How do you deal with cultural insensitivity in D&D/with D&D players?

[hamishspence]

One of the last 3.5 sources, Exemplars of Evil, points out you don't need to be Evil to be A Villain- in some rare cases, a sufficiently misguided person can even be Good.

Champions of Ruin, while a Faerun book, has much to recommend it for those who wish to include Evil characters with Really Good Intentions (who are evil because they sacrifice others, lots of others, for what they see as the sake of the many.

A 40K Inquisitor fits that sort of evil "better a million innocents die than one guilty escape justice" (and go on to endanger a billion plus)

Personally I like it that way.

While the complains about BoVDs portrayal of Certain Personality Traits is valid, I believe it means those traits- To The Extreeeme! :smallamused:

For example- sadism. BoVD isn't talking about people who like teeth and nails or a little consensal pain, in their loveplay, but about people who torture others to death or insanity, for kicks.

And Faerun has characters that fit midway- a Scourge Maiden of Loviatar from Shining South can be Lawful Neutral, and still be sadistic- they have self-control.

Or, the term psychopath. Yes, BoVD defines it very narrowly, but, in the context of the fictional setting, this narrow definition works- a person who murders for kicks is logically, a psychopath.

But, while this fits within the (old, defunct) meaning of the word psychopath, it doesn't cover them all- some could merely have no concern for others whatsover, but no interest in killing (sociopath is the usual term here)

Also, this rather narrow meaning is commonly used in fiction: Simon R. Green: Deathstalker Return "Can we please have our psychopath back?" The character in question, one Rose Constantine, the Wild Rose of the Arenas, an ex-gladiator really, really, really fits the BoVD use of the term.

[Riffington]

it seems appropriate to me to put categories that lend themselves to illogic in the "bad" category.

Long as you recognize that you need a "bad" category instead of relying on "more logical" vs "more intuitive" categories :smalltongue:




I'd say that those categories are excellent examples of what I'm talking about. Defining rape as non-consensual sex makes it pretty clear-cut as to what is rape and what isn't. A definition of rape as immoral lends itself to heated, long-running arguments which will not be resolved because the participants have different standards of what constitutes a "right" answer.

Then resolve this one:
*penetration and "grinding" can both be sex.
*surprising an acquaintance with penetration is rape.
*surprising an acquaintance by grinding with them on a dance floor is not rape - though continuing grinding despite forceful refusal is.

Why is it that certain types of sex are rape only if one persists despite refusal, and others are rape if they are initiated without permission? Clearly it has nothing to do with the definition of consent or of sex. It has to do with human nature, culture, right, and wrong. Why is it that children can consent to different activities at different ages? Again, simple definitions will not suffice. One needs to reference morality. Also: if you can come up with a type of rape that is not immoral, you need to reconsider your premises.




Are these things reliably more evil than killing? If so, how so?

They are not more evil than murder; they are more evil than killing in battle or in self-defense. With regard to animating the dead, human bodies are not mere objects devoid of moral worth. Using them as rotting robots is inconsistent with the dignity and respect they deserve. Look at earthly societies that heap indignities on the corpses of their enemies/victims/criminals (hanging them to bloat in the sun, rendering them into soap, etc). Inevitably, they have a low regard for the worth of living humans as well; this is not a mere coincidence.

Now, I am making a small leap here. I gather from the fact that mistreating bodies for petty gain on Earth is strongly correlated with other evil acts, that this fact will hold if spells can increase that gain. It's logically possible that this is untrue, and that if the gain is large enough, one continues to see humans as being valuable. One has a hard time predicting all the ramifications of such large changes, after all. It's the DM's call; I'd strongly suspect the answer is "treating bodies as raw materials is vile on Earth and continues to be vile in D&D".



I feel that evil things and only evil things should be called Evil.

Hooray! We agree!
Now tell me why certain types of hurting are Evil and others aren't. :smallsmile:

[Aquillion]

I think another problem is that the game frequently has two definitions of evil -- one for villainous NPCs, who are intended to be entirely monstrous, and one for PCs, which is closer to the 'cowardly knave' one I mentioned above. This explains why, say, Assassins have evil as a prerequisite -- because the class is written for PCs, it uses the lesser definition of evil, intended to let players be 'dark and edgy' while still (possibly) being basically nice guys.

[hamishspence]

The obvious "Not immoral" answer comes if you follow An Eye for An Eye and a Tooth For A Tooth justice- that all crimes should be punished by authorising "agents of retribution" (executioners, in medieval times, carried out other punishments as well as death sentences)

to inflict the same punishment on the criminal, if necessary, using machines.

In other words, a man who commits rape is sentenced to be raped himself.

Now I personally hate the idea of Eye For Eye justice, but not everybody does- a lot of the time people say "They deserve it" when certain types of criminal are mistreated by the "Ordinary Decent criminals"

So, to reject it as immoral, one must in some way rule out Eye For Eye justice.

[Riffington]

There are indeed Lawful Evil codes under which rape may be prescribed. Six years ago, a court (in a country I'd prefer not to live in) actually did sentence a woman to be raped.

Rape is always evil, and any code of justice that prescribes it is evil. I would assert that any code that endorses rape, endorses murder, or prohibits basic religious freedoms is an evil code.

[hamishspence]

the interesting question is- do we have a double standard for male vs female formal vs informal? I've seen a lot of gloating over criminal men getting raped by other criminals who see it as just retribution for the man's crimes.

A code that endorses murder would be one that makes blood feuds legal, not necessarily one that makes death penalties legal. If law said "A member of another family muders a member of yours- this gives you the right to murder at least the murderer and possibly a member of the murderer's family instead" that would be a law endorsing murder, and yes, I'd agree, an evil law.

[hamishspence]

Point to remember is Understanding acts does not mean justifying them. Fictional or otherwise codes prescribing Eye For Eye are highly understandable, even if one might not approve.

Which is one reason, to be sensitive, and to be aware, that there might be tension arising over an issue.

[Aquillion]

According to one argument, all evil is theft.

...

How does this sound?
That definition doesn't work, because it fails to account for the fact that people can have a degree of moral culpability for not doing things, not just for doing things. If you quietly sit back in your home while your government shovels people into the ovens, you have committed an evil act, even though you personally have not stolen from anyone. If your come across a man bleeding to death in an empty street, and don't even try to call for help -- or if you sit there and watch while he dies -- then you've committed an evil act.

Someone who does exactly what is required of him, without committing outright crimes himself, but while continuing to live in a society or organization that is turning towards evil, is in fact probably Lawful Evil:


He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.

Mind you, your reasons and so forth can matter, too, and having compassion isn't the same as being required to give away your fortune to every beggar on the street. But there is a point where inaction can become evil, especially if it's for reasons of selfishness or ambition -- quietly acquiescing to your neighbors' unjust executions because you hope to raise your own social status by staying in line, for instance, is more evil than staying quiet out of fear.

[hamishspence]

BoED says "A man who rigidly refrains from committing any evil act" but doesn't really do any good ones,, is Neutral.

Maybe thats a bit over generous, but the morality of inaction is a long and complicated issue. Last time I read post on it, it was Samaritan-like issue- drowning man- were the people who "walked on by" committing Evil acts, or just behaving in a very "neutral" fashion?

Remember PHB description of Neutral- commits self to others based on personal relationships, wouldn't risk themself for someone they do not know.

[hamishspence]

one of logical problems with "walk on by" being Evil rather than Neutral is- it logically leads to Pacifism being evil.

Not the "punch enemy into unconsciousness and drag him before the Law" style of pacifism which you can do with BoED's Vow of Peace, but absolute, total, non-resistance, not even to save your own life or others.

Should that, in D&D, be the case?

[Riffington]

Respectable pacifists do not believe in non-resistance; they believe in non-violent resistance. If they are unwilling to commit violence, they are still willing to work hard and risk their own lives to stop evildoers.

[horseboy]

Why is it that certain types of sex are rape only if one persists despite refusal, and others are rape if they are initiated without permission?
You left out the "All sex is rape" crowd. :smallamused:

In other words, a man who commits rape is sentenced to be raped himself.

Now I personally hate the idea of Eye For Eye justice, but not everybody does- a lot of the time people say "They deserve it" when certain types of criminal are mistreated by the "Ordinary Decent criminals"

So, to reject it as immoral, one must in some way rule out Eye For Eye justice.No I can't take pity on men of his kind,
even though he now takes it in the behind.

[Aquillion]

one of logical problems with "walk on by" being Evil rather than Neutral is- it logically leads to Pacifism being evil.

Not the "punch enemy into unconsciousness and drag him before the Law" style of pacifism which you can do with BoED's Vow of Peace, but absolute, total, non-resistance, not even to save your own life or others.

Should that, in D&D, be the case?
As someone else said, it's more passiveness than pacifism. (Pacifism would require an active commitment to peace, if a non-violent one.) But either way, as with everything else, your reasons for passiveness are important...

Being passive in the face of evil to protect your loved ones is probably neutral (being neutral means you are bound to others by friendship or family ties -- caring more about your daughter than your neighbor is not evil.) Doing it solely to protect yourself (basically, out of cowardice) is a bit further from good, but probably still neutral.

Being passive in the face of evil for the purposes of your own profit, though (because you fear speaking out would hurt your business or social standing, say), is itself evil, at least in my book.

[hamishspence]

how about the whole Turn the Other Check, Forgive Your Enemies bit? Idealism, in short- the belief that all violence, for whatever reason, is evil?