).

NichG
2014-12-19, 08:46 PM
Sadly, I don't think it's a real challenge to make players develop a discriminatory outlook. I am a bit pessimistic there.

The challenge is to get them to do it in some way other than 'yuk yuk, I'm being racist cause I'm an elven supremacist' or 'we kill gobbos because thats what the game is about'. In both of those cases, its just sort of there, but you aren't really exploring it because in both cases its just doing something archetypal without thought. There isn't going to be any kind of new experiences or insights from it, so its sort of pointless as a setting element.

The challenge is doing it in such a way that the players live, eat, and breathe that discrimination to the extent that they don't even think about it as racism or whatever. Then, you can flip the light switch and give them a crisis moment where they're driven to question what they believe and what they've done - or you can not do that and intentionally leave things vague, or grey, or whatever.

Its sort of like, if you tell the players that 'that goblin you just killed was neutral good' they'll say 'yeah yeah, whatever, you're just trying to punish us or mess with us'. If you tell them that a dwarven NPC took serious offense at the elven PC's constant 'short jokes', they'll just say 'lighten up'. They won't actually be affected by it in either case. Instead, because there's this jadedness with those things, you have to really come at them in a direction they don't expect, one where they can't immediately say 'okay, thats the racist bit right there'.

For example:


You could do something where the discrimination in the setting has to do with those who cannot take up arms and fight. People are, as a rule, expected to be able to defend themselves - and furthermore, to not eschew violence - because the particular setting is crawling with monsters and other dangers, and someone who can't fight isn't contributing when everyone's life is on the line. So adventurers, warriors, etc tend to get special treatment and even people with mundane jobs are expected to give some kind of indication that they're ready to defend themselves - even the baker is supposed to hang an axe on the wall or something like that. Heck, lets go a step further and say that everyone the PCs ever interact with is, in D&D terms, at least 3rd level with PC class levels, and that a little bit of rough-and-tumble fighting is an expected social ritual. If you go to a tavern, people throw around punches and stuff because the average 'right kind of person' can survive the average full-on sword blow with no fear of death.

So then you inject the occasional NPC who basically is utterly incapable of that - lets call them Weakened. They're the equivalent of 1st level characters. That 'social ritual' has a non-trivial chance of permanently maiming or killing them. Often when the PCs encounter Weakened in town they're going to be frightened and furitive (because they're surrounded by people who scorn them and who basically have them completely overpowered and who at any time could ask them to take part in some violence, so they try to avoid notice as much as possible). Maybe the PCs even find them cooperating with villains - because the alternative is to be killed since they can't fight back effectively, so they let themselves be conquered, say what the conqueror wants to hear, and basically just try to survive.

Something like that, I think, would catch players a little off guard, depending how you presented it. If you made the lower-power people inconvenient and disruptive when they show up - needing protection, getting in the way, being less likely to sacrifice or risk their lives in common, dangerous situations, then the players may well resent that. If the players tend to encounter members of that caste in situations where they're constantly trying to take advantage of others, that's also going to feed the prejudice. You could (and probably should) play it subtly - people don't curse and malign the Weakened, refuse them service, insult them, etc in particular, they simply have a society built around assumptions that implicitly exclude them. Violence that would cause permanent injury to a Weakened is considered 'playing around' or 'nothing serious', or is even culturally required of people in certain situations. The society itself is structured in a way that is discriminating against them, even if people aren't going out and committing hate crimes against the Weakened.

Then if you want the eventual 'flip the light switch' moment, show what happens when one of the Weakened doesn't behave in that way but instead tries to behave like the ultra-tough 'average' person - they get killed abruptly, and to little gain. For example, the PCs are drinking in a tavern and the usual bar brawl happens. People start throwing punches, bashing each-other with tables, etc - just the usual fun, and if there were no Weakened there it wouldn't be a danger to anyone despite involving things that could kill an actual person. Then someone who was just trying to leave begs off the fight, and someone throws a punch, and they die in one blow.

After all, its not the name-calling that's discriminatory here - its the fact that basic, mandatory social rituals in this setting are seriously harmful to some, but to others can be universally shrugged off.


Anyhow, something like that I think might work if you wanted to try to get the players to actually develop a kind of discrimination in line with the setting, and then give them a bit of a feeling of revulsion when its revealed.

jedipotter
2014-12-19, 08:53 PM
This is grossly oversimplified.

Simply choosing to live in a safer place doesn't guarantee that nothing bad will happen to you, it only reduces the odds. For that matter, choosing where to live isn't necessarily a choice for most people until they reach adulthood and even then choosing to move from where you've grown up to somewhere else is no simple matter.

I'm rapidly approaching utter certainty that you don't have much in the way of empathy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empathy).

I like simple. Simple works for me.

It's exactly picking a gaming group. Group A is going to run a historically inaccurate Civil War Era game with no offensive stuff and things like President Amelia Lincoln and First Gentleman Eric Lincoln. I'll say ''no thanks'' to that game. I know i won't have fun in that game. But a down and dirty and bloody Historically Accurate Civil War Era game...sign me up.

Tengu_temp
2014-12-19, 09:17 PM
I like simple. Simple works for me.

The world isn't simple.

Milodiah
2014-12-19, 09:31 PM
If you get the players to think said group can't be trusted, then boom, they're discriminatory. Give them the life experience they need early in the campaign, something other players can wave in the face of the person who insists "they're just misunderstood". Underfolk in my game have been confirmed to kidnap children, ambush city watch who stray into their part of town, and shun contact with the outside world. No, they're not all bad. But everyone in the setting, including the PCs, think so. And a good part of that is that they haven't really even met one on friendly terms. They're always secretive, avoid encountering the PCs, and don't say a word to them if they do.

Kami2awa
2014-12-20, 03:03 AM
After some experience of RPGs, I'd be very hesitant to include these elements. Certain players would use them as an excuse to be ***** to NPCs or even other PCs.

Themrys
2014-12-20, 09:12 AM
The challenge is to get them to do it in some way other than 'yuk yuk, I'm being racist cause I'm an elven supremacist' or 'we kill gobbos because thats what the game is about'. In both of those cases, its just sort of there, but you aren't really exploring it because in both cases its just doing something archetypal without thought. There isn't going to be any kind of new experiences or insights from it, so its sort of pointless as a setting element.

You don't understand me - I do not think that this is a challenge, because most players will already be racist without even thinking about it. Not against goblins, maybe, but against real-life people. Therefore, you just give your goblins an accent that reminds your players of those they hold prejudice against, and boom, they're racist. Mission accomplished.

Just look at Harry Potter. Did you consider the house elves real people, who should be freed, or did you think Hermione was misguided and stupid? Rowling did nothing to convince you that house elves were evil, and little to convince you they were stupid - Dobby was the only house elf with a bigger role, he was a bit stupid, and also a big exception. Any house elf we got to see was severely traumatized and not in their right minds most of the time. Winky was alcoholic, and Kreacher was, well ... he was owned by a family that had his ancestors' heads on the wallls.
Did you think house elves should stay in Hogwarts and serve the humans there because "that's what they're there for"? Did you question the claims that house elves want to be enslaved? Have you ever considered that they might be full of internalized racism?

Drop your players into a racist society where they themselves belong to the "superior" race, and you have a good chance that they will develop a racist mindset - if they are not themselves victims of oppression and able to see through the lies.


@jedipotter: Well, you are a man and don't want to play in a country with female president, I am a woman and don't want to play in a game with male president. You should be at least able to understand that.

NichG
2014-12-20, 09:50 AM
You don't understand me - I do not think that this is a challenge, because most players will already be racist without even thinking about it. Not against goblins, maybe, but against real-life people. Therefore, you just give your goblins an accent that reminds your players of those they hold prejudice against, and boom, they're racist. Mission accomplished.

No, I think you don't understand my point. It's not just 'I want my players to be racist because their characters are supposed to be'. If you include something in a setting, hopefully that's with the intent of making dealing with it or exploring it important. It's hard to explore something where everyone is already strongly solidified in their views on it.

If I put it goblins that are Always Evil and speak with, say, a stereotypical 'hick' accent, then sure, some players might hate hicks and will hate the goblins even more for it. But if I try to make a situation that invites the players to seriously question their preconceptions of goblins, then it doesn't really help to do that, because the player will just import their out-of-character feelings and a few hours of fantasy RP aren't going to shift something that they've been building up for decades in any direction. And that's equally true of the players who are very conscious of and strongly oppose all forms of discrimination OOC.

In terms of your Harry Potter example, most viewers are going to immediately see slavery, say 'I know that slavery in any form is wrong', and treat Hermione freeing Dobby as a complete no-brainer. There's no new thought, they're just seeing something that affirms their existing view. The same would be true if you invoked the latent discrimination in your particular group of players, whatever that might be. You might get them to go through the motions you want, but there won't be any potential for new thought.

Its like telling a veteran jaded D&D player that violence is wrong, and he shouldn't kill goblins and orcs and things without first talking things out and trying to negotiate. They will have already encountered that idea and made their decision on it one way or another long before that point, and so repeating it isn't going to get anything new out. And if you aren't going to get anything new out, there's not much to be gained by using it as an element of the game.

That's what I mean by 'doing it right' - including discrimination in the setting that can simultaneously feel as natural as breathing from one direction, and then can suddenly feel oppressive and horrible from another direction - for the same player, just playing two different characters, or playing one character before and after a transformative experience.

Spiryt
2014-12-20, 11:04 AM
It's not a matter of experiencing discrimination making you feel uncomfortable portraying it, in most cases anyway, but that discrimination based on anything but merit

And discrimination based on 'merit' is therefore immoral too, on fundamental level.

Some people are born strong, healthy, with 130 IQ and stress resistant psyches.

Other are sadly born dumb, frail and mentally ill, and therefore have no chance of ever having 'same merit', whatever it is.

Completely involuntary characteristics, just like race or sex/gender.

Discrimination based on anything, as well as general fight/competition generally comes with reality, whether one likes it or not.

'Standards of morality' are constantly changing, and there's no reason they must apply to some fictional settings.

Like some of those where there are some races that are actually 'worse' by 'our' standards, because they are indeed predisposed to violence and torture.

And most of RPGs are, all in all, about putting discriminated or discriminating to the sword.

So all in all dragging any 'strong moral characters' into it doesn't have much sense, and as you had noted at the end, comfort and fun of the players is the only thing that counts.

Themrys
2014-12-20, 12:38 PM
And discrimination based on 'merit' is therefore immoral too, on fundamental level.


Depends on what you mean with "discrimination". In the end it just means making a difference, and I'm sure we all agree that people with frail health should be protected from things that could harm them, and dumb people should be protected from scammers, even though a healthy person can survive harsh weather conditions and clever people don't purchase local bridges on vacation.

RPGs can be about killing green-skinned people who were born evil, but they don't have to.

Frozen_Feet
2014-12-20, 01:14 PM
Ehhh, I think it's less that some players can handle ____ as a setting element and others can't, and more that some GM's can make ____ as a setting element tasteful and others can't.

It most certainly is about both. There are GMs who can't handle a subject tastefully, but just as well there are players who will over-react or object to some content on principle, regardless of how tastefully it is done. It takes two to tango, so trying to pin the blame on just one person is often doomed to fail.


Meh. Excuse. Sorry, but when one of your players asks you not to have sexism/racism/etc in the game, because it makes them uncomfortable, in almost every case any response other than "sure, that won't happen again, sorry about that" is being a jerk.

Also, in that last paragraph, are you really advocating the "if something in the game makes you uncomfortable, just sit there and suck it up so you won't make things awkward for everyone else" stance? Because that's really, really bad advice, man. That's pretty much the opposite of what you're suppose to do. Don't throw a fit, stay polite, but don't sit there and be quiet about something that bothers you, either

The point flew right past you. There are whole genres of humor and fiction that rely on making the audience uncomfortable. Black comedy, horror, rollercoasters, ghost trains etc.. The sense of discomfort is the main allure of those things, because again, the discomforting thing *is not real* - there's no real malice, no real insult, no real danger, allowing us to deal with dark aspects of life safely.

Then there's a matter of scale. Ever heard the saying "making mountains out of molehills"? The idea that all levels of "being uncomfortable" are equivalent and necessitate dropping the "discomforting" content without further questions asked is faulty. Sometimes, pretty often in fact, the overall smoothness of human interaction requires putting up with discomfort. The whole concepts of politeness and generosity are, in fact, based on this. We inhibit expressions of anger, frustration etc. because negative feelings have a tendency to create more of the same. Concepts of verisimilitude and suspension of disbelief are also based on a similar mechanism. We accept and gloss over unrealistic things, because pointing out how they "bother" us more often than not would just ruin the illusion and halt the game.

So yeah. Any reasonably person will weigh the benefits of speaking out against the potential harm and discomfort caused to the game or others. Quite often, it's not worth it, hence the mantra "I should relax, it's just a game". Whether it's about rules contradictions, realism or lack there of, or discrimination.

---

EDIT:


And discrimination based on 'merit' is therefore immoral too, on fundamental level.


Hold your horses there.

There are two meanings to the word "discimination". As Themrys pointed out, one is value-neutral synonym for "discernment". If you're using that definition of the word, you're saying making any difference whatsoever, even if based on real ability, is immoral. I'd say that's not tenable.

If you're using the sociological definition of "discrimination", meaning "unfair treatment", then it raises the question of what, exactly, would you find fair then? Obviously being unfair rubs most people the wrong way, but when people say "discrimination based on merit", they typically mean the exact opposite: judging people and treating them commensurately of their factual abilities.

dps
2014-12-20, 01:58 PM
even in settings where prejudice exists, I can't recall ever really digging into it... ...But it still feels, I don't know... dishonest?


I wouldn't call it dishonest, but IMO that's the worst of both worlds--including bigotry in your setting, but then not dealing with it. If you're not comfortable with it, I think it would be best to just leave it out of your settings, though that would rule out using most historical settings.

Note that I don't mean that if you include prejudice in a setting, your campaign has to revolve around it, just that the PCs should at least encounter occasional racist ambulance drivers or sexist priests or religiously bigoted street criminals.

Themrys
2014-12-20, 02:16 PM
I wouldn't call it dishonest, but IMO that's the worst of both worlds--including bigotry in your setting, but then not dealing with it. If you're not comfortable with it, I think it would be best to just leave it out of your settings, though that would rule out using most historical settings.

Note that I don't mean that if you include prejudice in a setting, your campaign has to revolve around it, just that the PCs should at least encounter occasional racist ambulance drivers or sexist priests or religiously bigoted street criminals.

How does leaving it out differ from not dealing with it? For discrimination to happen, someone has to do it, so if you have discrimination in a setting, someone will have to deal with it.
(Or do you mean the bad worldbuilding I sometimes witnessed, where there are only male city guards, only men own property, etc, but the female PCs are somehow exempt from the sexism? I don't think gom jabbarwocky does this, it is more symptomatic of people who secretly want discrimination but are too cowardly to tell the players)

Depending from the setting, it might be difficult to get rid of the bigotry in a believable way, but if the players are not interested in taking the setting apart, you can get away with a makeshift solution.

Solaris
2014-12-20, 03:39 PM
You don't understand me - I do not think that this is a challenge, because most players will already be racist without even thinking about it. Not against goblins, maybe, but against real-life people. Therefore, you just give your goblins an accent that reminds your players of those they hold prejudice against, and boom, they're racist. Mission accomplished.

Just look at Harry Potter. Did you consider the house elves real people, who should be freed, or did you think Hermione was misguided and stupid? Rowling did nothing to convince you that house elves were evil, and little to convince you they were stupid - Dobby was the only house elf with a bigger role, he was a bit stupid, and also a big exception. Any house elf we got to see was severely traumatized and not in their right minds most of the time. Winky was alcoholic, and Kreacher was, well ... he was owned by a family that had his ancestors' heads on the wallls.
Did you think house elves should stay in Hogwarts and serve the humans there because "that's what they're there for"? Did you question the claims that house elves want to be enslaved? Have you ever considered that they might be full of internalized racism?

Drop your players into a racist society where they themselves belong to the "superior" race, and you have a good chance that they will develop a racist mindset - if they are not themselves victims of oppression and able to see through the lies.

Wait, there are people who didn't think the wizards were pretty nasty to house elves in a manner disconcertingly reminiscent of certain historical practices?
You gotta be kidding me.


@jedipotter: Well, you are a man and don't want to play in a country with female president, I am a woman and don't want to play in a game with male president. You should be at least able to understand that.

Yet another problem that can be solved by no longer choosing the lesser of two evils.
Ia! Ia Cthulhu 2016!

jedipotter
2014-12-20, 04:12 PM
@jedipotter: Well, you are a man and don't want to play in a country with female president, I am a woman and don't want to play in a game with male president. You should be at least able to understand that.

For me it's the Historically Inaccurate part. It's like saying we will play a RPG set in World War II, except it will be humans vs. aliens. Or 1930's Chicago, except everyone is a Jawa.

It's fine if you want to play a fantasy game of ''Redcoat Werewolves'', but not ok if you want a Historically Accurate game.

A lot of modern shows set in the past, like: Rome, Spartacus, and ''Hades'' on Wheels really show bad things. This makes the shows much more powerful and dramatic. It's much better to watch a character ''fight against impossible odds'' then just ''walk across a street''.

Themrys
2014-12-20, 04:19 PM
For me it's the Historically Inaccurate part. It's like saying we will play a RPG set in World War II, except it will be humans vs. aliens. Or 1930's Chicago, except everyone is a Jawa.

It's fine if you want to play a fantasy game of ''Redcoat Werewolves'', but not ok if you want a Historically Accurate game.

A lot of modern shows set in the past, like: Rome, Spartacus, and ''Hades'' on Wheels really show bad things. This makes the shows much more powerful and dramatic. It's much better to watch a character ''fight against impossible odds'' then just ''walk across a street''.

Someone I recently talked to on the internet made an experiment, and created a world where men were oppressed for a change. After quite a short while, the male players suddenly realized that discrimination wasn't as interesting as they had previously thought.

Maybe try that sometime.

Lots of RPGs are set in fantasy worlds - your argument is valid only for settings that are meant to be realistic. No dragons. No ancient gods with tentacles. I tend to find the real past a bit boring.

Roxxy
2014-12-20, 04:37 PM
I'm very careful with it. I have a natural tendency towards optimistic settings that are nice places to live. I don't really like realistic societies, I like societies where people can in fact get along. I especially don't like mentioning or having sexism. On the other hand, discrimination has fueled a lot of the past. High elves and humans have abused the crap out of dwarves, drow, and wild elves, the American Indian expys got ethnic cleansed, and orcs were at one point enslaved. However, if you asked most people they'd say this is in the past. We haven't burned a wild elf grove or drow ghetto in over a century, the American Indian expys don't live on impoverished reservations and a lot of them live under regional autonomous governments (imagine if the Navajo had the exact same status as a US state to get what I mean) or in their own nations (The Iroquois expys were never defeated by colonists), and the orcs were freed a long time ago. It would be realistic to assume the scars of this past still run deep and that orcs and drow are still viewed unfavorably, but I don't want to do that. I want escapism. I want to pretend that the past can be put aside and old wounds healed.

Also, I do not do always or mostly evil races. Drow and orcs are not inherently better or worse than anyone else. In fact, the drow power level was reduced to match the seven core Pathfinder races and the orcs were modified to be more suitable as a PC race, so as to make them both basic character options for players.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-12-20, 05:03 PM
And discrimination based on 'merit' is therefore immoral too, on fundamental level.

Some people are born strong, healthy, with 130 IQ and stress resistant psyches.

Other are sadly born dumb, frail and mentally ill, and therefore have no chance of ever having 'same merit', whatever it is.

Completely involuntary characteristics, just like race or sex/gender.

Discrimination based on anything, as well as general fight/competition generally comes with reality, whether one likes it or not.

'Standards of morality' are constantly changing, and there's no reason they must apply to some fictional settings.

Like some of those where there are some races that are actually 'worse' by 'our' standards, because they are indeed predisposed to violence and torture.

And most of RPGs are, all in all, about putting discriminated or discriminating to the sword.

So all in all dragging any 'strong moral characters' into it doesn't have much sense, and as you had noted at the end, comfort and fun of the players is the only thing that counts.

That's not merit. Merit (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/merit?s=t) is about what is deserved and earned. You're also presuming the more charged meaning of discrimination (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrimination?s=t); the second definition listed rather than the first.

Treating someone based on what respect and awards they've earned is not immoral. Those unfortunates that are born very dumb or frail necessarily must be treated differently than someone who his born particularly hale and witty but the differences in treatment, in that case, are based, in part, on presumed merit, or at least should be. That presumption may be inaccurate in some cases but it will often be accurate enough for a start until you get to know those people.

Treating all people absolutely exactly the same completely regardless of perception will, unquestionably, get you royally screwed in life.

Talakeal
2014-12-20, 05:10 PM
Let me tell a little story from my game a few years back.

In my campaign world there is a pro-humanist terrorist group called The Hammer (named after the legend of John Henry). They are opposed to technology, the supernatural, and nonhuman races, basically anything that could serve to replace or invalidate humanity.

The human empire has defeated an orc empire in war and the orcs now live amongst humans as lower class citizens.

The PCs are investigating a string of orc murders which have been carried out by The Hammer. Eventually The Hammers kidnap a prominent orcish civil rights leader and threaten to execute her unless their demands are met.

The PCs, feeling overconfident, track them down and barge in guns blazing. The party elven sorcerer, in an act of hubris, casts a spell to protect the hostage from the Hammer members weapons and believes that is enough to not take care for her. Unbeknownst to the sorcerer the Hammer all use cold iron weapons, which render them immune to elven magic, and thus the hostage is killed in the fight. In a fit of anger the players kill all of the kidnappers and now have no further leads. They suspect (wrongly might I add) that a local racist landowner was behind the whole thing, so they falsify evidence to make him seem guilty and get him executed for the murder.

The players are extremely upset after the game and tell me not to run any similar adventures in the future, that it is too close to real racism and they do not want to deal with it in their fantasy games.



I'm sorry, but what? It's not real, it's make belief, what does real world morality have to do with make belief? Is it evil to draw a picture of murder? Is it evil to depict murder in a movie or book? Is it evil to have murder in an RPG?
Evil in the same way that murder is evil in reality that is. Thinking it is not evil in the same way as doing it.

You can think it's not fun all you want, that's your prerogative, but it's not immoral to depict immoral things in an RPG.

While I agree with you, I have had some long discussions on the media forum with people who believe that depicting negative stereotypes or showing evil actions performed against a member of a group in fiction do harm to that group in real life by perpetrating negative ideas in our culture.

Tengu_temp
2014-12-20, 06:55 PM
The point flew right past you.

No, I get your point completely. It's just that I also disagree with it. You're making a false equivalence between the discomfort that genres like horror or cringe comedy rely on, and discomfort coming from experiencing something you'd rather not deal with in a game that's supposed to be about fun escapism. As for the fact that there are varied degrees of discomfort: well duh. I think it's safe to assume that if someone is bothered by something in the game enough that they speak against it, then it discomforts them enough that its presence makes the game not fun (or noticably less fun) for them. And the purpose of the game is to have fun, not to make other people at the table feel uncomfortable.

NichG
2014-12-20, 07:04 PM
No, I get your point completely. It's just that I also disagree with it. You're making a false equivalence between the discomfort that genres like horror or cringe comedy rely on, and discomfort coming from experiencing something you'd rather not deal with in a game that's supposed to be about fun escapism. As for the fact that there are varied degrees of discomfort: well duh. I think it's safe to assume that if someone is bothered by something in the game enough that they speak against it, then it discomforts them enough that its presence makes the game not fun (or noticably less fun) for them. And the purpose of the game is to have fun, not to make other people at the table feel uncomfortable.

There are two assumptions one can make here and they lead to very different conclusions.

1. The roster of players is given, and you want to run a game for those people.
2. You want to run a given game, so you go and find players to run it for who would enjoy it.

If you're assuming #1, then its more important to cater to the particular idiosyncracies of those fixed players. If you're assuming #2, you can set out to run a game that would e.g. deeply discomfit or offend particular players, but then not recruit those particular players to that particular game.

The same thing that feels like a jerk move in case #1 is perfectly reasonable in case #2.

Tengu_temp
2014-12-20, 07:10 PM
That's vey true. However, in the second case, you should let the players know what they're getting into in advance, including potentially problematic themes that might appear in the game.

Ravens_cry
2014-12-20, 07:45 PM
It's certainly something that should be warned ahead of time, but I do like to add such as setting elements, yes, along with other older values, like sacred hospitality, because they add, in my opinion, to the feeling of 'You are there', that this isn't just some theme park version with curiously universal literacy and a common language and currency the world over despite no over arching culture to enforce it, but a place that feels lived in. I don't mean everyone is going to be a slavering racist or sexist, but it will be the causal things, the expectations and social mores. I am not trying to make FATAL, but I am trying to evoke the feel of such a time, warts and all.

dps
2014-12-20, 09:49 PM
How does leaving it out differ from not dealing with it? For discrimination to happen, someone has to do it, so if you have discrimination in a setting, someone will have to deal with it.
(Or do you mean the bad worldbuilding I sometimes witnessed, where there are only male city guards, only men own property, etc, but the female PCs are somehow exempt from the sexism? I don't think gom jabbarwocky does this, it is more symptomatic of people who secretly want discrimination but are too cowardly to tell the players)

Depending from the setting, it might be difficult to get rid of the bigotry in a believable way, but if the players are not interested in taking the setting apart, you can get away with a makeshift solution.

Mostly, yeah, I mean it's a world-building thing. For a non-gaming example, look at the works of Isaac Asimov. His stories are set in a galaxy that has humans and robots, but no aliens. Why? Well, when he started out, he was submitting stories to Astounding Science Fiction magazine, which was run by John W. Campbell. Campbell had certain prejudices about how aliens should be portrayed in SF, and Asimov didn't want to deal with those prejudices, so Asimov created a setting without aliens for his stories. Problem solved.

So similarly, if you don't want to deal with sexism in your RPGs, then use a setting where the sexes are treated equally. OK, that might not be exactly realistic, particularly in a typical pseudo-medieval fantasy setting, but it's better IMO than the silliness that you referred to, where the setting is sexist but somehow the female party members are exempt from it.

jedipotter
2014-12-20, 11:43 PM
Someone I recently talked to on the internet made an experiment, and created a world where men were oppressed for a change. After quite a short while, the male players suddenly realized that discrimination wasn't as interesting as they had previously thought.

Maybe try that sometime.



I do role playing like that ''experiment'', all the time. And it's my favorite.

And It's what makes Once upon a Time a great show: All female lead stars and the only men are guest stars.

goto124
2014-12-21, 02:40 AM
So similarly, if you don't want to deal with sexism in your RPGs, then use a setting where the sexes are treated equally. OK, that might not be exactly realistic, particularly in a typical pseudo-medieval fantasy setting, but it's better IMO than the silliness that you referred to, where the setting is sexist but somehow the female party members are exempt from it.

Which brings us to Your Mileage May Vary. Seeing sexism can add to the story in a fun and engaging manner, but getting actively obstructed by sexism just because you want to play a female character tends to be outright frustrating and not fun. Again, adjust the setting to you and your players' preferences.

(And all instances of 'female' can be replaced by 'male' for inverse sexism, but that isn't really the point, though it can make for interesting stuff)

Ravens_cry
2014-12-21, 03:28 AM
It should be noted that a lot of sexism works both ways. You can create scenario easily where a man isn't welcome at all. For example, say the players some priestesses who are been attacked by monsters in their temple to the virgin goddess, but both law and custom say a man can not enter such a sacred place. Do they break that custom and law and face the consequences, possibly doing more damage by destroying the sanctity of that holy place, or do they wait it out and hope their female party members are enough?
Perhaps some details of a quest can not be revealed to the men, as they involve subjects taboo to the masculine gender.
And so forth.

goto124
2014-12-21, 04:10 AM
Do they break that custom and law and face the consequences, possibly doing more damage by destroying the sanctity of that holy place, or do they wait it out and hope their female party members are enough?

Things like this can carry unfortunate consequences. If the females fail to hold off the monsters, it implies that 'females can't handle things on their own, they need males'. If there weren't enough females, it brings questions as to why there were so few females in the first place. I doubt people will be all that angry if this were gender-flipped.

It's great for discussion, but it can turn ugly quickly. Especially when the players have very strong opinions on the matter. (Anyone wants to create a thread for 'Building a sexist-to-males matriarchy?)

Ravens_cry
2014-12-21, 07:12 AM
Things like this can carry unfortunate consequences. If the females fail to hold off the monsters, it implies that 'females can't handle things on their own, they need males'. If there weren't enough females, it brings questions as to why there were so few females in the first place. I doubt people will be all that angry if this were gender-flipped.

It's noit that they need men, though some in-universe could interpret it that way, it's that they need their other party members. The idea is to add unusual choices that make you stop and think. Another one, not related to discrimination would be a situation analogous to the Mouth of Sauron and Aragorn and company. Now, the modern day instinct would be to kill the evil bastard, BUT that would be completely at odds with a culture with a strong sacred hospitality tradition, and such an action would be reacted to with horror and disgust.


It's great for discussion, but it can turn ugly quickly. Especially when the players have very strong opinions on the matter. (Anyone wants to create a thread for 'Building a sexist-to-males matriarchy?)
As has been mentioned repeatedly, this is why you make sure everyone is on the ball before you throw it at them. Which is a weird mixed metaphor, almost zen, but I hope it manages to get the point across.

Jay R
2014-12-21, 09:52 AM
Don't introduce any element into your game's society unless either:
A. you and your players can enjoy living within it, or
B. you and your players can find a way to ignore it, or
C. you and your players are willing to play the game of getting rid of it.

A dragon as king who demands 20 virgins as dinner each month? OK if we're out to slay it; not OK if we have to accept that this is how society runs.

Nobles can change the law to suit themselves? OK if we simply shrug and keep playing. Not OK if it makes the game stop being fun.

Women are expected to stay home and keep house? OK if we as adventurers can simply ignore it and all PCs come out and adventure. Not OK if the female PCs are expected to just keep house.

Pervasive hurtful discrimination that cannot be ignored? OK if we all want to play a sociopolitical game of writing pamphlets, giving speeches, and otherwise working to change society. Not OK if we want to slay dragons and therefore have to put up with playing in a hurtful environment.

NichG
2014-12-21, 10:27 AM
So what would you say about putting something which is pervasive and hurtful into the setting, but which the players are positioned such that they don't notice that fact for some time?

For example, what if we have something like: "Members of the Adventuring caste can change the laws all the time to suit their needs, because they're superhuman beings who are constantly saving the world and what they do is more important than literally anything else anyone does"

Certainly there are going to be bad adventurers who abuse that and don't actually go around saving the world or helping people out or whatever, but the players are more likely to initially have the impression "It's great to be able to cut through all the political and legal BS for once and not get stonewalled by idiot NPCs or charged for gear we're going to use to save the life of the guy selling it to us."

But of course over time they're going to encounter the bad eggs, and even adventuring parties who mean well but who are driven to cruel enforcement of that rule when they encounter people who resist, simply because 'if we let this go unpunished, the next adventuring group may not get the support they need and we will all be lost' or whatever. So as the campaign goes on, it becomes more likely that the PCs are driven to question whether this power that they (and other adventurers) are given is a good thing.

Themrys
2014-12-21, 10:28 AM
Women are expected to stay home and keep house? OK if we as adventurers can simply ignore it and all PCs come out and adventure. Not OK if the female PCs are expected to just keep house.

Pervasive hurtful discrimination that cannot be ignored? OK if we all want to play a sociopolitical game of writing pamphlets, giving speeches, and otherwise working to change society. Not OK if we want to slay dragons and therefore have to put up with playing in a hurtful environment.

Women being expected to stay home and keep house is not pervasive hurtful discrimination ... how exactly? :smalleek:

Solaris
2014-12-21, 10:34 AM
Women being expected to stay home and keep house is not pervasive hurtful discrimination ... how exactly? :smalleek:

If it's not enforced and the players are free to buck it, then it's not impacting anyone who actually exists.

goto124
2014-12-21, 12:44 PM
If it's not enforced and the players are free to buck it, then it's not impacting anyone who actually exists.

Discrimination against NPCs is perfectly okay :smallbiggrin:

If everyone except the PCs is forced to stay in the kitchen, that's fine.
If noone except the PCs is forced to stay in the kitchen? TORCHES AND PITCHFORKS!
(Notice how I didn't mention sex.)
(If every NPC was in kitchens, it would be a boring game, but that's another matter.)

Often times, it's not the mere presence of discrimination (sexism, racism, etc) in the story that you don't like- heck, it makes things more interesting. Only when it gets in the way of having fun, does it really matter.

Themrys
2014-12-21, 01:15 PM
Often times, it's not the mere presence of discrimination (sexism, racism, etc) in the story that you don't like- heck, it makes things more interesting. Only when it gets in the way of having fun, does it really matter.

Well, I don't want to play the exceptional Joanne of Arc character everytime I play a female character. Thus, sexism either gets in the way of having fun or in the way of immersion. After all, how plausible is it that a completly normal woman goes adventuring and is treated with respect by all male NPC, while other women are forced into subordinate positions?

Granted, I am prejudiced against this because I had a GM who inserted sexism in a setting where it didn't belong, just because he couldn't be bothered to get rid of his own sexist attitudes, but you can't claim that a hero would not be affected by sexism that happens to NPCs. After all, saving distressed damsels is what many rpg adventures are about in the first place - how is a hero supposed to ignore a whole country of oppressed women?

Same goes for racism.

Ravens_cry
2014-12-21, 02:10 PM
Sure, if they just immediately accept her as 'one of the boys', yes, it's a little nonsensical.
However, if they work upwards, like say, a dwarf in a typical elven society, you can get a story arc out of it.
Remember how Legolas and Gimli were fairly antagonistic toward each other at the start of the story, become battle buddies, then true companions, with Gimli, a dwarf, eventually leaving Middle Earth so he could be with his awesome friend Legolas. something unprecedented in Middle Earth's history?

Frenth Alunril
2014-12-21, 02:17 PM
I play with an international group of adults over 30... Almost 40. :(

Anyway, we run with all of the evil of life. Our fighter recently ran in against impossible odds to save a woman from being raped. The entire party made a run from a human town that was racist and tried to capture them as slaves, and the elf was beaten and stripped of all of his belongings and left to run the wild because he wasn't of "strong enough stock." It was very fun calling him a faerie in a derogatory way. The party hated it!

The next adventure, on watch, the elf doors a Drow and flips his top with his own racist rant about all evil things living underground, the dwarf says, "keep digging that hole and you'll be living underground.

It is a tough part of the game, and it is not appropriate for all people, but it is a source of motivation and adventure. Currently my party is trying to save a different town, but in the back of their minds there is always a desire to get back at the racist human village.

veti
2014-12-21, 03:14 PM
It's noit that they need men, though some in-universe could interpret it that way, it's that they need their other party members. The idea is to add unusual choices that make you stop and think. Another one, not related to discrimination would be a situation analogous to the Mouth of Sauron and Aragorn and company. Now, the modern day instinct would be to kill the evil bastard, BUT that would be completely at odds with a culture with a strong sacred hospitality tradition, and such an action would be reacted to with horror and disgust.

Seriously? Is "brutal murder of an ambassador" what modern manners and morality expects to see? That would explain one of the changes from book to movie that irritated me, then. Not that it will stop irritating me.


To the main thread: It always amazes me where people choose to draw the line between "OK" and "not OK". I get the point about "things you've experienced in real life", but you know what I've experienced in real life? Being on the target end of a terrorist bomb, being in a fire, delivering bad news to touchy people (see above), being lost and alone in a strange country, standing up in court and being falsely accused, being poor and unemployed, being teased and ridiculed for this and that... I've seen people I loved rotting their brains with alcohol or gambling, dying from a lifetime of smoking, or just walking away from me.

And that's not a particularly exciting life. I think it's probably somewhere near the median.

If I complained every time I came across something in-game that evoked an unpleasant memory from life, I'd never play anything. (No, not even a game set in an all-pacifist, all-PC world where we're doing nothing more violent than trying to help young people find true love, or running a soup kitchen for the homeless.)

I'm firmly with the DMs who say "this is what happens, if it bothers you you're in the wrong game". Nobody should be forced to play something that makes them uncomfortable. On the other hand, I've yet to hear that anyone is being "forced" to play at all. Nobody has the right to censor everyone else's idea of harmless fun.

(Maybe this is why the roleplaying demographic tends to be mostly young people...)

Ravens_cry
2014-12-21, 06:07 PM
Seriously? Is "brutal murder of an ambassador" what modern manners and morality expects to see? That would explain one of the changes from book to movie that irritated me, then. Not that it will stop irritating me.

Well, diplomatic immunity is still a thing as a matter of law, but the western world doesn't have the custom of sacred hospitality it used to. We expect the hero to be a Badass™ Who Breaks All The Rules®, taking out the Baddie© No Matter the Consequences™

NichG
2014-12-21, 06:37 PM
In the case of the Mouth of Sauron, its more like taking out the Baddie's least favorite nephew (twice-removed). Killing the Mouth doesn't actually accomplish anything, so its not like there's any tension between 'we have to respect the fact that he's an ambassador' and 'but we need to bring him to justice'.

Now, if Sauron himself came to negotiate somehow and, for some reason, as a result was in their power, and then used 'diplomatic immunity' to guarantee his own safe passage... and it worked. Then I think people might raise their eyebrows a bit.

Themrys
2014-12-21, 07:47 PM
Sure, if they just immediately accept her as 'one of the boys', yes, it's a little nonsensical.
However, if they work upwards, like say, a dwarf in a typical elven society, you can get a story arc out of it.
Remember how Legolas and Gimli were fairly antagonistic toward each other at the start of the story, become battle buddies, then true companions, with Gimli, a dwarf, eventually leaving Middle Earth so he could be with his awesome friend Legolas. something unprecedented in Middle Earth's history?

The friendship between Legolas and Gimli worked because elves and dwarves hated each other. Elves did not: Kill dwarves, keep dwarves from getting good jobs, feed dwarves with dwarf-hating propaganda causing them to hate themselves ... it is a completely different situation. Gimli and Legolas are more like two people from feuding families of equal power.

Also, I was referring to the NPC, mainly. The kind of NPC who asks you to find their lost ring, or lost family member, or whatever, and offers good payment. Do you think it is realistic that the local nobleman says "Well, I pay my female miners half of what I would pay men, under the pretense that their work is worth less, even though they are smaller and thus don't needs as high tunnels, but of course I will pay you, female adventurer, exactly as much as your male buddies." ?

Also, everyday situation: You go to the tavern to gather information, and every damn single person there is male - except the very sexy barmaid, of course. It makes a female adventurer feel very much out of place. (Of course, you don't have to make it so extreme, even if you do have a sexist setting, but this is the kind of thing a GM would justify with "women are expected to stay at home")

dps
2014-12-21, 09:08 PM
Which brings us to Your Mileage May Vary. Seeing sexism can add to the story in a fun and engaging manner, but getting actively obstructed by sexism just because you want to play a female character tends to be outright frustrating and not fun. Again, adjust the setting to you and your players' preferences.

(And all instances of 'female' can be replaced by 'male' for inverse sexism, but that isn't really the point, though it can make for interesting stuff)

Sure, I'm not suggesting otherwise. If the DM and the players are all comfortable dealing with a form of prejudice in-game, and it's appropriate to the setting, then by all means include it. But if anyone involved would prefer not to deal with it, leave it out.

goto124
2014-12-21, 09:42 PM
Do you think it is realistic that the local nobleman says "Well, I pay my female miners half of what I would pay men, under the pretense that their work is worth less, even though they are smaller and thus don't needs as high tunnels, but of course I will pay you, female adventurer, exactly as much as your male buddies." ?

Admittingly, I did assume that the players are more willing to have some unrealism in their game, than to have it actively obstruct gameplay, or for it to be absent altogether. It probably works best for people who want to see sexism, but not have to deal with sexism. If it breaks your suspension of disbelief, and would rather have it not be there at all, that's fine too.

There's sexism done as a fulfilling challenge to overcome, that adds to the gameplay and storyline. And there's sexism done to as too much of a difficulty that blocks everything you do in an unstatisfying manner.
Does anyone have examples of the former? (Sexism can be replaced by any other kind of discrimination.)

Solaris
2014-12-21, 11:02 PM
Also, I was referring to the NPC, mainly. The kind of NPC who asks you to find their lost ring, or lost family member, or whatever, and offers good payment. Do you think it is realistic that the local nobleman says "Well, I pay my female miners half of what I would pay men, under the pretense that their work is worth less, even though they are smaller and thus don't needs as high tunnels, but of course I will pay you, female adventurer, exactly as much as your male buddies." ?

If a setting is pseudo-medieval and has female miners who're discriminated against, they're doing it wrong. 99% of the discrimination against women is founded in protecting them from danger, which is founded in the fact that medieval societies weren't so far removed from the generations where having everyone in town die off or get killed off was a reasonable thing to expect - and thus women were more essential than men for rebuilding after such an event.

It's not that the female miners would get paid less. It's that there wouldn't be any at all.


Also, everyday situation: You go to the tavern to gather information, and every damn single person there is male - except the very sexy barmaid, of course. It makes a female adventurer feel very much out of place. (Of course, you don't have to make it so extreme, even if you do have a sexist setting, but this is the kind of thing a GM would justify with "women are expected to stay at home")

Or if all the females were ladies of the night. That one carries some even more unfortunate implications than Ye Olde Hooters.

Psyren
2014-12-22, 12:05 AM
There are settings where discrimination is played up and even institutionalized. Dragon Age is a good example - Elves are jerks to other elves, Dwarves are jerks to other Dwarves, Humans are jerks to everybody, the Chantry are jerks to mages, the Qunari are jerks to mages, back and forth, round and round, on and on.

But @ OP: You should never run something that actually makes you feel uncomfortable. In the end this is a game, and spending your precious free time doing something that winds you up instead of winding you down is not something I'd honestly recommend.

goto124
2014-12-22, 01:22 AM
If a setting is pseudo-medieval and has female miners who're discriminated against, they're doing it wrong. 99% of the discrimination against women is founded in protecting them from danger, which is founded in the fact that medieval societies weren't so far removed from the generations where having everyone in town die off or get killed off was a reasonable thing to expect - and thus women were more essential than men for rebuilding after such an event.

It's not that the female miners would get paid less. It's that there wouldn't be any at all.

Ahh. This is interesting, the 'all women must be protected' kind of thought. So when an NPC sees a lady warrior (after figuring out she's not a man, what with all the armor :P), he could say 'Goodness, how could a fine lady risk her life like that?' But it doesn't hurt or block the PC from doing anything. Maybe the woman's blocked from entering dangerous areas, but they let her in when they see she's accompanied by men (likely to happen anyway, players tend to travel together). Sexism that adds flavor without getting in the way of playing the game.

Different story for racism though, which most likely won't have any benevolence to it.

Cazero
2014-12-22, 03:36 AM
Ahh. This is interesting, the 'all women must be protected' kind of thought. So when an NPC sees a lady warrior (after figuring out she's not a man, what with all the armor :P), he could say 'Goodness, how could a fine lady risk her life like that?' But it doesn't hurt or block the PC from doing anything. Maybe the woman's blocked from entering dangerous areas, but they let her in when they see she's accompanied by men (likely to happen anyway, players tend to travel together). Sexism that adds flavor without getting in the way of playing the game.

'All women must be protected' reasoning makes sense, but the part where a lady warrior is put back doesn't.

In a medieval society with high mortality rate, women have to be pregnant at least 1/3 of the time just to keep the population stable. Wether that mortality comes from disease or goblins is irrelevant.
What kind of work can a pregnant woman do without killing the baby? Housekeeping, and certainly not fighting goblins. And that is why women are expected to stick to the housekeeping jobs.

But since some women are born with the power to set people they don't like on fire, you would expect society to not be a bitch about gender role. No need to enforce it with law and prejudice, nature does that fine and doesn't kill you with fire for it.

hifidelity2
2014-12-22, 04:43 AM
I have as a player and a DM used discrimination

As stated earlier I have made sure that the Players know what will be in the adventure and if any were to uncomfortable then I would not use it. However i think we can divide the discrimination into “Fantasy” and “Real”. Fantasy is one that can be played quite easily and should not worry most people. Real is harder and needs a more “mature” set of players / DM.

Fantasy
I run a Star Wars game – and one player is a Droid – there is active discrimination against Droids they are just machines with no rights – If someone destroys your droid they have destroyed property, they may get arrested for that and fined and jailed but its not murder. I warned the PC and he accepts the limitations (and it does have some advantages – people tend to ignore Droids so he can go places the part would be stopped and questioned)

Another one is a normal fantasy setting - the PCs – all but one human have to go into a country that is controlled by Orcs. The Orcs treat the humans as second class citizens

Real
I have played a female in the CoC (1920’s) and part of the fun was exerting “my rights” playing a suffragette. However the party try and shield her from harm, would defend her honour etc. All this made for a great game and it helped set the feel of the 1920’s

Themrys
2014-12-22, 10:34 AM
{scrubbed}

JeenLeen
2014-12-22, 10:51 AM
I don't think racism, sexism, or other discrimination in a game is inherently right or wrong, okay or not okay, but I agree with those who say that the DM and all players should be okay with it. When discussing the game, such things should be asked ahead-of-time. If the DM is not comfortable RPing racist NPCs, then racism shouldn't be a thing in the game, or it should be such a minor thing that it doesn't impact things (elves and dwarves don't like each other, but still get along okay when needed, for example.)

Same with other things. We had one D&D game, and the DM asked us how we felt about rape. He had an NPC villain who may (if things went a certain way) capture us and the tortures he had planned included that. We felt we would be okay with it in the game. The game ended before we got there, so I don't know how it would have actually been, but I feel with my group it would have been 'fade to black' enough that it would be okay. If with a group I didn't know, I probably would say I'm not comfortable. I've also not been comfortable with very sexual characters and have stated that to my friends I game with.

For racism, we had one game where fantastical racism came up but was unexpected. It was a homebrew system (loosely based off World of Darkness) where there was a zombie outbreak in Manhattan, which was quarantined. We were survivors who were turned into vampires when we were about to die. There were also werewolves, and vampires and werewolves had a general "we don't like each other, but leave each other alone" policy but, during the outbreak, it had spread to "if you enter our territory, we will kill you, but otherwise we leave each other alone".
I think one of the moral issues of the game was how to deal with werewolves. They were people as much as we were, but making peace didn't seem an option and there was a timetable. (It was likely the island would get nuked if a cure wasn't found in time.) To find a cure or solution, we had to interact with werewolf territory. I saw that, in-game, we were treating them like animals because that was the easiest way to justify our actions. It was neat roleplaying someone who became racist against werewolves because that was the only way he could cope with having to fight them while still identifying as a 'good person' in some sense.
In this case, the DM didn't ask us anything ahead-of-time, I think because such fantastical racism is something we are all okay with and we didn't really expect it as a theme, but I think it worked out okay.

Just, if it's an issue, whoever has the issue should talk with the others. If it means someone has to leave a game, that's a shame, but I think unless the troubling element is a key aspect of the game, the game can be altered to accommodate.

Solaris
2014-12-22, 01:09 PM
Yeah, right, because carrying heavy loads of wet laundry (you know how laundry was done prior to washing machines, do you?) and cooking over an open fire is sooo much more relaxing and good for your health than shooting arrows at goblins. (And, really, you don't try to use this for DnD of all things? Newsflash: There is magic.)

Please, do inform yourself before spouting such nonsense. (Also, inform yourself about pregnancies. It is not as if women weren't exposed to violence inside the house. Ever heard of domestic violence? If that would kill all fetuses, we'd be extinct by now ... and maybe that wouldn't be so bad)

I... I can't tell if you're being serious or not. It's well and good to insist on equality, but trying to claim housework is as dangerous as combat is just nuts. It doesn't even rate up there with agricultural work.
Magic is pretty expensive for a commoner whose daily income is counted in the silver pieces. Even the simple cure light wounds is out of most peasants' reach, much less the higher-level spells that cure disease and regenerate amputated limbs. It's entirely reasonable to consider the peasantry and much of the middle class as living in a low- to no-magic setting with regards to what they have access to.

If domestic violence had been 100% widespread at any point in our history as a species, then the claim we'd be extinct by now would have merit. It wasn't. There's no reason to believe human nature has changed so fundamentally as that. At best there's the fact that women were considered as minors in a time where corporal punishment was considered appropriate for minors... and you'll have a hard time proving that even a plurality of men switched their wives. Humans are not violent creatures by nature, and that goes double towards their own families.

gom jabbarwocky
2014-12-22, 02:18 PM
Admittingly, I did assume that the players are more willing to have some unrealism in their game, than to have it actively obstruct gameplay, or for it to be absent altogether. It probably works best for people who want to see sexism, but not have to deal with sexism. If it breaks your suspension of disbelief, and would rather have it not be there at all, that's fine too. I think this kind of hits the nail on the head for me in identifying the problem. I run a lot of games that take place in contemporary settings, and since the games take place in realities that can be assumed for the most part to be "like our own except where noted," this would imply that bigotry of all kinds exists in the game-world, just as in the real world, it just doesn't come up in-game too often. However, this didn't break my suspension of disbelief until I had a scenario (admittedly, a minor one) that involved bigotry against a fictional demographic which directly affected a PC, and I realized something weird was going on. And this was cause for some consternation. I asked myself a lot of the questions I've seen so far in this thread - Is it unrealistic to just ignore sexism/racism/whatever? Is it an acceptable break from reality if it makes my games less fun? Can I have my cake and eat it too by having bigotry in the setting but it just not affecting the PCs? What does this say about the larger ethical tension inherent in storytelling of re-creating reality versus being entertained?

At the same time, answering these deep philosophical questions is is kind of above my pay-grade as a guy who just wants to have fun with his hobby. I bet people who make tiny scale-model train sets never have to think about this sort of thing.

jedipotter
2014-12-22, 02:20 PM
Also, I was referring to the NPC, mainly. The kind of NPC who asks you to find their lost ring, or lost family member, or whatever, and offers good payment. Do you think it is realistic that the local nobleman says "Well, I pay my female miners half of what I would pay men, under the pretense that their work is worth less, even though they are smaller and thus don't needs as high tunnels, but of course I will pay you, female adventurer, exactly as much as your male buddies." ?

A businessman like a Goblin or a Ferengi would have all female miners to save money. If the women miners can mine exactly the same amount as the men, but will work for less pay, that is perfect for a greedy businessman.

And you often pay someone armed and armored the good rate as they have the tough vibe, no matter their type or race or anything else.




Also, everyday situation: You go to the tavern to gather information, and every damn single person there is male - except the very sexy barmaid, of course. It makes a female adventurer feel very much out of place. (Of course, you don't have to make it so extreme, even if you do have a sexist setting, but this is the kind of thing a GM would justify with "women are expected to stay at home")

Though the other type of tavern is a bit odd: ''There are ten humans in the tavern, five men and five women. They are all equal and exactly the same in every way...except five are men and five are women.''

And really odd with: ''Man Jord leaves the tavern and Woman Else also immediately leaves the tavern so there are eight humans in the tavern, four men and four women.''

goto124
2014-12-22, 02:45 PM
Come to think of it. Have we really talked about how to use discrimination in a manner that makes the game more fun and immersive? hifidelity2 and JeenLeen mentioned racism done such that the players enjoyed the game despite/because of it, but how had the DMs set things up such that it doesn't go awry?

Frenth Alunril
2014-12-23, 12:17 AM
Come to think of it. Have we really talked about how to use discrimination in a manner that makes the game more fun and immersive? hifidelity2 and JeenLeen mentioned racism done such that the players enjoyed the game despite/because of it, but how had the DMs set things up such that it doesn't go awry?

The pure zeal my players have for revenge on the racists is motivating and fun. Further, when the elf went reverse racist on the drow, it was a great example of the hero's quest to rise above the standards of an unjust society. Setting a higher bar, and holding themselves accountable for their short comings.

It's motivating and fun!

hifidelity2
2014-12-23, 04:25 AM
Come to think of it. Have we really talked about how to use discrimination in a manner that makes the game more fun and immersive? hifidelity2 and JeenLeen mentioned racism done such that the players enjoyed the game despite/because of it, but how had the DMs set things up such that it doesn't go awry?


Part of it is playing with people you know and know that when they say things they are saying them In Character and not as people

If you take my CoC game. The game was set in 1923. Women did not get the full vote until 1928 (in the UK). MY Character was a doctor but was naturally always treated by everyone as a nurse (as a Doctor is a Man’s job!)

If we were somewhere formal then I would be expected to retire with the ladys while the gentlemen discussed the case with Port and Cigars – so of course I would stay and generally cause a bit of a scandal

The DM’s “job” in social or professional situations was to try and sideline me (the “little woman”) while it was my job as a player to make that impossible / as hard as possible for him to do it. Thats interaction was part of the fun in the game – not only for me but for the other players who would also stick up for my “rights”

Sergeantbrother
2014-12-23, 04:54 AM
Ultimately, role playing is a social activity and we have to accommodate the differing preferences of the people we are playing with. There is no right or wrong amount of 'discrimination" to include in a game, the only right course of action is to make sure that all of the players and the GM are enjoying themselves. If something arises in game that makes somebody uncomfortable, then it should be discussed out of game and the people at the table should work on making the game fun for everybody. If the desires of certain players are too different for them to enjoy a game, then perhaps they shouldn't play with each other.

That said, in virtually every game I have run, discrimination (racial, species, gender, economic, national, religious, you name it) exists and is relatively prevalent. That is something I like to include in games, especially those which have pre-modern elements. I haven't had many people object to this. Chances are if somebody really didn't like it, I wouldn't play with them, though if I really wanted the person in the game I would likely try to compromise my vision for what I want in a game with theirs.

On a slightly related topic, why is it that all of the "racism is bad" fantasy or science fiction allegories have humans as stand-ins for white people and the nonhuman race as stand-ins for discriminated against non-whites?

Gavran
2014-12-23, 10:27 AM
Yeah, right, because carrying heavy loads of wet laundry (you know how laundry was done prior to washing machines, do you?) and cooking over an open fire is sooo much more relaxing and good for your health than shooting arrows at goblins. (And, really, you don't try to use this for DnD of all things? Newsflash: There is magic.)

Please, do inform yourself before spouting such nonsense. (Also, inform yourself about pregnancies. It is not as if women weren't exposed to violence inside the house. Ever heard of domestic violence? If that would kill all fetuses, we'd be extinct by now ... and maybe that wouldn't be so bad)

Now, come on, really? Nonsense?
I'm fairly sure carrying a heavy-ish weight (and I mean, I transfer loads of wet laundry every time I do laundry and it's not exactly heavy... though admittedly it's a significantly shorter distance, and I have the luxury of doing it piecemeal if that becomes the tiniest bit preferable), and cooking over a fire, which I used to do recreationally once a week is significantly more relaxing and safe than being engaged in life or death encounters. And for that matter, simply firing arrows at a target is probably at least equivalent to the laundry thing. I'm no expert but I'm told the amount of strength required to use non-modern bows is quite significant, and I've no reason to disbelieve it.

Now, I'm also not an expert in historical gender studies so I'll make no claims to the accuracy of the original post, but I will say it's all very plausible. If in reality 90% of pregnant medieval women were regularly beaten by their husbands, well, that's super ****ty and frankly I was happier not considering the possibility - but even then it's not really an argument to have those women go get stabbed by goblins. It's biological fact that more women plays a larger role in increasing the population than more men does. Would I want to play this kind of scenario? Not really, but then I don't really play "humanity's survival is in question" games. Maybe that's unrealistic. I don't care.

... not even going to touch the concept of human extinction being a good thing, but for as much as you've advocated against throwing unpleasant reminders of real life trauma at people (which I coincidentally 100% agree with), I'd have thought you'd be a little more sensitive to survivors of other tragedies.

NichG
2014-12-23, 11:41 AM
On a slightly related topic, why is it that all of the "racism is bad" fantasy or science fiction allegories have humans as stand-ins for white people and the nonhuman race as stand-ins for discriminated against non-whites?

Because the author usually (either consciously or subconsciously) wants to evoke guilt in the reader. While the reader may not be white, they're certainly going to be human, and so the author puts them in the view-point of the oppressor so that they can attack that viewpoint later on in the allegory and induce change in the reader. Of course sometimes that's very transparently done, and makes the thing sound preachy.

gom jabbarwocky
2014-12-23, 12:20 PM
On a slightly related topic, why is it that all of the "racism is bad" fantasy or science fiction allegories have humans as stand-ins for white people and the nonhuman race as stand-ins for discriminated against non-whites?

I don't want to get too into this, because this isn't what the thread is technically about, but I think the reason for this is that despite ethnic strife and oppression happening between other ethnic groups than just white people vs. everyone else, it's probably due to the fact that historically white folks were pretty good at establishing themselves at the top of the pile - it's the form of racial skullduggery most people are familiar with. Or it could be that a lot of fantasy and science fiction authors are white, and they work with what they know. I actually don't know, but if I had to guess, those would be my assumptions.

Talakeal
2014-12-23, 12:54 PM
On a slightly related topic, why is it that all of the "racism is bad" fantasy or science fiction allegories have humans as stand-ins for white people and the nonhuman race as stand-ins for discriminated against non-whites?

I can't think of any off the top of my head, but there has to be a significant number of SF plots about advanced aliens making peaceful contact with Earth but due to their advanced technology end up running the place with humans as second class citizens that works as a parallel to European colonialism. Its just too basic (and realistic if Stephan Hawking is to be believed) plot not to be used.

Psyren
2014-12-23, 02:12 PM
On a slightly related topic, why is it that all of the "racism is bad" fantasy or science fiction allegories have humans as stand-ins for white people and the nonhuman race as stand-ins for discriminated against non-whites?

*glances sidelong at the predominant audience for western media of all kinds.*

Can't imagine why the most relatable race would also be portrayed as the most privileged. :smalltongue::smallwink:

Though I will point out that in Tolkien, the elves were the apex jerks.

jedipotter
2014-12-23, 02:23 PM
I can't think of any off the top of my head, but there has to be a significant number of SF plots about advanced aliens making peaceful contact with Earth but due to their advanced technology end up running the place with humans as second class citizens that works as a parallel to European colonialism. Its just too basic (and realistic if Stephan Hawking is to be believed) plot not to be used.

Earth: The Final Conflict
Battlefield Earth
V
The X-Flies has lots of plots around this idea

The Ashen(Stargate:SG1)

TheCountAlucard
2014-12-23, 02:27 PM
Scientology references aside, the Psychlos were hardly a case of an alien race making "peaceful contact."

Broken Twin
2014-12-23, 02:37 PM
On a slightly related topic, why is it that all of the "racism is bad" fantasy or science fiction allegories have humans as stand-ins for white people and the nonhuman race as stand-ins for discriminated against non-whites?

I've played/watched/read a multitude of media where the oppressor group weren't human/white. The reason it seems like the vast majority is just euro-centric bias. The English speaking world is more likely to consume media produced by predominately white groups. Step into other cultures and you'll see they all have their own unique biases towards their people and others.

Not directly related to your comment, but I find the idea that 'white' people (who are we referring to with that, exactly?) were the only major oppressors in history to be freaking hilarious. Almost every culture has had racism, slavery, tyranny, and every other human evil, regardless of the ruling class's skin color.

-------------------------------------

In regards to the actual thread topic, I find discrimination in games is okay, as long as they're not reinforced in real life. I mean, if the GM wants to run a game where slavery exists, I can roll with that. If the GM honestly believes that certain people deserve to be enslaved, then we're going to have problems. Other than that, what is allowed in a game is entirely dependent upon what the GM and players decide is okay. The inclusion of any adult topics are mentioned beforehand, everyone pitches in as to what type of game they want to play, and we're all good to go.

Talakeal
2014-12-23, 02:58 PM
I've played/watched/read a multitude of media where the oppressor group weren't human/white. The reason it seems like the vast majority is just euro-centric bias. The English speaking world is more likely to consume media produced by predominately white groups. Step into other cultures and you'll see they all have their own unique biases towards their people and others.

Not directly related to your comment, but I find the idea that 'white' people (who are we referring to with that, exactly?) were the only major oppressors in history to be freaking hilarious. Almost every culture has had racism, slavery, tyranny, and every other human evil, regardless of the ruling class's skin color.



Of course humans are humans and you can find the best and worst of humanity in every time and place. But the colonial period of the 15-19th centuries was largely driven by white Europeans. Technology finally allowed truly global empires, such as the British, which is arguably the largest in history. Also, Malaria plays a huge part, and Europe being mostly free of it and eventually developing treatments gave them a huge advantage when it came to global domination.


Earth: The Final Conflict
Battlefield Earth
V
The X-Flies has lots of plots around this idea

The Ashen(Stargate:SG1)

I thought about some of those (others I haven't seen and or heard of) but they all seemed more on an intentional effort on the aliens part to destroy or enslave us rather than simply establishing contact but do to the technological differences ending up in a very one sided system that parrelels European colonialism. Although, Europeans were not above taking what they wanted by force in many places.

jedipotter
2014-12-23, 03:32 PM
I thought about some of those (others I haven't seen and or heard of) but they all seemed more on an intentional effort on the aliens part to destroy or enslave us rather than simply establishing contact but do to the technological differences ending up in a very one sided system that parrelels European colonialism. Although, Europeans were not above taking what they wanted by force in many places.

Well, Your Millage May Vary....

If you were looking for some pure ''the aliens just winked and enslaved humanity'', you might have a hard time finding that...

And the shows are written from the human point of view that the aliens are enslaving humans by intention. And that is the typical view of the humans or any group where ''others'' show up.

But then too ''enslaving'' is kind of open to interpretation.

Talakeal
2014-12-23, 05:08 PM
Well, Your Millage May Vary....

If you were looking for some pure ''the aliens just winked and enslaved humanity'', you might have a hard time finding that...

And the shows are written from the human point of view that the aliens are enslaving humans by intention. And that is the typical view of the humans or any group where ''others'' show up.

But then too ''enslaving'' is kind of open to interpretation.

I mean where the aliens came in peace without ulterior motives but ended up devastating the native culture as is often the case in human history.

Sith_Happens
2014-12-23, 05:36 PM
I mean where the aliens came in peace without ulterior motives but ended up devastating the native culture as is often the case in human history.

V kinda-sorta counts. The aliens in that do have an ulterior motive but deliberately go for a subtle, peaceful takeover of this exact variety.

Talakeal
2014-12-23, 05:45 PM
V kinda-sorta counts. The aliens in that do have an ulterior motive but deliberately go for a subtle, peaceful takeover of this exact variety.

Yeah, V is about the closest I can think of. But that is very clearly a case of them having ulterior motives and careful plans from the start and falls more into the genre of revolution vs fascist government style of storytelling rather than simply loss of culture and land.

I was thinking something more like a "What if the federation from Star Trek didn't have a Prime Directive?" sort of thing where simple cultural contamination destroys the indigenous way of life and there is no true villain or way you can fight off an oppressor to restore your way of life.

Solaris
2014-12-23, 06:04 PM
I mean where the aliens came in peace without ulterior motives but ended up devastating the native culture as is often the case in human history.

Eagle Against the Stars is the closest I can come up with.

Sith_Happens
2014-12-23, 06:11 PM
I was thinking something more like a "What if the federation from Star Trek didn't have a Prime Directive?" sort of thing where simple cultural contamination destroys the indigenous way of life and there is no true villain or way you can fight off an oppressor to restore your way of life.

The Citadel government was at least close to this upon discovering the Krogan in the background of Mass Effect.

Roxxy
2014-12-24, 01:54 AM
Yeah, right, because carrying heavy loads of wet laundry (you know how laundry was done prior to washing machines, do you?) and cooking over an open fire is sooo much more relaxing and good for your health than shooting arrows at goblins. (And, really, you don't try to use this for DnD of all things? Newsflash: There is magic.)Yes. Yes it is. As hard as housework can be, it is not on the same level of exertion as combat. Archery isn't exactly easy. A longbow has a draw weight of over a hundred pounds, and a crossbow strong enough to puncture armor is difficult to span even with mechanical aid. Not to mention the fact that there are things actively trying to kill you during this. Like it or not, pregnancy is a significant problem during such activity.

Most settings I've seen also do not put the magic that would compensate in the hands of the sorts of people who would need to fight off goblins while pregnant.


Please, do inform yourself before spouting such nonsense. The way it looks, you are the one spouting uninformed nonsense.
(Also, inform yourself about pregnancies. It is not as if women weren't exposed to violence inside the house. Ever heard of domestic violence? If that would kill all fetuses, we'd be extinct by now ... and maybe that wouldn't be so bad)As horrible as domestic violence is, it is rarely on the caliber of being stabbed with swords and knives or shot with arrows, and killing is generally not the intent when beating one's wife, which cannot be said for a goblin raid.

GrayGriffin
2014-12-24, 08:05 AM
On a slightly related topic, why is it that all of the "racism is bad" fantasy or science fiction allegories have humans as stand-ins for white people and the nonhuman race as stand-ins for discriminated against non-whites?

The True Meaning of Smekday has aliens as the white-people equivalents and humans as the non-white equivalents. The main character is also mixed-race, and there's an actual Native American character so that the "human reservations" aren't just an abstract allegory.

B9anders
2014-12-26, 05:08 AM
We're playing an Infinite Worlds campaign, where one of the characters is black. They went to 17th century Cartagena (heart of the slave trade) on a mission, where he was disguised as the manservant of the charismatic "noble" faceman of the group.

I played it straight. The manservant dines in the kitchen, when the master is eating, he does not engage with whites on his own initiative and so forth. He was generally terribly discriminated.

The player was a bit frustrated, but he roleplayed it well, and it was fine for the one mission. In fact, having to dine in the kitchen gave the group all kinds of street intel the group was looking for that the faceman failed to obtain whilst dining in an upper class establishment.

After that, he made sure to dress in fine clothes, as an emancipated do-well trader or some such when the group hit eras where such discrimination is rampant. I think it gets boring at length if it's the PCs that are subject to it.

Frozen_Feet
2014-12-26, 09:07 AM
It's great for discussion, but it can turn ugly quickly. Especially when the players have very strong opinions on the matter. Anyone wants to create a thread for 'Building a sexist-to-males matriarchy?

Yes, let's all discuss Noitahovi, the Finnish RPG only I have heard of. :smallwink::smalltongue:



The way it looks, you are the one spouting uninformed nonsense.As horrible as domestic violence is, it is rarely on the caliber of being stabbed with swords and knives or shot with arrows, and killing is generally not the intent when beating one's wife, which cannot be said for a goblin raid.

So wait, we're now discussing which one is worse, being forced to be a housewife or being forced to be a soldier? I'm reminded of a certain quote said by a certain politician, about how women are the true victims of war, rather than, you know, the men who die for them.

Roxxy
2014-12-26, 02:48 PM
So wait, we're now discussing which one is worse, being forced to be a housewife or being forced to be a soldier? I'm reminded of a certain quote said by a certain politician, about how women are the true victims of war, rather than, you know, the men who die for them.No. We are discussing whether doing housework and engaging in combat as an archer are equally hard on a pregnant woman from a physical point of view. Which was a flat out ridiculous assertion.