PDA

View Full Version : Sexism/Racism - The Mechanic!



JackMage666
2007-07-09, 06:09 AM
Inspired partly by this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50087), I present, as best I can, the rules for Sexism and Racism!

Sexism and Racism
Sexism and Racism, as you all know, is the negative treatment of someone due to their race or gender, something uncontrollable for them. While this is a horrible practice in real life, mechanic-wise for D&D, nothing exists that I've seen. So, here is my first attempt at this social stigma.

Individuals
These mechanics are based on the general community, no specific members of it. While most commoners will share these views, it is not absolute. NPCs who live in any area with a racist or sexist problem are not required to be racist or sexist themselves.

Severity
There are three severities to racism and sexism. Mild is the most like, while Severe is very unlikely. Severe should go almost untouched in a game world, as it's quite likely anyone of that race will survive in that area, especially without aid.

Mild - Social stigmas cause minor prejudices for a specific gender or race. While this is not notable enough to erupt in outright bloodshed (most of the time), an inhabitant being discrimated against knows it full well. Example - Cerain parts of Southern United States

Strong - Members of discrimated races or genders are publicly mistreated without fear of punishment. However, moral fibers in people normally keep things from going too far, and certain restrictions may be put in place to keep order. These are, however, formalities that can be broken if wished. Example - Iraq, Afghanistan

Severe - Members of discriminated race or gender are publicly beaten, maimed, and tortured. No mercy is reserved for the discriminated, and persons not matching racil demographics are hunted and killed by members of the society. Example - Nazi Germany

To Use
To use this system, make note of the tension level against particular races and genders in each town - Neutral, Mild, Strong, or Severe. A town can be racist against multiple races, but should only be sexist against one sex (this is possible, however, if the ruling class is unisexual).

Attitude
The attitude towards said group is always more negative in a racist or sexist society than it would be in a neutral society. This, too, depends on the severity.

Mild - Initial NPC attitude is one step lower than it would normally be. In addition, NPC attitudes cannot be raised above Friendly, and all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Perform, and Profession checks are made at a -4 penalty (certain exceptions may apply, for example, no -4 penalty for Profession (cook) checks against females in a sexist society).

Strong - Initial NPC attitudes are two steps lower than it would normally be. In addition, NPC attitudes cannot be raised above Indifferent, and all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Perform, and Profession checks are made at a -8 penalty (certain exceptions may apply, for example, no -8 penalty for Profession (cook) checks against females in a sexist society).

Severe - Initial NPC attitudes are three steps lower than it would normally be. In addition, NPC attitudes cannot be raised above Unfriendly, and all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Perform, and Profession checks are made at a -16 penalty (certain exceptions may apply, for example, no -16 penalty for Profession (cook) checks against females in a sexist society).

Fear
Many cultures fear people that are different, for whatever reason. Due to the fear of a entire community, prejudices and steriotypes of all members of that group will spread, making it harder for a member of said group to succeed in a normal fasion. However, a character can use this to their advantage, provided they feel strongly enough about the component that triggers the prejudices. Also note that Slavery (see below) will generally negate these bonuses, unless fear of revolt is also present.

Mild - +2 circumstance bonus on Intimidate checks. Noone really knows why you are the way you are, and you can convince them you are, in fact, a threat.

Strong - +4 circumstance bonus on Intimidate checks. By playing on the fears of others, you can make yourself seem greater than you are.

Severe - +8 circumstance bonus on Intimidate checks. You are not welcome in this area, but you continue to fight for safety, which is in itself fearsome.

Merchants
Merchants will often sell to people wo are discriminated against, though they may not personally like it. Money is money, however, and they're happy to take it from you. Discriminated people normally have a rise in price when purchasing items.

Mild - +15% cost of items

Strong - +50% cost of items

Severe - In this case, merchants stand a strong chance of not selling to discrimated group. However, any transaction made is at +100% cost of item, if not more.

Officials
Guards are less likely to listen to the discriminated. In any town with a racial severity level, there is a chance the officer will be corrupt enough to not care about said groups problems.

Mild - 10% chance. Normally, these guards are commiting crimes against the discriminated as well.

Strong - 50% chance. It's hit and miss, but there is a chance.

Severe - 95% chance. There are still a few good people around, though they are exceedingly rare.

Slavery
The chance of slavery goes up with the tension level, as well. In some cases, slavery may not exist, even in the harshest areas.

Mild - None. Slavery may have been present at one time, but it is no longer allowed.

Strong - Slavery may be allowed, but it is strictly governed and watched. Several laws are in place to protect slave's lives, though you'd need a good official to support them.

Severe - Slavery is prevalent. No laws control how owners treat slaves, and slavery is normally considered an economical business in the town as well.

Reverse
Very rarely, a society may actually favor a particular race or gender, while not necessarly looking down on any others. If this is the case, use opposite values presented here (ignore Slavery, and Officials is a percentage chance to find a fiercly loyal guard who will make certain justice is served instead.) Items are sold cheaper, as well as people are more responsive to said group. This level, rare in itself, seldom goes about Mild.

Sexuality
All the same rules for racism and sexism can be used for discrimination against sexual preference. However, it is more difficult for someone to tell someone's sexual preference, and so they most often must be caught in the act to be suspected. If open about it, a character will face the same treatment as a discriminated race, but if private and cautious, a character will most likely go unnoticed.

Disabled
The elderly and the disabled face a different sort of prejudice. They do not often fall into Slavery, but are sometimes killed either at birth (for the disable), or when deemed socially useless (for the elderly). Both of these are hazards mainly in a Severe area, although it is possible in a Strong area as well. A Mild area may show a certain level of contempt for the disabled, but it is rare for the to show disrespect to the elderly as a whole. A disabled creature, provided it's disability is not easily noticed, can hide it's disability with no problem. However, if discovered, he is treated with the common disrespect involved with the community. If a child is borned disabled, however, he cannot hide his disability nearly as easily in his hometown (more than likely, most people know, particularly in small towns. This is not nearly as true in areas where disabilities hold less matter in the minds of citizens.)

Above are possible variant rules. If you have any you'd like to add, or any criticisms, please add them.

EDIT 1 - Added "Sexuality" and "Disabled" to the list
EDIT 2 - Attempted to remove the word "hate" from parts of the post, as it was not the intented word.
EDIT 3 - Added a bit about hiding disabilities.
EDIT 4 - Added "Individuals"
EDIT 5 - Lessened Intimidate bonus, added "Fear"

lumberofdabeast
2007-07-09, 06:15 AM
If my gender is severely favored, does that mean I get stuff for free, or that people try to give me stuff I don't even want?

JackMage666
2007-07-09, 06:18 AM
Yes, yes it does.

But a DM would be crazy to do that, hence why it's even more rare than it already is to go above Mild.

Xuincherguixe
2007-07-09, 06:21 AM
I may be opening up a can of worms here but... what about prejudice against alternative sexuality, and the disabled?

Slavery probably doesn't work so good. And attitude only really applies when "they can tell".

lumberofdabeast
2007-07-09, 06:27 AM
Yes, yes it does.

But a DM would be crazy to do that, hence why it's even more rare than it already is to go above Mild.

You've never met my DM, I see.

Which is to say, me.

JackMage666
2007-07-09, 06:34 AM
If you're the DM, people give you stuff free anyway, You control them. It doesn't matter what rules you use. If you want a sword, they give you a sword. If you want a bow, they give you a bow. If you want an M-16 in a fantasy setting, they give it to you anyway.

Added rules on Sexuality as well as the Disabled and Elderly.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-07-09, 06:37 AM
I don't think this really contributes anything useful. Society-wide discrimination such as sexism or racism is too embedded in the function and structure of a society, its effects too far-reaching, to be represented with any kind of simplistic mechanic (for example, in the quite sexist age of chivalry, it would be *easy* for a woman to get a man to protect her... a Diplomacy check to which, by your rules, she'd have a penalty). Rules like this don't address discrimination in any manner other than a superficial one, and such, I think, are more of a hindrance than a boon.

JackMage666
2007-07-09, 06:43 AM
for example, in the quite sexist age of chivalry, it would be *easy* for a woman to get a man to protect her... a Diplomacy check to which, by your rules, she'd have a penalty

Actually, I did.


Strong - Initial NPC attitudes are two steps lower than it would normally be. In addition, NPC attitudes cannot be raised above Indifferent, and all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Perform, and Profession checks are made at a -8 penalty (certain exceptions may apply, for example, no -8 penalty for Profession (cook) checks against females in a sexist society). However, a player of discriminated group may get a +8 racial bonus on Intimidate checks in the area (this may not apply in some cases).

Emphasis added. This was added to point at that, yes, exceptions exist. However, the woman would have a hard time using Diplomacy in most cases, hence why that is an exception. I had to leave it to DM Fiat, or it would require a humoungous, confusing list and explanation, and I'd rather not do that.

Elana
2007-07-09, 06:50 AM
I think the word hate isn't really fitting.
(Especially not for mild sexism racism)

Just because you think someone is inferior doesn't mean you hate him.

I mean most people in our world think dogs are inferior.

And still there are lot of people who love their dogs :)

Xuincherguixe
2007-07-09, 06:54 AM
Good call on the Elderly bit too.

Sexuality can be a pretty uncomfortable topic in games for many, many reasons which is why I think people need to be careful with this one.

As far as disabilities go, while that one affects me personally. It's a bit of a mixed blessing in that it's not something people would notice easily.

However, there is a very strong movement to wipe it out of existence. The really horrible thing is that it's people who think it's doing us a favor. The fact that the people have 'good intentions' is what makes this especially a problem. Most people would not think this was prejudice, which is what's so scary about it.

Augh, I really wish I could say more about this. Ah well, there's websites easy enough to find out about this.

nerulean
2007-07-09, 07:00 AM
I don't think this really contributes anything useful. Society-wide discrimination such as sexism or racism is too embedded in the function and structure of a society, its effects too far-reaching, to be represented with any kind of simplistic mechanic (for example, in the quite sexist age of chivalry, it would be *easy* for a woman to get a man to protect her... a Diplomacy check to which, by your rules, she'd have a penalty). Rules like this don't address discrimination in any manner other than a superficial one, and such, I think, are more of a hindrance than a boon.

Perhaps you've missed the part of D&D where everything is reduced to a simplistic mechanic for the sake of gameplay?

Rules like this are great if you need to quickly create a city but don't have the time or any particular need to go into its workings or motivations in detail. Say you're DMing in a world where dwarfs hate gnomes, and your PCs run off the beaten track to a dwarf village. This would give you a quick and easy reference to help you figure out what sort of reception the gnomish paladin would get, without having to stop and deeply analyse the cause and extent of the problem in this little settlement that isn't plot-crucial.

Poppatomus
2007-07-09, 08:00 AM
Perhaps you've missed the part of D&D where everything is reduced to a simplistic mechanic for the sake of gameplay?

Rules like this are great if you need to quickly create a city but don't have the time or any particular need to go into its workings or motivations in detail. Say you're DMing in a world where dwarfs hate gnomes, and your PCs run off the beaten track to a dwarf village. This would give you a quick and easy reference to help you figure out what sort of reception the gnomish paladin would get, without having to stop and deeply analyse the cause and extent of the problem in this little settlement that isn't plot-crucial.

In the poster's defense though, if all you're trying to do is make that kind of rule set, a system already exists in the game called the circumstance bonus. In the hypothetical you put forward you wouldn't need to consult a chart to describe the village's additude (which would actually require you to have a fair understanding of the village's internal workings so you could put them somewhere on the severity chart) you could just decide that all CHA based checks are at a -4 penalty, or that they won't sell magic weapons to the gnomes.

I applaud the OP for coming up with an interesting mechanic, but the number of exceptions are going to be an issue not only in terms of fairness but in terms of themselves being kinda, well racist, (Oh, so all societies that are sexist against women think that women can cook? are we also assuming that women never get the bonus to intimidate?) It's true that this is the case with almost every mechanic, but it seems to me that this might encourage DM's to be a bit lazy, rather then trying to give a world unique flavor. I still think it's good work in concept, I just feel like it needs a big "handle with care" sticker on the front.

The bigger issue for me is the size of the penalties A -16 penalty is huge and a +16 bonus to intimidate is enormous.

Morty
2007-07-09, 08:06 AM
I'd personally add the rule that anyone who is Severely racist/sexist etc. can't have good alignment.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-07-09, 08:09 AM
Perhaps you've missed the part of D&D where everything is reduced to a simplistic mechanic for the sake of gameplay?

Rules like this are great if you need to quickly create a city but don't have the time or any particular need to go into its workings or motivations in detail. Say you're DMing in a world where dwarfs hate gnomes, and your PCs run off the beaten track to a dwarf village. This would give you a quick and easy reference to help you figure out what sort of reception the gnomish paladin would get, without having to stop and deeply analyse the cause and extent of the problem in this little settlement that isn't plot-crucial.

That's what circumstance bonuses/penalties are for. They can be applied in a much more reasonable fashion than such a general, short-sighted rule. What's more, such a rule will make people less likely to do things in-depth, much like the detailed combat rules lead to "I attack, 21." "That hits." "16 points of damage." quite often.

What's more, translating things into a Diplomacy penalty is a bad mechanic. "isms" and stereotypes differ. This is far *too* simplistic and general. If prejudice says that gnomes are good with money, for example, people may see them as greedy and charge them more... but be *more* likely to hire them as bankers, or to trust in the quality of their goods, or innkeepers to treat them in such a way as to get more money out of them.

What you described is much better handled by circumstance bonuses and penalties applied when appropriate than by such a generic rule.


Edit: M0rt, people can be prejudiced while still being good people overall... especially when said prejudice is an assumed part of society. A number of the Founding Fathers kept slaves, say; that doesn't make them all Evil. Back when women were seen as men's property, not everyone who treated them this way was Evil.

Morty
2007-07-09, 08:13 AM
Edit: M0rt, people can be prejudiced while still being good people overall... especially when said prejudice is an assumed part of society. A number of the Founding Fathers kept slaves, say; that doesn't make them all Evil. Back when women were seen as men's property, not everyone who treated them this way was Evil.

That's why I said "Severe". Yes, you can be prejudiced and still be good person, but the behavior described under "Severe" in Severity paragraph isn't just prejudice anymore. Mild and Strong aren't that bad.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-07-09, 08:16 AM
Even Severe. Consider the attitude of a typical medieval priest towards, say, atheists, or "witches", or, hell, Muslims. Doesn't mean they're necessarily bad people overall.

Morty
2007-07-09, 08:18 AM
Well, not to go into religious argument here- I didn't mean it makes them Evil, but that I can't name someone with really violent attitude for ceratin social group Good. They can still be neutral.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-07-09, 08:21 AM
Well, not to go into religious argument here- I didn't mean it makes them Evil, but that I can't name someone with really violent attitude for ceratin social group Good. They can still be neutral.

That's reasonable by modern standards, but there have been times and places where almost everyone had a really violent attitude towards many social groups different from theirs.

lumberofdabeast
2007-07-09, 08:23 AM
That's reasonable by modern standards, but there have been times and places where almost everyone had a really violent attitude towards many social groups different from theirs.

"Everyone's doing it, so it must be okay!"

Sorry, that logic just doesn't fly.

Morty
2007-07-09, 08:25 AM
That's reasonable by modern standards, but there have been times and places where almost everyone had a really violent attitude towards many social groups different from theirs.

Then I'd say it depends on gameworld. If said world resembles medieval Europe heavily, then yes, violent attitude against whole social groups isn't something unusual, so it doesn't affect alignment. If, however, setting resembles modern world in terms of ethnic relations- then it probably does affect alignment. By the way, it's one of numerous situations where D&D alignment system fails horribly- morals in D&D are objective, while in real world they depend on point of view.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-07-09, 08:26 AM
"Everyone's doing it, so it must be okay!"

Sorry, that logic just doesn't fly.

Neither does judging cultures of the past entirely by modern standards.

People are social creatures. If you're taught, and everyone around you accepts, that X people are bad/dangerous/evil and should be killed, you're almost certainly going to learn and accept that, regardless of what kind of person you are. Good and evil aren't simple things.

lumberofdabeast
2007-07-09, 08:32 AM
Neither does judging cultures of the past entirely by modern standards.

People are social creatures. If you're taught, and everyone around you accepts, that X people are bad/dangerous/evil and should be killed, you're almost certainly going to learn and accept that, regardless of what kind of person you are. Good and evil aren't simple things.

We are not cultures of the past, and we know better (or at least like to think we do). Medieval culture thought that X civilization was evil. Medieval culture also thought that leeches were an excellent cure for a wide variety of diseases.

We are not going back in time, we are playing a game. The only time I could see such racism as not affecting alignment regardless of circumstance is in a hyperrealistic campaign, and if that's what you want, you're probably better off playing a homebrew variant of FATAL.

Aris Katsaris
2007-07-09, 09:02 AM
Too simplistic for my tastes. Divide racism into different (atleast three) subcategories, each of which may affect intimidation/diplomacy checks differents.

Fear-Unlawfulness: The members of this group are perceived as more unlawful and/or violently inclined than the rest. The shopkeeper's eyes will follow you around, making sure you don't steal anything. (Modern day examples: Hispanic, black minorities)

Fear-Subversion: The members of this group are often perceived as having a hidden agenda, an allegiance to their community, ideology or religion, that exceeds their allegiance to society as a whole, and that they therefore may work to subvert the society's morals or security for their own benefit. (Modern day examples: Homosexuals, Muslims, Jews)

Condescencion: The members of this group are perceived as weak and/or a burden to society, though (unlike the previous examples) through no fault of their own. As such they might not be put in positions of trust not because of doubt regarding their motivations but rather because of doubt regarding their abilities). (Modern day examples: Women, children, disabled)

Some of these categories may overlap ofcourse, to different degrees.

You can see how the member of an oppressed group in the third category might get a negative bonus in an Intimidation check, but a positive bonus in a Bluff check if they intentionally try to pass themselves off as weak/harmless (see e.g. "Mulan"'s end where the warriors disguise themselves as women in order to appear harmless)

Oppositely a person in the first or second group might get positive bonuses on Intimidation checks, but negative bonuses on Diplomacy checks.

Xuincherguixe
2007-07-09, 09:23 AM
I also think I should point out attitudes towards 'monstrous humanoid' races.

Killing Orcs by the boat loads seems to be morally okay generally.


Shadowrun had a Racism mechanic too, kind of similar to this (racism was in degrees and all). You might find yourself in a bar that doesn't take kindly to Orks and Trolls... (fortunatly for the players, you're probably a lot tougher than them. Good chance you're a master martial artist too ^_^ Failing that? Concealed Handguns ftw) But then, Shadowrun by design was not ideal.

JackMage666
2007-07-09, 10:38 AM
Thanks for all your help, as I've added 50% new stuff since my original post, due to your contributions and ideas. I understand that this does deserve a much more complex system, but I don't have the time or brain power at the moment to make a more complex system. It is, in essence, a system that would require a lot of DM decisions, ones that would have to be made moment to moment. But, as in real life, no cases of prejudice are exactly the same. This existed to make the groundwork, groundwork that can be changed to fit the needs of the DM.

I did not mean to spark a moral debate about prejudice. I meant to attempt a rules system for something that holds a major sway over alot of people's lives, something far more complex than most things in D&D. This is the best thing for the simplified rule system of d20 that I could think of.

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-07-09, 11:00 AM
Even Severe. Consider the attitude of a typical medieval priest towards, say, atheists, or "witches", or, hell, Muslims. Doesn't mean they're necessarily bad people overall.

They don't need to be evil, but a good person would find something wrong with overt racism or sexism, regardless of the society around them. They may still feel a certain way about a group, but they would not treat them badly just because of that.