Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
I missed this earlier until it was just quoted:

The crime, such as it is, occurs when the people who roleplayed those actions then say, "And that character is Good." When they take those events and rather than saying, "Yeah, my character is a real piece of dog****, but I have fun playing him," they say, "My character is a hero." When they transfer the lessons of the game into their metagame analysis of it. Because that's when the fourth wall is broken and the stuff that happens in your game affects the real world.

If you want to play a psychopath who kills orcs because they're orcs, awesome. Good for you, have fun. But don't write, "Good," on your character sheet. Or "Neutral." And don't expect me to write a 900+ page story condoning it.
Indeed, though i think that is a separate issue than what i was addressing. Heck I'm reminded of a friend of mine who i was very frustrated with because he hated elves. All his characters hated elves, he hated elves, he half-hated half-elves and you knew you couldn't play an elf in a group with him without expecting to get some snark roleplayed your way.
When asked 'why" he would just say "i just hate elves". I like(or dread) to think that this was due to some sort of hate of something that "elves" represented in his mind (likely, pretty holy than thou nature lovers *shrug*)

What I took objection to is that i think i've seen some people amongst this forum who feel strongly a game they play in not having certain themes deemed as wrong.

Such as a player thinking less of a DM because one of his NPCs (say a Captain of the City Watch) is a bit misogynistic. Or someone thinking its wrong to play a character who is racist (transferring that notion of "Racism is wrong" to "playing a character who is racist is wrong so the player is wrong" )

Well actually based off what i quoted it was more the notion that having genocide and racism as a theme in your game is somehow condoning it. And that players have a right to play a lighthearted game in where no one (not even the GM) brings up the issue of "but what if they aren't all bad". You arent supporting it, you arent fighting it. The Theme just isnt present in the game or story.

Kinda like that attempt to equate Tolken's races as some sort of White Supremacist propaganda. Its an interesting observation. But highly unlikely that has merit.


And a book about killing all brunettes wouldn't be genocide, but just because something isn't real doesn't mean it's right.
There is nothing wrong with a book like that. a book that CONDONED it might be wrong. A book that delved deep and made the main character question his own beliefs and got so close to agreeing with the murderer before he finally realized he was wrong (or even went off the depend himself) might be harsh and scary but would still serve the purpose of showing how bad that profiling would be.

But my comment you replied was about the fact that
YES, the stories we write reflect on real life, the readers, fans and writers and even the way the world works. But stories like that only have power in the way they effect people. For instance you could have a novel CONDONING Racism and bigotry...and a person in the modern world would take that as a USEFUL tool to understand how these people think so they can change their minds or deal with them.

BUT, except the way in which they effect the real people involved, they dont involve real people.
Because a lot of people act like the characters are real people, and in most stories they aren't. And its important to keep that distinction. They COULD end up as real people and that would be horrible. But you should no more look down on a writer or GM for putting certain themes in his book than you should argue that the events of a fantasy book are proof that the same thing happens to real people. You SHOULD argue that things like that happen to real people but one would research why the writer wrote those things and what events he based them on. And use THAT as your proof.

So basically my main point is to keep things in perspective . Reality vs potential reality.