Real life events question

[EvilElitest]

can you make threads featuring historical figures like my avater? I wanted to do an aligment thread for napoleon, but i don't want to violent any rules
from
EE

[Zeb The Troll]

Since no one else has responded, I'll make an attempt.

I think, using the strict wording of the forum rules against real world politics, it might not be the best idea. However, I also believe that the spirit of the rules allows for factual historical discussion.

The thing is, it's a fine line between fact and feeling and it'd be far too easy for something like this to get out of hand when someone, for example, wants to take on, say, JFK or Malcolm X.

If you were going to do it, you might consider trying to set up some ground rules that would help prevent this kind of thing. Maybe like "let's not discuss anyone more recent than 100 years ago" or something. Unfortunately you can't say "let's keep politics out of this" because everyone should already know this and that rarely actually works once the OP is off of the first page.

I don't know if that was helpful or not.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

If you were going to do it, you might consider trying to set up some ground rules that would help prevent this kind of thing. Maybe like "let's not discuss anyone more recent than 100 years ago" or something.
No, age doesn't help. The ramifications of certain events tend to run deep enough that even a hundred years of distance won't help.

[EvilElitest]

but i do think discussing history can make sense, like if i model a soceity on Soviet Russia for a game
from
EE

[Brickwall]

Politics before, say, 1600 tend to be safe. It'd be hard to talk about the D&D era without bringing in influential figures. Anything beyond that, though, you'd best avoid. Even if it's supposed to be innocent. Even if it's supposed to be useful. Know why? Because people are stupid, and it will cause problems.

Napoleon is, I believe, in the 1800s. Too recent, definitely.

[EvilElitest]

Politics before, say, 1600 tend to be safe. It'd be hard to talk about the D&D era without bringing in influential figures. Anything beyond that, though, you'd best avoid. Even if it's supposed to be innocent. Even if it's supposed to be useful. Know why? Because people are stupid, and it will cause problems.

Napoleon is, I believe, in the 1800s. Too recent, definitely.

so my dreams of running a French Revolution based game can never see reality......


Brickwall is a girl. Gods i'm shocked. I need to read people's information, i just noticed that, sorry
from
EE

[crimson77]

so my dreams of running a French Revolution based game can never see reality......

I do not think the rule suggest that you cannot run a game based on the French Revolution. The rules suggest that you cannot discuss the politics of the French Revolution, for instance a thread discussing that the French Revolution was a good/bad thing would be banned. However, I do not think that having a campaign set in 1800s France would be banned. Just preference the thread being historical fiction and not a commentary on world politics.

Just my two cp. However, I would suggest waiting for a mod to give you the final OK. Maybe try PMing a moderator.

[Roland St. Jude]

There's a thread where this was discussed at some length, with comments by The Giant himself even, located: here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33936).

Perhaps most responsive to your question, EE, would be my post here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33936&page=3) and the ones that follow. (Although we already discussed this briefly but directly, here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60609). :smallsmile: )

My primary point in the more lengthy thread, which is applicable here, was:


Real world religion and politics are off-limits. Don't reference religious texts, religious figures, political leaders, political factions, and so forth. This includes discussing religious reactions to gaming, how one's religious or political leanings effect how or what they play, and other similar topics that explore the intersection of an appropriate topic and an inappropriate one. These things seem natural, popular, and on-topic, but even so, they are not permitted here. It also includes historical religious and political discussions. While people are less likely to get into terrific rows over discussions of Charlemagne's treatment of prisoners, you'd be surprised - both by how often they do and by how quickly that present-day politics gets drawn into it. Just leave these topics alone, and, as others have suggested, think twice and err on the side of not posting.

Fictional religion and politics are fine. You can freely discuss which of the Greyhawk deities is most appropriate for your cleric or how the early Empire could have better used the Imperial Senate to deal with the Rebel Alliance. But you have to keep it fictional. No matter how useful a reference to a real world religious or political concept would be to the discussion, don't post it.

Now to the real crux of your hair-splitting question - fictionalized real world religion and politics. I'm not sure how this could be discussed in any meaningful way without reference to their real world analogs. Without seeing a specific application, it's hard to judge, but I believe this would usually violate the rules. So in a PbP game, where it is clearly all fictional, I don't think it presents a problem, as long as you keep it fictional and don't get into discussions of real world doctrine, etc. But in any of the discussion forums, I think it would be a problem almost every single time.

As The Giant's posts in that thread reflect, we're aware that there's some useful real-world/fantasy intersection that is both natural and useful to gaming discussions, but the policy decision's been made to exclude those topics despite that.

[Selrahc]

A semi related question, Evil Elitest and myself once had a debate about the importance of the Spanish Armada, which was basically a history thing. Does History fall under politics for the purpose of the rule?

I didn't think it would have... but if you're not allowed to talk about the character of Napoleon then maybe historical debate is blurring the line too.

[EvilElitest]

There's a thread where this was discussed at some length, with comments by The Giant himself even, located: here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33936).

Perhaps most responsive to your question, EE, would be my post here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33936&page=3) and the ones that follow. (Although we already discussed this briefly but directly, here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60609). :smallsmile: )

My primary point in the more lengthy thread, which is applicable here, was:



As The Giant's posts in that thread reflect, we're aware that there's some useful real-world/fantasy intersection that is both natural and useful to gaming discussions, but the policy decision's been made to exclude those topics despite that.
hmmm, thanks, that makes sense

Wait a second however, could i use an example like this however


"I wish to make a world modeled after 13th Century France around the time just before the Hundred year war. I want to alter the elves, dwarves, gnomes and halfings to fit into this mold.

Gives example

how does this fit up"

or something like

"wait, the nation of Fish people is communistic and this writer acts like communal farms work. But we all know that is untrue"

or something like that, could that pass?
from
EE

[Serpentine]

I would think that this:
"I wish to make a world modeled after 13th Century France around the time just before the Hundred year war. I want to alter the elves, dwarves, gnomes and halfings to fit into this mold.

Gives example

how does this fit up"would be okay, but this:

"wait, the nation of Fish people is communistic and this writer acts like communal farms work. But we all know that is untrue"is right out. Exhibit A: I immediately wanted to argue :smalltongue: